< March 3	March 5 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Roubinowitz

[edit]

Article of non-notable person; Google gets one possible hit. Mason 00:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Nishkid 64 00:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Breaker

[edit]

Non-notable DJ. Metrackle 00:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article repeatedly asserts notability, but has no sources to back that up. It claims he was interviewed in a magazine, but does not cite it. The first reference is a 404 Error, for a non-existent site, and the second doesn't mention him at all. Article violates WP:MUSIC and WP:ATT. It also appears to be full of mistruths - the first 'rave' was in 1999? According to rave and my personal recollection of the 1990's, there were definitely raves before 1999. It also claims Snopes has an article about this, but it, well, doesn't. In fact, for a "famous" person, he has only something like 1400 GHits, none of which are reliable sources. Definitely shouldn't be included. --Haemo 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Though famously bicurious ... DJ Breaker was born a man, despite his girl like fingers"? Er, righto then. WP:HOAX, I'm afraid. Most of the links, incidentally, lead to DJ Shadow.EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. No attribution, and possibly a hoax. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whatever he is he is most certainly NN. TerriersFan 02:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - websearch didn't pull up anything more meaningful than wikiclones and a myspace... which I warn you not to goto... it has a sample of DJ's music---and I use that term loosely.Balloonman 04:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked his article and came to the conclusion that it must be a hoax. For somebody to who supposedly created Cubase and advised potential presidential candidates, he has very little web fame and not even a real name is given. Poeloq 10:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:BIO and WP:NN and the article has a mythical section, this meaning its just rumours and thoughts and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX is a policy against this.Telly addict 15:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of whether or not this article is notable, there is absolutely no sources about DJ Breaker. The sources themselves seem to be about a figure titled DJ Shadow anyway, yet still, there are paragraphs of information that have absolutely no references. This article is probably either fake or so distorted that is has no encyclopedic value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kopf1988 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:BIO. - Denny 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. His official website is on Myspace - 'nuff said. --Dennisthe2 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a hoax but even if not lack of sources means it fails WP:Music. A1octopus 15:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Chalmette High School. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:34Z

Bobby Nuss Stadium

[edit]

Non-notable high school football stadium, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/merge - Interesting article about a non-notable high school stadium that isn't even linked to a Wikipedia page for its high school. If the story itself can be merged in somewhere, that would be the only real useful point of keeping this "location" article. Guroadrunner 00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete can be a good section on a HS page, but not a stand alone articleBalloonman 04:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. Delete some of the non-notable facts, and merge the rest into the high school page. -- Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 04:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I would have normally merged and redirected to the high school page, but there isn't no article for the school. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Chalmette High School --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to the high school who's football stadium it is and maybe include a section in the article but not a ful article just for this.Telly addict 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent school article, please. - Denny 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the High School article. Sounds like a fine section to me, but not notable enough for an article. Noroton 00:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Noroton. Ezratrumpet 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A separate article could be written for a high school football stadium. However, I believe it should include a photo, infobox and statistics (attendance, sell out streak, Championship games hosted, etc.). This is a stub of what could be a good separate article. It is does not rise to the notability standards for stadia in my eyes without the proper details. As a stadium article it would be deleted. However, since it is associated with a high school it can be merged. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 05:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely non-notable. WMMartin 13:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever is necessary. but start the deletion process on all the other stadium stubs that hold less than 8,000 or so. For example, all the other high school stadiums on here, all the English soccer stadiums below the Nationwide Conference level, etc.Chalmation 16:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea StuartDouglas 17:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Noroton. LordHarris 00:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Independent School District

[edit]

notability, necessity of article in Wikipedia Guroadrunner 00:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a reasonable article, covers a local governmental body. Don't see how you can question that notability. Necessity isn't a grounds for deletion, I would say most people find the vast majority of Wikipedia articles not necessary to them. FrozenPurpleCube 02:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing wrong with the article, and the district seems to have some degree of notability. --Nevhood 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep agree completely with two keeps above.Balloonman 04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles on school districts are a much better alternative to having a ton of articles of non-notable schools. Resolute 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being a district government body makes something notable enough, in my opinion. The article is well written and contains all relevant information and is sourced, it just possibly needs some details added and be slightly updated for 2007. Poeloq 10:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikify the article and create the links to feeder schools and then it would be OK. It complys with WP:SCHOOL.Telly addict 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought Primary and Nursery School information was supposed to be merged into the school district article. Would be kinda difficult if it had been deleted. Jcuk 16:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above arguments. - Denny 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks very reasonable and Quite notable..--Cometstyles 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Jcuk, Resolute and Poeloq arguments above. Noroton 19:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable enough and is a good enough article to keep. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially on the basis that this sort of article serves as a practical solution to many N dilemmas involving schools; they can each get a section and redirect. It is the sort of compromise that WP needs. DGG 00:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. Ezratrumpet 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - COULD SOMEONE HELP WIKIFY IT? Guroadrunner 06:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC) shouts[reply]
Keep School district is notable considering the amount of people served by a district. --Masterpedia 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename. As it has already been renamed, the result is keep IronGargoyle 17:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child superhero

[edit]

Delete - while in many instances a category is not a substitution for an article, in this instance Category:Child superheroes is serving as a better and more comprehensive container than the list article. Otto4711 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant w.r.t. pre-existing category. --Haemo 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A category is enough, the article itself hardly provides more information. --Nevhood 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to list of child superheroes... Balloonman 04:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Balloonman's suggestion. --Candy-Panda 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The description can be moved to the top of Category:Child superheroes, and any entries on the list which aren't in the category can have [[Category:Child superheroes]] added to them. There's very little point in doubling up on efforts to maintain both a list and a category. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the list and added all the entries to the category. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this case, a category works better than a list. The list does not provide anything more than an alphabetic set of entries, for which cats were made. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per balloonmans suggestion. I dont buy the "category better than list" argument. Jcuk 16:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep. Having a category is not a valid reason for deleting a list. Only the list has context to aid in finding what you are looking for. You have to click on every entry in a category to find the one you are looking for if you dont know the name, and only know the context. If you are going to cite: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, tell us which line in it gives you the authority to delete, just pointing us to an article is useless. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would you locate an article based on context by using this list? If one is trying to find a child superhero that appeared on a particular show or in a particular comic book, is one likely to start with this list or is one likely to start with the name of the show or comic in which the character appears? And if one doesn't know what show or comic, wouldn't one have to click on every link anyway until one happens to stumble across it? Otto4711 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One might just want to know more about child superheroes, in which case, one could (A) skim through this article and click on any number of links; or (B) click every single link in the category (assuming one finds it; I don't think many readers of WP are even aware of the existence of categories) until one's patience runs out with a slow-ish connection and one quits in disgust, frustrated that there is not a centralized article containing all the information. Just a scenario. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But...but...but there is no centralized article that contains any information about childhood superheroes, except for noting that a handful of them exist, for which the category serves better by virtue of having dozens more entries in it. That rationale makes no sense. Otto4711 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it contains a definition and details about the characters, such as which fictional work they are found in. This information is absent from the category. Granted, the article is in rather poor shape, but we should both consider articles as they are and as they may become. Even as it is, I think it ought to stay as it does not duplicate the category. I will see if I can improve the article by adding some other entries, but more importantly, improving what is already there. -- Black Falcon 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, keep. Rename to right list name. In fact, I'll do it now. - Denny 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

odd, cachey stuff on my PC showed it not renamed, but it is now. Keep. - Denny 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename per all above, but also tag for cleanup. The list provides information that is absent in the category, so it qualifies per WP:LIST. -- Black Falcon 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep If it is made a category, it won't be too bad. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's little more than a list, so it should be deleted as redundancy since the category serves the listing purpose. Wooyi 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this list already provides more information than the category. Namely, the work the child superhero appeared in. This is something that cannot be accomplished via category. Deletion of this would remove valuable organization information from the corresponding category. —siro χ o 00:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have modified the list so that all the entries are now in a table that is sortable by name, work (in which the character appears), and age. Thus, the information presented is in a way which could not possibly be recreated in a category system without creating several dozen individual categories. Any suggetsions as to further improvements would be appreciated and I will do my best to accomodate them. -- Black Falcon 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been renamed, and information has been added that can't be contained in a cat. Also per WP:LIST - information and navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 10:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Internet forum. I have moved the article to Internet forum/Double posting for now so the merge can be completed without leaving an article that should be deleted. Can someone please complete the merge asap and I will delete the sub page. If it is not merged within one week it will be deleted anyway. Viridae ^Talk 00:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back and performed a merge and redirect instead. Merge and delete loses author attribution, which is a violation of the GFDL. Bryan Derksen 04:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double posting

[edit]

This violates Wikipedia:Attribution (the new policy which has replaced WP:V and WP:OR), as there don't appear to be any reliable sources on this. Without reliable sources, it never should have survived the first AfD debate. Xyzzyplugh 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it only makes sense that it would take a double nomination to delete this :) Ron Ritzman 01:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find reliable sources via Google, not to mention this article is basically a mishmash of original research and compilations of forum rules. I'll admit it's very difficult to search this without just getting assorted forum threads/rules, so if anyone else can find sources, I'd reconsider. --Wafulz 02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely not an encyclopedic topic. Not all subjects are inherently notable, and the simple act of accidentally posting twice in a row is definitely not. --Haemo 03:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At most, some of the information in this article can be merged into Forum spam. --Nevhood 03:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if some mention of it is found, merge it into an article about forum etiquette or something. --Delirium 03:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable forum expression, no reliable sources (internet forums and Wikipedia itself are not reliable sources). Krimpet 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least merge: I don't really care if the article itself gets deleted, but I would like for the information to be merged (and not simply deleted with a redirect without moving the information) somewhere. Granted, it is a damn hard topic to get reliable sources for, due to the sheer casualness of the subject, but I doubt anyone would seriously want to delete hide and seek just because it doesn't have any "reliable sources". Sometimes important culteral things just have unwritten rules, and we need to realize this. Please take this article with a grain of salt.--SeizureDog 05:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing a search in children's books on amazon.com shows over 2000 hits for "hide and seek", including a number of books on games for children, there are plenty of sources on hide and seek if someone wants to bother finding them. --Xyzzyplugh 13:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure that there's probably something published out there thats talk about double posting as well. My point is that the potentional for reliable sources isn't being taken into account. The whole "there aren't reliable sources right now so we should delete it" stance doesn't really seem fair. Wikipedia:Attribution aims to force articles of dubious nature to be deleted unless they can prove themselves otherwise. It shouldn't be applied to in a "get Towel some reliable sources in a week or it's deleted" manner.--SeizureDog 14:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I think we should throw out the regular rules for this and invoke common sense. "Double post" is an extremely common forum phrase; I had the same problem as Wafulz, though, in that it's so prevalent I can't easily find anything that isn't a forum itself. ~~It's like doing a search for "roflmao"~~. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 08:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is fallacious. LOL (Internet slang)#References shows by example exactly how "lol", "rotfl", and others can be sourced. Uncle G 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't comparing it to roflmao specifically. I just came up with something I thought would be very common in a search to help give perspective - don't take the "roflmao" comparison literally. In fact, I'll strike through it to show you're not supposed to draw a direct comparison. I was pointing out that "double posting" is difficult to pin down sources because it is so widespread in a search. But you understand my meaning - do a search for it and you have to wade through pages and pages of forums while attempting to hunt something down. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I've said already, your argument is fallacious. That you erroneously think that a Google Web search of the article title is the only way to find sources is one root of the fallacy. Once again, look at the example of LOL (Internet slang)#References. You have examples of what kinds of sources will discuss double posting, if such sources exist. If you want to make an argument for keeping this content that will hold water, find such sources and cite them. You have yet to do so. Uncle G 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine then. Since I'm not personally interested in the topic and have little desire to spend my time researching it, delete it. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with Internet forum. The forum hits show its notabilty as a concept, accepted among the wide array of forum users. The article can be trimmed down but the gist of it isn't just trash to be thrown away because of strict adherence to policy.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unverifiable content should be thrown away. This is not optional, and arguing that we should discard fundamental content policy will not wash. Your only argument is to show that the content is verifiable. You have yet to do so. Uncle G 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a major difference between unverifiable information and unverified information. --SeizureDog 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correct. And A mcmurray's argument is, as xe says, based upon the premise that this is the former, not the latter. Xyr argument is, like yours, that the content should be merged even though it contravenes our verifiability policy. Uncle G 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with an article about Internet forums... see Internet forum, or another internet related article. There aren't many sources on "Double posting", except for forum rules and threads, but this is a term that exists in nearly any online forum community. Kopf1988 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there is a merger, the only verified material we could really merge is "double-posting is when a user makes two consecutive posts," which is kind of a useless addition. If anything, bring it up on the talk page of Internet forum and try to source material there, and then make additions to the article. --Wafulz 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah basically. But that doesn't mean the info doesn't belong somewhere. I don't care if it doesn't get its own article. Policies aren't set in stone anyway, btw. Additionally, the forums would essentially be primary sources in this instance, which are allowable if they are used only to verify the fact that the term exists per WP:A. Which means the article is either kept as a stub or a sentence or two is thrown into the internet forum article. Wikipedia policy can be bent a bit if it helps the wiki or an article or whatever. Anyway merge essentially means delete but.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's any worse that most of the other articles in Category:Internet forum terminology which makes the suggestions here to merge it with internet forum problematic since that would imply the whole category should be merged there, making that page too long so people would then want to spin that out into separate articles again. I've saved a copy at wikiasite:forums:double posting in case it is deleted from here though. Angela. 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in looking at that category, there are a number of other articles which will likely need to go. And they can't all be merged into Internet forum, you are correct. Perhaps a 1 line definition of the terms, if they don't already exist in Internet forum, could be added there. --Xyzzyplugh 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there not a better article than internet forum to merge to? Maybe we need to just make a new something to merge everything into. Internet forum culture maybe? That's sure to get damn crufty though...--SeizureDog 06:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps Internet forum terminology, of course verifiability would be key. But I still think my statement about the forums as primary sources holds water, provided there were enough of them to be considered verification. And sure these things can change, but there are very few articles on Wikipedia which involve active events, people etc that are static. Anyway, I don't want to discard fundamental policy but remember, the rules and guidelines are meant to be followed in spirit not to the letter.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think in all that could eliminate the category and make managing the garbage that does get through much easier as these things will either be merged or deleted as it may be.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have a List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication. --Xyzzyplugh 07:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We need something that isn't just a def-list. I have a feeling that List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication and others could be deleted if anyone bothered to want to trans-wiki them to WikiDictionary.--SeizureDog 08:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 192.75.48.150 16:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 192.75.48.150 16:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC) sorry, couldn't resist[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "A good article is not the best misquoted unsourced idiom". IronGargoyle 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good offense is the best defense

[edit]

This article is trivial and refers to a Catch phrase which is not universal and is often quoted to mean the exact opposite "The best offense is a good defense." In addition, there is no background on the phrase or any information about where the phrase may have originated. Adam McCormick 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The best offense is a good defense" has over 30,000 hits on Google while "A good offense is the best defense" has a mere 669. Plus, catch phrases that do have their own articles (e.g. "It's the economy, stupid" and the "giant sucking sound") generally have over 75,000 Google hits. - PoliticalJunkie 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PoliticalJunkie. I really don't see the relevance of this, particularly when it's just a reversal of another catch phrase. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above unless there is some intense academic study on this phrase reversal. –Pomte 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBalloonman 04:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think it's here because of the reversal ("best defense is a good offense" is more popular -- 107K ghits), I think it's here as the only. Despite popular association with Jack Dempsey (sourced to Elia Kazan, at least) or Knute Rockne it seems to be a fairly generic aphorism and the early citations I find do not firmly support a football origin as is often supposed. Doesn't seem notable in the way that some other aphorisms are. --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Opinions in here and a violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX.Telly addict 15:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as the other contributors above. HagenUK 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAIT. The appropriate catchphrase is actually "The best defense is a good offense", which (excluding the "The") gets 107,000 ghits. The article still needs cleanup, but it is definitely notable. I will see what I can do about incorporating some sources. -- Black Falcon 19:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The misphrase causes it to be not notable enough for an article. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and incorrect at that. In the contexts I am familiar with, the phrase is a "The best defense is a good offense." I seem to remember Van Miller saying this when I was growing up in Buffalo. If not him then any of a number of other football announcers. I have never heard the phrase the other way. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 05:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, expand, and Keep. Redirect should go to The best offense is a good defense. Mathmo ^Talk 04:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to The best defense is a good offense, which has 107,000 ghits. -- Black Falcon 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that it's used often is irrelevant; unless there's some notable background information on its origin or something, this is just a dictionary definition. -Elmer Clark 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cate Edwards

[edit]

Subject is not notable, outside of the achievements of her father. Martey 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability is not by association. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then I suppose Vanessa Kerry is not notable? - PoliticalJunkie 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that article, it seems not. Of course, that can't affect this AfD per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, unless we really need articles on Wayne Gretzky's third cousin twice removed's stepson's birth father to start cropping up. I personally don't. --Action Jackson IV 02:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was in the news a lot when campaigning for her dad--she was interviewed on the local stations and on network tv. Did anyone interview or write an article about Wayne Gretzky's third cousin twice removed's stepson's birth father or interview him for anything, or did he do anything newsworthy like work on a presidential campaign? KP Botany 03:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wayne Gretzky's third cousin twice removed's stepson's birth father's dog was probably interviewed by someone. This is Canada. --Charlene 08:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"So, how do you feel about Gretzky going to Los Angeles?"

"Woof woof woof!"

"So you're just as stunned as everyone else?"

"Woof woof woof!" --Calton | Talk 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete If there was reason to believe that she would be interviewed again in the future, I'd say keep... but as is, her claim to fame is her father. If she had nobility beyond, "What do you think about your father's potential to be a president" then yeah, keep.Balloonman 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree, but not strongly. I just don't see the article being kept or deleting being a big deal. KP Botany 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She was a pretty high profile surrogate for the 2004 Edwards campaign, although she's been largely out of play for the 2008 campaign. --waffle iron ^talk 06:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If her only significance was on the campaign trail, perhaps a brief mention of her role in the campaign should be included in John Edwards#2004 presidential campaign and the rest of the article cut. - PoliticalJunkie 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She did a lot of work for the 2004 campaign, graduated in the top of her class, and is attending Harvard. Odds are, for one, she'll do more notable things in the future (its hard not to with a presidential-candidate-nominee for a father). The information in the article is accurate and verifiable as well. I'd say we should keep it. She's still several times more important that Wayne Gretzky's third cousin twice removed stepson's birth father. Kopf1988 16:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think the possibility of doing notable things in the future is evidence of notability. --Martey 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over here and here, it says she campaigned non-stop around the country traveling primarily to colleges to speak with young voters. - PoliticalJunkie 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So her big accomplishment is...she worked on a political campaign? --Calton | Talk 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was notability replaced with accomplishment? She has been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable, independent published sources. Why does anything else matter? -- Black Falcon 07:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asserts and meets minimum for notability. - Denny 18:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article asserts and the sources demonstrate notability (even if limited partly to the 2004 campaign). -- Black Falcon 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient independent reliable sources. —siro χ o 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply campaigning for her father does not make her notable outside of her father's campaign. If Edwards wins the election, she'll be notable, but WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. We don't have any articles detailing the lives of William Jennings Bryan's kids, even though they most likely played a large part in his high-profile campaigns a century ago. Krimpet 03:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Krimpet, nothing else comes even close. --Calton | Talk 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO requires that an individual be the topic of multiple non-trivial, reliable, independent published sources. Cate Edwards meets this requirement. Whether the info on her should belong in a separate article or the Edwards campaign article is an editorial issue which it is inappropriate to resolve at AFD. Krimpet is calling for the deletion of an article that meets WP policies and guidelines based on a personal, subjective definition of "notability". Please reconsider your position. -- Black Falcon 07:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't base my position on a "personal, subjective definition of 'notability.'" Yes, she has been mentioned in plenty of reliable published articles... articles about her father's campaign. Working as part of a notable political campaign does not make her inherently notable herself; campaigners are regularly quoted and featured in the press, as part of their job is to get their candidate media exposure. Krimpet 21:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you play a notable role in a notable campaign, then you are notable. She wasn't just a regular campaigner who gave quotes to papers or appeared on TV occasionally, she was actively out campaigning for her father. She did at least 11 campaign events without appearing with her father. - PoliticalJunkie 23:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks notability of her own, and, unlike say the Bush twins, probably is not the subject of enough non-trivial independent sources to be considered worth keeping. -Elmer Clark 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are multiple non-trivial, independent, and reliable sources about her specifically. Please see [1], [2], [3], [4]. -- Black Falcon 05:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the subject of mulitple non-trivial published works, as provided by Black Falcon above. While someone who is a relative of a notable person but has no published works about them is not a reason to keep an article, someone who is the relative of a notable person who does have multiple publshed works about them is no reason to delete them either. Under the logic of some of the delete voters above George W. Bush should be deleted because "he's only notable thanks of his father." --Oakshade 01:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being a First Daughter is inherently MUCH more notable than being the daughter of a vice presidential candidate. Plus, Jenna's mishaps with underage drinking and Barbara's nude partying at Yale are notable for their scandal value. Caknuck 07:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be notable enough. There are articles for George W. Bush's daughters Jenna Bush and Barbara Bush as well - for the moment this seems to be fine. Frickeg 02:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She may be the subject of non-trivial press coverage, but that was due mostly to her father's notability and not her own. Subject hasn't accomplished anything worth inclusion. Hell, read the article, twice as much text is devoted to the academic history as anything important she's done or accomplished. Caknuck 07:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caknuck.-- Carabinieri 12:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after sources were provided. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Knisely

[edit]

unsourced, and doesn't seem to be have many possible sources [5] -Doc^g 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or cite sources to demonstrate notability. --Absurdist 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probably hoax if no sources found. Since the article claims that "His work alone has won many honors, including: Southwest Press Photographer of the Year; 14 regional Emmy Awards; 2 Edward R. Murrow Awards and more than 70 Regional and National Awards" and that he has been "a speaker internationally, at numerous universities" there should be abundant sources in the event that this is true, and they are the sort of things that would be in Google. . That he exists is shown by the only non-WP ghit: [6] in which he won a regional second place in a regional photojournalism contest. DGG 02:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like hoax, fails WP:V, WP:RS. Pea ceNT 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a haox to me. After looking through other websites I've found awards for Photography and notable events stated in the main body of text - this info is information needed to be added, seems like a known source in television. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]Additionally found him to be a regular contributer to a press magazine [19][20]

Adding the sources to the article might convince someone Alf^Photoman 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally found hits all over google as possible sources[21] and update a few things. Think someone should cleanup. 18:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up... many of the links on the page don't work (or are in foreign languages) but he does appear to be -notable.Balloonman 05:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person apparently satisfies WP:BIO even if the information was hard to find. -- Black Falcon 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The creditable and notable adheres to WP:BIO Main article should be cleaned up. 14:03, 6 March 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion saver

[edit]

Neologism with no refs or notability, plus by the logic stated, any frustration-saving tool would qualify. Pjbflynn 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism, dictionary-esque. --Action Jackson IV 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a simple neologism, or at best, a non-notable regionalism. --Haemo 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a 'stretch' to be sure. Even if supportable as a term, shouldn't be in WP, but Wiktionary or somewhere else. Shenme 03:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBalloonman 05:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irrelevant neologism. - Denny 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Ghits on the subject seem mostly to be Wikipedia mirrors. I'd propose a transwiki if even 1 source was given to show that it's a real word. -- Black Falcon 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wand TV Tower Decatur

[edit]

Non-notable TV tower that doesn't even exist anymore. Wikipedia is not an FCC directory of every broadcasting tower to have ever existed in the United States (one exists already on fcc.gov anyway) Descendall 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, WP:NOT#IINFO Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Mystache 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Balloonman 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHO gas

[edit]

Although the community has decided several times this and related articles should be deleted they keep being recreated. It looks as if this article still fails the policies cited in the previous AfD's (see below).

Listed here to ask for community consensus on the need for this article after it has been deleted several times, and since this clearly is a fringe topic which nobody normally would see.

My view is it fails policy on several levels.

WP:NN and WP:SCI: Contrary to popular believe having your advertisement on CNN does not establish notability, especially in the absense of any scientific peer review of the alleged technique. Further, using Google we find the following: "Aquygen" 23,400 hits (looks as if they all are promotional in nature, or at least fail WP:RS)[22] "HHO gas" 18,700 hits (looks as if they all are promotional in nature, or at least fail WP:RS)[23] "Denny Klein" 726 hits[24] Clearly there is insufficient news reports (that is non-promotional) to claim notability.
Violates WP:RS, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM. Aside from Randi all the provided sources are either commercial sites or promotional in nature.
WP:COI more specifically this part. Regarding the use of commercial websites as source as well as the fact that editors are not neutral.[25][26]
This and related articles did not survive AfD in the past because of the same reasons. Some of them are recently recreated as redirect to this page.[27] Sounds like this is done to circumvent the decision in previous AfD's without using WP:DRV. Please, include the following discussions and recreated articles (redirects) in this AfD.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO Gas -[28] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO -[29]-[30] - Hho-[31] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen - Aquygen-[32] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination) - Brown's gas - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnecular bond - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Ducted Electrolysis

In short, if we take out what is not supported by independent non-promotional sources the entire article would contain two sentences (hyperbole). Please comment on the need to keep such an article. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too much unsupported info and way too many weasel words ("allegedly") Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, no need for this to be recreated yet again --Action Jackson IV 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though possibly useful example on a page of hoaxes or pseudo-science. Shenme 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete EBSCO search got zero hits. If science journals aren't taking notice, I don't see why Wikipedia should.--Djrobgordon 06:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can this not be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material? Also, isn't HHO gas simply steam? Perhaps this should be a redirect to steam. If not, delete. --Charlene 09:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately it was decided that Speedy deletion was inappropriate.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Might as well be called "HoHoHo" gas coming from Santa Claus for all the scientific evidence presented for it in the article. Edison 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is disturbing. Noah Seidman 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Does anybody here remember polywater? — RJH (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a few more searches, after deciding that if the claims are so outlandish they wouldn't need to be tested, EBSCO may have been the wrong approach. Still, though, I found nothing but blogs. One Fox News story just isn't enough for me.--Djrobgordon 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Will somebody please read through our Wikipedia:Deletion policy? If you don't like the content of the article, fix the article. Deletion is for things that we shouldn't have articles about; not for articles that are poorly written. We don't put articles up for deletion just because they're about Fringe science, Hoaxes, or Pseudoscience.
- Deletion processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process.
- Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive.
- If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article.
  — Omegatron 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If anyone wants to merge some or all of the articles, that's an editorial decision and they're free to do it. - Bobet 10:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park Seed Company

[edit]

Found several interlinked pages that look like an advertising campaign. A Google search reveals that the company is probably notable enough for an article, but I think that this current mass of pages and images needs to be cleared out - all current sources are self-published and I don't think that this can be turned into an objective encylopedia article without complete re-write and re-sourcing from scratch - by someone without a conflict of interest. The content of the pages and the fact that the same author(s) have been involved with all of them leads me to believe this originates with the firm.

I make the following suggestions:

Weak Keep for George Watt Park It needs sources and cleanup, but he appears notable. However, the article smells of a copyvio (I don't have time to check)
Merge Wayside Gardens and Park Seed Company Gardens into Park Seed Company as they are really all about the same company.
Merge All-America Selections History into All-America Selections

They all seem notable and I'm sure sources could be found. This seems like a major company. However, they also need cleanup and wikification. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge does feel like it is copyvio, but I couldn't find it if it was Balloonman 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search turned up these sources: [33] [34] [35]

Also, I found a ton of articles from reputable gardening publications touting flowers they've developed. I Googled a few phrases from the article, and the only hits I got were to this article, so if it's a copyvio, it's from a print source. Also, All-America Selections are significant honors in the world of gardening. Add it all together, and it seems pretty notable to me.--Djrobgordon 06:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I just noticed All-America Selections is listed in the bundle. The article's atrocious, but I can't imagine deleting it. Again, it's a major award. If Man Booker Prize were a spammy copyvio, we wouldn't delete it. We'd reduce it to a stub and let someone write a more acceptable artice. That's precisely what we should do here. And yes, merge the history.--Djrobgordon 06:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'keep the ones about the different companies, merging more detailed ones into the main article. This i partly a matter of unfamiliar sources; WSP is not as strong in the area of gardening (or agriculture) as in most other topics, so we don't know the sources that well,. But the way to improve it is to keep articles like these, and build from there. DGG 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article on George Park, Park Seeds, and All-America Selections, merge others per Mr.Z-man above. Reduce to stubs if necessary, but this company has been a big part of American gardening culture for decades; we need articles on them, and someone with some gardening magazines to hand should write good articles. I would be shocked if good 3rd party sources aren't available. Brianyoumans 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After studying your recommendations and reviewing policies, I have attempted to bring the Park Seed, Wayside Gardens, and All-America Selection articles into compliance by editing out non-essentials. I respectfully request the following:

Keep article on George Park, Park Seeds, Wayside Gardens,and All-America Selections. The origins of Park Seed and Wayside Gardens are quite distinct, hence my request to retain separate entries
Merge All-America Selections History into All-America Selections
Delete Park Seed Company Gardens, or possibly merge some pieces into the Park Seed article. Thank you for your advice and consideration.Claire F. Kuhl 20:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bretos

[edit]

I nominated this areticle for deletion because it is nonsense and he hasn't been with the WWE long enough to have a Wikipedia page. Clay4president2 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least let someone (watch, it will end up being me) expand this article; Max Bretos is well known among American soccer fans and a section on his broadcasting career for Major League Soccer and on Fox Soccer Channel is warranted. As is, yes, this article doesn't meet notability, but the subject in question possesses other merits besides working for WWE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roehl Sybing (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: I just added relevant information that relates to his soccer broadcasting career. This should at least make the article noteworthy. And yes, I forgot to sign last time, so --> Roehl Sybing 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may be new in WWE, but his soccer broadcastin career is somewhat notable. TJ Spyke 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. His broadcasting career overall isn't that notable. If he remains on Raw longer, the article could be re-created I suppose. RobJ1981 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs expanding and citations, but his presence on Raw provides notabilityBalloonman 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much as I despise pro wrestling, it's pretty well established (as per WP:BIO) that any professional athlete who's competed at the highest level in his sport is notable, so I think deleting this would seem a bit biased.--Djrobgordon 06:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a TV personality on a larger channel, he is notable. As a sportsman who has played at the highest level nationally, he is notable. Notability doesn't seem to be the problem here, maybe just mainstream knowledge of him. Poeloq 10:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why does it matter how long he's been in WWE? Notable, previous career, etc. Keep. - Denny 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strongly passes Notability and verfiablility SirFozzie 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [36] Definitely room for improvement, but ye, he seems fairly notable. Govvy 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:33Z

OsFree

[edit]

Contested speedy, relisted for full AfD. Article on a (for now) non-notable non-existant future product (WP:CRYSTAL) -- until it exist, and can be compliant with WP:ATT (no self-referencing/self-published sources), it doesn't merit inclusion. /Blaxthos 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several other sources from sources external to osFree's main site before your nomination for deletion. Also, the project does exist in some form, though not a complete form. Also there are about 17, 900 pages about it on Google, which is slightly more than Magnussoft ZETA which has an article here that isn't up for deletion, an article not deleted. It's not a Linux by any means, but there is some activity. --- Jacques Pirat - Talk : Contribs 02:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources added aren't independent- the only independent source provides all of two sentences about the project, stating "These projects are called Voyager and OSFree" and then later states "the project exists as a set of design outlines and some test code." --Wafulz 03:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "...had no progress so far..." It has no notability because it hasn't done anything yet. This isn't a blog. (removed unhelpful even if warranted comments) Shenme 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a crystal ballBalloonman 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a Google hit for "osfree" is not the same thing as a page about it. My name get a decent number of ghits, and there aren't any pages about me. No decent sources, far as I can see.--Djrobgordon 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet requirements. - Denny 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Volpe

[edit]

Fails WP:Notability. Notability tag has been in place for a month with no added references to back up notability. I browsed the first few pages of Google hits and most are promotional sites like YouTube or MySpace. Article was created by the subject of the article, so violates WP:NPOV. Finally, there is no Luca Volpe article in the Italian space on Wikipedia. Hatch68 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as garden variety spam, and so tagged. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd wager that street magic of some sort existed in Italy prior to this person's date of birth. Spamriffic and NN --Action Jackson IV 02:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Sometime in the 3000 years of history cited in Street magic you'd think someone had wow'ed a crowd, perhaps in that town called 'Rome'? Basically main claim to fame is a negative assertion, not a verifiable positive assertion. It's advertisement. Shenme 03:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual appears to be notable... but only if the claims on the page can be confirmed. Since they can't be... and a request for citations has been on the page for a month...Balloonman 05:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Goofy. John Reaves (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goofy holler

[edit]

Non-notable neologism for a stock sound effect Action Jackson IV 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Goofy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while a tempting solution, this article is more about a certain sound effect that happens to have been used for Goofy than a facet of Goofy itself. Merging it would basically reduce it to a section in the Goofy article that states "Goofy makes the exact same holler in several occasions such as X, Y, and Z, and this sound effect has also been used in Street Fighter", information that is pedantic and relatively NN. --Action Jackson IV 02:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mr.Z-man -- Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 04:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't think of a specific sound-effect, other than the Wilhelm scream, that deserves its own article, and this one does nothing to sway me. I don't see what we can merge, as there are no sources. The fact that the term is "thought to be named" after a post on an imdb message board doesn't fill me with confidence that any can be found.--Djrobgordon 06:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's pretty much what aroused my original suspicions. --Action Jackson IV 08:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Goofy, and dig through all this to find some sources (from the first page it looks like there's at least a few) --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP IT! What if Disney (or another studio) makes a movie with the Goofy Holler? --Ryanasaurus0077 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The Google search you linked proves that the sound effect exists, and that a few enthusiasts have cataloged its use on their personal web sites. Besides the obvious verfiability issues, it seems like trivia, akin to having articles called List of basketball players who wear Adidas shoes or List of baseball players who use maple bats.--Djrobgordon 17:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in need of cleanup, yes, but I consider the basis valid. This appears to be an ubiquitous sound effect, similarily to the Wilhelm scream, Castle thunder and Tarzan yell, smaller in scope but very much extant. As for merging, this has less and less to do with Goofy and functions better as a separate article. Further, this isn't an article about a neologism (as opposed to jumping the shark and wardrobe malfunction): it's about the stock sound effect. --Kizor 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are plenty of sound effects which have been used in multiple situations. What makes this particular one notable? Is there any backstory whatsoever? I don't see that the article can be fixed. --Action Jackson IV 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its repeated long-term use by a massive animation and movie studio, plus its extreme recognizability (for instance, several million people would recognize it among Finland's five million alone - though Finns are a bit weird.) It is the cartoon equivalent to the Wilhelm scream, definitely notable, and it's been in use for over five decades, definitely not a neologism. --Kizor 20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As above. - Denny 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see Kizor's point, but I'd feel more comfortable keeping it if there were a reliable source asserting the ubiquity of the effect, and preferably confirming that it was used in at least some of the listed movies.--Djrobgordon 23:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, or there will be hell toupee. — CharlotteWebb 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toupee

[edit]

Lots of original research to start with, then article tells a few "toupee" jokes. Then there is a section called Suspected toupee wearers! (Very encyclopedic). Another section is titled Toupee or not toupee. Is this article a joke? Or maybe partly a joke disguised as a Wikipedia article? I would have attempted to improve it, but it's so bad just delete it and start again. Strathlomond 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Out of curiousity, I checked the revision history, thinking this may be the result of temporary vandalism from that other Wiki. No dice, article's last 50 revisions have all included the aforementioned sections, and it seems the only activity (since December 2006, at least) has been figuring out which over-saturated celebrities do and do not wear toupees, and perhaps a little bit of OR on the side. --Action Jackson IV 02:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~Keep To be fair, the first half of the article is not too bad - but yes, the rest of it does need a serious cleanup. ~~Incidentally, if you've got a mouthful of coffee don't click on the last external link.~~ Much improved already.EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just the thing my future offspring need to distinguish themselves in the corporate world! Thanks for the pointer! --Action Jackson IV 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (with substantial cleanup) Upon deeper examination, I really don't think this article is that bad, by Wikipedia standards. Parts of it should definitely be removed (known and suspected toupee wearers), and the article definitely needs some further editing - but AfD is not the proper channel. --Action Jackson IV 02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and substantially cleanup. These things have been around for a while and sources do exist. The article is currently full of nonsense, jokes, and spam. --Wafulz 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. In my opinion, this shouldn't be here, try WP:Cleanup. --Nevhood 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please don't waste time posting legitimate articles that have crappy writing and need a serious clean-up for deletion--that's what WP:Cleanup is for. And why was this nominated by a user who has done nothing on Wikipedia but nominate an article for deletion? KP Botany 03:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful not to bite the newbie. Some people edit irregularly as IPs, and then realize that to nominate a page for deletion, they need to create a page, which would require creating an account. The reasons given for deletion are at least believable, so I'd assume good faith. --Wafulz 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, okay, I didn't know that. There do seem to be a lot more redlinks participating in AfD than elsewhere on detail work on Wikipedia, though. Still, the article is hardly within the scope of AfD. KP Botany 04:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. It started out as a redirect to Wig, and now no longer links to Wig at all? Except for the Category:Wigs, which ought to be a see-also. And Hairpiece, which I'd always thought was a politer term, is now something else completely. I'd agree that a Toupee is somewhat different from a Wig, but this article just doesn't (cough) cover the area the way it should... Shenme 04:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, shame, Shenme! KP Botany 04:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comb to perfection at cleanup. This is obviously encyclopedic, but in a poor state; we have templates for that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, more shame. Geeze. Anyway, I did some clean-up. I was a costume designer in a past incarnation and have studied the history of toupees and wigs extensively--most of Wikipedia's articles in this area need work and clean-up tags, if someone could tag a handful of them it would be nice (I still struggle with templates). However, I don't have my research library handy, and there is little information on the web that I found to be usable. Still it is less original and more accurate than it was. The last paragraph needs written in Englih. KP Botany 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep (now that the jokes/suspected toupee wearing sections are gone.Balloonman 05:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a big part of toupee wearing, the mid-twentieth century comedy sketches and jokes on American television about people wearing toupees, and speculation as to who rugged over their linoleum. Plus business men pretty much had to wear them and the studios has celebrities wear them even in public. But I won't go there without some research and solid references. Popular culture is under-researched, over-original, and often inaccurate on Wikipedia. I once researched American patented toupee devices, that was something. KP Botany 06:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment agreed... and in a website on Toupee's the jokes would be appropriate (as would the speculation) but here in an encycopedic... no.Balloonman 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment In the realm of people's costume and accouterments, there is quite a bit of research done and written up, including the humorous aspects of what people wore and how they wore it. The white wigs worn by aristocrats at one time were routinely mocked in satires of their era, the wide skirts of women, the butt bustles, the hoops, just like the huge pants boys wear today are the subject of comic strips and comedy routines. I love to come across political satire, especially, when researching clothing of an era, to have a little insider fun with costumes. A well-referenced discussion of the humor would be a useful insight into the popular culture of toupees. However, it's probably not doable on the web, and would require substantial research at a university library. KP Botany 07:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment agreed a well refrenced discussion of the humor would be useful and interesting... and dare I say would be necessary to make the article comprehensive. But simply adding jokes? no. An example of a joke or two, within a section discussing the sociological seeting no problem.Balloonman 09:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Q: What do you call an awful article about a clearly notable topic? A: An article about a clearly notable topic.--Djrobgordon 06:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep patently ridiculous nom. JuJube 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Toupees themselves are clearly notable as a form of wig. AfD isn't the best place to bring up poor articles about notable subjects; I would suggest a cleanup tag, however. --Charlene 09:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Toupees are very notable historically. Why even nom? Just a clean up matter. - Denny 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The most contentious joke sections have been removed and the topic is certainly encyclopedic (note that this was not disputed by the nom). "Delete and start over" for notable topics should be used only in extreme cases. This doesn't seem to qualify. Oh, and tag for cleanup. -- Black Falcon 19:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep way to common to be considered for deletion, just needs clean-up. John Reaves (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, toupees are undoubtedly notable despite this horrible article, though merging to Wig may be the best option. Krimpet 04:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a few lame toupee jokes is no reason to delete the whole toupee article. --Candy-Panda 07:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, relevant article. Missionario 08:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as relevant as articles about hats, coats, neckties, suits, etc. Chris Buckey 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into John Kerry. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Kerry

[edit]

She is not notable, outside the achivements of her father. PoliticalJunkie 02:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moderately Strong Merge into John Kerry, no matter how obscene that may sound. --Action Jackson IV 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Action Jackson IV. Alexandra is notable, Vanessa not so much. --Dhartung | Talk 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete not notably on own.Balloonman 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The children of US presidents are often notable because third parties write non-trivial articles about them while their parent is in office (e.g. Amy Carter, Jenna Bush). The daughter of a losing candidate, however, is not going to get that kind of non-trivial attention. (Of course, many presidential children are notable in their own right (e.g. Maureen Reagan, Margaret Truman, Steven Ford).) Edited for clarity. --Charlene 09:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into John Kerry. the article does nothing to assert any notability independent of her father's achievements, so she belongs on his page. Crunch 11:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into her father. - Denny 18:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer contents into John Kerry -- does that read as more or less obscene? -- Black Falcon 19:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like he's pregnant now. --Charlene 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps a robotic docking bay. A USB storage device, perhaps? --Action Jackson IV 03:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Michaels

[edit]

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

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

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

Content irrelevant, minor notability, fails WP:PORNBIO. ~ | twsx |^talk_cont| 09:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, Wikipedia is not a directory of porn stars. No reliable sources given that would assert the person's notability. --sunstar net^talk 13:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep passes WP:PORNBIO#Valid criteria #6. She has appeared in numerous films with several companies, especially in the "big bust" niche, since her somewhat/relatively recent introduction to the industry. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is no valid reason. WP:PORNBIO #6 not passed at all. ~ | twsx |^talk_cont| 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at her imdb and afb profiles. I'd say that's quite "prolific." In the last three years, she's appeared in numerous films, especially "big bust"-focused works, obviously her niche. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having starred in a big list of movies does not qualify her as decisive to some genre, nor is "big bust" a niche. There is no proof that there is ANYTHING that uplifts her from hundreds of other pornstars. ~ | twsx |^talk_cont| 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article with more biographical information and references. Apparently, she was also a FAME 2006 "Favorite Breast" nominee. While that does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO #1, it certainly cements her validity under WP:PORNBIO #6 as being notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "big bust" is most certainly a niche. If you watched any porn at all, you'd know that. Why else do we have people like Nadine Jansen and Chelsea Charms? See List of pornographic sub-genres#Body-feature oriented pornography. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Article shows multiple sources. She's appeared in over 100 films. Passes notability easily. Very questionable AfD nomination. Dekkappai 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The article shows NO sources that are of ANY concern to WP:PORNBIO, 100% failed. the two keep-votes are to be ignored, as they contain solely irrelevant argumentation, made by that strange kind of pornstar-article-fan. What you fail to understand is that while she may be very important to a porn fan, she is of zero notability to the general media and the public point of view. Orenor 08:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC) — Orenor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete → (nearly) Totally fails WP:PORNBIO. I don't watch porn films, and I'm not interested in this subject, so I have to decide based on simply what the WP guidelines say and the sources provided. And, with this sources, the WP:PORNBIO test fails. It's true that she appeared in 107, which is just over one hundred, but alone this don't establish notability. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't watch porn, and you're not interested in the subject, how are you qualified to judge if she is "notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" (WP:PORNBIO #6)? I could go to an art museum and say that Artist XYZ is a nobody, and that they should take his paintings down, but I don't--because I'm not qualified. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's often pointed out at these AfDs that "I like it" is no reason for a keep. Besides the fact that neither two Keep votes mentioned anything about personal tastes, Wikipedia's non-censorship policy implies that "I don't like it" is an even worse reason to recommend deletion. If you don't like it, don't read it. Within one minute any one of us can find a dozen biographies on Wikipedia that are clearly far less notable, and far less sourced. Just a couple clicks brings up the totally unsourced stub on the fictional character Jason Shadwick, at which one of our Deletes has just edited. Clearly it is the subject that is the issue, not notability. This sort of POV bias has no place on Wikipedia. Over 100 films, multiple sourcing-- This subject is clearly notable, if the subject offends you, don't read it. And don't try to use Wikipedia as a means to spread your own personal prejudices. Dekkappai 20:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not change that pornstar articles need to pass WP:PORNBIO, which this one does NOT. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think WP:PORNBIO offers the best application of notability in this situation. Name yields 200,000+ ghits; 100+ entries on IAFD. Mystache 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources for attribution. "This number is big" is a very arbitrary standard- we don't decide notability on personal opinions and by how impressed we are. We decide it based on the implication that notability will provide sources. --Wafulz 03:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your reasoning makes no sense. The article itself has four sources that are reliable. This number of sources is about par for the course for an article if this size, if a little above average. A significant number of relevant search results on Google would also partially speak to notability. I really have no personal opinion on this matter, but it seems to me that the subject of this article is notable enough to have a reasonably-sourced article.LaMenta3 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should've clarified. From the sources presented, none of them are really about her, and only the interview is of a non-trivial length. If we were to use them, we would basically have a list of movies and some information backed up entirely by an interview about her, which is only a quasi-independent source. The award she won doesn't appear in Category:Adult movie awards (as required by WP:PORNBIO) either. --Wafulz 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify that WP:PORNBIO doesn't require that she has won an award, or that if she has won one, that it be listed in the category. However, if she had won one, it would have satisfied the notability requirement. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PORNBIO spells things out pretty clearly, and specifically advises against the "number of films" test. Krimpet 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it discourages against strict counting films and google hits, it has the policy "notable and prolific"-- but can you honestly think of a better meter of notability/prolifity than her large number of films or the 500,000+ google results? How many more films would she have to do before you considered her notable? Also remember that she was a finalist for a pornographic award. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are basically three arguments going on here: 1) Whether she is notable; 2) Whether articles should be deleted merely for being poorly written or attributed; and 3) Whether pornography is a valid topic for Wikipedia. It's not an argument that has been specified until now, but it's in here. I agree that Gianna Michaels should be considered for an article based on the fact that she was nominated for the "Favorite Breasts" award (even if WP:PORNBIO requires a victory--I think that's a bit narrow in scope; Wikipedia doesn't drop non-pornographic actors for never having won awards). I am also concerned that a comment advocates non-consideration of the "keep" votes based on the commenter's gainsaying of the voters' comments without specific damning evidence. Additionally, it is very difficult to find real journalism about pornography because most major media seem to add a porn angle to a story if said angle is particularly lurid, the better to increase sales. As a result, it would seem that the central notability criterion is a bit circular in this case. As for the unspoken argument about pornography's place in Wikipedia: here is my evidence that the argument is taking place. We would not be having this discussion if the actress performed in some other genre than pornography. Consider that there are quite a few performers (most of them, admittedly, young actors, singers, and musicians) who have only come to prominence in the same three-plus year timespan as Gianna Michaels. My feeling is that pornography is a part of the human condition. As such, it deserves clear, unbiased reportage. I do not feel Wikipedia should be a directory of porn stars; performers come and go. It should, however, be a leader in such coverage, if only because nobody else seems to be showing up until there's a tabloid-quality headline and byline to be had. Gianna Michaels has had a great deal of success in a fairly short time in the industry, much like, say, Clay Aiken has had in music. (I dare say she has sold more media, in fact.) —Boomshadow
Delete - On the basis that she just does sex scenes and doesn't "act" in features. Nothing is outstanding or groundbreaking about her. Her number of films and the amount of time she has been in the industry is relatively small. Doesn't meat any of the 6 valid criteria listed in WP:PORNBIO. Keep in mind people the amount of porn on the internet in general when you are talking about google hits in this subject. - Arch NME 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Nominated for a FAME award along with household names like Jenna Jameson and Tera Patrick as well as Carmen Luvana, Mercedez, Penny Flame, Sandee Westgate, and Stormy. Performer has been prolific within a specific genre - big breasts. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The FAME award is not listed Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards, as required in WP:PORNBIO. It doesn't really matter if other famous people are nominated and win it- I could make up the Waffy awards and hand them out to random people and pornstars too. "Prolific" is not defined by number of productions. We'd need independent sources claiming this. --Wafulz 16:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I were to write a reasonably developed and referenced article about the FAME awards and categorized it under Category:Adult movie awards, Gianna Michaels and any other porn actor/actress who had won or been a finalist for one of their awards would suddenly be notable? Somehow I don't think WP:PORNBIO has thought its cunning plan all the way through... LaMenta3 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - other pornstars are on Wikipedia, and she appears to be on the rise. Guroadrunner 06:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I can understand people doubting her talent and morality but that has nothing to do with a person's notability. Pornstars are allowed on Wikipedia and she is one of the top ones. She is certainly one of the top ten large natural breast stars at the moment and anyone interested in that popular genre will know of her. The high awareness of her work therefore makes her notable. Epbr123 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the trend seems to be for doing away with WP:PORNBIO's "cunning plan" by merging it with Wikipedia:Notability (people), let's check that guideline: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." and further for Entertainers: "Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers, A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following, A credible independent biography, Wide name recognition..." Ms. Michaels seems to pass every one of these criteria. Dekkappai 02:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Referring to Boomshadow's comment, I personally think that WP:PORNBIO in this case is slightly distorted as had Gianna been a model who primarily made her name in the video market rather than website scenes (hence the number of sites about her and her appearances [37]) to begin with she probably would have more notability to check against the lists. Judging by her overture search ranking per month which is approaching 50,000 unique searches (49281 for last month to be exact) I definitely think that she should be kept it. The wikipedia page for her is high in search engines such as google as well so if she was deleted people would continue to recreate this page until it was finally accepted she was notable (at some point in the future as she continues to grow). On this and a number of other factors, including her varied and high profile work according to the iafd and the pure number of fans and dedicated sites/pages about her I would say she is a definite keep, even if the article could do with a bit of expansion in some departments.
Keep - She is the subject of multiple independent published works. --Oakshade 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 05:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:32Z

Charles Lewis (businessperson)

[edit]

Contested prod. Vanity/advertising, notability not established. Katr67 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: Only three advocates contributed, and they appear to be of one mind—I expect it's one person. The article has stood for three months: plenty of time to develop notability—but hasn't. The interesting bits are without references. Removing the unverifiable bits would leave an empty article. The reasons for weak is a) it seems like more notable information might be on its way and, b) there are a lot worse articles remaining. Nevertheless, plenty of local businessmen would be at least as notable, but don't meet the intent of notability. —EncMstr 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in response to reason b), Other Crap Exists. --Action Jackson IV 04:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed, no excuse, which had little weight in weak delete. —EncMstr 06:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't look like there are any reliable third party sources for attribution. Found this which seems questionable (probably non-independent). From his article, he seems like a nice guy, but "nice guy" doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. --Wafulz 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 03:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if his two major achievements (beyond degrees and service) are redlinks, how notable can he be? That is, how can something not notable be proof of his notability? Shenme 04:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Good service, but not notable - yet. --Dennisthe2 07:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the notability. Crunch 11:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as is article fails WP:ATT Alf^Photoman 15:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet BIO, ATT. - Denny 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In all likelihood, a worthy community leader, but a philanthropist of chiefly local interest so far. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 14:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feezy 350

[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet any of the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only claim to notability is that a song of his was featured on a Madden soundtrack - but as Madden soundtracks aren't what one might term, uh, "critically valid" (in other words, man there are some truly dreadful songs), and as his song was not the "theme" of the game, I can't really see a need for a Wiki entry. Maybe I just don't "get" hip-hop. --Action Jackson IV 02:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - your personal opinions of song quality should not be a factor - Arch NME 07:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IronGargoyle 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Huff

[edit]

Losing contestant on American Idol 3. The subject appears not to have had notable achievements since his appearance on the show. His records met with poor sales, and I feel he does not pass WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 08:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Article doesn't provide the multiple independently published non-trivial articles/interviews about the subject described in WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Dugwiki 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my recommendation to Keep pending reference additions per the references identified by Zagalejo below. Dugwiki 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article just needs to be improved a bit. Certainly it is not trivial. Ontheradio925 06:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming it's not a well written article, per se. I'm saying it's providing no independent verification for notability. If the references are tightened up to meet WP:BIO then I'll reconsider my delete recommendation. Dugwiki 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you feel such references do exist, but are hard to find, a possible alternative is to move the article to user space until the references can be cited. Then reintroduce the newly cited article to the article space. Dugwiki 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, couldn't find non-commercial sources. --Wafulz 03:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 03:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a finalist, so he would pass the criteria at the Idol Wikiproject. Using Factiva, I also found three newspaper articles within the last year of which Huff is unequivocally the primary subject:

"Idol Active in Salinas: George Huff joins Christmas on Main Street". Monterey County Herald, 9 December 2006.
"American Idol Finalist Huff to Perform at West Virginia University on Jan. 13". US Fed News, 10 October 2006.
"Huff on Hope: Displaced by the Storm, George Huff is still going strong". New Orleans Times-Picayune, 9 June 2006.

Note that these are all from 2006. Huff appeared on AI in 2004, so I suspect there's a lot more out there. Zagalejo 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, internal criteria for Wikiprojects like WP:IDOL don't carry much weight in afd/cfd discussions. These issues need to be decided based mainly on policies and guidelines, so whether or not he would "pass the criteria at the Idol Wikiproject" isn't relevant. On the flip side, the references provided above sound like they're probably enough to satisfy WP:N, so I modified my recommendation above to "Keep pending references" assuming those sources are cited in the article and can be verified. Dugwiki 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming the Wikiproject guidelines grew out of AFD discussions, but maybe not. The sources can be verified by anyone with access to Factiva. I'll incorporate them somewhere, just to show that sources exist, but I don't have the time or interest to add sources to the entire article, which I think is ultimately necessary. Does someone else want to step up? Zagalejo 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's a former star of one of the highest-rating shows on American television. He's more famous than half of the Nobel Prize winners we have here. Keep. - Richardcavell 01:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, because 1) deletionism is ruining Wikipedia and 2) American Idol has such a large fan base, people are likely to be interested in all of the contestants. Let's not turn away readers of the site, just because select individuals don't care about some information. If anyone out there is interested and the article is factual, keep it. If you don't like it, read something else, but don't ruin things for the rest of us. BTW, WTF is with all these anti-AI deletion bandwagoning!? Is someone a rejected contestant and wants to supress information about other contestants or something?! Anywway, this guy has discopgrahy even, so . . . Best,--164.107.223.217 06:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though it makes me cringe, being an AI finalist in my opinion drags the subject past the inclusion threshold of WP:BIO. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because I haven't read any good reasons not to as this is an incredibly highly rated show and anyone who makes it to the final group has widespread name recognition. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, what is up with deleting american idol contestants? George Huff was 5th place- wouldn't people want to know about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.21.245 (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:31Z

Logan Schmidt

[edit]

I put a PROD on this back on February 24, it was removed and now the article is full of nonsense. At one time, there WERE claims of notability, but those have been removed. This is basically nonsense. Corvus cornix 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PN. Mystache 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable. A quick Google on "Logan Schmidt"+Trumann (4 hits) finds a Logan Schmidt to be a 9th-grade student there. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. A 34-year-old 9th grader? ;) Corvus cornix 21:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I thought that too, but look at the edit history - original year of birth was 1991 :) EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - patent nonsense, and non-notable vanity site. --Haemo 03:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "He is often regarded as a town hero". We won't be taking anything away from him then... Too many weasel words and unsubstantiated claims. Shenme 04:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if possible Speedy Alf^Photoman 23:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to speedy this, but his assertion of nobility prevented it from going through :( Wikipediarules2221 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that was my fault. :) Corvus cornix 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:30Z

Janarguitar

[edit]

The article does not assert any criteria for notability for the subject per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, barely not a speedy. This is basically a spam article. The 2006 hit didn't get much attention. --Wafulz 03:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no evidence, through a search, that he is notable. Also, based on his writing skills, the claim that he "pass the 4years schooling" seems unlikely.--Djrobgordon 07:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You'd figure a kind and loving deity would bestow unto its disciples a few extra brain cells here and there. The author is likely Flipino, so that can probably excuse the terrible English - but that just brings up the question, if you (speaking in the generic second-person here) can't speak a language fluently, what on Earth compells you to get involved editing an Encyclopedia in that language? You don't see my spastic, uncoordinated ass trying to perform open-heart surgery, now do you? --Action Jackson IV 07:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD-A7 To quote from the article "His Dream, will become a successful guitarist someday with Christ,Have a great recording studio, Sharing the Gospel of Jesus through music." Will become successful indicates not successful now and hence is a claim against the article's own notablity. Also "become a guitarist with Christ"? Christ will be accompanying bass and backing vocals perhaps!? Such unbelievable arrogance also borderlines WP:Nonsense and WP:Vanity too. A1octopus 19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 04:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addison Hoover

[edit]

While having a limited career, lacks any notability in her career and the article reads more as a resume than a notable biography Ozgod 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a copy and past of the article on Addison Hoover:[reply]

Having a recurring role in a soap like The Bold and the Beautiful is enough to satisfy inclusion criteria for actors. (At the very least, redirect to the character she played). - Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As reliable as IMDB gets, she is only reported to have starred in a total of 3 episodes. Luke! 01:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not seem to meet the notability criteria for people. Perhaps further on down her career. Luke! 01:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has never been even a semi-regular on any of the shows mentioned.--Djrobgordon 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:30Z

Carnosaur Tetralogie

[edit]

Delete - misspelled (so no redirect) and redundant to Carnosaur films. Otto4711 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant and pointless article. --Haemo 03:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant as above, and by the same editor. Perhaps he didn't know how to do redirects? But the 'films' article is enough - at least it links to the individual articles which explain who made the films. Shenme 04:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, this article was the editor's first try, the 'films' article was a day later. That he never went back to check over them is telling. Shenme 04:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redundant and possibly POV. The Carnosaur films version is superior in quality and content. -- Black Falcon 20:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:29Z

Melisa Toros

[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:BIO. Minor roles in one or two films. Nv8200p talk 02:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. A simple search shows only minor roles; the article is also quite lacking. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability, no sources, no decent ghits.--Djrobgordon 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. - PoliticalJunkie 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete: Melisa Toros in one of the Actresses in Turkey.She is on TV at Snek TV KCC

That does not necessarily make her notable if her roles are still minor. The article needs to assert why this is notable. -Nv8200p talk 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete: I really wonder what is aim of wikipedia.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 06:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lawrence Carter

[edit]

No assertion of notability for anything -Nv8200p talk 02:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 (or A1) and tagged as such. EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speeeeedy, please. Shenme 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Sasquatch t|c 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croftfoot United F.C.

[edit]

Wholly non-notable - zero Ghits. This is a multi-nomination for the club and all its players (16 of them). BlueValour 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~either~~ completely NN ~~or a hoax~~ - and the 16 player pages can be speedied. EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find any references or notable references using Google, Yahoo or MSN. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crested Penguin 04:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable club. Also check other links of players for NN bios. --Dennisthe2 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reason for article as there is no references on any search engine. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all as failures of WP:BIO. However, the player article should have been tagged for deletion. Nuttah68 11:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedily deleted all the relevant player articles as they were blatantly non-notable and broke WP:CSD A1 and A7. As for the main article - Delete - as there is nothing to suggest notability and totally unreferenced. Qwghlm 13:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax to me - teams plays in the Croftfoot Premier League? Come on! Even if it's legit, massive failure to meet WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 16:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Smells like a complete hoax to me - fchd 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amateur team for which notability is not established. -- Black Falcon 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:28Z

Quynh Nguyen

[edit]

Fails WP:ATT. I am having trouble verifying any of the claims. If verified, the subject of the article still may not meet WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, I restubbed because the "About" section [38] looked like a copyvio of [39] (or if not, maybe WP:COI; see Special:Contributions/Quynhthuy). Then I went looking for sources, of which I found a few; she appears to meet the primary notability criterion (non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources), and all statements in the article are now attributed. cab 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm iffy on the fourth source, but the other three are fine.--Djrobgordon 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets central criteria of WP:Music. A1octopus 11:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:28Z

The 100 Greatest Albums of the 80's

[edit]

It's a violation of Rolling Stones' copyright and the author requested it on the article's talk page. MZMcBride 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is probably a violation of copyright, but to clarify, the author did not request a delete, he stated that he would not object to a deletion - there is a difference! --Nevhood 03:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the Rolling Stone's opinion was worth shit, this might be considered along the lines of TIME's Man of the Year or Nobel Prize winners (and hence, fair game for an Encyclopedia), but I can't really see this as encyclopedic. --Action Jackson IV 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The other difference between the two is that a list of TIME Men of the Year is essentially a list of people articles were written about. This list is a direct copy of the content of a single article.--Djrobgordon 04:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is absolutely no violation whatever, in any way shape or form of any copyright law at all in this list. You cannot copyright information, and that's all that this list is: information about what Rolling Stone said the greatest albums of the 80s are. Anyone can report what the list is. Only original writing in Rolling Stone is copyrightable, and there's a big difference. I think it's worth having a number of "best" lists when they come from some authority on the subject. It helps people decide what they might want to listen to, buy, pay attention to or read about. The more the better, and that should include this one. Noroton 08:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly in the UK, information can be copyrightable - for instance unofficial football websites are not allowed to show lists of forthcoming fixtures (Link). I have no idea what the situation in the US is. EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I find that amazing, but I'm unfamiliar with UK law. At least the main servers and HQ for Wikipedia are in Florida, so I assume US law applies. I think this is a good description of the difference in copyrighting expressions and ideas, at least in US law, taken from Merger doctrine#Copyright:

In United States copyright law, the merger doctrine holds that if an idea and the way to express it are so intricately tied that the ways of expression have little possible variation, there will not be copyright infringement, lest the copyright prevent others from expressing the same idea. The overall principle is that of the idea-expression divide, which is that one can hold a copyright in an expression, but not in an idea. Noroton 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Action Jackson IV StuartDouglas 13:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pet Shop Boys dont even get a mention in the top 100 - therefore in my opinion its not a notworthly article! Seriously though, this is not encyclopedia stuff its fansite material. --PrincessBrat 15:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear copyright vio. Compilations of information are copyright under US law. See here.[40] This is illegal. Nssdfdsfds 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look at the third paragraph from the bottom on the page you link to: "A copyrightable compilation enjoys only limited protection. The copyright only covers the 'author's original contribution -- not the facts or information conveyed.'" Noroton 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and not objective. HagenUK 17:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia NPOV policy states that we can report on the opinions of others, which is what this article does. No list of awards would be objective either, by definition, on the part of the source, but perfectly objective from our perspective of reporting on it. Noroton 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copyright violation. - Denny 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The precedent for a list like this is in the Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time article. Commentary about a list is acceptable, however, listing the entire list is a violation of copyright without prior permission. --MZMcBride 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I think that was wrong too, but rather than try to be a lawyer, I've asked a question about this issue here: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Is a list really copyrightable? Noroton 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio. It is my understanding that lists (like anything else) have copyright protection as long as there is any creativity involved in compiling or arranging them. So while a simple, chronological list of the Kings of England or "The Top Selling Records of All Time" may not be protected, a list of "My Favorite Kings of England" or "The 100 Greatest Albums of the 80's [in Our Opinion]" is certainly protected. Also, if it's a close call whether an article is a copyvio, I think we need to err on the side of deleting it. (Not that I think it's close here at all.) Besides all of that, London Calling came out in 1979 (even though it hit the US in 1980), so the whole list is suspect IMHO. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. Presumably both the selection of which albums to include and the ordering of albums on the list represent the opinions of the editors of Rolling Stone, so this list is fully copyrightable. --Carnildo 02:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this list appears to be a direct copy of a part of the Rolling Stones article, I believe it indeed falls under copyright law. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this discussion seems to be headed for a consensus of deletion as a copyvio, perhaps it should be speedied? --Butseriouslyfolks 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hearing no objection, I just tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyvio. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per US law, the "expertise" which is used to compile the list constitutes creative input. That is what makes a list copyrightable. If it were a list of top SELLING albums, that is just data. When they are putting together judgements, that makes it creative content. Slavlin 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete.' I'm not so sure this is a copyvio (although I have thought so in the past), but I see no reason that this list has any particular importance. There's an unending number of lists like this, and we clearly shouldn't be reprinting them all (even just the list). Mango juice^talk 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:26Z

Young Professionals of Chicago

[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:ORG Nv8200p talk 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One trivial mention in an article at Chicago Tribune.com, none on Chicago Sun-Times.com. If they're not notable in Chicago, I don't know where they would be.--Djrobgordon 06:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Djrobgordon. Teke^(talk) 22:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I do not agree with you. The organization is backed by many Fortune 500 companies and is doing a lot of good for the community. It is much more recognizable then other groups that are currently listed on wikipedia such as all organizations that come up on the website when you search 'young professional'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.119.170 (talk • contribs)

Doing good and being notable are two different things. If the other groups are non-notable, please nominate for deletion. -Nv8200p talk 04:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're not doing it just to prove a point.--Djrobgordon 05:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this posting should not be deleted as well as the other postings under that search title. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Encyclopedias, especially online ones where one isn't concerned with book shelf space, should include organizations, products, etc. that are 'recent' but very popular, notable, and well-known to a specific demographic or geographical location. I use wikipedia because it exposes me to things I would have never known before since it is not notable or recognized in the area in which I live. If this organization, for example, was only a group of 20 people who got together and drank coffee--that is not notable. However, they are making a difference in their community, has been recognized by leaders in the community, and with such a large group, they can only be 'notable'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.80.119.170 (talk • contribs).

If you can show that this group meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I'd be glad to change my vote to "keep."--Djrobgordon 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's primary criterion is that an organization is notable if it has been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources, which this group has not. The article looks like it comes from primary sources and is more of a vanity piece. -Nv8200p talk 22:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright violation. Tyrenius 03:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Scrimshaw Artist

[edit]

No evidence of notability; prod removed without verifiable sources being added. FisherQueen (Talk) 03:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Alf^Photoman 14:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if, and it's a giant if, this guy's notable, the entire article is a copyvio from this source.[41]--Djrobgordon 06:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, from the sources given he may be a good self-projector (though article is slightly spammy) but hardly notable Alf^Photoman 14:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The text is taken from his personal website, so it's WP:COI. No notability established. The Maestro of Majestic Skies must go. Freshacconci 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above Johnbod 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:25Z

Minute Switch

[edit]

In November 2006, I gave this article the notability tag. I should have pulled the plug long ago, but anyway, I have found no proof that this passes WP:BAND. →Ed Gl 03:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Allmusic doesn't even mention them, and their gatekeepers aren't exactly strict. Also, the link to the band's "official site" is dead. The band seems to exist, based on my Google search, but I could find no independent sources writing about them. I do like that the article intro double's as the photo's caption. Very efficient.--Djrobgordon 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Djrobgordon said, they seem real, or at least were once a real band. But I don't think they are notable at all based on my perusing of Google, which while not foolproof establishes a pretty good idea of notability.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless links to non trivial third party sources on this band are added before the end of this debate. A1octopus 11:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:25Z

Hickory Ridge Mall

[edit]

No assertion of notability. No significant independent sourcing. Delete. BlueValour 03:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete provide a few sources and make this more than just a list of stores, and I will gladly change my mind.--Djrobgordon 05:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changing vote due to new sources.--Djrobgordon 03:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If dead malls are notable so are live ones. Add a stub tag, lose the list and look for refs. No reason to delete because of no sources, at least half of Wikipedia has no sources.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has 865,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area per [42], making it a super-regional mall per the definition of such from the International Shopping Center Association. Satisfies WP:MALL. It has 504,000 Google hits, and two independent articles about it from reliable sources are included of the many which have been written since its 1981 founding. Edison 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:MALL has not been approved as a guideline and is not a valid citation at AfD. --Kevin Murray 01:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little sign of notability or interest except for size, and at less that 1 million sf it isn't that enormous. --Brianyoumans 01:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears notable as such a large mall would likely meet WP:N and WP:ATT if propely researched. I would keep and tag for sources. --Kevin Murray 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The size and scope of the mall, combined with the multiple references from reliable and verifiable sources, meet standards of notability for such businesses. Alansohn 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:24Z

PARADOX (warez)

[edit]

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

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

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

No assertion of notability per the guidelines. A couple of nfos and a short bio compiled by some unknown individual doesn't make an article. Needs some evidence of non-trivial coverage by a reliable source.--Crossmr 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no polite way to say this, so I'll just say it. You're obviously too young to remember the composition, timeline, impact and effects of the cracking scene ca. 1985-1995, and you have no idea what the giants whose shoulders you are standing on were up to in their heyday (and they or their successors apparently still are to an extent). I'm having a hard time to refrain from throwing words like "trigger-happy" and "complete ignorance" around. I wish people didn't have such short attention spans and would pay more attention to history, including the history of the IT industry. Also, don't confuse legality with notability. 86.56.48.12 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Its got nothing to do with legality. Wikipedia requires citation to establish notability and it hasn't been provied. Also read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA while you're at it.--Crossmr 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The subject of argument is not that PARADOX exists, how long they have existed, nor how credible they are, but the argument for deletion is that NO CREDIBLE SOURCES can be provided to PROVE the groups notability.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Syberwolff (talk • contribs)

IMHO the above is a strawman argument. In an AFD, credible (established & verifiable) sources are a tool to establish the article subjects's notability/credibility. Articles on notable subjects are kept (and subsequently improved where necessary). Articles on non-notable subjects are deleted. Once the balance of evidence indicates that a subject is indeed notable, an article is kept. The above note implies that because of a perceived lack of established mainstream sources, the article should face deletion irrespective of its subject's (implicitly conceded) notability. That turns things on its head. Established sources are the means towards the end, not an end in themselves. Granted, established sources are almost always a better tool to establish notability than other, inherently less powerful indicators. (Such less powerful indicators that have been used in AFDs include ample circumstantial evidence, abundant less well established sources, obviousness/common knowledge/accepted wisdom, expert testimony [eg. "I am a marine biologist and I can confirm..."] etc.). But the purpose of an AFD is not to prove disputed individual assertions within an article, it is only to determine whether the subject of an article does or does not deserve an article; ie. whether it is notable. 86.56.48.12 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. Paradox is pretty important as they have released a major crack for windows vista which is comparable to the "devils own" cd key for windows XP. I have a feeling that people will refer to the crack as the paradox crack. thanks - n84—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.184.30.18 (talk • contribs) 06:56, March 4, 2007.

"Yo," This has already been mentioned several times in the article and has been stated that while it proves they have done something notable there are no viable sources other than blogs etc.Syberwolff 17:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My counterargument is the same as to your above note. You concede that notability (of the group's activity) is proven. See my above comment. 86.56.48.12 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article serves it's purpose, it informs people who don't know what the warez group Paradox is as to what it is... I mean come on it's a warez group.. it can't really have much other than what it has it's not like their going to list the name and address of all of their members and what software they've cracked when etc. etc... Syberwolff 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats kind of the issue. In order for content to exist here there has to be an assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or every warez group, high school club, or otherwise would have an article here.--Crossmr 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unidentified user please calm down this is a civil discussion. Crossmr: Personally I would assume that "It was founded in 1990" and the vast variety of consoles would lend itself to their notability but if not I could do some research and find some. The only thing I ask is, and I don't know if you did this before-hand because I just looked at the article out of curiosity for the first time, but to mark it as needing varification, or as a stub or something (I'm still new on Wikipedia) instead of marking it for deletion. I believe every informative article should be welcome on Wikipedia as someone may be looking for information on Paradox and this is a good source (perhaps with a little more information, a great source.) And Vironex, he's saying that the article needs more sources citing how elaborate, and more evidence of how popular the group is.Syberwolff 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because wikipedia has a threshold for inclusion and articles which do not meet that threshold get removed. So far the comments have been in the same vein as the article. A bunch of claims that this is a notable topic, yet nothing to back it up. --Crossmr 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what the heck is the use of wikipedia if you can't get information on groups like Paradox? Crossmr, do your homework!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.74.86.5 (talk • contribs) 21:48, March 3, 2007.
- I'm not required to do any homework here. The article fails to establish the notability of the group with any references from reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Regardless of how big and important the group may be to the warez scene if that can't be verified it doesn't count for much on wikipedia.--Crossmr 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paradox is a pretty elaborate group. How exactly will anyone benefit from deleting this article? I think it'd be stupid not to have this article. I'll try to find some sources, so everybody wins. :) --Vironex 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a web group with attitude. What makes them more than that? Should they be anything more than a mention within Warez? (And anon IPs with attitude really don't help) Shenme 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they are notable for producing a crack for Vista that verifies the copy as genuine, allowing one to receive automatic updates. No other group to date has accomplished this feat, and it may also be impossible to "fix" given the nature of the crack. The following article describes this process, but does not directly contain content that violates copyright law. Link to article is here: http://www.uploadcrap.com/?subaction=showcomments&id=1172962283&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.161.84.80 (talk • contribs) 22:00, March 3, 2007.
  - Above user: Yes that does describe their RECENT popularity but it says nothing of past feats and past popularity.Syberwolff 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a blog that is not a reliable source per wikipedia's standards.--Crossmr 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a blog, but a news site, http://www.uploadcrap.com/blog/ would be a blog. --Vironex 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't need blog in the url to be a blog. Look at it, "Posted on 03 Mar 2007 by rjodwyer" and it has a comments seciton. That is a blog.--Crossmr 05:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Crossmr, That is indeed a blog. Syberwolff 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So I suppose Digg.com is a blog by your definition. I disagree. --Vironex 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It has a similar format for posting stories. Digg isn't useful as a citation either. The fact of the matter is, this is presented in a blog format, and we have no idea who richard is, or why his site should be considered a verifiable source of information on this. There is no assertion of editorial oversight either. Whether he wants to call it something other than a blog, or you do, there is no evidence that this site would be useful as news source.--Crossmr 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that its starting to come out nicely, there are a few credible sources and a few... other sources.. and the organization is coming along more. I'm trying to help out and I'm learning a lot about editing.Syberwolff 09:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article should be removed, not due to the fact that the information in the article is questionable at best I mean we don't edit out information about Nazis but there is no context to the article. While it is informational I don't believe there is enough static data to call this a true article. At most this entry is a suburb which can be listed under Warez.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.55.26 (talk • contribs) 22:05, March 3, 2007.
~~Keep~~. (see below) The article is gaining citations. As I previously stated, this is a very elaborate group and it makes sense to have a Wikipedia article about them. --Vironex 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I already pointed out, thats a blog and not a valid citation so it hasn't gained anything.--Crossmr 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would support merging it into the Warez article as a category(Is this right? Like I said: New) and having Paradox(warez) redirect there. Eventually if enough information is collected in that section then maybe give it it's own article Syberwolff 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This team is noteworthy. They are one of the oldest cracking groups, and deserve recognition as such. This is a good historical text, and I would be disappointed to see it disappear. --HaDAk 12:21, 4 March 2007 (EST)
- Provide the evidence then. Wikipedia requires citation.--Crossmr 05:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On their website they have cracked software avaliable from back to 1998, I'll provide a link momentarily. While this doesn't provide any notation of them being popular it does prove they are one of the oldest groups.http://www.paradogs.com/pdx_rels.htm - Dec 98 is the earliest.Syberwolff 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately age isn't the issue. The problem is notability, not longevity. They can be an old group without being notable.--Crossmr 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand that but you were asking him to provide evidence of the longevity as was my understanding. Going back to my earlier comment would you support merging it with Warez as a category?Syberwolff 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As long as any merged information was verifiable yes.--Crossmr 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know what kinds of sources are verifiable and I don't know how to go about finding such information and I doubt that there is much seeing as it's a warez group. But that sounds like a fair compromise to me.Syberwolff 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Start with these two pages, they should give you lots of information on how to start figuring out what is and isn't a good source: WP:V and WP:ATT.--Crossmr 05:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the three refs even come close to WP standards for verifiability.--Djrobgordon 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Crossmr is right, this article's citations are weak and not reliable. However, this team does deserve some mention, perhaps on the Warez page. I think a "Well-known warez groups" or some such section would be an appropriate placement, and this page could just redirect there. --Vironex 06:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I think their relevence has just been proven by the Vista issue; which has been reported by several sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.93.206 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-04 06:48:25
Wow. This article even comes with an editorial about the deletion policy and an editorial about free speech. Now, before I cast my !vote, lemme tell you a little something about the free speech provisions of the first amendment to the United States Constitution: THEY ONLY APPLY TO CONGRESS. The amendment says that Congress shall not make laws abridging the freedom of press/speech/et cetera, and Wikipedia is not congress - ergo, this doesn't apply. In otherwords, there is no way that Wikipedia can even remotely possibly violate your constitutional rights to freedom of speech. It's simply impossible. Don't believe me? Look it up and read the whole thing. If you want to say something about this group and have your freedom, use your l33t skillz and get your own server. So that said, Delete - for a lack of notability. The editorials don't help a damn. --Dennisthe2 07:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where the heck was free speech mentioned at all? And you go off on a tangent like you're going to say you want to keep it and then go and say the same thing thats been said over and over... Could you atleast have skipped the little temper tantrum?Syberwolff 07:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was mentioned here and then again here. Accusing other editors of having temper tantrums is not civil discourse. Please stop. Uncle G 11:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not provide reliable sources which either support or assert notability. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:ATT. --Haemo 07:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - No doubt this is a big time warez group. They have been around for years across many consoles and the PC. You can find easily find many refernces to them all over the net and everyone in the warez scene has heard of them. The article could use some cleanup and improvement but no way is this a delete. - Arch NME 08:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If usable source are so easy to find, could you please provide links to a couple of them?--Djrobgordon 08:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did just that, added three refs, especially look at the demo archive on pouet that is proof positive evidence that they have been around since 1990. - Arch NME 08:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did some major editing to this, obviously I think this is a Keep. Pjbflynn 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still a significant sourcing problem. I wouldn't call afterdawn.com a reliable source, since the linked news item is user-submitted and unreferenced.--Djrobgordon 08:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm curious as to why the example images were deleted......Syberwolff 08:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And your basis for that opinion? This is not a vote so please clarify why you think this article should be kept.--Crossmr 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks pretty notable to me. A cracking group that's been around 17 years and has cracked over a half dozen consoles as well as (apparently) Vista? If not that, then what sort of cracking group would be notable? There are also several secondary sources already linked in the article. Bryan Derksen 08:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a notability guideline for cracking groups? Otherwise we need some reliable sources to establish their notability.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Repeating your request for "reliable sources" in response to every single keep comment is not particularly helpful or useful. In this case, we have reliable sources that establish the existence, age, and some of the accomplishments of the group, and any notability guideline that would omit a 17-year-old cracking group that's done as much as this one appears to have done is a guideline in serious need of repair or ignoring. Not that I've seen anyone cite an applicable specialized notability guideline to begin with, for that matter. Bryan Derksen 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very notable, especially since cracking Vista. Needs work though. 83.245.19.172 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provide sources for establishing the notability.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable group - what is it with people nominating articled for deletion just because they're not familiar with the subject matter? RichardJohn 10:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CIVIL. If they're notable provide sources to establish it.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Paradox (and their ilk) are an important part of the history of the internet. While obtaining traditional references for their activity is, due to the very nature of their activities, very difficult, their social and economic impact is very real LochVoil 12:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verifiability. If it can't be sourced, it can't be on wikipedia.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable Group. They have been around for over a decade, and have had quite an impact on warez, and anti-piracy programs. Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 13:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then source it. Wikipedia is based on verifiability.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep They've just now cracked Vista, which all major tech news sites will pick up on. Deleting it now would just mean we'd have to recreate it. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 14:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're speculating that they will pick up on? Because if they had, then there would be some reliable sources, which still haven't been provided.--Crossmr 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least the inquirer has --⁪froth^T 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I'm happy to see this debate kept going after I went to sleep. Here's my quick analysis of the new sources:
- Scenery: History of Paradox, old and new: An article of unclear authorship which, at best, proves this group exists.
- Paradox releases first warez for Nintendo Wii A news article with no author credit, and of unclear origin. The "Site Info" page claims they use both Wikipedia and Answers.com as primary news sources, which wouldn't make the very dependable, and would run the risk of indirectly verifying a WP article through another WP article.
- Paradox PS3 loader confirmed This site's news articles are user submitted, and the editorial process, if any, is unclear. The focus of this article is the rumor of a hack which may or may not have been achieved.
- Article covering crack of Windows Vista I've already covered this one above, but briefly, news is user submitted, and or unclear origin.
- http://alien.untergrund.net/ I can't figure out what this is, or what it's supposed to prove.
- Article about Subcultures that mentions PARADOX as significant member of the demo scene Contains one trivial mention of PARADOX, at most proving they exist. This appears to be a translation of a self-published e-book.
- Paradox member arrested in New York State This is a legitimate source, a Washington Post article about one of the group's members being arrested. It has non-trivial coverage of PARADOX. I don't believe this single source justifies the existence of this article, but it's a start. Anyone voting to keep should keep in mind that this is the only usable source that's been found, and that any information kept must be confirmed therein. What's left would barely be a stub.--Djrobgordon 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a fair assessment, though a 17 year old article is pretty hard to hang your hat on.--Crossmr 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does age lessen notability? A lot of people are "hanging their hats on" a motley collection of articles that are 2000 years old (some older, some younger). Also, let's not confuse verifiability with notability. God for instance is not verifiable, but certainly notable. If you want to stick to your argumentum ad ignorantiam, be consistent and nominate God for deletion. 86.56.48.12 18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ILIKEIT for a list of arguments to avoid - which includes attempting to set precedent by nonsequitur. Further, if you think that the article for God should be removed, please, go ahead and just try to prove a point. --Dennisthe2 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any attentive reader will realise that I have no intention to AFD the God article. I don't subscribe to that kind of logic. I was making the point that if others subscribe to it, they should apply it consistently, not selectively (which would easily expose just how tenable their position is). 86.56.48.12 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the links are referring to something in the article, they are not specifically to prove notability but to show validity or and external link about something in the article. Syberwolff 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that almost none of the sources are usable, and the one that is, in my mind, does not prove notability or justify this article's existence.--Djrobgordon 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djrobgordon wrote:

``Paradox member arrested in New York State This is a legitimate source, a Washington Post article about one of the group's members being arrested. It has non-trivial coverage of PARADOX. I don't believe this single source justifies the existence of this article, (...)``

Why not? (Especially in conjunction with the other circumstantial evidence in the form of non-mainstream webpages?) A LOT of Wikipedia articles are significantly less well sourced. As far as I see it, the non-verifiable sources claim a record and the Washington Post article corroborates their claims. 86.56.48.12 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from the above assessment of the sources. Notability aside, an article has to meet attributability standards first and foremost. There aren't enough reliable sources about the subject here to create a thorough, neutral article. Even in the reliable article, this is all that's mentioned: "Paradox" which pirates software as soon as it is released and distributes it to its members. Paradox's members are located, among other places, in Long Island, Chicago, France and Denmark.. --Wafulz 17:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the standards you are trying to hold this article to are practically unreasonable. The mainstream tech media isn't going to hand out props to the guys fucking their sponsors. This article has gone from an F- to an A in terms of quality since this afd thread started. Every article in the Warez groups category [43] would be deleted by your logic, seriously go take a look at all of them. I'm done messing with this thing but I think it will be a shame if you delete it now. We are talking about deletion here not making featured article status. - Arch NME 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completly agree, I think we have put together a quality article with information about what the group does, who started it, what they do, examples of what they do, and several outside resources which would make this an informative article. The underground cannot have 'viable sources' otherwise it would not be.. underground.. the whole goal of the underground is fame in infamy with anonymity.Syberwolff 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment One of Wikipedia's inherent biases, which I don't have a ready solution for, is that groups which operate far enough outside the mainstream that the legitimate press either can't or doesn't cover them, are at an inherent disadvantage. However, that doesn't change the fact that all information on this site must be verified. There's plenty of useful material out there that is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. After all, this is an encyclopeida, not the aggregate of all human knowledge. If this group is written about later, they can have an article then. Groups like Skull and Bones existed for decades before there would have been enough good info or media coverage to write a Wikipedia article about them.--Djrobgordon 17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skull and bones couldn't have had an article because no one knew much of anything about them. Go look at the eternal links at the bottom of the page, look at all the demos on pouet, look at the releases on enforce. This is a significant body of work. These are the legit sources of the scene. Skull and bones didn't go around tagging everything they put there hands on, warez groups do. These tags have been documented by third party sources and referneced in the article. -Arch NME 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are not reliable source. Would you disagree with my assessments above of any of them? And, per your question, I think almost all of the warez articles are of dubious notability and verifiability, but I'm not going to AfD them all just to prove that point.--Djrobgordon 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the wikipedia policys are set in stone and I would remind you that this is not a bureaucracy and we can basically use our collective judgement and common sense to do whatever we feel is the correct course of action. That is the solution to inherent bias. - Arch NME 18:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's an encyclopedia but it's not an encyclopedia by the common terms it's an encyclopedia of the modern world. Warez and the like are part of the modern world and should be documented as such. People look for all sorts of things on google and on wikipedia (and wikipedia tends to be the first result on google) and is an easy database to find almost anything you want information on.Syberwolff 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is insanity. Do NOT try to make this about "credible sources". You either have an agenda or are trying to cover up your initial screw-up that was suggesting to delete something YOU never heard about. This is a warez group, they don't use Hilton & Knowles for press releases, they don't give interviews, they try to stay OUT of the media. There are articles and links quoted, but THEIR sources are not reliable enough? These high standards would get a lot religious articles in trouble. Can you please point out exactly what you are after? A glossy paper print of "Top of the pops of the warez scene"? I have no affiliation with Paradox nor the warez scene (other than seeing their stuff on my Amiga 15 years ago), but I do read on the web from time to time about them and other childhood heroes like Fairlight and Razor 1911. Ok, angry rant.Finishing off with a source. Here, mostly from the demo division, but also some cracktros: http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=156 (Update: Replaced with better link). And no, I did not sign up for this article. I signed up for Brian Peppers, but couldn't edit it :d Levelcourt 19:28, 4 March 2007
- "What I'm after" is best summed up by the link I provided above to WP's policies on reliable sources. Whether you like it or not, Wikipeida requires that an article topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial works." I had no hand in writing this policy, but I agree with it and will enforce it. If you want a specific example of a warez article that meets these standards, DrinkOrDie has sources such as the Sydney Morning Herald, ZDNetUK, a couple of Slashdot articles, and a news release from the United States Department of Justice. None of those sources alone would prove notability, but together they make a good case. More importantly, they provide verifiable information from publications with editorial review. Again, if anyone disagrees with my analysis of a source, speak now.--Djrobgordon 19:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

drink or die only has those sources cus they were busted on a massive scale. You are basically saying you have to be arrested to make it in wikipedia on this topic. I'll say again this is not a bureaucracy and use some human judgement here, WP:IAR. Also in regard to your comment levelcourt, this article wouldn't have been nominated for deletion if it was in the condition it is in now, the original nom was an understandable mistake. Please assume good faith - Arch NME 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying at all. The Unabomber was notable long before he was arrested and before his identity was known, because he was written about at length by a number of sources. I'm going to have a real life for a few hours, so don't take the fact that I won't be responding immediately as an acceptance of anything.--Djrobgordon 19:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You are basically saying you have to be arrested to make it in wikipedia on this topic." Note the bold text!!! He said IN THIS TOPIC.. Was the Unabomber a Warez Pirate? Uhh.. I don't think so! I don't know if the bold was edited in after your comment or what but to ignore it is just plain.. ignorance... Murders would appear on the six o'clock news, cracked software.. not so much!Syberwolff 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAR was not created to keep articles which can't be properly sourced. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are non-negotiable cornerstones and foundations of wikipedia. IAR doesn't apply.--Crossmr 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not an issue of original research or neutral point of view going on here. It's one of reliable sources. IAR does apply in fact this is a perfect case for it. - Arch NME 06:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/05/1740222 (The submitter mistook Paradox for a person, but as a "ctrl-f paradox" will show, several readers point out it is a group. But I guess as it refers to Engadget, it is not qualified as a source either. Levelcourt
Delete per nom. Roehl Sybing 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- this is a very well-known and significant group. Just because its activities are grey-area doesn't mean it's not worthy of an article. Killdevil 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is not on the content and legality of it but on the verifability of the documentation.Syberwolff 22:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you comment after this, I will not answer it. Cman 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain your reasoning. This is not a vote, its a discussion.--Crossmr 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. not a single source that meets WP:RS. --Fredrick day 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair there is one, the story from 1990 about the arrest. Though I wonder, the website only has cracks going back to 1998, and the arrest was 8 years before that. It wouldn't be the first time I'd see a group name snatched.--Crossmr 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read ref 1 from the article it's got the full story on that. -Arch NME 08:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, for those who are inclined to keep: please note that editorializing, wikilawyering, being uncivil, or pulling out any of these comments as your !vote reasons will not help the article. Per the comment at the top of the AfD, the question is whether this group is notable above and beyond the warez or demo scene, and whether the sources of notability are reliable. If you want to change our mind, answer those questions. --Dennisthe2 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be notable above and beyond the warez/demo scene any more than a band needs to be notable above and beyond the music scene. You could make any number of analogys here to different "scenes", science, art, sports, etc. The scene itself is notable and therefore the major players in it are. IMHO anyway. - Arch NME 08:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep the sources are where you would expect sources on this sort of thing to be, It is time we recognized the different nature of sources for some types of subject--can it be that WP is getting ossified, like some other enclyclopedias? (smile) The exclusion of articles about what everyone on both sides of the discussion knows to be well known, is , I would hope, an anomaly. The people here saying keep are basically saying the rule needs adaption to reality, and they are right. Reinterpretation here is a very good way to change it. DGG 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument to change policy - not to save this article based on the current policy. There is no way that the fundemental changes to WP:RS suggested here can or should be achieved via this AFD. --Fredrick day 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A source can be usable for sourcing information but not for establishing notability. Notability is the issue here and why its been raised for deletion. Press releases for example can be used to cite information, but even if 100 notable reliable sources picked it up and reprinted it, you can't use that as a basis to form an article on the subject.--Crossmr 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Someone has apparently added what looks like a "reliable source" for the windows vista story from APC magazine[44]. I would also like to add one of the comments an APC reader made to this discussion to illustrate the systemic bias we are dealing with.

"Why would you post something like this to the public. All that you are doing is advertising a hack for people to get their hands on. APC Mag is no worse then the hackers themselves. Giving out the name of the hack with the screenshot and everything. Any idiot can now do a search for this hack. You are telling how the hole is being exploited , the same as giving away trade secrets. Im sure this information isnt supposed to be in the public domain. I hope there is a lawsuit waiting for APC mag." - eko2000

I think that really says it all right there. -Arch NME 06:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we're only including information from reliable sources, the "Raids and Arrests" section could stay, as well as a sentence about the Windows Vista keygen. That would be the entire article. It would be an embarrassment to Wikipedia, but it would be factual. I am not endorsing this course of action, but rather pointing out the context-free trivia list this article will be if kept.--Djrobgordon 06:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I find articles like this and then see that they are up for deletion this causes me to be very irritated. Just what is Wikipedia for? Are the editors being bought off? Are some of the editors actually secreate agents of the commercial establishment. Lets face it - if the commercial establishment had their way there would not even be a Wikipedia! This place was createrd by people to share information; not by money grubbing commericalists who try to keep information secrete to protect their profits!!! Editors > Uphold and "protect" our and your right to recieve information through "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"! Don't succumb to the pressures of the few that say people should't be ALLOWED to know that.§ Wdwester 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)wdwester — wdwester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment User:Wdewster's only edits are to this afd.--Djrobgordon 20:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine, I've personally been paid a million dollars from Microsoft to put in my Delete vote. Dude, get your head on straight and get with the %#$@%#!! program! --Dennisthe2 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep :- Notable group. Is popular after vista crack. --SkyWalker 08:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Are now very notable. Macktheknifeau 08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the awards section that Arch NME Added is a very good source of notability.Syberwolff 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the looks of it, WP:N feels otherwise. --Dennisthe2 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only are those awards not significant, the gatherings they were handed out at aren't even notable. They don't have articles on their respective languages' Wikipedias, and my Google test was an utter failure. Also, I'm curious why, if this Vista hack is such a huge deal, no major tech news sites (CNET, Wired, PC World, etc.) have picked up on it. They're usually pretty quick to cover security breaches in Microsoft products.--Djrobgordon 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those links were not added to establish notability they were added to provide more substance to the article from reliable sources. No these minor awards by themselves do not make the subject notable but notability has already been established. It's just meat. - Arch NME 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radman1s Computer Underground notability test - Arch NME 08:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting the link, "[this] scoring system represents my personal opinion and nothing more, it is not official Wiki-policy". The quote says it all. This does not make it notable. --Dennisthe2 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's pretty damn obvious to anyone dennis. I don't honestly think the reviewing admin is going to get confused and mistake radman1s cunt for an official wikipedia policy. Further, my 50 various arguments for notability have been made above, feel free to reread them all. I just put it out there cus I thought it might be of interest for this discussion as it adds that guys opinion of what makes for a worthy article on this subject. - Arch NME 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if you think it's that obvious, then why are you obfuscating the AfD with nonsense? --Dennisthe2 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not nonsense, it's not an official policy, it is what it is and like I said above it represents another users opinion of what makes for a worthy article on this subject and is therefore relevant if only in a minor capacity, much as just another editor comment placed here would be. - Arch NME 08:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Come on, I completly agree with Arch and this link he posted, while its OBVIOUSLY not official policy it is something that can be followed to help in the process of noting articles like this seeing as there is usually very little actual notable sources. We need articles like this on wikipedia and we need a guideline to follow for their sources and that is exactly what ArchNME has provided with that link. ^SyBer_WoLff 14:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, as is demonstrated, this is not the place to discuss policy changes - this is the place to discuss whether the PARADOX warez group is notable. So far, I see opinions of what should be notable and suggestions for policy changes - and nothing, with the possible exception of the links provided by the anon user, has really proven that it is. If you think it's notable, then change my mind by doing something with those links in conjunction with WP:V and WP:N. Don't complain here about policy or go wikilawyering, because that will not change my mind. That said, I've nothing more to say on the topic. --Dennisthe2 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Dennis maybe you should go actually read the WP:LAWYER page. After you have done that tell me which side of this debate it sounds to you like it's describing. I would especially look really hard at numbers 2 and 3 on the list at the top. Not trying to be a dick here but honestly you are completely offbase throwing that one out there. I don't see syberwolf throwing alot of legal terminology your way, I don't see him being overly anal about technicalitys in the rules. Just debating a subject is not wikilawyering. Further a notable source has been provided, the APC mag Vista crack article. It establishes notability and is a reliable source. Not every single source in an article needs to establish notability. Other rational arguments have been made for the case of notability as well but you seem to be to caught up in the letter of the policys to have heard them. You are a human being not a RULEBOT5000 please start acting like it. No one needs to change any policy here and no one is suggesting that we do. Here's a qoute from WP:CREEP that you ought to take note of "Our editors are volunteers, and are not obliged to follow procedure if they feel following them doesn't benefit the encyclopedia." and another from WP:LAWYER "Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted in a commonsensical way to achieve the purpose of the policy" and another from WP:IAR "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.". If anyone is acting like the wikilawyer here it is you. It's good to know the policys and often very good to follow them but keep them in perspective for what they are. - Arch NME 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Notice how once you prove to him that he's wrong he won't even admit it. I think that 'Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit;' perfectly describes the current situation. He in interpreting the rules on notability by the letter and violating the spirit of wikipeda itself, to provide information that is truthful. All of the information on the group has been proven to be truthful in one way or another. I believe that the sheer volume of sources we have alone would also provide notability. We have in my oppinion showed many times over how notable this group is and in several different forms. I am amazed that people still deny their notability.^SyBer_WoLff 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I currently can't be arsed (due to the amount of material) but textfiles.com could be trawled for info about PARADOX' activities. A cursory Google search seems to return a number of articles related to the group [45] (though not all of these hits are). 86.56.48.12 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears typical of Wikipedia, a valid article up for deletion on a whim. A few of my own articles have been erased for no good reason and this bad taste the Wikipediaphiles (similar to audiophiles but for Wiki) are leaving with internet users is doing nothing for the general feel good factor it had a year ago. On the topic of Paradox, I'm sure I could go and dig out a dusty CDR from 8 years ago, find the FILE_ID.DIZ file and the related .NFO, fire them up onto Geoshities and call that conclusive proof. DJRikki
- You're being far too optimistic here. The people you're talking to have never heard of FILE_ID.DIZ and .NFO files. See my original comment above. 86.56.48.12 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course. Why explain why these files are relevant when you can insult other editors for not knowing instead?--Djrobgordon 01:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional thoughts: If there's an article for Red Sector (TRSI) (and for [later] single demoscene products such as .kkrieger), then surely a group of PARADOX' stature deserve an article, too. (Again, it's obvious to me that the OP had no idea of the significance of the cracking scene in the history of IT, much less being actually qualified to assess the relative importance of the major players at the time.) 86.56.48.12 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Djrobgordon: I'm under no obligation to explain anything to you here. These are all voluntary contributions. If you want me to help you, try asking politely. If you don't want to do that, then you're welcome to pay me by the hour and I'll help you anytime you want. Also, is stating an obvious truth really an insult? I may not have been particularly polite above (that's a fair criticism), but I stand by my words insofar as I believe they were right on the money. Now obviously I could dig my heels in and not tell you anything, because you didn't exactly ask a friendly question, but anyway: There was significant overlap between the BBS scene and the warez-cracker/cracktro/demoscene. Both FILE_ID.DIZ and *.NFO files frequently accompanied warez found on BBSes. Watch this documentary for details on the BBS scene: http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/ Apart from that, in the words of Keith Olbermann: "Use teh Google!" If you did http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/, you would probably discover that there's this really nifty encyclopedia out there, which just happens to have articles on these subjects: FILE_ID.DIZ, NFO/.nfo

PS: If you want to look at NFO files these days, you have to use a viewer that can properly display the good old Code page 437 (which was the standard). Otherwise all you'll see is gobbledygook. 86.56.48.12 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only remotely related nostalgia:

I just found this text file: http://www.textfiles.com/piracy/HUMBLE/read.thg

From the file:

(...) we desperately need a 9600 baud HST compatible modem.

And 9600 baud was once considered FAST. Much faster than those 300 baud acoustic couplers, anyway. 86.56.48.12 02:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your argument above is not a valid argument for inclusion, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Furthermore, the attitude is really, really not conducive here. Furthermore, none of this matters - unless you can produce independent, verifiable sources, your opinion about whether or not said piece of software is important is moot. It really doesn't matter what the nominator knows about cracking, wares, or whatever other topic your care to insult him over - all that matters is that this article does not meet standards under WP:NOTE and no one has been able to bring it up to standards by providing the necessary sources. One does not have to be an expert on a subject to help enforce Wikipedia's guidelines on pages relating to it. --Haemo 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

86.56.48.12: You're not helping me, you're helping the article. If you actually have an interest in keeping it, you have a better chance of changing someone's mind by explaining your point. The only purpose of your comment was to point out the ignorance of others, and that's not civil or productive. Do you honestly believe it added any substance to this debate? As to the above comment, those files would prove that this group exists, a point with which no editor has disagreed. The objections to this article are that it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for notability and that there isn't enough verifiable information to write an article. There are plenty of arguments above about why PARADOX is notable, but none about how it meets Wikipedia notability standards. There are plenty of sources, but almost none of them are usable to establish notability. I have no problem changing my vote on an AfD when the article comes into accordance with standards, but it hasn't happened here.--Djrobgordon 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Demo Scene Encyclopedia search — Go ahead! Scoff at it! Say that it's "not credible"! You're welcome! :) 86.56.48.12 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've proven, once again, that PARADOX exists, and that they released a series of cracks between 1990 and 1995. Nobody is disputing that. If I'm supposed to get something else from this source, you're going to have to spell it out for me.--Djrobgordon 06:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inflated view of one's own insignificant discussion group does not make it notable. To be very blunt, I am sick of such delusions of grandeur. --Nlu (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not some discussion group it's a warez production group. --⁪froth^T 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is one of the most famous cracking groups- definately notable. FYI here's an inquirer article about their most recent feat- a BIOS emulation driver that convinces WGA that your Vista is OEM --⁪froth^T 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above article is definitely a good article to establish notability. ^SyBer_WoLff 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - well known, notable group --J2thawiki 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the sheer volume of sources we have alone would also provide notability. We have in my oppinion showed many times over how notable this group is and in several different forms. I am amazed that people still deny their notability.^SyBer_WoLff 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - They've shown notability and have provided sources to back up the article. That's all that is needed in this debate. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Awyong J. M. Salleh 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Rich Kosann

[edit]

Not sure how notable this jewelry designer is. Significant search engine presence, but a majority of the hits are to shopping listings, eBay, etc. No evidence that her corporation meets WP:CORP. A few media mentions, one of which is listed here, but I find nothing to break the "multiple, non-trivial" threshold. Possible WP:COI issue, as the primary author of the article has no other edits to the Main namespace. Contested PROD. Delete due to insufficient evidence from WP:RS that this person meets WP:BIO as a corporate figure, author, or entrepreneur. Kinu ^t/_c 05:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough citations given from reputable secondary sources. Smee 10:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, meets criterion of being the subject multiple independent published works. I expanded the article and added the references below.

Nawracaj, Carol Ann (May 1997). Treasures from Heaven: the Gift of Children. Penguin Studio. ISBN 978-0670872893. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Nawracaj, Carol Ann (May 2001). Thank Heaven For Little Girls. Adams Media Corporation. ISBN 978-1580622813. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Cooney, Beth (2001-06-04). "Photographer focuses candid lens on little girls". The Journal Gazette. Retrieved 2007-03-03.

Matchan, Linda (2005-06-02). "When images are everything". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2007-03-03.

Shustack, Mary (2002-11-22). "Photographer recycles vintage accessories into classy frames". The Journal News. Retrieved 2007-03-03.

Colborn, Marge (2005-06-18). "Father's Day case is a keeper". The Detroit News. Retrieved 2007-03-03.

Das, Lina (2005-12-24). "Daily Mail: bling in the new". The Daily Mail. Retrieved 2007-03-03.

Adams, Cindy (2006-11-10). "Duchess' son finds adventures in food". New York Post. Retrieved 2007-03-03.

Kosann, Monica Rich (2004). The Fine Art of Family. MRK Fine Arts LLC. ISBN 978-0974420202.

"Local photographer captures "The Fine Art of Family"". The New Canaan Advertiser. 2004-10-07. Retrieved 2007-03-03.

Kuchment, Anna (2005-10-17). "Style: A Secret Picture". Newsweek. Retrieved 2007-03-03.

Gupte, Pranay (2006-03-13). "The Rich and Famous Line Up for Her Heirlooms". The New York Sun. Retrieved 2007-03-03.

Conway, Pat (2001-05-13). "Fortune smiles when a nun's on your team". The News-Times. Retrieved 2007-03-03.

—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 04:11Z
Keep per evidence cited by Quarl. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that notability has been estabilished. Krimpet 05:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability and sources established. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 06:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Userfication is available upon request. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:22Z

Toytonic

[edit]

Article is about a mere private constructed language that is clearly non-notable. N-true 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all content added by a single user, notability not asserted, no ghits whatsoever. Krimpet 04:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a strong possibility that this article is a hoax, especially with the lack of notability and lack of Google hits (although lack of Google hits is by itself not a good reason for deletion). --Nevhood 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references or origins noted. The hoax worry enhanced by the unexplained name. Notation of numbers is usually a cultural trait, rather than that of a language, leading me to believe this is a collection of notes (see WP:NFT) Shenme 04:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.I kind of know the author of this article and I can confirm that this is a private constructed language that was only dreamt up a couple of days ago. It's not a hoax. But it's lack of notability does indeed mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and I told them that when they first created the article. Sorry I don't have a Wikipedia account or anything so I can't sign this comment to lend any credibility to my assertion, but take it for what you will. --211.0.147.241 07:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Hello all. I am the author of this page and of much of the content. I am not thoroughly familiar with the rules of what does and does not constitute a wiki entry. But, my main concern is that this entry is being considered for deletion merely on the basis of age. This is a new language. It's a little older than a few days in concept, planning, and execution but I have only recently began to publicly ask for assistance with the project (outside of a group of enthusiats, linguists and contributors). Now, about Toytonic. Toytonic is the product of an ongoing collaborative effort between linguists and language educators to develop a language that is based on PIE and it's early daughter languages while evolving those systems into a more dynamic language. Toytonic is based on the word roots of PIE and several functional features of other Indo-Eurpean languages. These ancient forms have been modified to place the language at a point that accounts for the evolution from PIE that most linguists agree to be inevitable natural changes (mostly phonetic). Then, the language is structured to be absolute (everything has only one meaning). It should be simply in structure and easily learned in a short period of time. The efforts have resulted in a grammar, basic vocabulary and rules for adding to the lexicon, and some spoken and written speech. The next step will be to compile a larger lexicon with cross-references to English, German, and Spanish. From there an effort will begin to begin establishing a literature through writing and translation. As is stands, the language can be spoken and written, has been and will continue to be. That constitues a language. The entry is not complete (it takes some effort to write this in wiki form so as not to confuse non-linguists). But, even in a non-completed form, there is already more information on Toytonic on wiki than many attested languages. There are also several other constructed, engineered, and even fictional languages with multiple wiki entries. My main point is that Toytonic is no different now than Esperanto, Klingon, or most other constructed languages were in their infancy. And then other people said they should not be considered languages. Today there are large communities of both and even native speakers in each. Shouldn't Toytonic be considered on its merits and not just on the fact that you've never heard of it? -- Drew.ward

Its merits for the purpose of an encyclopedia have only to do with notability. Since you admit the language is only a fews days old, it cannot possibly meet standards unde WP:NOTE. I urge you to delete this article yourself, or userfy it - since my !vote too is strong delete. --Haemo 11:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you put quite much effort into creating of this page, I would suggest you copy the entire article into a sub-page of your userpage (but without linking it from other articles). That way you can improve it further until – as you hope – it becomes much more well-known and elaborated and until you indeed have found linguists that want to work on this project. Also, if Esperanto had been invented 3 days ago, we would delete it as well. The point is that being a few days old makes your language almost by definition non-notable (maybe it will grow famous, in future, though); plus Google doesn't show even one related hit for "Toytonic". — N-true 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references or origins noted because this idea was dreamt up a few days ago. The name is a reference to the site on which the idea was first posted. It HAS no merits. The "article" is abuse of Wiki in an attempt to gain credibility (user is posting links to the Wiki entry). The "language", while proclaiming to be a simplification, combines the worst of all linguistic and orthotic ideas. It is as legitimate as Jimmy Wales' degrees in religion. While numerous synthetic languages exist, in natural language terms this one isn't even up to the stage of "meaningful grunting". BadDoggie 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would be inclined to agree with N-true that the article author should userfy it until it gains notability, but it doesn't seem likely to, especially in the near future. Wikipedia is not a personal web host. I would suggest the article creator look into transwiki-ing this article to a linguistic wiki, or starting his own. —Carolfrog 19:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned this, but this is clearly original research, which is not allowed here. --UsaSatsui 16:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it may be splendid but no evidence of Notability in the Wikipedian sense, and it all looks like OR. Put it in your user space if you like, but not in Wikipedia NBeale 23:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable original research Ooooooooo 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete IronGargoyle 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raina rose

[edit]

Appears to be spam by NN artist; non-sales/blog Ghits hard to come by. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She does have a lot of Google hits with potential sources for the article, I suggest we wait it out. --Nevhood 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And move the article to Raina Rose --Nevhood 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: While there are a lot of Google hits the page does look like an ad and the creator, I suspect, is the artist or her production company (See: contribs). This was that user's only contribution. Additionally I am not sure if any of the first few pages of web hits establish notability. I saw a lot of concert announcements, some cds for sale stuff, her myspace and website, her record company etc etc. This may seem like a lot of sources but I don't know if they are reliable, especially regarding notability. I mean, a lot of NN bands have production companies and websites and CDs and concerts. Seems suspect, at the very least it needs cleaned up, badly and/or tagged accordingly.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 10:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, there are quite a few Ghits, but when you begin looking at them, they are page after page of ads for selling CDs, artist/label promos, blogs, and brief myspace comments/"reviews". If there was a single notable independent review, I couldn't find it in the first five Ghit pages or skimming through the next five. Best I can tell is that she may be an up-and-coming — but not yet notable — talent and principally a local phenomenon limited to Oregon. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every review available seems to be listed on her press kit[46] page, and I can't see anything major enough to save her. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm always suspicious when every single link in an article is an external link to some form of advertisement for the subject of the article of their cohorts. Verkhovensky 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:21Z

Baseball (drinking game)

[edit]

A Google search showed pretty definitively that this game exists, but I see no evidence that it's notable, or that there are viable source to be found, unless you think DrinkingGameRules.com is reliable. It seems the game is derivative of Beer pong and Quarters, both of which are notable, but I don't believe that makes this notable. Djrobgordon 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least there isn't a Test cricket drinking game. A multi-day drinking game could definitely ruin your liver, or at least drain a couple hundred kegs. As far as this article goes, it sounds like something made up in a bar one day, and without any sort of reliable sources or any real claim of notability, this article should go under the table. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 05:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:20Z

Blue Jays-Tigers rivalry

[edit]

If this rivalry ever existed, it was only for the 1987 season. Neither of the respective team articles (Detroit Tigers and Toronto Blue Jays) refer to any rivalry between them. Not that my opinion carries much any weight, but I'm a Tigers fan, and I can think of at least three teams I'd consider bigger rivals. Not that a Google search is terribly valuable here, but the phrase "'Detroit Tigers' 'Toronto Blue Jays' rivalry" doesn't turn up much indicating that there is one. This article is completely unsourced, and is authored almost entirely by one editor. Only incoming article link is from the dubiously sourced List of Major League Baseball rivalries. Expect to see a couple more of those up here, once I dig through them. Djrobgordon 05:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Aside from the fact that they used to both be in the AL East before the 1994 realignment, and thus had the same "rivalry" as any other set of two teams that fought for the same playoff spot, this is positively un-notable. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a less notable rivalry if I was just drawing names out of a hat. Yankees - Red Sox, definitely, that's a rivalry. Giants - Dodgers, sure, Yankees - Dodgers, even if they rarely meet, I'd still consider a candidate for a rivalry based on the World Series battles of the 50s. Hey, maybe you can even make a case for Twins - Rangers (both ex-Washington Senator teams) or the handful of "paired" expansion teams (Rockies - Marlins springs to mind, since they were both in the NL). Jury's still out with me on those last two hypotheticals. But Blue Jays and Tigers is absurd. --Action Jackson IV 06:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Action Jackson. If neither article refers to the rivalry, then it must be insignificant. In contrast, the New York Yankees article clearly mentions the rivalry between the Yankees and the Red Sox throughout the article. In fact, there's an entire article on the topic, the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. - PoliticalJunkie 15:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Jays and Expos had a bigger rivalry in the 1980s through the Pearson Cup than did the Jays and Tigers. Resolute 19:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-existent rivalry. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yanks-Sox it ain't. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:20Z

Kaileena

[edit]

Merge into suitable article; not notable enough for own. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on condition of additional sourcing and cleanup of way too much OR, otherwise delete. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteno notability on its own. Violation of WP:FICT. Note that video games are covered in fiction. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 06:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and trim. Not so important a character she needs her own section. The Great Unwashed 10:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Allies. I just cleaned it up, and it looks like there's just not enough decent material left to maintain her own page. --Bishop2 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epileptic Gaming

[edit]

Internet video talk show; article does not establish show's notability. —tregoweth (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a small list of notable interviews/guests that have appeared on the show. -FatBaby 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the page does plenty to desplay the show's notability. I'll add some more stuff just so there will be no question in anyone's mind Domataos 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If an article doesn't have reliable sources that state that the subject is truly notable then the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Whispering 20:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the guests may be notable, but I couldn't find any independant sources to confirm that the show is. One site suggested that a few hundred people watch the show, which makes me suspect that it's unlikely to meet the notability guideline at this point.--Kubigula (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:18Z

Bloobis

[edit]

I can find no indication that this is an actual term. And even if it is, it needs external sources in order to be included on Wikipedia (WP:RS). So, delete. Crystallina 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - suspected WP:HOAX; non-notability. anthonycfc ^[talk] 06:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - including WP, 7 hits. Also, WP:DICDEF. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nonsense.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suspected WP:HOAX. If confirmed, then delete per WP:WINAD. -- Black Falcon 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for oh so many reasons: at best a neologism, more likely a hoax, dict-def, little or no context. Pascal.Tesson 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, impossible to merge all info. Jersey Devil 20:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs from Family Guy

[edit]

Very obvious fancruft/listcruft. Notable songs should be listed in the episode articles. A whole list of them isn't notable. Lots of shows have songs: it doesn't mean there should be list pages for songs. RobJ1981 06:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list, total cruft, has no place on WP. It's just a retread of the already questionable trivia that lurks on the Family Guy ep pages. Booshakla 06:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable songs to their relevant articles; then delete this list.--TBCΦtalk? 06:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious fancraft and original research --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 06:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is fancruft that should exist on a fansite, not here. JuJube 09:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info into the episode articles & then delete. SkierRMH 02:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the info to their respective articles. --Candy-Panda 07:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The Family Guy is another program popular partly due to it's music and therefor in my opinion the music itself is notable. It would be ashame to loose all this information on a popular show. Merging would be a compromise, but i my opinion keeping this article would be better. Poeloq 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. Merge if you wish, though. Part Deux 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Family Guy is a show notable for its song parodies. Not so much WP:OR as it is not currently verified, and if some reliable source did study these song parodies then you bet they would have the same conclusions using WP:COMMON SENSE. If delete, interested readers must go through every single episode article to dig out all the songs, when they could just use this list. If this information belongs anywhere, it belongs here as well (WP:NOT#PAPER). Fancruft would be trivia that has absolutely nothing to do with the outside world. This list does, and if anyone wonders how Family Guy could be important in relation to other culture, then this list would prove valuable encyclopedic use without making an OR synthetic statement. –Pomte 03:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, then redirect to his father, where a brief mention is appropriate. Xoloz 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael DiBiase Jr.

[edit]

nn independent wrestler, main claim to fame is being son of famous wrestler. Booshakla 06:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has only competed in leagues which may themselves fail notability, therefore doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). —dgies^t_c 09:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The DiBiase wrestling family is a big part of professional wrestling. Michael DiBiase Jr. is a third generation superstar, has been trained by the likes of wrestling legends Chris Romero and Harley Race. He is currently out with an injury but is on the verge of signing with World Wrestling Entertainment. The DiBiase family has a huge fan following in the pro-wrestling business and the next generation of that family deserves a page on Wiki as much as any other wrestler.
- When he signs with WWE, then maybe he's notable. Until then, he's got nothing, and sponging off dad or grandpa for notability doesn't cut it. --UsaSatsui 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The wrestling equivalent of a minor-leaguer, whatever his family background. And "on the verge of" signing with WWE? WP ain't a crystal ball. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every article has a price, this one can't afford the notability. MLA 11:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insert evil laugh and delete. Biggspowd 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. He may get there, but not now. Until then, maybe redirect to Ted DiBiase? --UsaSatsui 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like this one isn't even a contest, but I say keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burquelo (talk • contribs)
- Well, it's not a vote. If you feel so strongly it's a keep, despite what we say, please tell us why you feel that way. Put forth a good argument, you may change minds (and remember to sign your posts).--UsaSatsui 21:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. You people are getting way to delete happy around here. He sounds notable to me. I say let it stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.113.4 (talk • contribs)
- Great! Why should we let it stay? --UsaSatsui 09:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you look at wrestlers on Wikipedia from Ring of Honor and other Indy Promotions that are on WP, what claim to fame do they have for being on Wiki? Because they may have jobbed to Samoa Joe? Ring of Honor, why it is popular on The East Coast, it's still an Indy fed and yet every member of their roster has a WP page. Michael DiBiase is just as notable as any of those indy wrestlers and should be allowed to keep his WP page.

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

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

The result was limited keep, with qualifications. Nearly every commenters agrees that the fact of the eclipse on a given day is notable and encyclopedic. The dispute is whether this particular eclipse warrants an individual article, as it is not significantly different (from a layperson's point of view) from any other exclipse. On reading the debate, there is consensus here to merge the raw data from this article to a List of lunar eclipses. To my great surprise, this article does not yet exist. Such a list should be created forthwith, and this article merged to it. In the meantime, it is inappropriate to delete this information outright, and there is no consensus to do that. Xoloz 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 March 2007 lunar eclipse

[edit]

There is nothing inherently notable about individual lunar eclipses, total or otherwise. A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't assert its importance. They are twice a year. Unless some doomsday cult offed itself, I think we should delete this one. Valley2city 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At this point there is no need for it, but maybe someone that has some spare time could create a list, maybe called List of lunar eclipses or equivalent. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Consistency, people! Why would this be less notable than, for example, Solar eclipse of 2005 October 3, while that one wasn't even a total eclipse? And to get to the root of the case; what warrants the existence of a Wikipedia article, is when people want encyclopedic information about a particular subject. I came to this page to find just that information about the 3 March eclipse, and I'm sure a lot of people interested in this sort of phenomena like encyclopedic information about the particular event. - Troy 09:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe that should be nominated too. TJ Spyke 11:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do think solar eclipse are inherently more notable than lunar eclipses, but perhaps. On the fence on that one.A mcmurray (talk • [[User:Edisoncontribs) 11:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- lots of reliable sources have documented the eclipse Astrotrain 09:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Troy, I came looking specifically for information on this eclipse, and surely that's the point of an encyclopedia, to give information on a specific search. Korinkami 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: All total lunar eclipses are the same.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Troy and Korinkami, I was also looking for specific information on this eclipse and the article may want to add further data from astronomic websites. mcmurray's comment above is wrong if applied to total lunar eclipses, they do not occur with the same frequency of generic eclipses (last total eclipse visible from the UK was in 2004), and they are hardly ever the same, unless you specify what you mean by the same. --DarTar 10:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The same thing happens with the Earth and the moon and the Sun. They are simply visible from different locations due to the rotation of the Earth, or something like that. My point is that the information you are going to get that differentiates it from any other lunar eclipse from this article is trivial at best. Date, time, location viewed from. Just my opinion though.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Sorry to blather so much. But this could be resolved by having an article on Total lunar eclipse, if they are different from the partial ones, which they are. Anyway, again nothing inherently notable about any individual total lunar eclipse. The information could be in one article for all total lunar eclipses. Otherwise, since this stuff is predictable far into the future, we could fill the wiki with articles about lunar and solar eclipses for all time. Just a thought.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I agree there's nothing inherently notable about any individual total lunar eclipse, that doesn't imply that all total lunar eclipses are necessarily not notable. Each total eclipse is actually different since the relative positions of Sun, Moon and Earth are never exactly the same, leading to a different experience from Earth for each. People remember individual eclipses, so why not write about them? Give the article a chance to grow beyond a stub, to see how "notable:" it has been for people - it's too soon to judge now. JavaWoman 11:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable on this eclipse. TJ Spyke 11:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, if this, or any other eclipse, is notable, say for duration (which I don't know whether duration of eclipses and totality and such varies or not from eclipse to eclipse) then, perhaps I would feel differently about an individual article for the eclipse but I just don't think it is feasible to have one about every single eclipse, it just doesn't make any sense to me.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

I do agree that the current article should be improved, I strongly disagree on the other hand that any information you are going to get that differentiates it from any other lunar eclipse would be trivial. On top of what you suggest, there's plenty of valuable information (that you may still find trivial) to be added for genuinely interested readers, including values on the Danjon scale, eclipse-specific pictures (which may save spammy submissions of low-quality images in the main article on Lunar Eclipses) as well as dozens of links to authoritative external articles that covered the event. I even think it would be a nice idea to have templates for astronomical events and maybe a consistent naming scheme. My 2 cents --DarTar 11:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or merge: If it is felt that this eclipse was particularly notable, relevant information could be copied across to the main lunar eclipse article and this article deleted. I see no reason to have an entire article devoted to it, however. Robin S 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lunar eclipises are a dime a dozen and are not at all considered notable individually. The only reason the March 07 event received any press at all was because it was visible in major locations in the eastern US. In addition, I cannot seem to locate any other articles on lunar eclipses, so in a twist on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS I have to call WP:OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST on this one. If a significant number of articles on individual lunar eclipses do in fact exist and I've simply not found them, please leave a message on my talk page with the appropriate links and I'll give my "vote" further consideration. 23skidoo 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless it is made clear why this eclipse was notable enough to have its own article. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia is not paper. It's really just a matter of style whether it is a small article on its own or a few lines in a List of lunar eclipses or List of 2007 observable celestial phenomena or whatever. Peter Grey 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Comment ~~(no vote)~~: There's a notability of sorts (not exactly encyclopedic) because this is the most recent lunar eclipse. That notability ends, of course, when this is no longer a current event, or at the latest at the next lunar eclipse occurs. Perhaps this could be converted to List of lunar eclipses, with a low threshold for notability, say an eclipse with some historical or scientific significance, particularly illustrative images, and most recent and next predicted. A great strength of Wikipedia is that articles can be dynamic if the necessary maintenance is not prohibitive. Peter Grey 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JavaWoman. Beginning 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about a page entitled Lunar Eclipses of 2007 as a compromise? Pontificake 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New page/Merge per Pontificake. I think that's a great idea, and it will clean up all the separate pages whilst still having the info from the individual events. The page would also have room for growth and be upkept and checked more often. -- Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge into an article about all eclipses during a year. Individually, the only thing that can be said is "this happened here." Big deal. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Resolute 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite honestly I don't think individual lunar eclipses are important. However, that doesn't mean anything, as this lunar eclipse is obviously notable per WP:N. If there are questions about moving it to the article on Total lunar eclipse or Lunar eclipses in the 2000s, that's a content organisation issue and should be handled outside of AfD. -- Black Falcon 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep each individual one is noteworthy--it does get discussions in media, and is included in the scientific record. The way to deal with them is to group them in suitable categories.

New webcomics appear many times a year, and they are all fundamentally the same--the same physical principles are involved in their production, and they are all viewable in the same manner. DGG 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of lunar eclipses. Generic, fungible, like an article on each sunrise. Edison 01:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it would be a bit silly to have individual articles for each eclipse. Possibly put images of this one in the main lunar eclipse article, since it is the most recent. User:VCXZ 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The main article has literally been spammed with photos from the last eclipse. A dedicated article per individual event would allow the general article to contain only general information and a small selection of representative pictures IMO. --DarTar 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The information needs to stay, but it doesn't necessarily need its own article. Everyking 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a further argument in favour of keeping, there are already three altlangs for this page that would become orphaned, should we remove this article. If we ever decide to keep this page, I suggest creating a page called List of lunar eclipses, following the template of List of solar eclipses, and not the various Lunar eclipses in the 2000s Lunar Eclipses of 2007 suggested above which sound quite arbitrary from a chronological point of view. I do agree with Black Falcon, though, that this is an issue independent of AfD. --DarTar 08:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The content of the English Wikipedia should not be governed by the existence or absence of related articles in another language, even if that results in a few orphaned links. If a list of lunar eclipses is created, I agree it should be called List of lunar eclipses and not limit it to the 2000s or, even worse, only 2007. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information given by the article may be of use to people now, as it is a current event, but in the long run this article is unneccessary and rather unencyclopedic, as it seems to be something that belongs in a farmers almanac. Also, virtually all of the information in the article is available in the main article for lunar eclipse. Calgary 15:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's mostly raw data in prose. Would be better served by a table at List of lunar eclipses. Zocky | picture popups 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable PTluw777 07:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Folks, this isn't de.wikipedia.org. --Mikli 11:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable, need it. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not Notable? Are you kidding? This was the best lunar eclipse seen across the widest populated area for decades. Every eclipse is a unique event and shows a unique view. If you know nothing about it you'll think they're all the same. But if you know nothing about it you need such pages kept!Mark Beard 22:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this one was so notable, why doesn't the article contain anything to show it? All the article does is say when the eclipse occurred, where it was visible, and how it rated on the Danjon scale. If people are interested in keeping that information on Wikipedia (which is fine with me), it is much better placed on a List of lunar eclipses than on this specific article.··· rWd · Talk ··· 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That can be a sign that the article is incomplete rather than that the subject is non-notable. Google News gives 82 results (not all of which are non-trivial, I'll admit), but here are a few: [47][48][49][50][51]. In light of your comment, I will now attempt to add these sources to the article. -- Black Falcon 17:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexam

[edit]

Notability of company may be accurate. However article was started by the companies Vice President - Ian J. Ball (identity confirmed at Company logo upload edit summary where he states - Ianjbal (Talk | contribs) (Ian Ball, www.lexam.com) ) AND reads like a vanity page. At the very least it needs cleanup, but I nominate deletion. Ian Ball also created related articles at Rob McEwen - company president, and Lexam explorations - which has been tagged since early January as an orphan article. I would love to write an article about my own business, but WP:COI keeps me from doing so. In the same way in this instance it should be left to others to write about this company if they do so believe it is notable. SauliH 07:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for reasons noted above

I am ready to admit that I am totally off base with these nominations, but with an initial read they come off as self-aggrandizement and self-promotion. SauliH 07:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep tho perhaps merge some of them. The nom admits N. The way to deal with spammy lists of executive personnel is to condense them. I just did it for this article. There's a nice photo, but it needs context. But the actual company name is Lexam Explorations, now a redirect. Lexam should be the redirect. DGG 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all are notable, references are easy to find [52][53][54]. They can be cleaned as needed. skip (t / c) 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:17Z

List of fictional villains

[edit]

If you want to make a list of every villain that ever appeared in fiction, you'd write novels upon novels. Unwieldy, unmanageable, forever incomplete. See WP:LIST. Crystallina 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmanagable list criteria, no readily apparent alternative criteria. hateless 07:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons given above. Noroton 08:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you've got to be kidding. JuJube 09:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split and disambig. List of fictional villians is a huge category; list of animated villians is also big. List of Disney villains already exists. Splitting article into List of Pixar villains, list of DreamWorks villains, and List of Warner Bros. villains seems to be the best solution. The other categories can go unless they prove valuable. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 09:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be hard pressed to find a unifying characteristic amongst DreamWorks villains, Warner Bros. villains, etc., other than the film studio that released films of them. At least with Disney villains the argument can be made that they were mostly created around the same circumstances - animated feature length movie rated either G or PG, must be family-friendly while remaining unlikeable somehow, and a lot of the early ones were made by Disney himself or whoever. But in respectable film literature (i.e., stuff that isn't written by a random stoner with a Bachelor's), there does not exist categories like the ones mentioned above. Pixar hasn't released enough movies on their own for any list to be even remotely substantial (the list of Pixar villans would number about 14, assuming two villains in every feature length movie). DreamWorks is a "you film it, we release it" sort, and the list of DreamWorks villains would feature everyone from the Gladiator bad guy to the bad guy in Shrek - unless we reduced it to just the DreamWorks "animated" features, which would leave us with a list similar to Pixar. Ditto Warner Brothers - they release a lot of movies. Unless we're narrowing down the Warner Brothers criteria to Looney Tunes, it makes no sense to create a laundry list of villainous characters whose only common trait is that eventually, the script containing them was given to some dude who then shopped his movie around and had it picked up by Warner Brothers. In closing, List of Disney Villains is fanpage fluff, but of the sort that's probably borderline fine for an encyclopedia. List of animated villains may also be encyclopedic. List of Pixar/FOX/WB/DreamWorks/whatever Villains might as well be List of Villains whose names begin with B and were born west of the Ural mountains. --Action Jackson IV 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a perfect example of why categories exist on Wikipedia.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I swear I've seen this article go through AFD before. --SeizureDog 13:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might have seen the one for List of fictional heroes. Crystallina 19:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate, unmaintainable, requires POV. Otto4711 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom. Simply too broad a topic for a list article. 23skidoo 15:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - have faith, List of Random Stuff that Begins with the Letter R still seems to be a redlink. --Action Jackson IV 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For now. . . Chevinki 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kodambakkam. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:16Z

Risen redeemer

[edit]

Is this notable? or useful? is this just a recreation of Risen redeemer church that was speedied? Xorkl000 08:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability, but G4 can't be applied if the previous version was speedied not AfD'd. —dgies^t_c 09:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just an article with a picture, infobox on church, and hardly anything else. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 09:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless notability is explained with sources. I've merged the content to Kodambakkam. utcursch | talk 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kodambakkam, merge having already been done. Xoloz 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United India Colony

[edit]

is this notable? is it verifiable? Xorkl000 08:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Place seems real enough. I would say almost any locality is notable, if San Diego's neighborhood's get articles so do neighborhoods in Indian cities (if that is what this is, which is what I think). Construction companies confirm building at the location, see: [55], [56]. This guy lives there, notably it is part of his address. You can even get IT training there. Regardless I say its notable and real.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 10:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

great, could we get some references in there please? --Xorkl000 10:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Go for it, I have enough on my plate as is. I would note, however, if we are deleting articles simply because they are unreferenced we might end up deleting half the encyclopedia. Its easier to add references later than it is to start over from scratch. Springfield, Illinois is a perfect example of that.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's one view, personally I think deleting half the encyclopaedia would be a bloody good idea. --Xorkl000 11:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not half but a lot of garbage can and does get through, I just don't think this particular article is part of that problem.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as advertisement. Not all neighborhoods are N. All town & villages are N, for in the case of a neighborhood it will always be questionable whether the name is a name in actual common use in the area, as contrasted to use in advertising. There was a NYC neighborhood deleted a while back on the ground that nobody used it except real estate agents. This actual article is a housing development not a neighborhood, and the content is mostly real estate advertising photographs of some of the local landmarks. NN, and not RS, as there are no sources of any sort whatsoever. The article was created by an ed. who seems to have worked on only this and similarly unsourced neighborhoods and buildings, and is being maintained by a single purpose account. I don't want to delete much from WP, but here is a reasonable place to start. DGG 01:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to be a non-notable locality in the Kodambakkam area of Chennai. I've merged the content to Kodambakkam. Unless there's some evidence of this being notable enough, Delete. (I'm from India, so no bias here) utcursch | talk 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The place is a real one as I had passed through the place 100s of time when I was living in Chennai, India. This links will prove that the locality exists [57]. Google gives many results abut the locality. As regards the notability, any geographical place (like a village or part of a big city) is notable and there are many articles relating to villages and smaller towns. The population of United India Colony is certainly more than many villages (with small population running into 100s). Any geographical place should find a mention in Wikipedia - for example we have Hiraya, Nagano with a population of only 645 whereas in two/ three apartments of United India Colony more than 1000 persons may be living. Some examples of more such pages are: Nabua or Maqewa. Accordingly, I am inclined for continued inclusion of this page to Wikipedia and to allow its growth over a period of time though I am unable to assert right now notability of the place. BTW, utcursch has done a good job by merging the contents with Kodambakkam. I am not sure, but it may not be a exactly a part of Kodambakkam though it is adjacent to Kodambakkam. Will some one try to give fresh inputs? --Bhadani 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following article - as it seems to be mostly the same content with different capitalisation of the title:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two articles and Keep. Plenty of precedent for neighborhoods and train station inclusion. -- TedFrank 08:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 16:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Slavin

[edit]

Questionable notibility on this one. I'm leaning toward deletion. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 09:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he did actually publish an album than he's probably notable enough, but this seems to be written as a tabloid article. Unless someone cleans this up, delete. Someguy1221 09:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Haha. Although the article is humorous, it seems to be a hoax. No ghits for I'den Salveen or Aidan Slavin. The author implies that Aidan Slavin dated Lindsay Lohan and then decided he preferred men, so perhaps it is a jab at a friend. By the way, I am dating Brad Pitt. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 09:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this should have been speedied as nonsense, NN or attack. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can't be speedied as nonsense because it is comprehensible. Can't be speedied as NN because it makes an assertion of notability. Can't be speedied as an attack because implying someone is gay isn't necessarily an attack. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 10:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  And that is why I nominated this for AFD rather than use the ((nn-bio)) tag. AFD confirms whether or not the article should really be deleted, plus it gives the author time to edit and and find reliable sources.BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 10:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. I'd say it almost meets speedy criteria. GregorB 11:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, likely hoax, nonnotable anyway. NawlinWiki 12:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dominique Jean Larrey. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:14Z

Dominic Larrey

[edit]

Two sentence article on the doctor of Napoleon Bonaparte. Prodded a year ago, and removed on the same day, it hasn't been touched since. EnsRedShirt 09:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique-Jean Larrey (sometimes written Dominic) seems to be frequently referred to in connection with both Napoleon and larvae. There is an article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which isn't more than 11 lines long. You could try to improve it and beat Britannicas coverage of the guy! Some of the many Google hits: [58], [59][60] (with an image of Larrey), [61][62]. Pharamond 10:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason I missed the other Wikipedia article when googling for him. Any reason to not just redirect it immediately rather than continuing having a pointless discussion when the outcome is obvious? Pharamond 06:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kappa 11:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe redirect to Dominique Jean Larrey. Kappa 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would it not be better to merge to Dominique Jean Larrey and redirect? Alf^Photoman 16:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect' as Alf says, because he is a/ notable, and b/ there is already an good article showing that. This article was created only because the existing one wasn't noticed.DGG 01:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. skip (t / c) 05:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:13Z

World Maths Day

[edit]

Authorship by user:World Maths Day suggest an advert. Certainly no evidence of notability. -- RHaworth 10:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: A quick search turns up only one press release distributed over and over again. No hits on Google News, which you would certainly expect for an event that is less than two weeks away, at least if it were notable and not PR cruft.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 10:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is fairly well known in educational circles, and if you Google world+"maths day" you avoid all the press release spam - I see mentions from the Times Educational Supplement (main UK educational publication) and the NCETM (National Centre for Excellence in Teaching of Maths). At the very least, Merge the useful info into Pi Day. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worthy to be kept, but does need expansion as I am sure there could be more to say about this day --PrincessBrat 15:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a project by two major education publishers. I just added that info and the links. Could Eliminator please add the refs he found. DGG 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. EliminatorJR ^Talk 12:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also try searching for "world math day" for more hits. Agreed, the same press release comes up over and over again. That is, lots of web sites consider it an event worth publicizing. Fg2 07:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Or a lot of websites are mirrors to PR Newswire.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't show any notability. Even the times educational article doesn't seem to cut it for notability. Besides that, the WP:COI alone should be enough for deletion, imo. --Адам12901 ^Talk 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Super Mario 64. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:12Z

Hoot the Owl

[edit]

Completely non-notable character who appeared in one level, helping get one star, in Super Mario 64. ekedolphin 10:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lawl delete "He is only on one level currently". Because I know we're all just pulling for Hoot the Owl to show up in Super Mario Galaxy aren't we?--SeizureDog 13:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The character does not warrant its own encyclopedia entry, it should be put into the Super Maio 64 article maybe under a characters heading? --PrincessBrat 15:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Mario 64 to prevent it from being accidentaly recreated in the future. Dar-Ape 17:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/ no redirect, fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dar-Ape. Redirects are cheap. Resolute 19:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. User-friendliness and searchability, not personal preferences or subjective claims of "cruft"iness, are what determine whether redirects should exist. -- Black Falcon 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:11Z

Charmed Sons

[edit]

A TV spinoff show that, as far as I can tell, is just something a few fans want to see- there are not even any plans to make it. There is a website devoted to getting it on the air, but no reliable sources. Delete as non notable. J Milburn 11:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's only a petition from fans to get a TV show on the air. Crunch 12:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overblown fanfic. JuJube 23:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:11Z

Mason Monsevais

[edit]

This person is not remotely notable. The reference to Tiger Woods is false. All citations from a Google search are merely mirrors of this Wikipedia article. There is also no such thing as "semi-professional golf." A high school kid having fun. Crunch 11:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - PoliticalJunkie 16:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense/hoax. Resolute 20:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. There is a non-WP mention to this individual here, but that's hardly reliable. I think if a 16-yo kid defeated Tiger Woods it would have made the news. Also, how does a 2 year old save a litter of puppies from a fire, when a 2-yo baby can barely move him/herself with any amount of coordination? This is an obvious non-professional hoax lacking all subtlety (I'm surprised there's no mention of sexual prowess). -- Black Falcon 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and speedy deletion technically doesn't apply to hoaxes and this isn't nonsense in the sense of "gibberish" required by CSD.G1. I suppose what User:Resolute mean was speedy close as delete. -- Black Falcon 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was editorially merged and redirected. Debate is closed as moot, without comment on priority of the new parent article List of places in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. Anyone may nominate that article at a new AfD, but discussion here is now pointless. Xoloz 23:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Noble Houses of Taros

[edit]

This is a batch nomination of articles relating to minor aspects of the game Total Annihilation: Kingdoms, all created by Avrillo (talk · contribs) as their only contributions. The game is notable in itself, but these minor aspects are completely irrelevent, and probably not even worth much of a mention in the main article. Delete as non-notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

J Milburn 11:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possibily worth a side mention in the main article, but I doubt it. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. (already performed) I was bold (perhaps overly so given the content of the articles) and merged all 12 articles into List of places in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. That seems more in line with WP:FICT point 2 -- lists of minor characters, places, concepts, etc. Comments? -- Black Falcon 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks better already, but it could do with some work- sources, categories and especially completeness checks are musts. J Milburn 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I intend to perform further cleanup and look for sources (articles, game guides, etc.). However, as I did not even know about the game until this AfD, I will go ahead and request assistance on the talk page of Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. -- Black Falcon 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT, these are all fiction, it belongs in the main article; if it doesn't fit, it's probably not separately notable. Carlossuarez46 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirects to List of places in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. --- RockMFR 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or mention in an article on the main subject. Edison 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per well-executed, coherent merge. Don't see the need for redirects, as search engine will pick up key words. Ohconfucius 02:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirects are cheap, no reason to delete if we agree that the information deserves to stay. J Milburn 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per WP:FICT 2 and 3. If it's notable it goes in the main article and Wikipedia's job is to summarize not give an entire detailed description of every area in a game. Chevinki 09:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the comments above seem to note that the topics don't deserve separate articles (with which I agree). So, I merged (maybe a little prematurely, but I still think it was a justified move per WP:FICT #2) all of the articles into List of places in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. All of the articles in this AFD are now ((R from merge))s to the main list, which I have organised based on two sources (noted at the bottom of the list), shortened to exclude some trivial information, and given a short summary at the start to clarify things. I would argue that these articles (now redirects) should be kept as:

Redirects are cheap and most of these are plausible search terms; and
GFDL requires that the edit histories of merged content be preserved:

The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires. (from WP:MERGE)

If the edit histories can be merged while still deleting the redirects, then I would suggest keeping at least the following (based on what I've found out about the game) as likely search terms: Elsin, Garacaius, Kaluen, Kirenna, Lokken, Taros, Thirsha, Ulasem, and Zhon. However, per my first point above (redirects are cheap), it may be best to just leave them (which also discourages future recreation). -- Black Falcon 21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:10Z

New Utopia

[edit]

No independent, third party sources (except for two short notices in Wired and Business Week online, but the article doesn't match at all, what's written there).

Non-notable scam.

Pjacobi 11:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Given that this is perhaps the best known micronation scam after Dominion of Melchizedek, I can only conclude that this AFD listing is some sort of joke. There are dozens of third party sources available, including reputable newspapers and US court records. --Gene_poole 11:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we talking about different articles? Our shamefull article defines New Utopia as ... a project to create a new country on a manmade island, with a government based on libertarian principles. -- do you agree to this definition and do you have sources substantiating this claim? --Pjacobi 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try looking at the references already in the article. Scamdog, as one example, is a reliable third party source. I'm pretty sure the United States Securities & Investment Commission also qualifies as a reliable source. --Gene_poole 12:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - An encyclopedia article, as a first necessity, has to give a correct definition. If New Utopia is a well known investment scam, an article covering it has to start ... was a now famous scam of the 1990s or the like. ---Pjacobi 12:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So why don't you just do that? We don't delete articles for being badly written. --Gene_poole 12:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Deletion is the most effective measure of quality control. It's much less effot to delete crap, than to try a complete re-write. If someone is interested in this topic, a blanmk edit field is not worse than the existing article. --Pjacobi 12:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That is specious nonsense unsupported by any Wikipedia policy. An article with multiple reference sources already in it is not "crap". --Gene_poole 12:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a fake nation to me and this website supports this http://www.quatloos.com/fake-nations.htm --PrincessBrat 15:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as AFD is not clean-up. If you have problems with the content, either fix it yourself or tag it with one of the many templates. However, since this project, scam or otherwise, has gotten in the news, it shouldn't be deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. This is an inappropriate nomination. AFD is not a tool for clean-up. In the amount of time it took the nom to list this article at AFD, s/he could have easily added "was a now famous scam of the 1990s" to the article intro and subsequently improved it or tagged it for cleanup. -- Black Falcon 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any respect for the idea that the first priority of an encyclopedia should be, to hold correct information? I'm not in the business of researching investment scams which are old new by 7 years. I just want to get the crap out of Wikipedia. --Pjacobi 13:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This encyclopedia is a wiki -- something which anyone can edit at any time. Anyone can change an article so that it presents false information--if we simply discarded everything that was misleading or out of context without even trying to correct it, we'd have no encyclopedia. Perhaps you should have some respect for that! And if you're not in the business of building the encyclopedia (of which research is a critical component), I am confused as to why you're even here. -- Black Falcon 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This exchange becomes a bit lengthy and off topic here. Some clarification and (if I can restrain myself) a last word on this: Micronations and investment scams aren't just the area I'm contributing here. Occasionally I stumble over articles in this area (perhaps doing interwikis etc) and in a small percentage of these accidents I find the article just that bad, that I'd prefer it deleted. Anyway, now that I'm involved, and anticipating a keep outcome, perhaps I myself will do the cleanup, stating up front in the article that it is an old scam and cut out all the "micronation folklore" with an axe. But I fear, as long as the article doesn't get deleted, it's random walk in quality space will always lead back to micronation folklore. --Pjacobi 18:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, when you run across bad articles, and you don't feel like taking the time to fix them, for whatever reason, there are plenty of options besides deletion. Even a simple cleanup might be appropriate, though there are other, more specific options, that might be better instead. Now as regarding this case, if you do believe there's going to be an on-going problem as to this page being misleading, or mis-used for some purpose (such as to support the "reality" of the scam), that would be something that ought to be addressed, but I don't think deletion is a better solution even in that event. After all, deletion doesn't prevent there being false information out there, either on Wikipedia or the Internet, it just means there is one less source for the truth. FrozenPurpleCube 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:08Z

Quality of life economics

[edit]

Appears to be totally WP:OR. Does not cite sources, has no references, and does not even assert any academic notability - and thus fail WP:ATT, and probably WP:NOTE. Speaking as someone trained in economics, it also appears to be total gibberish - the description of what the topic is does not jive with the common academic use of the term "economics", (For instance, "urban land economics"), and instead reads like some kind of social prescriptive system. Furthermore, it includes terms which appear incoherent - "Ultimate Economics" - and a "sector of quality of life economics" section which make little to no sense, and is probably wildly at odds with reality. I'm strongly inclined to this is probably something someone made up at school, and thus falls under WP:NOT, or is a hoax. Furthermore, the phrase itself has only 195 Ghits, and literally none of them have anything to do with the topic discussed here. This should be deleted.

I should note, however, that there is probably some sub-discipline with economics somewhere called "quality of life economics", but I can tell you that this isn't it. There's nothing salvageable here, and I'm not familiar enough with the term - and neither is, apparently, Google - to produce an article. Haemo 11:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Some economists do indeed deal with "quality of life" issues, but this article is essentially about a neologistic concept (perhaps entirely made-up) that attempts to define a certain class of economic systems. From what I can tell, the economic system described approximates the theoretical model of the modernised burgeois democracy (the degree of conformance between theory and reality can be disputed). I cannot make sense of the article's mention of the "biospheric environment": the "biosphere" is the environment. I commend Haemo for his well-reasoned nomination and good-faith effort to actually make sense of this strange article. -- Black Falcon 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if an article on the academic study of "quality of life" issues were to be written, it might be more appropriate as a subsection of Quality of life, depending on the availability of published sources. -- Black Falcon 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Bits of this original research keep cropping up (see the deletion log for Ultimate Economics --[63] [64] -- and the AFD). --Calton | Talk 06:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Calton. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, speedy keep GRBerry 04:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Mcilwraith

[edit]

~~Consistency with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay Catchpole 11:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)~~I'm happy to withdraw this nomination per the consensus below. Catchpole 13:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Mcilwraith (2nd nomination) (this version of the article); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Mcilwraith (the original hoax article)

Keep. Newsworthy hoax involving Wikipedia which was widely covered by the UK and Scottish press - see [65] for media citations. I'm not at all happy with the extremely thin rationale given for this AfD; it seems to be little more than a tu quoque argument. We should be assessing articles on the basis of their individual merit. -- ChrisO 13:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added - for the background to this article, see this Wikipedia Signpost article of 17 April 2006. -- ChrisO 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - No apparent reason for AfD. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 13:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what has a widely covered con-job to to with Essjay? Alf^Photoman 13:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is hard to see why someone should want to delete this article. It is informative and relates to a real life incident where a person tried to con Wikipedia and failed. It is not glorifying Alan McIlwraith in any way, and the incident received a great deal of media coverage in the UK.--Ianmacm 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable hoax. Multiple independent sources. Was notable not so much for Wikipedia as for the wider fraud - wikipedia article was just a small part of the hoax. Nssdfdsfds 16:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChrisO and Ianmacm. Beginning 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. A hoax that garnered more than enough attention to satisfy WP:N. -- Black Falcon 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yet another one of these. So somebody apparently decided to use the unconnected controversy to start another AFD for this. The fact was that Mcilwright failed to get himself into Wikipedia at the first place when the others around him were fooled. No direct connection to Essjay debacle. Not to mention that this nomination is a borderline potential violation of WP:POINT - Skysmith 10:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:07Z

Mataconomy

[edit]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. War wizard90 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef of a protologism with no evidence of having been used more than one person. Zero ghits. Weregerbil 13:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not spelled correctly, according to the explanation of the term's derivation, so if kept, it will have to be moved to Metaconomy. However, I would like to point out that this article was apparently nominated for deletion two minutes (!!!!!) after its creation. It's possible the article creator will be able to source and expand this, given a bit of time. —Carolfrog 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is move to Metaconomy and then redirect Metaconomy to Second_Life#Economy_and_real_estate, unless and until the concept of a "metaconomy" is sourceably applied more generally to economies in all role-playing computer games. —Carolfrog 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I did notify the creator of the article about the nomination as soon as it was nominated, and since these discussions usually last five days he has plenty of time to source and expand notibility. War wizard90 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I tend to follow SL economics, and I haven't heard this term yet. Meta economy, on the other hand, refers to various ideas, none of exactly living within SL. In fact, SL is a level below any "meta economy" that may exist, and some explicitly deny it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:06Z

Osseo band festival

[edit]

Spam, puffery and crystal balling for a local, inter-school band competition that has not even been held yet. Nuttah68 12:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable competition outside the region. ObtuseAngle 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not even sure if it's a notable competition outside of the northwest Minneapolis suburbs. They'll probably report on it in the local community paper, like the Osseo-Maple Grove Press and the Brooklyn Park Sun-Post, but I doubt that the Star Tribune will give it major coverage. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carabinieri 12:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of SpongeBob SquarePants

[edit]

Listcruft at best. Music is in alot of shows, I don't see this as notable at all. RobJ1981 12:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might keep if the show had won an award for its use of music or something like that, but it has not. Dar-Ape 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I may be biased because I created this article, but I think it has merit. For one thing, the amount of music tracks in SpongeBob (particularly the Associated Production Music) is immense, just like Ren & Stimpy. As such, it's worth cataloging it. It's not like the article is a two sentence affair of worthless information or anything, and much of the APM info hasn't been released anywhere before this, making it a handy resource that you can't find on other sites. In addition, it would be highly unrealistic to put all of this information in the main SpongeBob article (because it would get way too long), hence the branch off to its own article, where things can be fleshed out more. You argue that this article is 'listcruft'. First of all, it's impossible to know whether something is only useful to a limited amount of people without polling everyone who watches SpongeBob. Second, while I admit the article is basically a laundry list of all the songs used on the show, the list is constantly changing, since the show is still running, not to mention people are finding songs on the APM site all the time, and therefore new songs can constantly be added. Sb2007 02:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Music plays a very important part in the program and therefor an own article is justifiable in my opion. The theme tune is a popular song for children and adult fans alike and therefor is notable. Due to the amount of songs listed it would be unwise to merge this into the main article, as this would just bloat the article. In my opion this article is very useful for people looking for information on the music of SpongeBob and is very notable due to it's theme tune popularity alone. Poeloq 02:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Would be non-viable to merge to the parent article, meets WP:LIST, notable television show, and as Sb2007 states, music plays an important role in said show. Matthew 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - a good article relating to the music of the animation. portland12
Keep - SpongeBob SquarePants asserts the notability of the show's music, with notable bands like Ween and Pantera. –Pomte 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IronGargoyle 18:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsymmetric gravitational theory

[edit]

Non notable one person's theory. No independent, third party sources, as never included in review articles, let alone textbooks. --Pjacobi 12:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The theory doesn't seem very notable with only 864 hits on Google. - PoliticalJunkie 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This level of notability is sufficient to warrant keeping a porn actress bio on Wikipedia; surely it is enough for a peer-reviewed cosmological theory? ;-)
  Freederick 00:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 864 hits (I got 855) is actually pretty good for an abstruse cosmological theory. Encouragingly, most of these links are to bona-fide publications in various physics journals. As for the nominator's claim that this is a “one person theory”, the publications I found are by a number of scientists from different institutions. While I'm not convinced as to the merits of the NGT, it certainly appears notable enough, has a number of potential verifiable sources (all these published papers), and appears to attract physicists rather than cranks, which is a good sign. No, it is not a mainstream theory, but then Wikipedia is not paper; there is room here for less popular theories, as long as they are legitimate. The article could use some more citations, but this is grounds for editorial work, not deletion. Again, I'm not saying that NGT is true; I'm not supporting the theory, but I am supporting its inclusion on Wikipedia. Freederick 00:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For scientific theories, you should better look into the citation counts. Then you will see, that over two thirds of the citations to the founding paper of this theory are again by Moffat. --Pjacobi 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep if Freedrick will please add some of the mainstream references. There's nothing wrong with improving an article being discussed at AfD. Once someone's found additional ref, saves others from having to do the work over, and supports the argument for keeping the article if lack of RS were part of the problem, as here. DGG 02:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added three references as you requested. Only one of them is an overview by the theory's author; the remaining two, by other authors, address possible relationship with string theory, and current (as of Nov. 2006) developments. There are many other, less general papers out there, dealing with various aspects of the theory. I am neither an expert nor an enthusiast in the article's subject, so I do not expect to be making many more edits to it. Nevertheless I think that the request for deletion is unreasonable; this is a valid and recognized scientific theory of current interest; there are independent, third party sources; there seems to be little substance to the nominator's allegation that this is a theory nobody but its author contributes to. Freederick 11:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; as per Pjacobi. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Wikipedia does not, AFAIK, have an "impact factor" requirement. The citation pattern for this theory is not too atypical, and as the papers are, in most cases, refereed, they pass the "verifiable source" requirement without a lot of third party citations. It's not a slam-dunk case for being notable, and no one would be clamoring for an article if there weren't one written already. But since the article is there, and not badly written ... Bm gub 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'd have speedied this per WP:CSD#A7. Sorry, clearly fails WP:N. Sandstein 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporo

[edit]

Advertisement, no independent indication of notability. Note that article was created recently by someone with only one previous edit (in mid-2005), and has also been edited by Nicolasb71, whose only edits have been spam edits to include the Reporo product (Either he's associated with the company, or wants to give that impression). In the event that the article is *not* chosen for deletion, it still needs most content removed, as it is ad material that appears elsewhere on the net. Fourohfour 13:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. In fact this could borderline qualify for speedy. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You may be right if Reporo's Alexa pagerank is any indication- it's at circa 440,000. Fourohfour 14:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm sorry if my language and style of writing was wrong for wikipedia, i should have read the WP Policy first, forgive this is my first article creatation and was ovally eager to get something down. i have re-written this from scratch more or less. also i don't have any thing to do with Reporo, i do however use use the service. i was searching around random topics on wikipedia and noticed it didn't have a page....hence this mess now... please comment on the rewrite, if any changes are needed. i'd like to put some more technical background stuff into it but am have hard time finding any information. Tom roffe 11:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Tetris. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:06Z

Tetris: From Russia With Love

[edit]

Stub article on a TV documentary that's stuck around since 2005. This is the sort of thing that should used as a reference, but doesn't need to have its own article. SeizureDog 13:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remember watching this programme. It was very good indeed, but by no means should it have its own article. It wasnt that memorable! If anything add it to the Tetris page as a paragraph --PrincessBrat 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tetris--Planetary 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tetris Poeloq 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Business plan in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:01Z

Designing business projects

[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article. Seems like a description of a consulting service though I'm not sure. Deprodded Weregerbil 13:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR essay that I suspect is taken directly for the source listed. Nuttah68 13:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More of TRIZ spam. TRIZ is a "methodology" very actively marketed on Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 15:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. It's quite clear from phrases such as We basically work with hi-tech firms, in the areas of communication, computer technology, medical devices, etc. Our services are also suitable for other types of companies. that the article is probably pulled from promotional material. -- Whpq 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. `'mikka 06:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 to The Wiggles. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:59Z

Wiggle

[edit]

This page was previously listed at AfD, this was speedy closed and the page was replaced with a redirect to wiggling. That page was then deleted, so this was deleted as a redirect to a non-existent page. Then it was created again, and speedy deleted as nonsense. Then it was created again, tagged with ((afd)) but the nominator didn't get round to completing the nomination. So here we go. Doesn't establish notability, delete – Qxz 13:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete makes no claims to notability in line woth WP:MUSIC and provides no sources. Nuttah68 13:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this band is in no sense notable outside Dublin. Delete and should never be created again unless they become famous --PrincessBrat 16:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, no establishment of notability Davewild 16:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete for all reasons detailed above. A1octopus 16:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IFF deleted, please recreate as redirect to The Wiggles, as the singular form. -- saberwyn 21:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate as redirect to the Wiggles as the individual members are often referred to as the Red Wiggle or the Blue Wiggle at least in Australia. Capitalistroadster 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Hong

[edit]

Article contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unclear whether real, but even if real isn't notable enough. --Nlu (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if this person is real or not, but there is a class of ships called the Xiang Yang Hong. I do not know Chinese, but if that means the class of ships was named after someone named Yang Hong, I'd say some article is warranted. FrozenPurpleCube 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without seeing the Chinese characters, my guess is that the class is named after the city of Xiangyang (襄陽, in modern Xiangfan, Hubei), not after this person. --Nlu (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is possible, but as I said, I don't know either way myself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and ask for sources. same as the others. DGG 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be a major figure. Will investigate further tonight. Shimeru 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, just as Shimeru my memory is not so good anymore, I'll check for sources Alf^Photoman 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear notability, plus very poor quality. Meaningful username 11:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not emphasise notability Jammy Simpson | Talk | 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article appears to be describing someone livivig around the 150CE period, so they have survived the test of time. However, without sources this article provides no context or details to base notability on. Nuttah68 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above that unless this person is truely notable then it should be deleted. To say the person has stood the test of time, not much has been said in this article, and if he is truely notworthy then there should be plenty of info by which to make an article on --PrincessBrat 16:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge as I hope was done for the others. The nom should know by now that the characters in this group are in a major work of historical fiction, but based on real history & are thus to be judged on both aspects. (its only necessary to follow the links to find this out) Quite a lot of them a=have come up at AfD, and the obvious solution is for someone knowledgeable in the period to merge the minor ones appropriates, as is done with other works of fiction and some minor personages in history. I myself cannot say how important she is in the history or the novel, or just how it should be merged. DGG 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Romance of Three Kingdoms has so many minor characters that it is, I feel, not worth it to merge really minor characters, and there is really nothing else to merge to. --Nlu (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was created by an editor who has been blocked indefinitely (the list of deleted articles is approaching 800). I don't know if this one is a copyright violation or not, but if it is, it doesn't need an AfD debate. Fg2 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both; as first-person accounts, these are not attributable. Trebor 18:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Theatre Guild—The Founders Story

[edit]

Completing abandoned nomination by User:Alex Bakharev. This appears to be a response to Musical Theatre Guild, which is itself in need of a makeover. I have no idea whether the group's notable or not, but either way, WP isn't the place for two people to give dueling accounts of an organization. If an article should exist at all, it should be the original. Djrobgordon 09:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete per nom; both articles need cleanup. This company is well-known in the LA theatre community, with multiple nominations and some wins in local theatre awards (e.g. [66], which seems to establish notability. Flyguy649 (talk-works) 04:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote BOTH articles. The facts in them are true and I was a member of the board and witnessed all accounts. I have documentation and correspondences to prove all points mentioned. It was a member of the current theater company that came along and changed the original, deleting information on the demise of the original founders, which was the intent of the original article. If there was a problem with the title not reflecting that, I have no problem with the change of title. That's why I wrote the second article and added in "The Founders Story." This theater company is the only one of it's kind to our knowledge (being a membership musical company that produces staged readings) and had several West Coast Premiere's including Sondheim's PASSION. I have been contacted by many people thanking me for writing the original article as it was never publicized as to why the original founders were no longer a part of the company and the current company has withheld information from the public and in fact doesn't tell it's current membership about the original founders at all. That's why they chose to delete the information from the original article, so people couldn't find out that they kicked the founders out of their own company with no foundation and even prevented them from attending the meeting in which they were removed (which is against Robert's Rules of Order.) I would rather have the original article The Musical Theatre Guild removed and my new one The Founders Story left in. If the current theater company wants to write their own article leaving out truths, they can surely do so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtguild (talk • contribs) 23:31, February 24, 2007

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This entry has given me some questions. Its a nice article in itself, and I did check the website, but is this really a notable guild. The article title Musical Theatre Guild - the Founders Story sounds like a book. I live in UK so this article may be something that relates purely to Los Angeles but really if this article is agreed as being noteworthy then it should be in an Musical Theatre Guild article with The Founders Story as a headline on the page. If founders are then coming onto Wikipedia to vandalise articles that contain the truth (but its not pleasant for those it talks about) then it should be taken up via the appropriate channels. --PrincessBrat 16:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what happened. User:Mtguild wrote the article Musical Theatre Guild. Another editor removed some material from that article which Mtguild thought was important, and rather than re-insert it, he wrote this response article (It appears that Mtguild is one of the "Founders" in question. The deleted information concerned how the two men who formed the group either left or were forced out of it. Take a look at this discussion on my talk page, if you want the justification in his words. I urged him on his own talk page to edit the original article, if it omitted important information. The problem with a merge here is that I can't find any sources on the internet, even unusable ones, that verify Mtguild's account of how the group's founders left. Policy states that when it comes to controversial information, the burden of proof lies with the editor arguing to keep it. Accordingly, I can't see adding his account to Musical Theatre Guild. And obviously, an article can't exist when its author has admitted its only purpose is to provide a second point of view of a topic already covered in its own article.--Djrobgordon 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a hornets nest isnt it. Whatever is decided via AfD will cause problems for someone associated with this guild. After reading the discussion you pointed me at - I come to the conclusion that an edit war may start on this article. This guild does not seem very famous outside LA so really we have to question is either article worthy of a place on wikipedia. Im coming to the conclusion that it is not and this might be better suited on a personal website which would be harder to be vandalised. --PrincessBrat 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided when this AfD closes. If this group is indeed notable there will be sources forthcoming and we won't have to rely on first-hand research by someone involved with the group to give us the details. Awyong J. M. Salleh 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. WP is not a place for first-person accounts, sorry. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge We usually merge different point of view, we dont make two articles, as the author suggests, or delete one of the sides, as some others have suggested. DGG 02:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is that, without sources, merging the information will result in an unsourced weasel section; something like "Some say the founders of the Musical Theater Group were unjustly ousted..."--Djrobgordon 03:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, but welcome Beaches of Newcastle article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:58Z

Newcastle Stretch

[edit]

Fails WP:ATT. Cannot find reliable third party references to verify the information in the article. Nv8200p talk 14:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any reliable sources referring to the Newcastle stretch. However, if the article were to be rewritten as Beaches of Newcastle, New South Wales with references, I would support keeping. The picture might also be worth keeping. Capitalistroadster 04:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 02:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Capitalistroadster. A "Beaches of Newcastle" article would be helpful, but this would need some serious referencing and work. Also, Speedy Delete map, as it is a copyrighted map from www.whereis.com.au with a few bits of text added and shouldn't be on Wikipedia - it's a copyvio and is easily replaceable with a user-drawn map. JRG 10:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks to be a purely arbitrary name not in wide use. Lankiveil 10:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Userfication is available upon request, as always. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:56Z

NBA on Memorial Day

[edit]

Delete - similar to football on Christmas and basketball on Christmas and Filipino basketball on Christmas, playing basketball on Memorial Day is not so culturally significant as to warrant an article. Otto4711 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Otto said, it's not culturally significant, unlike Thanksgiving Classic. - PoliticalJunkie 16:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The expected coincidence of playing the same day as a holiday does not automatically make it notable. Especially when compared to games/events that are specifically celebrated around holidays, such as the Thanksgiving Classic and Labour Day Classic. The attempt at tying the playing of NBA games with memorials for 9/11 is nothing more than revisionist history. Resolute 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete Though it's a nice-looking article, I think this is pushing things, even from an inclusionist's standpoint. I know basketball, and there's nothing especially significant about playing on Memorial Day. The games just don't have the same cultural resonance as the NFL's Thanksgiving Classic. Really, no date-specific game in the NBA does. I'd hate to see this get nuked, though. Could the creator perhaps move it to his/her userspace? Zagalejo 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Whole Wheat Radio (could have done this without AFD). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:55Z

Wheathead

[edit]

Should be merged to Whole Wheat Radio, but all useful information is already there. Delete. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 14:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are wheatheads of other flavors (google it). --sparkit^TALK 16:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC) (Wheathead)[reply]
Redirect to prevent accidental future re-creation. Dar-Ape 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rdsmith4 [67]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Woods (2007 film)

[edit]

Two people tried to put this up for AfD, neither of them finished the process, so I am completing it. According to the website listed in the article, this is a homemade movie, so totally non-notable, violates various policies, etc. Xyzzyplugh 15:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN, WP:RS Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete as saying it's a home-made movie in the article is actually a claim against its own notablity. But actually this artlce fails just about every wikipedia inclusion policy from WP:Crystal to WP:Vanity to WP:Advert and just about everything in between. For a home-made film to ever be considered notable it would need to become a cult or underground classic watched by millions and this cannot be established at present because it hasn't been released yet. A1octopus 16:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability. So tagged. Alternatively, regular delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam. Awyong J. M. Salleh 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netgem

[edit]

unencyclopedic, reads like an ad Nardman1 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NOT appears to be a dump of a user guide. Nuttah68 15:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM, WP:NOT Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:53Z

Bayview Glen Church

[edit]

Contested speedy. An article on a non notable church that is unsourced. Fails WP:ORG, WP:ATT Nuttah68 15:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's nothing evident to make this notable over other local churches. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per BPMullins, and because the map of the church, off the church's web site, is small, and the church seems non-notable.
Keep but mark as stub. The church seems notable enough to have an article, but this needs more work. Ezratrumpet 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources are in the article or could be readily found to show notability. Nothing to satisfy WP:N or (disputed) proposed guideline WP:CONG. Edison 00:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to satisfy WP:CONG. JRG 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:53Z

Fairground Gaming

[edit]

This was an online gaming holdings company, however it has now been placed into liquidation.[68] The company no longer exists. The casinos have been bought back by the original owners. The casinos themselves have no notability: see successful AFDs on other Microgaming casinos [69] and [70] for past AFDs.

Weak Delete - one third-party source (BBC News) is cited, but ideally more sources are needed to establish notability per WP:CORP, which requires "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources". The fact that the company no longer exists is not in itself a reason for deletion, but I agree that casino businesses are not inherently notable, unless they pass WP:CORP. Delete therefore, unless further sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, update. Easily met WP:CORP, now article needs to say "was". If all the assets went somewhere else, it could be redirected there, but we have Category:Defunct gambling companies for a reason. 2005 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Into Safe Port Act. Has two decent sources, but all they really say is that the company shut down due to the Safe Port Act. —dgies^t_c 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Dismissed; expanded by Pomte. No prejudice against renomination if there are still concerns. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:51Z

Refresh

[edit]

This is a disambiguation page, but there is only one active link on this page. Hiddenhearts Sign Here! My Talk 16:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary page. - PoliticalJunkie 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary --PrincessBrat 17:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Refresh Rate. This is something that will be likely entered in the search box. meshach 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the original soft redirect to wiktionary that is in the edit history. I think rather than deleting the page outright, something similar to that should be considered, since it is likely to be a search term. However, I don't think Refresh Rate addresses all aspects of the term for which people might be searching. —Carolfrog 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as soft redirect to Wiktionary per Carolfrog. A disambig page for 1 link is unnecessary, but I don't know if refresh rate would be what people searching for "refresh" want to find. -- Black Falcon 22:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added some articles to the list, though their placement there is arguable. The first two are ones I would look for if I were to search "refresh", so a disambiguation would serve that purpose. –Pomte 03:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For most of those, if I were to search for them, I wouldn't just search for "refresh". Hiddenhearts Sign Here! My Talk 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:49Z

Eathan Keyboards

[edit]

This person does not appear to be notable; most of his Google hits are for networking and social websites rather than news, reviews, etc. Also autobiographical-- created by User:Eathan Keyboards. Dar-Ape 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete im sure he is a lovely person but he is simply not in the slightest bit notable --PrincessBrat 17:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not qualify for WP:MUSIC#Composers/Lyricists; Google search on "Eathan keyboards" are majority Blog/Social sites. anthonycfc ^[talk] 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually say speedy delete under CSD A7 (no assertion of notability in the article); however, I won't tag it as such unless other users agree. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Harrison (singer/songwriter)

[edit]

Prod removed and the original reasons still stand, this probably fails WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO, has no reliable sources so not verifiable. Most significant editors are all WP:SPAs. The Rambling Man 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claims to meeting WP:MUSIC and no sources to back up what claims there are. Nuttah68 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The artist in the article is a genuine person, the product is genuine, as is the information given. For verification, please check on the wesite link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portland12 (talk • contribs).
Weak Delete - what Portland12 says is true, but we're not just looking for verification; Wikipedia policies also require that a biographical article should establish notability. No one's disputing that this man exists; the question is whether he is notable. WP:BIO requires evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources, which is not provided, as the only source is to the subject's own website. Delete therefore, unless independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The artist is notable, on a more local/cult status perhaps than on a nationwide status, but in a climate where the major record labels dominate, someone must support the indie labels, and the 'indie' artists. The album in question appears to be linked to the Probe Plus label, a renowned label which has supported unsigned bands/artists and got music to listeners, which is the important point. If we ourselves are debating this deletion, then thats a good pointer to the fact that everyday people can have a say in what we want to say - which is democratic, thus this particular artist, though being on an indie label, still can reach the ears of a limited audience, and democracy can still work, without domination from bigger authorities.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portland12 (talk • contribs).
- Comment indeed, this is a democratic discussion but WP has a number of well-defined policies for biographies which you would be advised to familiarise yourself with in order to prevent the article being deleted, namely WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:RS and WP:V. Feel free to get in touch with me if you'd like to discuss this further. The Rambling Man 18:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the notability of the artist (after reviewing your references above)he has independent and non-trivial sources with several reviews of his album by un-related music websites, some as far as South America and throughout Europe, he's on the UK based Channel 4/Music page and also has a number of well visited myspace profiles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portland12 (talk • contribs).

- Comment excellent news, so may I suggest that you add these citations (see WP:CITE), assuming they are reliable sources to the article in question, perhaps visit Wikipedia's biography project and ensure the article in question is written from a neutral perspective. Also, since all major edits have been to this article from three single-purpose accounts, could I also suggest WP:COI just to be sure. The Rambling Man 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo. Releasing an album is not sufficient evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In regards to suggestions added by The Rambling Man, I'v edited the article in question with citations from independent, reliable, non-trivial sources.
Keep - the article now seems to meet all criteria when examined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portland12 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment there is not enough to change my decision yet. Both the Channel 4 and Nucleus sites are actively requesting user contributions so are not independent. That leaves one local newspaper article which, IMO, is not enough to meet WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - two other sources added which are independent of user contributions as they are music review sites. There seems to be many of these if you 'Google the name and album. portland12 12:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:48Z

Aaron Kelley

[edit]

Autobiographical vanity page, IMHO. The author was (I'm almost certain) using sock/mock/meatpuppets to remove speedy deletion tags - but a claim of notability was made, making it ineligible for speedy deletion. Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the individuality section of WP:NOTE - the only source provided is the subject's MySpace page. --Nevhood 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - as Nevhood says, the only link is to the subject's MySpace, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless appropriately sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According the article, the individual in question is well known to those who belong to a subculture in a particular locale, but after reading the external links given, that claim seems dubious. Writing a single Op-ed piece for a subculture magazine, or having supplied several sentences of quotations published in similiar publications, doesn't meet the bar raised by WP:BIO; otherwise anyone could claim that getting their own Op-ed letter published in a newspaper would qualify themselves for inclusion. Like the nominator for deletion, I too am suspicious of the circumstances of the anonymous deletion of the original db-bio tag (the only recent edit from that IP address), and several brand new accounts were apparently created for the sole purpose of defending or working on the article. - Itsfullofstars 19:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable individual. Article fails WP:A. Probable vanity, especially since his "friends" are jumping in to defend the article. Resolute 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, the article's author just made a legal threat on my talk page - my first on Wikipedia! RJASE1 ^Talk 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any chance of closing this discussion per WP:SNOW? RJASE1 ^Talk 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Aaron Samuels and a fan of Aaron's. You state you are 'almost' certain Mr. Kelley is using mock _____ to comment on this page, I am most certainly not one of them. I have been anticipating an article to be found on him in Wikipedia, and am glad as a user he is finally here. If you delete this article, you will be using bad judgement, and it is a shame. The term 'used for vanity' is extreme, and would be considered defamation in legal terms. Please carefully consider your words and the way you choose to make claims to people. This is a professional forum, I hope, and let's carry ourselves professionally and with dignity. These claims are false—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.73.90 (talk • contribs).

Delete I'm with Itsfullofstars, this is full of single-purpose accounts editing an article of dubious notability. -- Scientizzle 22:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete There is one reliable online sources, the W. Blade, but he's only mentioned in a column. I am not sure about db bio, because it does assert notability. But the look ofthe article would seem to explain why it wasnt wholly unreasonable. The spa's are no reason to delete--we just ignore them. I saw the comment, and advise RJASE not to take it as a serious threat.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs).
- Yes, the SPAs are not a reason to delete, just a reason to doubt the unsourced claims within the article and this AfD. In any case, the article clearly doesn't meet WP:V or WP:BIO. -- Scientizzle 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incidentally, notice that the comment piece in the first link describes Mr.Kelley as a social worker. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Googling "Aaron Kelley" gets 938 GHits, and as far as I can see ALL of those are about someone else, mostly an Elvis impersonator called Jamie Aaron Kelley (who incidentally *hasn't* got a Wikipedia article). Even if it's sourced, the article badly needs a rewrite as well - the last section reads like a fluff piece from a celebrity magazine. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Being quoted in the paper isn't the same as being the subject of an article. - Aagtbdfoua 00:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to InvisionFree. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:47Z

ZetaBoards

[edit]

Article is an advertisement and falls under WP:Spam HagenUK 17:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I wouldn't call it blatant advertising (hence not eligible for speedy under CSD G11), but the sources cited are affiliated with the subject of the article, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless further sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too do not believe that this was created for advertising. I contribute because people might want to know about ZetaBoards all in one website in one place instead of finding information all over the net! I will try to add more sources. - Titan602 20:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Titan602 is one of the main contributors to the Zetaboards side and therefore entitled to voice his/hers opinion about the continuation of the article. My opinion (which might be wrong) from reading the article that it looks like a thinly disguised advertisement for a fairly standard product/service. This is, I guess, why the other tags were already assigned to it. Unless the article can be updated to prove notability and move beyond the advert/leaflet stage, I still think it should be deleted. HagenUK 13:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a tag you can use instead of deleting it about advertising. I will add that tag now and delete the deletion box... - Titan602 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Needs to show some coverage in independent, reliable sources. Please reinsert the afd tag. Removing it does not close the debate, and frankly leaving it on is more likely to help you. If there are users that look up the article about Zetaboards and they see the tag, they may wish to come here and contribute. - Aagtbdfoua 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Golokhov

[edit]

Found this page while moving a page for a new user. It certainly contravenes WP:COI, but as for actual notability and sourcing, having no knowledge of US sports, I have No Opinion. Can an admin remove the original page Dave golokhov, as it is now pointless? EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. He doesn't seem to satisfy the requirements of the WP:BIO guideline. He hasn't been written about by multiple non-trivial sources. (A flurry in the Letters to the Editor of the publication he works for isn't non-trivial and as far as I can tell it didn't spread past askmen.com.) He has received no significant awards. His writings are not part of a curriculum and have not been cited. He did not create a new theory, nor is he considered an innovator by his peers. He's one of ten thousand sports writers. Perhaps some day he will win a significant award or be considered among the best in his field, but for now he appears to be non-notable. --Charlene 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response To Weak Delete To satisfy the requirements of the WP:BIO guideline, one does not have to be considered among "the best in the field" or "considered an innovator by his peers".

There are hundreds of sports athletes who are not viewed as such with pages on Wikipedia and there are countless sports writers with a smaller following than the current writer considered. Dave Golokhov does has been written about by multiple non-trivial sources such as USAToday and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. His article reach is along the MSN Network, which includes having his articles featured on MSN.com - the internet's largest website. There are only a handful of Canadians who have accomplished that feat. When googled, 11 pages worth of content surfaces. Furthermore, his recent appearance on a sports talk show - The Grill Room on Sun TV, makes him their youngest guest ever. His articles are referenced on Wikipedia pages, such as NFL Superstar Chad Johnson (Top 10 Sports Showboats) as well as 'List of Famous NHL Linemates'. If a page like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Buffery is allowed to exist, then surely this page should as well. --Dave]] 23:33, 4 March 2007

Delete non-notable journalist. MLA 11:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Footlights. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:44Z

Footlights President

[edit]

There already exists an article on the Footlights. This one simply provides a list of past presidents of the organisation, the vast majority of whom are not notable. The Footlights do not deserve two articles, even if there are some interesting people on this list but they are already mentioned in the main article. Lincolnite 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Footlights. Agree with nom that the position does not merit its own article; some of the past presidents certainly are notable, but their holding of the position should be noted in their own articles. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - plenty of scope for this information to be included within the main article. MLA 11:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-I found this separate list very useful when researching the Footlights.

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

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

The result was delete...weakly, of course :) - Daniel Bryant 09:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital TV

[edit]

Non-notable TV station, which may not even be operating (if the talk page is to be believed). Although Google results for "Capital TV" look good, when specific statements are searched for there are no sources that establish the station's notability. For example, "Capital TV" Cardiff 2002 -wikipedia gets 19 hits, about half which are relevant. [71] Awyong J. M. Salleh 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - although most TV stations have some claim to notability, the nominator's research shows that this one may be quite obscure (and may not even be operating). Only link is to their official site, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:CORP (which seems to be the applicable guideline here, as there's no special guideline on TV stations). Delete therefore, unless independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - no sources apart from those surrounding the launch. Addhoc 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Existence of God. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:43Z

Mathematics and God

[edit]

The article has no references and barely and content. Has been nominated twice before, but no consensus could be reached. Seems to be entirely original resource and a little bit biased as well. Gan fon 16:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is like a disamiguation page but its content is very controversial. I think this sort of stuff is outside the scope of wikipedia and the author should put this sort of content to religious organisations for debate. --PrincessBrat 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's a dab, nor controversial (the arguments listed have all been made), but it is redundant, as the content is covered in Existence of God and available in Category:Arguments for the existence of God. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this discussion has been listed as a subpage of the AfD above, not as a page in its own right - I don't know how to fix it. Does anyone know how to list it properly? thanks. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Existence of God. I wouldn't call the content controversial, but it reads like WP:OR and is currently unsourced. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe redirect to Numerology?--Djrobgordon 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was originally created as a subpage of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eathan Keyboards, the content has now been copied over to here. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the history of this article, see the first AfD and the second AfD. Following the second, some editors pruned the article from essentially a list of quotations of mathematicians about God to a list of mathematical arguments about the existence of God. They then proposed that the article be renamed to Mathematical proofs of the existence of God or merged to Existence of God, but this never occurred. However, all the content seems to already be in Existence of God, albeit scattered over there instead of in a section focused on mathematical arguments. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Merge anything useful that might be in it to Existence of God. -FunnyMan 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've referenced and expanded the article to contain more context than Existence of God currently has on the subject. In case it anyone feels it's appropriate, please link the article from there to expand information on briefly discussed connections. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into existence of God or delete. I don't see the point in making this a separate article. —David Eppstein 07:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain which criteria of the deletion policy do you believe this meets? This is a well-researched subject with a lot of available information: [72][73]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why I'd prefer to merge the content. But once the content is merged into the more appropriate article, I don't care whether this title remains, so I'm ok with a delete outcome as well. But if you want an actual argument for deletion: "Mathematics and God" as a title seems to presuppose the existence and uniqueness of God (else it would be something longer like "Mathematics and Gods" or "Mathematics and Religion" or "Mathematics and the Christian God" or "Mathematical arguments for the existence of God"); that presupposition is a violation of WP:NPOV. —David Eppstein 16:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well-researched topic deserves a separate article, although a few lines on this in Existence of God might be useful. As for the rename, I will move the article to "Mathematics and Religion" once this AfD is closed according to the first source, which doesn't necessarily discuss the Christian God. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article doesn't even have anything to do to with mathematics. The statement "it's better to believe in god than to not believe in god" has no basis in mathematics at all. What if the god you believe in isn't the right one? There are over 9000 religions in this world, all claiming the rest are wrong and damned by the one "true" god. If a god does exist, then you only have a one in 9000 chance of getting it right! Now thats mathematics! This article is biased and only represents one side of the debate. --Candy-Panda 08:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that statement as irrelevant. Disagreement with a certain part of the article isn't a valid reason for deletion. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Existence of God as proposed above. It would fit there well and I do not see reasons for an article with such a POV-loaded title and not very consistent content.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Existence of God. I'm surprised it didn't contain the account of the alleged debate between Euler and Diderot, in which Euler confidently opened: "Sir, (a + bⁿ) / n = x, therefore God exists: answer!" - Smerdis of Tlön 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michaelas10. Mathmo ^Talk 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The first two afds were for a longer article [74] which talked about the what mathematicians thought about god, or some such, but was pretty un-encyclopedic (it was a collection of half-quotes). The length an breadth of that article was a big part of the reason people "voted" keep (I say voted because they mostly left the discussion afterwards). This material fit better at Relationship between religion and science and elsewhere, and was removed in January per talk page. What is left has little to do with its title, and anything that isn't at Existence of God can be put there in two seconds. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If a subject may be expanded with further encyclopedic information, it should be kept. Solely having a stub isn't a valid reason for deletion nor merge. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm, ok. But I'm saying it was expanded, and then the consensus was to deflate, because the material belonged elsewhere. What is left shouldn't be kept. If you think you can write an encyclopedic expansion go ahead. If the article is deleted before you get a chance, you might write it in your user space. But this isn't encyclopedic, and the direction the article is going now isn't helping. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Existence of God. If expanded (which it appears hasn't happened thus far), this could be a good article in its own right. As a student, I found the idea scientists/mathematicians had historically diverted their attentions to religion and God interesting. An accurate historical account is encyclopedic. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 12:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. This article doesn't have enough legs to stand on its own and almost all of its unsourced. Chevinki 08:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:41Z

Jim Callender

[edit]

Prod contested by an ip address. Freelance web designer with the claim to notability of he won an award from a recruitment consultants. [75] Nuttah68 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity/promo. WP != your free advertising service, Jim. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and thank you for the Spam Alf^Photoman 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. Wooyi 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:41Z

GeneCalling

[edit]

Lengthy corporate advert. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs cleanup to conform to WP:NPOV, but appears to be a notable genomics technique. Just because the patent hasn't expired doesn't mean it's automatically an advertisement. —Carolfrog 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Evidence of notability with strong references. Needs cleanup but has decent amount of NPOV material there. —dgies^t_c 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid genomics technique. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mbeach14 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 State College, Pennsylvania. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:40Z

The Phyrst

[edit]

The article is about a random bar. No assertion of individual distinction is made, so I think this is just plain not notable. Deranged bulbasaur 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. The closest claim this article makes for notability is that it is "well known for its Irish theme"? It and 50 other bars in every city. Resolute 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. So tagged. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ((hangon)) has been used and the author posted this comment on the article talk page. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Neutral. Neutral pending additional sources such as this one. Also, additional comments on the matter. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per GChriss' linked comments concerning local interest only - if there are sources other than the Collegian that demonstrate further notability, I'll reconsider. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay which he links in defense of local interest topics does not carry the weight of a policy or guideline, and therefore has little relevance to this discussion. The only thing intimated by the references is that this is a place where kids from a certain college go to get drunk. Were it not located as it is, doubtless it would lose even that distinction, showing it to be incendental rather than substantive: the same sort of notability as owns the notorious backally in my city where kids from a certain ghetto go to sniff paint stripper. As for the musical performances, it has not been shown, in the larger scheme, that this venue is suitably notable in that respect either. Deranged bulbasaur 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I recognize that it's not policy or a guideline at all. However, it's not even in defense of local interest: "Has The Phyrst been the subject of any reputable publications, demonstrating more than local interest?" seems to indicate to me that GChriss expresses doubt as to the notability of local attractions. I'm with you on this - the only reason I said "weak delete" instead of flat-out "delete" was to leave open the possibility of more notable or significant sources, since I would likely not be surprised if they do in fact exist. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was moreso referring to comments such as: "This article qualifies under Wikipedia:Places_of_local_interest." on Talk:The Phyrst. I'm sorry if I fomented any confusion. Deranged bulbasaur 05:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CubeSat. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:38Z

TJ^3Sat

[edit]

Dubiously notable microsatellite. Whosasking 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable right now, but may get press coverage after launch in two years, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —dgies^t_c 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the subject becomes written about by reliable published sources, such as newspapers and scientific magazines. At this point in time, Google has nothing (7-10 hits, none covering the subject outside Wikipedia), GNews has nada. -- saberwyn 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. CubeSats are interesting topics, and the first high school cubesat will be neat to see, as this sort of project is normally at the university level. I wish there was more information on this particular picosat. The link I followed from CubeSat gave an expired Yahoo link, and the only other sources I immediately found were the Fairfax County Times and an Orbital press release. If someone has a Space.com membership, they could potentially access this article, but I can't. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spice (drug)

[edit]

There is no coverage of this in third-party reliable sources. The only sources cited in the article are either first party, or reference forum posts and other such non-reliable web content. There's not even any indication as to what ingredients produce the effect, and most of the claims about the product seem to be heresay or material culled from the producing company's advertising. The article makes claims that are tantamount to claims of pharmacological efficacy, but there's no confirmation of this by reliable medical journals or such like. In the absense of sufficient coverage, this is not notable. Deranged bulbasaur 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of original research, no reliable sources, no indication of notability. —dgies^t_c 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if external sources can be found, it's good content. Otherwise, delete as original research. -FunnyMan 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete content per concording reasons above and redirect to Melange. The spice must flow. SM247^{My Talk} 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hee hee—that's what I thought it would be when I clicked on the article, too. From a purely OR standpoint, I myself have never heard of this particular Spice, and therefore I like the solution of redirecting to Melange. But if reliable third-party sources can be found, I wouldn't want to impose my metaverseview on everyone else. :) —Carolfrog 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melange...I was thinking of Dune when I saw this AfD too, and I've never even read it. As for this article...well, none of the sources are reliable, there's no notability ascertained, it reads like an ad and probably is one, and...well, it comes off as a bunch of hooey.--UsaSatsui 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the page can be seen as an advertisement for a product, spice is a reasonably common product in the UK. The article is definitely not just an ad, because it contains critical information for example about overdosing and Leonurine. Also, the section about legality is an interesting read. If you think this is just an ad article you must delete Coca Cola too... And it's kind of unique and worth mentioning too, because there really aren't all that many legal products out there that claim to mimic the effects of marijuana and that come even close to spice. Now, as for references to support my claims, I'm afraid I can provide none! I say keep and try to find some references but keep in mind that this will be hard due to the nature of the topic. Alex.g 18:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're comparing this to Coca Cola? Have you heard of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? —dgies^t_c 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Now, as for references to support my claims, I'm afraid I can provide none!". Need we say anything more?--UsaSatsui 23:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Emo (music). No verified content to merge. - Daniel Bryant 09:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emo violence

[edit]

Contested PROD FunnyMan 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Delete per above searches. Addhoc 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm neutral in this, just submitting it for Hoponpop69, who apparently didn't know what to do when someone removed his PROD template. -FunnyMan 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks for your involvement FunnyMan! Looking at the article history, I think it was Rx StrangeLove who added the original prod. Addhoc 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yet more proof of the fact that I'm not paying enough attention to the article to have a good opinion on it. :) -FunnyMan 07:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion here, I saw it had a speedy tag which I wasn't sure belonged so I removed it and proded it instead...RxS 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete-Hoponpop69 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
Keep not a very good genre, but it is notable, being a genre in Last.fm, and anyone who wants to comment on this please go to the Emo violence article, click on "what links here" you can see lots of notable bands are using this genre. Wooyi 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of noteable bands? Three bands link here, one of which is a candidate for speedy deletion.Hoponpop69 00:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, maybe it's just a few bands that actually use that genre. But if only the two are really notable, the genre shouldn't be a redlink, at least make a redirect to a similar genre. Wooyi 01:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete or Merge Just another Urban Dictionary entry, few links, should not have an article. Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, at best redirect to Emo (music). dab (𒁳) 17:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can accept the redirect, because a redlink on a musician's infobox is very awkward. Wooyi 22:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So can we redirect this now?Hoponpop69 03:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I think there are a couple other emo music subgenres that are rederecting already. Also, last.fm tags don't really give a good idea of what is notable (although this is somewhat notable, it just doesn't need its own page). Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, no consensus to transwiki. Daniel Bryant 09:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zolaism

[edit]

Either a dic-def or a neologism; either way, it's not an encylopedic subject. PC78 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. [76] suggests that it's in the OED, and a quick search (thanks to a university subscription) shows that they're right. First reference in 1882, definitely not a neologism. -FunnyMan 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - not covered under WP:NEO per the comments of FunnyMan. I was going to vote Transwiki per WP:WINAD, but the page says that it incorporates text from the Nuttall Encyclopedia - doesn't that make it an encyclopedic topic? Although the article is written like a dicdef at present, I think it could be expanded into a decent article - we do have articles on literary movements. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - if 3000 articles on types of Marxism exist, I'd say that one article about Zolaism isn't too much. Google Books has plenty to fill the article out [77]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the potential to expand beyond dic-def. –Pomte 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiren's boot CD

[edit]

Unreferenced, non-notable software (not every boot CD is notable!) /Blaxthos 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wouldn't have guessed it from the article, but Google seems to like it, as do the Digg crowd. I'm surprised, but it looks like this is a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. -FunnyMan 20:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would give a few links to torrent trackers here showing its popularity but I don't think I'm allowed to do that, am I? --- Jacques Pirat - Talk : Contribs 20:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog posts and requests for download locations isn't really the same as reliable sources with any sort of WP:Notability. Google/digg hits shouldn't be the measure for inclusion on Wikipedia -- let's stick to our rules for inclusion, not how popular a warez CD is on torrent/warez sites. /Blaxthos 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say that you look at the amount of torrents there are for the CD's current version and the amount of comments in various trackers. Is that not a decent measurement of popularity? --- Jacques Pirat - Talk : Contribs 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. If it were truely WP:Notable, it would be WP:ATTribituable to reliable sources. It may appear notable within a technocentric niche (which has a higher probability to vote in WP:AFD discussions ;-) ), but it still doesn't meet our core requirements of notability and attribution. /Blaxthos 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has gained notablity - I remember seeing it all over the place when looking for a boot CD on my own. Had I been able to find a download link at the time, it's likely this CD would have been able to solve the technical snafu I was having (instead it took about five hours of Google-massage before a working entry leaked out that wasn't spam or crippleware). It seems the "warez" scene is at a disadvantage, as by part of its nature it's near impossible to find what the more overly bureaucratic-minded editors would consider a "reliable source" of information. Once a "reliable source" publishes something about a warez outlet or whathaveyou, it tends to disappear rather rapidly. I believe the standards should be different with something like this, which still serves a useful enough purpose (if memory serves me correctly, it was one of the first "free" boot CDs of any sort, legal or not), and carries a legacy that, even if it's part of the youth-corrupting and profit-killing warez industry, passes notability. --Action Jackson IV 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it take more "Skillz" to work out how to fix a system problem within legal means (with freeware) rather than just downloading Hiren's boot CD and fixing it using that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutley (talk • contribs) 04:45, 5 March 2007

It would take some money for some of the problems you can fix with Hiren's Boot CD. I don't think there are freeware alternatives to such things as data recovery. However, there is some freeware on the CD made by hackers, crackers, and freelance developers IIRC. The pirated software I've seen in the CD's list have mostly been in partitioning, data recovery, and antivirus plus the DOS utilities if they aren't from FreeDOS. --- Jacques Pirat - Talk : Contribs 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But it should be added to List_of_LiveDistros btw it isn't a distro as such but other boot cds have been added to this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mutley (talk • contribs) 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:33Z

Plymouth-Canton Marching Band

[edit]

contested prod for high school marching band. merge & redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permian High School Band Cornell Rockey 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an afd discussion if you want to merge. You don't need an afd discussion to do anything other than to delete. Speedy keep and work out the merger on the respective articles' talk pages, where it belongs. —Cryptic 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Cryptic, though I'd suggest you be bold and merge it yourself. -FunnyMan 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm not sure what to keep, if anything, for a merge. I really lean towards delete personally, but precedent seems to indicate that HS bands merit mention in their respective high school articles. If you'd like to be bold, go for it and I'll withdraw the nomination. Cornell Rockey 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do NOT merge They're winning national rankings in competitions. That should mean they have local newspaper articles specifically about them. That passes WP:NOTABILITY. That is justification for keeping them under Wikipedia policy, and if they're that good, I think they should remain. Merge and I assume you'll find supporters of the band reversing your merge. Noroton 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the band. I don't know if I can vote to keep my own article. There will be a full article in Tuesday's Detroit Free press (Page 2, March 6th 2007) about the band. As well I have a large amount (20 or more) articles from the Detroit News & Free Press, Ann Arbor News, as well as local newspapers about the band's national reputation in the last four years. [78] (Just one example. I have many more.) I believe this to be a very notable thing. Refusetobesilenced

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for being in the top rankings in national competitions year after year. Edison 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely notable high school marching band (one of the most notable high school marching bands). --- RockMFR 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added six references citing newspaper articles about the band including the Detroit Free Press. I believe this adds to it's notability? Refusetobesilenced 23:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of the best, well documented (now). --Hobit 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its notable and referenced. Needs a bit of a clean up. LordHarris 00:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Sasquatch t|c 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Bastien

[edit]

The page consists of the profession of the guy, his birth date and place, the name of his parents, and the name of his band (which is not on Wikipedia). Definite notability problem. The only article that has a link to "Shawn Bastien" is the disambiguation page called Shawn.

Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 20:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). Just describing him as a member of a band is not, in itself, an assertion of notability. Tagged with db-bio. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Walton -FunnyMan 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:32Z

Greg almond

[edit]

Does not meet notability guidelines, as per WP:BIO Jammy Simpson | Talk | 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BLP and WP:ATT besides WP:V and so on Alf^Photoman 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable DJ, may be famous in a local level but not meet wiki notability standards. Wooyi 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:32Z

Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam

[edit]

No evidence of notability; prod added in Nov 2006. Vintagekits 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, aristocratic, socialist politician. --Counter-revolutionary 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, That is true, however, that alone (being a local councillor with a minor title) would not make a person notable.--Vintagekits 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further notability is claimed. At the moment she is the granddaughter/sister of nobility with no title of her own, failing WP:BIO (and the proposed WP:NOBLE), and a local politician, again failing WP:BIO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuttah68 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Counter-revolutionary has added some useful references. --Eastmain 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, He has references have been added to say that she was a socialist local councillor, thats not notable.--Vintagekits 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "well-known social worker" does not meet notability guidelines in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Given the period, even the sketch of a career provided shows N.DGG 02:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Lady Mabel meets the criteria laid out in WP:BIO Astrotrain 09:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, which criteria - noting that WP:BIO states "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." - local councillor does not meet this criteria!--Vintagekits 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable in her own right (which was relatively unusual in those days) as well as the College being named after her. - Kittybrewster 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:quite notable. David Lauder 10:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "quite notable"!? how?--Vintagekits 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the admin closing this AfD, please note a number of editors who have !voted on this !vote have been involved in vote canvassing and now what another administrator has called “lock step” voting. Over the past months a number of editors have been accused of !voting on the basis of what “they like” rather than using the rationale of wiki policies. A number of central users such as Astrotrain, Kittybrewster, Counter-revolutionary, David Lauder, Major Bonkers but at times have also included Fraslet and to a lesser extent Weggie and Gibnews and also El chulito and Inthegloaming who I very strongly suspect are/were socks.

This is a personal attack which I presume comes from User:vintagekits but is not signed. I have two socks and am wearing them on my feet. The following long rant has nothing to do with this AfD and some of the comments made are of a threatening nature. --Gibnews 01:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a rant if no evidence was provided. It has everything to do with this AfD as it is a continuing pattern of behaviour.--Vintagekits 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: the rest of the above discussion on "vote canvassing" has been moved to the talk page.

Keep as a "pioneer in education and social welfare". I would like to see more information in this article though. I'm sure it is available. Tyrenius 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, :If there were any details of how she was a "pioneer in education and social welfare" then I might agree with you however as the claim is made by "maltyonline" single line reference her I find that claim massively grandiose, also not that eachof the references used are local papers with zero details of any substance. --Vintagekits 09:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:30Z

God of War III

[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced and purely speculative. John254 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article appears to be based on some comments the producer of God of War II made while at a party.[[79]] I watched the video, and he couldn't even confirm for certain that this game would ever exist.Vicjm 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball, and re-create when we can WP:Attribute the fact of the game's creation to a published source such as a dedicated gaming magazine. -- saberwyn 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article as much as claims it is unverifiable, plus violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. —dgies^t_c 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's completely speculative, plus it's poorly written. The Ðark Crusader 05:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is not unverifiable and can have sources which mean likewise it would not be speculative. A couple of google searches easily turn up well over a 100,000 results. And as can be seen from the results it is confirmed that the creator has got plans in mind for the creation of this game. Mathmo ^Talk 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only true credible sources I've recently searched are of David Jaffe hinting at a God of War 3 game, but I haven't found any concrete evidence stating as such; I present this info for others to determine if this source would be enough. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upon futher inspection (which didn't take long) I've discovered that there are no official statements of a GoW3, that is, this could possibly never happen. Wikipedia ain't no WP:CRYSTAL ball. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:30Z

SIAD

[edit]

New "political party" but has very few sources and I'm not really familiar what it takes to be a political party in Denmark. Hence, an AFD!Sasquatch t|c 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no regulations for being a political party in Denmark, anyone can claim it. This group seems to be very small, and is unlikely to get the necessary signatures to stand for elections. I just Googled the group, and see that the group has got some media attention for its extreme racist policy and participation in violent clashes with persons from the left and immigrants. I didn't know about the group, but it is possible notable enough - because of its violent history on the far right scene - to have an article here. In that case it needs to be completely rewritten. Now it reads like an ad. Better delete until then. Bertilvidet 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Political parties are not inherently notable: They need to attract mainstream press coverage and/or get people elected to office. 400 people and a mention in a community journalism site doesn't cut it. —dgies^t_c 01:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The membership of 400 seems little probable and no source is given. I can see they stood for municipal elections in the town of Aalborg with 4 candidates and did not get anybody elected. Seems to be a local phenomenon. Bertilvidet 09:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many political parties on Wikipedia who do not have elected representation. Perhaps we should delete them too? --Saltar2020 20:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha (2nd nomination)

[edit]

A wiki, which—although its community seems to overlap somewhat with our own—does not meet the notability criteria of WP:WEB. The only two references not to the site itself are two trivial mentions in the Charlotte Observer and Florida Trend. As a result of not having any independent, published sources, the article suffers from the same problems that you would expect, namely it is full of original research and written from the personal knowledge of its community members. The first nomination was speedily kept without any serious discussion of the sites notability. I know that it was previously a featured article, but it was defeatured for having no sources. Please don't vote keep just because you've heard of it. Savidan 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Previously featured article, previously speedy kept, notable website which meets inclusion guidelines, not to mention we have article for far far less notable website, e.g. "Lostpedia" which appears to set precedent for keeping. Matthew 21:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Because it is/isn't the case for article X" isn't a compelling reason (not) to keep/delete/alter/etc. an article. --EEMeltonIV 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please reread my comment, "not to mention" - à la, I'm not using it as a reason to keep the article, I'm merely stating that Wikipedia is in possession of other such articles. Matthew 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You said it sets a "precedent for keeping", which both EEMeltonIV and I are rebutting. Savidan 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please reread my message, I'm not giving any definitive words in that statement, I stated "appears". Matthew 13:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - That is a good reason, a bad reason would be that "Keep- I like it" .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia does at least appear to be well-sourced. However, the existence of other non-notables is not an argument. Savidan 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very notable site, pointless to delete Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known and notable website. --Carioca 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here are some notability points: [80] [81] possibly more in Starlog and other Trek-oriented magazines. FrozenPurpleCube 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a former featured article. If it was so non-notable as nom said, why it was promoted featured in the first place? suspect bad faith nom. Wooyi 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The fact it was even considered as a feature article -- and successfully -- IMO satisfies all notability requirements. 23skidoo 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article includes references with nontrivial coverage as a primary subject in the Charlotte Observer, Florida Trend, and the New York Times, satisfying WP:ATT and WP:N. In addition, it gets 27,600 Google hits , showing its prominence online. Edison 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. The sources are not as convincing as I'd like, but it was a featured article. That says something to me. Ab e g92contribs 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I completely missed the long "References" section. Changing to Strong Keep. Ab e g92contribs 15:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as previous featured article with references. Possible case for WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an adequately referenced article.-- danntm ^T _C 01:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If WP:WEB really doesn't include this topic then the fault lies with WP:WEB, IMO. Bryan Derksen 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this is one of those numerous times when we must shove policy (except the Big Three) out of our way and (gasp) Do The Right Thing. We're building an encyclopedia, not playing Nomic (or Silly Buggers). ➥the Epopt 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it lacks sources, they need to be provided, but FrozenPurpleCube shows such sources do exist, thereby meeting the primary notability criterion. Mgm|^(talk) 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Wooyi notes above, this is a former Featured Article, which itself is strong proof for a consensus that this article is not only notable, but an important subject. While I admit it's possible for a persuasive argument to be made to delete current or former FA, to do so one needs to address that rating & show that there was some undeniable error in making the article an FA in the first place. Reading the conversation over its nomination for FA and its demotion, I don't see any such error. -- llywrch 07:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 08:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive has 85 entries; Google Scholar has five probable hits, and Google Books has four hits, of which one (ISBN 0965357546, 2003) mentions a published proposal by a Sharon Ferraro of a yet to be built fan/archival website called "Memory Attack". John Vandenberg 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator and strongly with comment by EEMeltonIV. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination demonstrates a complete lack of anything resembling a clue, judgement or common sense, and any nomination from someone who can demonstrate such grossly defective judgement in complete sincerity should probably be flushed. (That's an expanded form of "delete nominator.") - David Gerard 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- -Please maintain a civil tone. Although I agree the article should be kept. The nominator is correct in that much of it is unsourced. --EEMeltonIV 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's sheer arseclownery. Saying "you are an idiot" is incivil; saying "you have bad judgement" is a statement on bad judgement. Tell me where I'm wrong - David Gerard 13:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, the "I attacked the action not the actor" bit. Compelling. Your tone, insofar as it comes across through text, and comments -- e.g. "lack of anything resembling a clue", "delete nominator", "arseclownery" -- are general exemplars of why Don't be a dick should be a policy. --EEMeltonIV 14:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nominations like this are great examples of why WP:POINT should have consequences. This nomination clearly fails WP:Afd#Before nominating an AfD, and as a result clogs up the system, preventing people from adequately addressing the other more borderline cases. John Vandenberg 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep per all of the above. - Denny 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:WEB, then WP:WEB is in error and should be amended. -- Arwel (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The same arguments could be made for any other concentrated wiki's. This is the foremost Trek wiki, a very notable site, and as mentioned a former featured article. Torlek 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What utter nonsense to nominate this. older ≠ wiser 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Duh. --Mike Schiraldi 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:WEB. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Vandenberg (and also Arwel, although per JV's comment, it looks like it does indeed meet WP:WEB. It can use some better sourcing, and that sourcing looks to be available, so deletion is not appropriate. schi ^talk 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikia. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:29Z

Memory Beta

[edit]

Non-notable wiki (WP:WEB). No sources. Being hosted on Wikia does not entitle one to a Wikipedia article. Savidan 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no mention of notability, fails WP:A Signed Jeepday 01:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikia since it may be notable in future and can be restored rather than rewritten then. Angela . 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB with no prejudice to recreation (or even undeletion) if prudent in the future. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Memory_Alpha Ron Ritzman 01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Valve Corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:27Z

Valve Developer Community

[edit]

Non-notable wiki (WP:WEB). No sources. Using WikiMedia software does not entitle one to Wikipedia article. Savidan 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being only 1 sentence long doesn't help the article. TJ Spyke 23:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. —dgies^t_c 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable or have published secondary sources. Probably worthy of an external link in the Valve Corporation article if it isn't already there, but that's it. --- RockMFR 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hailie Jade Scott (2nd nomination). Garion96 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hailie Mathers

[edit]

Redirected to Eminem but was reverted. She herself is not notable and any info regarding her is much better suited in the Eminem article. Garion96 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hailie Jade Scott (2nd nomination). --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWe should keep the article because she is notable, because she is mentioned a lot in the songs of here father Eminem.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nina90 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:25Z

Dirty Heads

[edit]

Contested speedy. Article on a band that makes no claim to notability and provides no sources. Fails WP:ATT and WP:MUSIC Nuttah68 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Reywas92^Talk 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article jumps the gun on notablity under WP:Music. Band might become notable in the near future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:25Z

Welland estate

[edit]

This is so poorly written and void of content that it won't even be useful to write a good article on the subject— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefringle (talk • contribs)

Delete, WP:OR and WP:POV problems, nothing worth merging with Peterborough. The Mirror does call it "notorious", but otherwise there are only trivial mentions, not enough for a full article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put a number of cleanup tags on this on 22nd February. I was keeping an eye on it to see if anyone did improve it. They haven't and i don't see that it qualifies as a notable subject for an article. Jules1975 11:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a search for the estate, and true to what was said it is a notorious estate particularly for the death of Rikki Neave . This is backed up by a local police report on crime. I've added a few links and some information. Seems a pity the place has to be notorious for crime - but perhaps some notoriety is better than none! Mike 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My concern at deleting this article is that information on smaller communitites tends to be entered by local people. For obvious reasons the Welland estate may not be well endowed with the type of people on Wikipedia (although there are a few hoodlums on global warming controversy!) What I'm trying to say, is that if this were a middle class village rather than a city estate it may well have had its own well-written entry. Mike 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Keep and Clean Up following improvements by Mike There is still quite a lot of unattributed information in the article and it needs improving, but I feel this estate now appears to be a local geographical area of sufficient note for an article. Jules1975 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:24Z

Renaissance Unity Interfaith Spiritual Fellowship

[edit]

Contested speedy. A article on a church claiming no notability, although it does claim notability for the minister who already has an article. Sources are, again more about the minister, blogs. Nuttah68 22:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I could not find independent reliable sources abnout the church in addition to the one Detroit Free Press article already cited. The other cites are to a religion blog that does not appear to be a reliable source. Fails to satisfi WP:CONG, the proposed (and disputed) guideline for notability of religious congregations. Edison 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Megachurch, has at least one reliable media cert, has had celebrity minister, also notable attendees such as Steve Tyler. Notable enough for mine. Raffles mk 05:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - is a megachurch (which according to note 3 of WP:CONG is notable), and someone has added some sources. Would do better with some more to verify its importance. JRG 10:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:24Z

Alys Faiz

[edit]

fails notability (see WP:WEB. There are no secondary sources mentioned confirming that this person is notable after two years. After a quick google search[82], I could find nothing on this person. Sefringle 22:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she was covered right here by the newspaper DAWN, leading English newspaper of Pakistan, when she died. She seems to be a famous person by her own right instead just a wife of another notable person. Wooyi 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in any case we need more sources, I don't think that the article will survive many AfDs with just an obituary Alf^Photoman 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain 00:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references added by Eastmain, with which the article satisfies WP:BIO (the nom writes in reference to WP:WEB, but I assume that's just a slip). -- Black Falcon 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, the references re now clearly suficient.DGG 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete CSD A7 not notable. Tyrenius 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exo Art

[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable art phenomenon. Google provides nothing on the subject, aside from a few hits that actually aren't referring to "exo art": [83] Part Deux 22:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Alf^Photoman 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no claim of notability Alf^Photoman 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:A it is an orphan and the only ghits found are spam and mirrors. Jeepday 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does it "focus on non-earth (out-of-this-world) beings?" Again, as in the "( )ette Collective," there is no mention of the art. Bus stop 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But there are no hits on Google for an artist named Ivan Aparicio Morales so I would vote delete. Bus stop 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Borders on nonsence. Freshacconci 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. On the other side of the border of nonsense Johnbod 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:23Z

Samantha S. Scott

[edit]

Everything, including the living person's full name, date and place of birth, place raised, town information, descent, family's names and information, jobs held and at what age, how and when came about, and personal beliefs, are not proven true and therefore, not liable to complete the article. I feel we owe it to this living person to have proven information before creating the article and including information not proven true. (WGAmerica 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I started this article as the reporter who did speak with the screenwriter for my university-based e-zine and magazine. However, I see your reasons for deletion and I don't disagree that much of the information is not proven true. Until more "proven" information is given, delete the article. (Caysonbelle 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy delete for the comment of Caysonbelle (creator of article). Carlosguitar 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as above. This person fails WP:BIO and WP:ATT, so would not survive in any case. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Dhartung and Caysonbelle Alf^Photoman 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andrwsc 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries

[edit]

I know this will be shouted down, but this list is massively misleading to people coming to Wikipedia looking for facts, since it's based on mostly arbitrary criteria. It would be much better if this page simply directed people to the sovereign state/unrecognised territory/etc lists and let them make their own mind up. Dtcdthingy 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Then why bother with the nom? ~~Keep~~ this featured article. Leuko 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing to Speedy Keep per User:Black Falcon. Leuko 22:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep since the large and detailed section explaining "Entities included in this article" clears up a lot of confusion, has links to the other lists, and IMHO effectively deals with the charge that the list is "massively misleading". - Mauco 22:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really. If it said "this list is completely made up, please don't take it as fact", you'd have a point. --Dtcdthingy 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. One of the criteria for a speedy keep is nominating a featured article for deletion--well, this obviously qualifies. The introductory portion makes it very clear what is and is not included in the article. -- Black Falcon 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Nominator is not actually asking for deletion, but for a redirect/disambiguation. That is a clean-up issue, not a deletion criteria. Take it to the talk page, not here. FrozenPurpleCube 22:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encycloedic and useful list, and I'm not even understanding the nom's reasoning. Not really arbitrary, and if it is, this is a content dispute, not deletion material. Part Deux 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Encyclopedic. Reywas92^Talk 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The speediest of keeps I'm surprised no one has used "listcruft" to try to delete this; perhaps we're getting better. :-) Carlossuarez46 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep! Nomination is completely bad faith. This is a featured list, for crying out loud! I think the intro is well written and explains the criteria by which entries appear on this list (or not) very logically. Andrwsc 00:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep! as per above. Makgraf 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The article is clear about what is included its a FL etc. Dalf | Talk 02:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artyicle looks absolutely fine to me, the sort of thing you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jules1975 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I must say I was tempted to go against and say delete but looking at it someone has taken time to explain things and how its listed whcih is good. To be honest - and Id welcome comments - my only issue is why you would come to this article, I mean if I wanted to find info on a country Id search for ti direct by name - not by coming to this list and then selecting it from there. --PrincessBrat 14:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Rusty Young (writer). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:22Z

Marching Powder

[edit]

Although being prodded, but the novel seems to be written by an author who is notable enough to have an article. So I think it should be discussed here instead of quick deletion, no opinion Wooyi 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (after cleanup) into Rusty Young (writer).—Carolfrog 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 07:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Weston

[edit]

I suggest to delete the article for WP:LIVING:

“

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."<ref name=Jimbo/>

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."^[1]

”

.

By--Doktor Who 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kris Weston is obviously notable for his work as a member of The Orb and his extensive remix and production work for other bands/groups. All information in the article is cited, so I don't see any problem. Wickethewok 22:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikethewok who has already improved the article. Is this related to the anon blanking here? --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Weston and I are email friends¸ he doesn´t want to stay here.Doktor Who 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a desire to have a biographical article is not grounds for deletion, so that desire isn't likely to sway the argument. I suppose you could take Wikipedia to court over privacy concerns, but so far the consensus has been against the subject of an article desiring its deletion getting their wish. As far as the article goes, I don't see a problem with the content, but if you do think there are concerns, you can bring them up on the talk page. Notability, however, is likely to have been met, given the membership in The Orb which seems to be a marginally prominent band. FrozenPurpleCube 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not sure...I will be awaiting for his opinion.---Doktor Who 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be pretty well sourced, notability is met it appears. I don't see what the issue is according to LIVING guidelines. Metros232 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree¸ it has been heavily re-edited after my rfd¸ I like it now¸ I am not sure if Weston will complain again. :D Doktor Who 03:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, are you withdrawing your nomination? If so, this can be closed, and any further issues addressed on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to listen from him¸ sorry.Doktor Who 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, as I said, his just wanting the article deleted has no weight with regards to deletion. But since you do claim to be in contact with him, if he was indeed the person who made the edits to the article, that his methods were highly inappropriate and should not be repeated. FrozenPurpleCube 04:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a notable person. As for WP:LIVING quoted by the nominator, I can't see any negative or contentious content in the article. I agree that the subject not wanting an article about himself is not grounds for deleting it. Jules1975 *11:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tendentious nomination by suspected sockpuppet with a long history of harrassment and vexatious wikilawyering. --Gene_poole 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obviously notable rock musician, we have articles on far less notable rock musicians, SqueakBox 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Notable person"; fit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. The subject should develop a thicker skin, and hopefully resist the temptation to edit his own entry. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Disambiguate. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:18Z

Duff sisters

[edit]

Delete - there is nothing in this article that isn't covered as well or better in the individual articles for the sisters themselves. Otto4711 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the individual sister articles. -- Black Falcon 01:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate so this article isn't as good as the individual ones, it's still a possible search term, and I'd say disambiguating to the various sisters would be quite functional. FrozenPurpleCube 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 08:50Z

Rape van

[edit]

No sources, few google hits, WP:V mostly--VectorPotential^Talk 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No notability, appears to be just more urban dictionary cruft (I swear they make up half the words they put in there). Part Deux 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like the author has been thinking about Bang Bus too much (as shown by the link at the bottom of the page). No notability, not widespread - only real link I can find is one to the Manila times talking about a the driver of a van used for rape. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Strangerer (talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. This does not seem to be made up (well, perhaps it is, but at least it has some use): see [84] and [85]. -- Black Falcon 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems almost speedy deletable as nonsense. Also see no sources--that means original research. SakotGrimshine 13:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someones fantasy - its not a term I have heard or seen on the net --PrincessBrat 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kevin Walter 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article describes...a van. Whoopie. --UsaSatsui 16:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brief Google search seems to indicate minor urban dictionary cruft relating to pornography. Suriel1981 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I contributed this article. At the time it seemed like the term was being bandied about on police procedurals a lot. Apparently not. bd2412 T 02:18, 7 March 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 08:43Z

Greatest Hits Live in Amsterdam

[edit]

Hard to make out from the poor writing, but apparently a DVD of some sort. Did a Google search to no avail. I've never heard of this, and I believe that it may very well be a bootlegged fan-made release of some sort. FuriousFreddy 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tidy up significantly. This appears to be about a DVD by The Supremes entitled "Greatest Hits" and subtitled "Live in Amsterdam". It is available at Amazon.com and was released on 18th December 2006. Jules1975 11:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, particularly from the late discussion after changes were made. IronGargoyle 18:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Simonetti

[edit]

Though a short article may be appropriate, all the tiny bits of information eagerly and meticulously collected by some very focussed fellow wikipedians do not meet the relevant content criteria and in parts violate the subject's privacy, so a discussion regarding fairness of tone or npov is not even requirred – it would strongly be, though, if this article wasn't deleted. -- NyxNyx ⌘ 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT There clearly should be a Wikipedia article for Ellen Simonetti - her experience has highlighted important issues regarding blogging and employment. The article as it stands now (3/7/07) is just fairly pathetic, however - some seem to have launched a hatchet job on Ms. Simonetti. I suggest distilling the article down to the basic facts and then perhaps write protecting the article for a time until things settle down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.41.39.124 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Comment there is a vast amount of material on here by a new-ish User:chulcoop which makes the debate very hard to follow. Can any more-skilled Wikipedian find a way to put his/her additional comments onto another page so that they are available without making it so hard to follow? NBeale 09:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT The childlike threats posted below remind us that there are those within the Wikipedia community who have an agenda beyond that of the community. This article should be locked down after an objective edit. The poorly composed rants about pornography should be deleted, as they have no bearing on the subject matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.176.54 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

It appears that the subject's problem with the article (which she submitted herself, originally), is that it does not continue to be employed as personal puff piece and mechanism for conducting online sales of the subject's books and other ebay sales. The current form of the article (5 Mar 07, 17:41 GMT) is both factual and relevant. -Not Dilbert

Delete One newspaper story and a lot of blogging don't add up to the level of notability that should be the requirement for a WP article. Steve Dufour 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:QueenofSky is likely the subject of this article. She started the article and states in a recent blog entry that she started it. Personally I suspect the subject is notable enough to have an article, I haven't read it through in a current state so I'm not going to add a vote one way or the other. -- Hawaiian717 23:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

Note from user chulcoop - soory dont konw how to do this any other way to add to the debate.

Nearly all references are to comments made on Ellen Simonetti (aka) Queen of Sky's OWN BLOG.

As she herself put them there then "privacy" issues do not apply

Ellen is an internationally famous fired flight attendedant, her story was shown worldwide.

The first reference was to a BBC News story on her suspension and then her firing.

The first Entry for this item was by the woman Queen Of Sky herself.

On the Shilpa Shetty entry it talks about mafia links, extortion and other things.
If there are specific sources you dont agree with then make that argument.

Is th BBC not a good source, Her own web journal?

Indeed on the BBC site it links to her journal.

I feel this is censorship by fans of hers and it must be stopped.

Keep the page. Check out the references. Read her Blog.

Also if you check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3974081.stm

then on this bbc website it links to her blog (Queen of The Sky but she calls it queen of sky) mentions her name Ellen Simoetti

There is a BBC source what more do you want? Additional by ch: also if you do a google search http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-48,GGLG:en&q=ellen+simonetti
then you will find lots of news articles about her case.
She has also appeared on Elder,Montel and Talkradio and given lots of TV appearances. Some of these, including Montel and Talkradio can be found on her blog at http://queenofsky.net (also the same as http://queenofsky.journalspace.com) On her blog she has even set up an email address she has asked the media to write to if they want to "book" her.
As stated if you scrap this entry for puttin unwanted truths in you must also scrap the shilpa shetty article for stories about racism, shilpa poppadom, shilpa fuckawala [sic], an apparent indecency complaint and other things.
If you dont you are a hypocrite. I have provided sources for all things stated.
The SWDYM site i have also linked to the Terms and Conditions on their website.
What more do you want?
QofS has gone out of her way to promote herself in the media,in fact she wants as much media work as she can get.
So why should you censor a Public Figure?
Also she has written a hardback novel which is on amazon about her firing http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ellen%20Simonetti&page=1

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8) (reformatted by Hawaiian717)

- Comment: Points and accusation listed in the article may well be „true“, but they go far beyond the scope of relevancy. An encyclopaedic lemma should not prepare a law suit but restrain itself to give the more important facts.
  
  Besides, the fact that she started the article in the first place constitutes a case of self-promotion. -- NyxNyx ⌘ 02:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply by chulcoop. I am new to wikipedia so hope you will be understanding in this.

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shilpa_Shetty

Please, just do it. If you think the contenet there is relevant then why is mine not? I talks about exact words said during a british TV show and as i said talks about popadoms and someone being called a "cunt". Check out the entry for yourself.

If you dont want to then why not? Why do you only want to police Ellen Simonetti, who is afterall just a fired flight attendant rather than allegations about the former British Miss England, an Indian film actress and a pop singer in the UK?

In the latter, the British Prime Minister was involoved, the Indian Government were involved, the British Chancellor was involved, the Indian Film company was involved, an efigy was burned in India.

Allow the good and the bad. It is a topic ABOUT someone based on articles THE SUBJECT has written.

Why do you care? If it is true what is the problem?

Ellen aka QofS was in worldwide news about 2 to 3 years ago. She did lots of interviews. If you check out her website and look at the "famous fired pics" you may even remember the story.

If anything i did was infactual fine.

But dont allow the Shilpa Shetty entry to remain intact while moaning about this one.

Chulcop.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)

please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - this article is to be judged on its own merits. As to those merits - this is obviously a notable individual, passing WP:BIO with flying colors (multiple reliable sources, among them [86], and [87]). Even if WP:COI is a problem, this is obviously one of those times that WP:BIO trumps WP:COI with very good sources. This edit [88] seems to be the most neutral - I recommend that we go back to that version, tag it with the appropriate cleanup tags, and go from there. Chulcoop - the subject's own blog is not a reliable source as per WP:SOURCE, regardless of how "factual" you may believe the items to be. In particular, the bits about the pornographic link and the racial slurs are ad hominem attacks that are completely unsourced, and fail WP:LIVING, so I have removed them. The section on Ellen's critics may remain, assuming you find reliable sources - two livejournal blogs sniping at each other across cyberspace does not an encyclopedia article make. Keep pending resolution of the edit war, and reversion back to a sane version of the article. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 06:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT

chulcoop's words above reveal his/her true intention: to assault and harras rather than inform. For example, chulcoop purposefully distorts the content found on the referenced advertiser. In truth, the site is an adult matchmaking site that allows adult content to be posted within a user's profile. By claiming it is a hardcore "porn" site chulcoop is distoring reality at the expense of Wikipedia's credibility.

The entry at hand should be rolled back to its most nuetral entry. chulcoop is free to continue seeking his/her agenda elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.176.54 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

~~Weak~~ Strong Delete She does seem just about notable, although it is very marginal, but starting your own article is a no-no and if we don't follow this there will be a free-for-all. If someone independent wanted to re-create an article about her, with proper refs (not to her blog or any others) then it might well survive. but not this one. NBeale 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC) I am amending my vote to Strong Delete in the light of the excessive amount of comment by Chulcoop which goes well beyond what is reasonable in an AfD debate and risks disrupting the process. If we allow this sort of thing the whole of WikiPedia will degenerate into farce. And yes no-one can create their own Wikipedia article not even The Queen of England. NBeale 09:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a public person generally cannot make a page about themselves. If you "broke" the "story" about the website, and you are currently battling with her, then you too are have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the page. As it is, you are subverting Wikipedia for your own petty squabbles. If you "broke" the "porn" scoop, then you are aperforming original research which also not allowed. We absolutely positively cannot take your word for any of these statements, and we have no reliable proof that a single thing you have said is true. As it stands, the only thing we can ascertain at this point is that you are here clearly pushing a very baised agenda. Please stop, and take your dispute elsewhere. There are plenty of websites that offer free blogs and hosting where you can post any fact or rumor that you dare. I remain convinced that this is a notable subject, but I'm not going to cry if it gets deleted. I do recommend that the closing admin consider salting as well, as Chulchoop has already stated that he is willing to re-create the article again with sockpuppets if he has to [89]. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE Unfortunately it is now clear this marginal entry should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a proxy battleground for two blogs, parnote ticularly where one is dedicated to slandering the other. Wikipedia can not allow itself to become a posting ground for every nut-job complaint on every subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.176.54 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)

comment by chulcoop

the entry Heather Armstrong

is also just an article about a famous fired blogger.

If her page can exist why not this one?

There must be consistency on Wikipedia and peeps need to know the truth.

COMMENT While each entry must stand on its own merits, the Heather Armstrog entry is distinquishable from the Ellen Simonetti entry as the Armstrong entry is not repleat with harrassing edits from an unethical, self-serviing maniac who has no regard for the Wikipedia rules. Here, the Siminetti entry would be fine if it was limited to a nuetral presentation of relevant facts. Unfortunately, the barely literate chulcoop insists on inserting drivel, minutia and distortions. 68.245.197.0 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note from chulcoop

OK then. It is all tidied up now I think. Someone can possibly improve on the spelling and Grammar.

Her entry is now similar to that of Heather Armstrong.

Shame you guys dont like having facts when the Shilpa Shetty entry alleges links to the mafia and other stuff.

Can you explain the difference? Why has that entry not marked for deletion? It talks about "cunts" and "fukawalas" and other things.

Please explain the discrepency.

Is it cos one is indian and the other is a yankee?

Comment - thank you - the article is much better now. There is still some cleanup to be had, but we can take care of that with tags. Everybody who !voted delete, please review and reconsider your vote on the cleaned up and netural article with regards to WP:BIO. Chulcoop - please note the extensive list of references at the bottom of the Shilpa Shetty article - most references are to a mainstream news site in India and the UK, and every single one is to a website with some sort of editorial oversight. This is different then a personal blog where an individual may post anything they wish, true or false, without any sort of editorial control. Just because something gets posted on a blog, does not mean it is true. This is all detailed very nicely in WP:ATTRIBUTION. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note from chulcoop

Wik rules state however that a subjects own blog CAN BE USED AS A RELIABLE SOURCE OF THE SUBJECT.

I was trying to point out things that Subject had said on their blog with the source being the Subjects blogs.

Blogs are not generally considered reliable souces but if it is the Subjects Own Blog then this is different.

Somewhere on here of discussion i provided a wik link to prove this.

But ive had enough.

You can read about "Wogs" on a terry wogan entry and as i said on the shilpa entry.

All i was doing was stating fact as sourced on the subjects own blog.

I think you need to understand the difference between general blogs and a subject's official blog.

Wik rules state that subjects own blog should override any other evidence unless the latter is clearly over self promotion.

DOnt blame me thats what wik rules state.

I wanted to try and provide a balanced view esp as i read about fukawalas popadoms and cunts on Shilpa Shetty.

maybe different editors have differing views of what should be on here.

Some are more traditionalist and think this should be like the enc britanica others think more modern and honest sourced comments and minutae for example cunts and shilpa derupa is acceptble.

copy & paste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below).

[edit] Using the subject as a source For more details on this topic, see WP:SELFPUB. In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies. It is relevant to the person's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject. A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source.

so there u have it.

subesequent changes someone restored some of the more contraversial comments i made. It wasnt me. I have resotred and created the following

(cur) (last) 05:47, 7 March 2007 Chulcoop (Talk | contribs) m (Restored This Definitve Version To Prevent Page Deletion. See page deletion discussion.)

This is my current definitive version. If anyone now changes it nothing to do with me. I did what i could but i cant stop others.

Maybe an agree & tidyup on that version and then a lockdown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And that's not a bad version actually. — Athænara ✉ 10:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment from chulcoop

It seems some actually prefer the "contraversial" version so i have done a compromise version at

(cur) (last) 19:06, 7 March 2007 Chulcoop (Talk | contribs) (A compromise definitive factual version. You have to be British to "get" this version. Nothing contentious in this entry at all. All contentiousness on Subjects blog only.)

Which does NOT have any contentiousness on the "contents of blog" section but does link to Ellen's blog, the contents of which are beyond the control of Wikipedia.

Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 11:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Keep. The USA Today article and BBC article indicate sufficient notability. Afd is not for content disputes. - Aagtbdfoua 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aagtbdfoua and Athaenara. Let arbitrators deal with Chulcoop's behaviour; it has no bearing on whether this article should be deleted or not. We do not delete articles merely because the subject is controversial (however artificial the controversy may be).--chris.lawson 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per Chris. Meets WP:N, just needs severe editing. TedFrank 06:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 08:40Z

Old Union Mill Rules Shanghai

[edit]

Appears non-notable, article states goal of "over 20 players" by 2009. prod tag removed. Hawaiian717 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:A, WP:N and something made up in school one day. Jeepday 00:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All games are made up in school one day - take Rugby for example. Just give it a chance to evolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.131.179 (talk • contribs)

- Comment that would be covered under WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Signed Jeepday 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the "hope for 20 players" part is a killer here.--Hobit 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 08:39Z

Amyloe

[edit]

Article about someone from MySpace. Notability anyone? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn band. Reywas92^Talk 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking through the page history, the page itself was created by User:Amyloe. I userfied the article and we can close this if others agree to delete. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; I don't see any assertion of notability. →Ed Gl 00:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Kevin Walter 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 08:39Z

Fred Zain

[edit]

Possibly notable. A forensic scientist who falsified results to convict several people. I really am not sure on the notability of that. Sasquatch t|c 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N he ghits about the same as I do. Jeepday 00:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from The New York Times. --Eastmain 02:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep we ideally need more than just that one case as illustration.DGG 03:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Sources have been provided that makes the article borderline notable. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 07:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 3 non-trivial sources (2 NYT and 1 US News & World Report) suffice for establishing notability. As a side note, the occurrence of such an event (not the perjury, but the lack of discovery for many years) is rather disturbing. -- Black Falcon 08:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 08:37Z

Steven Kaplan

[edit]

Non-notable, as per WP:BIO. Nice credentials but you have to do something notable to stay on here. Theloniouszen 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the esteemed businessman with his family website as reference for failing WP:ATT Alf^Photoman 00:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In general, someone with a named professorship has done enough to be notable, and an inadequately sourced article about the holder of a named professorship ought to be tagged with ((expand)) or ((sources)) rather than submitted it to AfD. --Eastmain 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article in present condition fails WP:BIO and WP:A, of course if the article meets these policies by the end of the AfD my suggestion would change. Jeepday 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Named chair at a good research university is sufficient claim of notability for me, and the pointer to his university web site is sufficient source. The part about his family is unimportant but harmless. —David Eppstein 02:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As Epstein says, and has been said many times, full professors at research universities are N, having passed several external reviews by experts for their notability in the profession. We don't establish notability in WP, we see if the profession has established notability. -- This doesn't apply to every college, but it does to major research universities and Chicago certainly has long been at the very the highest level of US universities in Economics. (We should distinguish him from businessman whose N is running businesses and have quite different N concerns). I have added some of his many papers and awards. I fixed some of the many typos. I wonder who wrote the article.DGG 03:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's Eppstein. David Epstein is a totally different guy. --C S (Talk) 12:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Named professorship at one of the best business schools in the world. One would think that confers notability. --C S (Talk) 11:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sorry to be slightly snappy about this one, but no matter if the person is notable or not there are no reliable second party sources anywhere (the link to the university web site is not a second party source, but one that is associated with the person) in this article. What is worse, this thing links to his FAMILY WEB SITE for which I don't see any reason at all. So we have WP:BLP failing WP:ATT, which is reasons enough to delete. If there are sources added during an AfD I am always willing to change my opinion but I don't see why guidelines are rubber-banded to the whim of an AfD Alf^Photoman 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is plenty of third-party sourcing of Kaplan's professorship. The articles are subscription-only, so I didn't read them, but from the snippets from Google it appears that they also document significant notability beyond the professorship itself. It's third hand and non-independent, but several U. Chicago news releases document some notable press coverage of Kaplan and his work. Perhaps some of this should be added to WP, but saying there are no sources anywhere seems an overstatement for their omission from the article. —David Eppstein 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:ATT because there is no attribution to anybody or anything, that is my point. Alf^Photoman 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I do not see what your point is, despite your citing of various policies. Do you dispute that Kaplan has a named professorship at a world-renowned business school? If you do not, then clearly this article should exist. Whether there are problems within the article or whether parts or unsourced or whatever, has very little to do with deletion of this article. --C S (Talk) 18:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATT applies to "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". What do you see on the page that fits that description? —David Eppstein 18:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See section Living persons Alf^Photoman 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure David is already aware of this. You seem to be confusing the issue of sourcing and deleting content with deletion of articles themselves. WP:BLP is designed to make sure information in a bio is reliably sourced. Not to advocate deletion of bios on notable persons. --C S (Talk) 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the only thing that is attributable is that Kaplan is a professor and that he has several publications, the rest of the article should go. That would also mean that it is sourced i.a.w. WP:ATT and WP:BPL and there would be no problem keeping it. As is 80% - 90% is not reliable Alf^Photoman 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my question. The part about living people in WP:ATT applies to "contentious material". What in the present article do you see as contentious? —David Eppstein 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets go back to square 1:

First, somehow I got confused with ATT and BLP, we are talking BLP now:

(quote) Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources (unquote)

and

(quote) Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. (unquote)

There we have notability where it claims:

In 2001, he was Visiting Professor at NSEAD, in Fontainbleau, France. He is a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research ... Sources?

References to his jobs as Editor ... sources ?

Teachings, sources?

So far with my references problem.

Additional, why is the Family section relevant? Why is there a link to his family's website? are we Myspace or something?

I am not trying to be a Prick, but these are concerns that have to be addressed and most probably the cause for this article to be nominated for AfD to start with. Alf^Photoman 00:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS says that self-published sources may be used for non-contentious material about the source itself. Most or all of the content here may be sourced in this way from Kaplan's two web sites. If you have some reason for believing that this policy does not apply because some of this material may be contentious (I ask this of you a third time: what if anything in here is contentious?) then much of the professional activity is also sourced at http://catalogues.uchicago.edu/gsb-folder/gsb0607.pdf

Re the family information: it's not a basis for notability, so I don't know why we're discussing it here, but are you arguing that biographies of all persons should be stripped of anything that does not directly relate to their notability? For instance, should we remove birth and death dates? On second thought, the family info was quite inane. I removed it. —David Eppstein 01:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, instead of having this fight all that was necessary is to add that link to the article and bingo... no problem. And yes, I have made several suggestions to have irrelevant personal data removed, and in case of request by ~~user~~ subject of article including birthdays if approved by consensus Alf^Photoman 01:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, changing per references found by David Eppstein Alf^Photoman 01:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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