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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game item clichés[edit]

Video game item clichés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deproded with a suggestion to send to AFD. Original concern: Unsourced, non-notable, and non-verifiable. See previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game clichés and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game item clichés. No vote from me. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that, with this one, the article has been nominated 3 times for deletion based on original research. On September 2006 was the last nomination, where people expressed opinions that this article should be cleaned, and comparing with other cliché lists like List of animation clichés (deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animation clichés (second nomination)) and List of comic book clichés (deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic book clichés (2nd nomination)). Here are the differences from September (last time it was nominated) and today.-- ReyBrujo 01:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I accept that the article is somewhat cruftish, but its inclusion is valuable. The article is at least verifiable, sourced, and well-written. - Richardcavell 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete While this article is pretty well written and not a bad read it is not an encyclopedia article (it might be appropriate for a video game wiki). The information is almost entirely original research. It might be possible to source an article on this topic, but this isn't really a start. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete for all the same reasons that the list of comic book clichés was deleted. Otto4711 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Noble attempts to keep and cleanup have failed miserably, original research is effectively inseparable from text. Deltabeignet 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OMG I-had-no-idea-iron-bars-were-a-cliche delete - Puh-lease! Cruft & pointless. Do we really need an article telling us that pieces of string & iron bars are game cliches? I think not.... Yaknow maybe the author would like this cliche - Delete as per nom... ;) Spawn Man 05:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another "cliché" list. JuJube 07:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as per my original reasonings in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game item clichés: "Original research and unverified, thus failing both the WP:OR and WP:V criterias. Most of these so-called "cliches" would obviously appear in a video game depending on the game's setting. For example, one cliche is finding toilets in FPS video games involving humans, which is obvious in that many humans in our society use toilets. Also, some cliches don't apply only to video games, but to all forms of media, including books, films. etc". After six months, nothing seems to have changed since the previous AfD nomination, other than the addition of more unverified, uncited cruft.--TBCΦtalk? 08:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - People have already started adding references. This is our chance for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Let's jump on it. Also per WP:LIST - information and navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a time period of six months, two references were removed and only one reference was added, in addition to more cruft.--TBCΦtalk? 10:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a time limit one when a page must be finished. If there was, deleting this would only increase the amount of time, anyways. Also, the external links could provide the refs, if anyone takes the time to format them. - Peregrine Fisher 11:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if the article was to be cleaned up, many of the "cliches" listed in the article aren't actually considered cliches, as they:

1. Are due to technological restrictions in video games.
2. Are due to the game's setting, such as having toilets in games involving humans.
3. Apply to all forms of media, such as having potions and healing herbs (which appears commonly in all fantasy-related media).--TBCΦtalk? 11:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Again, I don't see how the root cause of the cliche excludes it, nor a cliche being in the real world, or being found in other media. Is there some reason a cliche has to be exclusive, completely original, and not have some other influence behind it? Not so far as I know. If you do, perhaps you should add that to Cliché so the rest of us can know about it. FrozenPurpleCube 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the cliches listed in the article are nearly identical in concept with cliches found in other forms of media, then why do we need a seperate page for video games? Would it not be redundant? Also, extending on my toilet cliche example: In contemporary times, humans have often used toilets to dispose of their bodily wastes, and as humans tend to do this often, there are a large number of toilets throughout the world. As such, how then is it a cliche that video games with humans or humanoids tend to have toilets? Are gun or sticks or cars cliches as well?--TBCΦtalk? 05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't understand your fixation on this toilet thing, I don't see it as a significant portion of the article (IOW, it could be removed without bothering me). Cliches themselves, though, often involve things that exist in the real world. Some people think say, being stuck in an elevator is a cliche. Does that mean nobody ever gets stuck in an elevator? Of course not, just the other day, somebody was on the news for being trapped 11 hours in an elevator here. But if there's a sitcom cliches page and it mentioned it, I'd not be surprised. Same goes for cliches in video games. Sure, some of them may be the same as in other genres (and depending on the content, it might be appropriate to locate the cliche elsewhere). For example, something could be a cliche in Greek and Japanese theatre, but not in say, Broadway theatre. Don't know of any specific examples, not off the top of my head, but I'm trying to illustrate why your objection doesn't work. At most, they're clean-up issues. Stick to other things if you want to convince me on deletion. Bad arguments can ruin a good one. OR is a much better route to go here. FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If none of the cliches are specific to video games (ie they happen often in real life or in other genres) then there's obviously no merit for a seperate article. It's as simple as that. Regardless though, the article still fails the criterias listed at WP:ATT and WP:OR.--TBCΦtalk? 08:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is if they don't always exist in the other genres, and that of video game settings is effectively unique in its components. But I said this already, you just didn't respond to it. FrozenPurpleCube 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, all original research. I don't see how this could possibly be sourced without becoming an unpublished synthesis of published material. Krimpet 14:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OR cruft. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Excellent article though. Very good original research. --Webkami 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- some OR, but I imagine it could be sourced and turned into an article. Astrotrain 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this article is an ever-expanding lump of cruft, as editors add their favourite appearances of toilets in games without ever bothering to whip the article into shape. Not that it can be whipped into shape; no consistent, systematic definition of a 'video game item cliche' is offered. If toilets and bits of string count as cliches, why not add magic wands, bullets, coins, scrolls, shoes, things made of wood or menu screens?--Nydas^(Talk) 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An amusing read but that doesn't fix the OR issue. Arkyan 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the problem here is that the references need to identify all these things as cliches. It isn't enough to cite a reference that confirms many video games have secret levels and ammo packs and so on. If you can't find references that actually engage with the subject of the article, it will remain a synthesis of other sources into a new interpretation.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:SYN makes a good argument against, but I think it's hard to argue that Video_game_item_clichés#Exploding_barrels isn't correct when it references so many games with exploding barrels, or that we're really drawing a new and spectacular conclusion because it isn't in the Times newspaper, or even a blog. WP:OR is something I'm reluctant to apply to an article that is a useful compilation and doesn't exactly warrant using the scientific method (as cliche can always be debated). I'm sure somebody will force me to find a nice anology... Autocracy 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some utterly tenuous connections being made here, and with a title like "clichés" that's only likely to perpetuate. The title itself undermines the article's supposed informational value; something like Video game design trends or Video game item design trends might be a better premise. –Unint 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I think about it a little bit more, the use of "clichés" completely demeans the subject of the article. These are elements of gameplay, game mechanics, or puzzle design. Sometimes they are indicators of technical limitations, or the conventions of a particularly popular genre. A useful article would discuss the rationales and reasons behind these game elements and illustrate how they have evolved over time, not just list them ad nauseum and taken completely at face value. –Unint 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article is well written and sourced. Analysis of items common in video games. Nardman1 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links ≠ sources.--TBCΦtalk? 08:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't let the keep !voters fool you: this is not sourced. There are two sources, both of which are humorous and not serious, and don't really say much. WP:OR, and there has been enough time for this to improve already. Mangojuice^talk 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Correct, the article is not, in spite of comments above, sourced. And, also in spite of comments above, it continues to fail WP:OR.--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial information that lacks necessary sourcing, possible original research.-- danntm ^T _C 03:36, 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?)} 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albion (band)[edit]

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

Prior speedy deletion, sent here from deletion review. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete At least one of the band members (Alistair Griffin) has some notability outside of the band. But the sources for the article are almost all from one local paper. Google hits are difficult to gauge because "Albion" was in the name of a different band ("Albion Band", a folk group) that disbanded in 2002. My gut feeling is that the band is too new for notability. With no recordings noted and apparently playing only local dates, I just don't think they pass WP:BAND. Pig^man_dialogue 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Between them, Griffin and Paul Banks (musician) have had a total of 16 top 40 singles in the UK so far - the formation of a new band in which they are both writing and performing is surely notable? Jud 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into Alistair Griffin as non notable band. Fails the central notability criteria "subject of multiple, non trivial independent works". For some reason I can't access the Evening Gazette (website won't load) but the Whitby Gazette article appears to be a press release, and the only other reference provided is a MySpace page. I may reevaluate if the Evening Gazette's site comes back up. Natalie 05:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One of the Evening Gazette articles, titled "Bring it on Alistair ...with new band" is entirely about Albion. A second, titled "Tees star's web wise" has several paragraphs about Albion. The other two don't mention Albion at all. I hope this helps. -- Black Falcon 07:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The other articles do not mention the band by name as at the time they did not have one - this is explained in the main entry. The newspaper articles do verify the band's early history and original line-up. Jud 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it sounds like they still fail the "multiple sources" part of the criteria? Natalie 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as well, because one member is notable doesn't mean the band is....could meet criteria with proper sources. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 22:40, 13 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 deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 09:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities on stamps[edit]

List of cities on stamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, not really useful list that has turned into an article with a big "PUT SPAM HERE" sign on it. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh. Even without being spammed into oblivion, how encyclopedic or maintainable was this page anyway? Delete. EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as advertising. This might be an interesting list, except that the majority of entries are noted as "customized U.S. stamp by Zazzle". In fact, all of the stamps listed are by Zazzle, which according to its Wikipedia article "is a customized products marketplace for consumers to create apparel, posters, cards, stamps, and other products." This list is a giant Zazzle ad, and has been from its second edit: [1]. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Akhilleus. --Metropolitan90 04:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Not sure this would be a useful list even if someone could add a bunch of regular stamps to it. Katr67 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Spamtastic! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 08:23, 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. --Coredesat 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Clarke Cunningham[edit]

Elizabeth Clarke Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The name of some ashes in a box, not encyclopedic, delete. --Peta 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands the article fails WP:N Signed Jeepday 02:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete This seems like a curiosity, not an encyclopedic subject. Notability seems limited to me. Pig^man_dialogue 05:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Mkdw^talk 08:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is a curious news story of only passing interest. -- Whpq 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability lacks seriously, and the article doesn't seem right either. Retiono Virginian 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has been the subject of news stories. Wikipedia is not paper. I think this is adequately encyclopedic.--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:03, 12 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Yosses[edit]

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

Mr. Yosses is the White House pastry chef. Does that meet WP:BIO? I don't think so. NawlinWiki 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I wouldn't have thought he deserved an entry at first, but considering the nature of the position and the massive amount of major media coverage (most of it trivial, but not all [2]) I had to reconsider. He is also a coauthor of the book Dessert for Dummies. If there is anything else that is a greater accolade in the culinary field than being a head white house chef, I don't know what it is. IronGargoyle 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the article stands it fails WP:BIO the subject may or not be notable but the article fails WP:A. If the article was improved and referenced and notability shown I would change my perspective. Jeepday 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete On a side note, you have to laugh that the person who wrote "Dessert for Dummies" is serving dessert to George Bush. As for notability, would you care who the previous holders of this position were?Citicat 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some people might indeed care who the previous chefs were, though some of it is more related to the person who was President than the actual person. However, I don't know that this individual is sufficiently notable on their own. Perhaps an article listing Chefs at the White House might be a worthy idea? This could include both main chefs and pastry ones and whoever else is there. FrozenPurpleCube 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless the second-floor maid gets an article too. Denni^talk 06:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article does not assert the notability of the subject. If he is notable and someone can make the necessary improvements, then great. But articles like this really aren't good enough. PC78 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - some press coverage, and author of a book in the Dummy series in combination meets notability for me. -- Whpq 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "Me too" Press coverage, published author, position taking some prominence in field. Autocracy 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he's an author and being in the white house gives him some notability. The undertow 00:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of his book, not because he's the WH pastry chef. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of White House Chefs and add more chefs.—Carolfrog 08:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even if the subject was notable (and I don't see where he is) the article clearly does not meet WP:N or WP:A a single press release is not notable. The title of this debate is Articles for deletion/William Yosses not subject for deletion. The subject may or may not be notable but clearly the article does not meet Wikipedia expectations for inclusion. Jeepday 12:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:A is a different issue that may not merit deletion (if the issue is simply verification rather than original research). However, notability is the characteristic of a subject, not an article, so it is fully appropriate to discuss the subject despite the state of the article. Adding the sources below as external links would take care of WP:N, although they really should be incorporated into the article as prose. -- Black Falcon 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sigh, but Keep. More sources than you can squeeze a pastry bag at. Yes, most are due to the White House appointment (Hint of Shift in White House Kitchen New York Times; [ New York Post New York Post ...) but not all: [3] [4] Citarella Macy's. They're not quite "unconnected with the subject", but they're not chicken feed either. Between that and the book, I think he's notable enough. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources provided by AnonEMouse: sources + author = keep. Also see my response to User:Jeepday above. -- Black Falcon 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per nom. Black-Velvet 08:13, 16 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. --Coredesat 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Day Storm of 2006[edit]

Columbus Day Storm of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is written as a news story. I lean toward it not meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(news). If it does, it needs to be rewritten as an encyclopedic article. Citicat 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Copy/pasted from Wikinews. Non-notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per z-manBalloonman 05:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Mkdw^talk 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mr.Z-man. T_im.bounc^ceback - TaLk 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but don't salt - Was a major storm that deserves an article, but this is currently a complete copy and paste job from withing this website. It needs to be completely re-written. --Oakshade 01:50, 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. --Coredesat 00:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit School of Arts[edit]

Detroit School of Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has remained in a clean up status almost 4 mos. Questionable notability. Masterpedia 02:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I am from that area and have never heard of it. Seems non-notable.--Fahrenheit451 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Masterpedia 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep it was my understanding that school pages, regardless of how obscure were to be kept? If that is wrong, then delete.Balloonman 04:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. School pages have to establish notability, just like everyone else. Denni^talk 06:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, give this article another chance to be expanded to the general level of other high schools. If not then delete but maybe this AfD will encourage some expansion. Mkdw^talk 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article asserts that the school has been awarded the Blue Ribbon Schools Program award, which seems to suggest notability to me. JulesH 12:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"has recognized more than 3,000 schools." (WP)DGG 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I was going to strongly argue delete, but before submitting I looked up other school deletions and the list of article for schools in Maine. It would seem that while I'll never care, I would definitely like to be able to look up an encyclopedic article of where I graduated from. Notability is provided by longetivity and accomplishments. If they can get some truthful statements about accomplishments besides the Blue Ribbon award (I don't consider that notable at all myself), then they should be kept. Insane college acceptance, sports titles, anything really... somebody should tag it as a stub. Perhaps they have enough high school students who break the norm that one might make the article contain something useful. Autocracy 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasoning of Autocracy. If the article can be improved a little, maybe a few more references ill change to strong keep. Needs improving not deleting.LordHarris 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, the precedent has always been to keep articles about high schools. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Abeg92contribs 14:43, 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 and cleanup. Shimeru 08:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CustomerVision BizWiki[edit]

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

Advertisment. Reads like promotional copy, no assertiion of sufficient notability. There was a previous article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CustomerVision on this company that was deleted, unsure if this is an improvement on that or not. ArglebargleIV 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very similar to entries for companies that are CustomerVision's peers such as Socialtext, Jot and Atlassian. Not including CustomerVision in articles such Corporate Wikis would be an omission. This is validated by third party sources such as the only comprehensive review of corporate wikis (conducted by Network World) in which CustomerVision was rated higher than Socialtext.

There are many links to independent resources for CustomerVision and awards. Recently within articles on leading enterprise wiki companies with such qualified researchers as Forrester, Gilbane and JupiterResearch. With customers that vary in size from Fortune 50 to non-profits, CustomerVision BizWiki is a leader in understanding the enterprise market space (look at the case studies, as evidence off their site).

The entry is not intended to be promotional but is designed to assert sufficient notability.

Links: Forrester [5] New Communications review [6] Tech News Radio [7] Jupiter Research [8] Intranet Journal [9] eWeek [10]

This discussion was started over five days ago. Is it considered closed at this point?

Bkeairns 02:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - only links are to sites affiliated with the company; no evidence of coverage in independent sources to show notability per WP:WEB. Delete unless sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:38, 26 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, Rlevse 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)...article was not properly tagged with an afd tag on first nom.Rlevse 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I believe I originally tagged the article properly, but the tag was removed by a later editor. -- ArglebargleIV 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article reads like an advertisement, and a probable conflict of interest; the article creator's username seems to coincide with one of the founders of the company listed in the article (Brian Keairns vs. User:Bkeairns). In addition, it does not seem to meet the notability criteria for organizations or companies. Kyra_~(talk) 09:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag for cleanup. Article may read like an advertisement, but it does contain links to 6 independent sources, of which at least the one I checked is reliable and non-trivial. JulesH 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The links are sufficient, and the article in its present state is objective, though it needs a copyedit.DGG 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Multiple sources have been added. I have partially copyedited the article and will also incorporate the sources as in-text citations (tomorrow). -- Black Falcon 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:CORP. Black-Velvet 08:17, 16 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 Gnangarra 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australians in film and television[edit]

List of Australians in film and television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Badly named, undefined, poorly maintained, and incomplete list that presumably should include any Australian who has something to do with film or tv. Categories do this much better, delete --Peta 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think this is much better done with categories. - Richardcavell 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and further annotate list Categories and lists can live in harmony. Undefined? Maybe it is a List of Australians in film and television. Its just my guess. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lists can give further information than categories; this one gives job types, which can be useful for someone trying to look up a name they don't quite remember. The list should include people with Wikipedia articles or who could have them.Noroton 04:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above Balloonman 04:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as an overly broad, vague, indiscriminate list. A list of Australians "involved" in television or film in some capacity could number in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Even restricting the list to those notable enough for Wikipedia articles could take it into the thousands or even tens of thousands. Otto4711 04:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It needs clean-up, not deletion. Some clarification on the topic of the list, and perhaps a corresponding rename would also be useful. It's clear that it's not intended to include everyone who was an extra in Crocodile Dundee. But sometimes we have to spell these things out. --JayHenry 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as useful list. Capitalistroadster 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument. Even assuming that this list is useful, all sorts of things are useful but still unencyclopedic. Otto4711 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All the problems in the nomination can be easily addressed without deletion. That said, perhaps it should be moved to List of Australian actors and other sublists (television presenters, etc.) as most of the list members appear to be of that occupation. --Canley 05:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above Ulysses Zagreb 09:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:LIST - information and navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 10:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:LIST is not a Get Out of Jail Free card for lists. If a list is otherwise unacceptable, conformity with WP:LIST does not save it. Otto4711 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then keep per JRG below. - Peregrine Fisher 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Keep - let's stop these random deletions just because they could be in a category. This has gone overboard. The list needs clean-up not deletion, and an AfD is not the right procedure to follow. JRG 12:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not random deletions - they are focused on cleaning up Lists of Australians to have a set of useful, reliable, maintainable and maintained lists. See talk:Lists of Australians for more info. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Scott Davis asserting an agreement to reorganise lists. If so, then the information is really being merged and redirects must be left to comply with the WP:GFDL. SmokeyJoe 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I missed this comment sooner - sorry. The process so far has been to delete the completely useless article that was called "List of Australians" as most of us weren't on it, create a new article Lists of Australians with as many lists of people as we could find, then start to sift through which ones are valuable to the project. A number were already accurate, complete and maintained, so are not treated further here. Some have been improved, either through initiative, discussion, or AFD (yes it does happen that articles are improved and kept after nomination). Some have been nominated for deletion and been deleted. These have been lists with overly broad definitions that to become "complete" would have thousands of entries, many not notable, or were lists of "notable people" without a reliable source for the list. These are better served by categories that are magically kept up to date as new articles are written. Redirects have been left in place for any lists that have been merged or renamed. See Talk:Lists of Australians to see how we're going and if you'd like to help. The underlying purpose is to remove lists that reflect poorly on the project as a whole or the Australian part of it, and avoid lists that attract vanity or attack entries. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to wonder why it is that when people want to keep an article because "it needs cleanup" there are almost never 1) suggestions on how the article can be cleaned up, 2) actual attempts to clean up the article during the AFD, and 3) commitments on the part of the cleanup advocates to actually clean up the article. Otto4711 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your statement is an inaccurate generalisation. Please see such cases as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What is black and white and red all over?, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Pizza, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines, which show that in many cases actual improvements are made. In response to your points, however:

1. Not true. Suggestions are often given on how to cleanup. In this case, I can suggest converting this into a table to provide dates of birth/death, place of birth, and a "notes" column listing awards, major roles, etc.
2. Please see the 3 examples above. Moreover, when it seems likely that an article may be deleted, no one has particular incentive to even try to fix it. If the issue was raised in an environment other than "Du hast fünf Tage diesen Artikel zu verbessern oder es wirt getötet. Verstehst du? Arbeit, Arbeit, Arbeit!", that might be more conducive to improvement.
3. Wikipedia is a community effort, is it not? Articles tagged with cleanup will undoubtedly catch someone's attention. -- Black Falcon 08:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Peta, Otto4711 and WP:LIST. Can never be complete in the sense used above by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and the lead sentence, so is not suitable for information, navigation or development. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It can be a category, though Al-Bargit 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete an unmanageable, unmaintained list, with no clear criteria for listing, and as a result could be thousands of people. The articles listed are far better maintained as categories. Rest assured that all those above calling for keeping on the basis of it being cleaned up will never do any of that cleaning up! --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Needs to be replaced by List of cast members of Home and Away and similar lists which have clear inclusion criteria. Once there is more than one list, recreate as list of lists. I was on the news once - does that mean I should be on List of Australians in film and television (where does it say I shouldn't be?) Garrie 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Scott.--cj | talk 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Usedup 05:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per JRG. Mathmo ^Talk 09:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are several categories that already covers this in different ways. The current definition (Australians who have been involved in film and television) makes the article impossible, it will just grow into an unmanageable pile of TV presenters, film actors, special effects guys, directors and more. Noone has any use for that. Pax:Vobiscum 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ScottDavis, Pax, Slf67 and others. Orderinchaos78 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons given by User:GarrieIrons, Otto4711 and others. I can't imagine this article ever being able to satisfy WP:LIST, even after cleanup, because it seems essentially unbounded. I'm all for categories, though. Subcategories if you want to preserve people's jobs and such. If someone comes up with a new reason to keep it that hasn't been discussed before my vote here, feel free to drop a note on my talk page and see if I'll change my vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It just needs cleaning up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.23.37.97 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2007
• Keep. I have a dream, that one day ... lists and categories can exist side-by-side. I have a dream, that one day ... people will stop insisting on completeness when Wikipedia itself is an eternally incomplete project. I have a dream, that one day ... those who prefer using categories just do so and leave an alternate option available to others. -- Black Falcon 08:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was paid to be an extra in a movie once - does that mean I should be in this list? If these sorts of open ended lists of names have only blue links, they are already like a category. If they have red links, either an article should be written (so they appear in the category), the link added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do, or removed if it is just a vanity entry. It is also possible to create a new list with tighter membership criteria, but these open lists are not actually a useful starting point for that, either. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:08, 13 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later-no-harm criterion[edit]

Later-no-harm criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable voting method criterion which, other than the wikipedia article, can only be found here: [11], which is the website of a voting methods discussion list, based on this article here: [12] on the internet. Fahrenheit451 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Plurality criterion, resolvability criterion, and participation criterion all seem to be closely related with the nominated article. As I personally have no knowledge of the subject, should these articles be nominated for deletion too?--TBCΦtalk? 08:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. These appear to be articles that have to do with the mathematics of voting, which is the subject of a good deal of interest. I'd be inclined to refer this matter to an expert on these topics; there may be a better name for this, and it lacks context and is not clearly written. I am not convinced yet that these articles are original research and they pass my own "smell" test. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A Google search on this term shows it is in use, but most hits are from Electorama/ElectoWiki or from Wikipedia mirrors or from a personal website. I'll also note that two years ago, we had to clear out a lot of unsupported election-theory articles that were little more than original research. Later-no-harm appears to be in circulation among a small circle of, uh, election-theory hobbyists, but so far I'm not aware of it having had any influence on the real world, or even of being covered nontrivially in multiple reliable sources. This counts more under WP policy than anyone's smell test. I'll defer to anyone who can provide better-sourced information, but currently I'd favor a merge into an article on election systems and criteria used to evaluate them. Barno 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would support a merge as well. It is simply not notable enough for an article of its own.--Fahrenheit451 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There seem to be a series of articles in this vein - Plurality criterion, Resolvability criterion, and possibly more. (hey, beaten!) This seems highly similar to what's described in Voting paradox, and, moreso, Condorcet method. I still haven't compared enough to determine whether or not this article is notable on its own, or merely a rehashed retelling of prior, more notable methods (see this AfD for a similar occurance). --Action Jackson IV 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or just possibly Merge. We can't have articles on every concept that has ever appeared in a book. There is no evidence of notability and it's too thin for an article on its own. NBeale 06:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A well known term in the field of mathematics/voting. Wikipedia should be attempting to be comprehensive, and it won’t do this by deleting articles like this. SmokeyJoe 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is Not a well-known term in the filed of mathematics/voting at all and cannot be verified as such. I think a merge makes more sense.--Fahrenheit451 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I don’t really know how “well” known it is, it depends on how widely one reads, but it is certainly known. I learnt about it many years ago, as part of the many paradoxes of voting systems. It is related to monotonicity, is attributed to Douglas Woodall, Reader in Pure Mathematics at Nottingham University, UK (see [13]), and is described in many publications, including popular mathematical/voting books. It is reliably sourced, and is in frequent use. By what definition do you mean "non-notable"? SmokeyJoe 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which popular books is it sourced in? I know of none.--Fahrenheit451 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may be able to find the book if you really want. By “popular”, I mean “aimed at the general reader”.---(unsigned by SmokeyJoe)
      • O.K. Please name one such book.--Fahrenheit451 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More to the point, I ask you to explain why you think the criterion is “non-notable”, what you mean by “non-notable”, and why you believe that “non-notable” is a criterion for deletion.---(unsigned by SmokeyJoe)
      • There is only one source of the criteria and there is no evidence of the reliability of that source. I suggest you read WP:N to answer your last question.--Fahrenheit451 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I google “Later no harm” I get multiple responses, excluding wikis. I see no basis for an argument that “Voting Matters” is not a reliable secondary source, or that it is not independent of Woodall? (perhaps there is one, but it hasn’t been made yet) The many other incidental references demonstrate that the subject is in widespread use.---(unsigned by SmokeyJoe)
        • You are getting responses from the three words. I think you know that.--Fahrenheit451 02:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • From: Wikipedia:Notability “Deletion A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.5 Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all.” I guess that you are relying on this. It looks already like a respectable article, it relates directly to a voting system in use, has potential to be expanded, and is clearly not a product of original research. SmokeyJoe 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found the following interesting: “However, such protest votes have an unpredictable effect on an election outcome as IRV fails to comply with any established election method criteria.” [14]. “Later-no-harm” is an established election method criteria with which IRV complies. Your contribution was POV, original research and reveals a distaste for IRV or the “later-no-harm” criterion and I suggest that you have a conflict of interest in nominating this article for deletion. For what purpose, I have no idea. I believe that your reasoning is another example of an abuse of the ill-defined, non-policy WP:N. SmokeyJoe 06:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • SmokeyJoey, I advise you to keep your discussion civil and not make presumptions about my motives. IRV satisfies the majority criterion and with a random ballot tie-breaking method, independence of clones, both established criteria. You seem to ignore the possibility that I could have been in error as I had only been editing wikipedia for three weeks when I wrote that edit. Instead you assume I was editing in bad faith. I believe you are violating the wikipedia policy of assuming good faith and advise you to follow it.--Fahrenheit451 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In all seriousness, I am boldly questioning your motive. I feel the need to be bold because this is not a place for a relaxed considered discussion – you are seeking to have (on March 13) the article obliterated from wikipedia, all content, history and discussions. I am curious about your motive because I cannot understand why you want to delete. “Non-notable” really doesn’t explain it. The subject has been noted in many places. As evidence for an ulterior motive, to justify the raising of the question, I offer your assertion (albeit long ago), found largely by chance, that the subject “later-no-harm” doesn’t exist. SmokeyJoe 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you are being uncivil. Save your boldness for editing. Again, I advise you to assume good faith. If you assume an ulterior motive and wish to be argumentative, then I am not taking the bait. We have a civil discussion where good faith is assumed, or this stuff from you ends right here.--Fahrenheit451 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • By the way, SmokeyJoe, what is the title of the "popular" book you stated mentioned Later-no-harm. If it really does not exist, please be honest and admit it.--Fahrenheit451 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge; an article in a mathematics journal (Discrete Applied Mathematics #77) is plenty to satisfy WP:V and WP:N, so the remaining question is whether the organization of these concepts make more sense as individual articles or sections of an article like mathematical criteria for voting systems. This needn't be decided on AFD. — brighterorange (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge seems very useful to me, its part of the math of voting. WilliamKF 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, then merge. I agree that merging the content would be optimal, but think it should be left to editors who are well-versed in election theory and voting mechanisms. So, I recommend keeping and tagging the article with "mergeto". -- Black Falcon 08:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As with most voting system criteria, it ultimately comes down to personal opinion whether the criterion is useful; but commenters above have shown that it's attributable, and that is sufficient to keep the article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per this search. Addhoc 22:16, 14 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. --Coredesat 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elidet Reyes[edit]

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

I don't believe this person meets the threshold for WP:BIO. Most sources are self-published. Article also has numerous violations of WP:CRYSTAL. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The claims to notablity or prominence in the article do not seem to be backed up by the sources. One of her main "claims to fame" seems to be Project Tsunami, but it is unclear how big this event was (the pictures don't make it seem like an especially big event). There is nothing at all to back up the "sex symbol" claim. And a lot of stuff in the article isn't sourced at all . . . the D.A.D. program, her forthcoming book, etc. Without more sources, fails WP:N as another myspace.com "celeb." janejellyroll 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete many of her citations are minor. My wife has been published in numerous newspapers... but that doesn't make her notable. As was my sister when she played in HS soccer... again, not notable.Balloonman 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, several pretty trivial sources shown but those hardly meet WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC Alf^Photoman 14:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. The first six Google hits (out of a grand total of 59) on her are, in order, this Wikipedia article, the Answers.com mirror, the References.com mirror, her Myspace page, and two discussion forums. Ding ding ding! RGTraynor 17:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources that are about her. -- Whpq 17:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom NBeale 06:57, 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 per WP:BULLSHIT, article meets criteria for speedy deletion.--cj | talk 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connect-A-Pedia[edit]

Connect-A-Pedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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)).

Delete per WP:NFT, zero ghits, no notability asserted. Even if Connect-A-Pedia was really issued a patent, this does not assert notability. War wizard90 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NFT there should probably be a speedy delete category for games using Wikipedia. Why does everyone think they are the first to come up with a wiki game? --Daniel J. Leivick 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Save:First of all, this game was invented by me in the year 2002. I searched the web high and low to see if anybody else had thought of this prior to me, I found no entries on this. Recently the game has been gaining much momentum as a result of myspace.com and other networking sites. A page on Wikipedia, the site that started it all, is what I think could give it the boost it needs to become successful internationally. Also, it was given a patent 2 days ago which I filed for in 2003. I just didn't put it on Wikipedia untill I had the (assumed) security of a US Patent. -- User:D'Brickashaw 04:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original creator confirms no notability. Fails WP:NOTE --Haemo 04:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Save: It does have notability, just not yet INTERNATIONAL notability, it is extremely popular and well known in the three Eastern states of Australia. D'Brickashaw 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I will have to look up whether this game received a trademark or a patent (the article is ambiguous on this point), but my user page has a list of 18 other versions of this exact game which were created by other people. --Metropolitan90 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• dum dum da dumb er that should be speedy delete Balloonman
• Delete as non notable. Also, as far as I understand patent law, one can only be granted a patent for a physical object, or at least the idea of one. A patent can't be granted for actions, which this would fall under. The creator may mean they received a trademark, which is a completely different thing, and would only cover the name, not necessarily the game itself. Natalie 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having done a little bit of research, this is not eligible for patent in the United States, as is claimed above. US patent law only covers "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof". Before you ask, this does not appear to count as a process as I understand it. Natalie 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love this game!

• -This page is no less important than famous military brats Balloonman.D'Brickashaw 05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS / WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS / whatever the redirect is currently being called. --Action Jackson IV 07:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the ambiguity and human error, I meant trademark.D'Brickashaw 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a piece of advice, rather than telling us that this game is notable in Australia, prove it to us. Cite your sources, where is the proof that it is notable? The reason people are voting to delete is because this looks like something that is made up. Show them proof of your claims and I'm sure they will vote to keep it. War wizard90 05:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Save-I would be more than happy to provide proof if you tell me what exact kind of proof you want.D'Brickashaw 05:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the guidelines under WP:NOTE, and specifically WP:WEB. If you can produce sources that meet those standards, I would be happy to change my argument. --Haemo 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the granted trademark at the United States Patent and Trademark Office would be great for verifiability. Also, newspapers, magazines or books which discuss the game to establish notability. -Canley 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know where you could get a copy of it, but Australian Schools Magazine ran an article on it in the November 2005 issue, mentioning my name as well as the game itself. It was also featured in the December 16th 2005 section of connect in the Daily Telegraph Newspaper which also credited me as the creator. D'Brickashaw 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As well as this, PC World ran an article in it's September 2006 issue about Wikipedia Random Article Games, that quoted. "A concept that was made popular in Australia in 2002 with the advent of Connect-A-Pedia has now turned into an internet meme with thousands of copycats all over the web." This did not mention my name, but it did mention the name of my particular game and the relative location. D'Brickashaw 06:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In regards to the link to the trademark page, the USPTO have told me that it shoul appear on the site sometime in the next 2 weeks, I will let people know when I can. D'Brickashaw 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Note also Wikipedia:Wiki Game and Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia - articles like this have been deleted numerous times. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the feedback, where exactly do I self-reference? If you are talking about where I say Wikipedia, it is very hard to avoid when explaining the game. D'Brickashaw 06:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The only article from PC World in Sep. of 2006 that even mentions Wikipedia, is this one [15], and it doesn't mention anything about Connect-A-Pedia or any related game. War wizard90 07:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• They must not archive all articles because i have a copy of that issue in front of me right now and the article is in there. It is on the left side of page 29, i would scan it if my printer weren't broken. D'Brickashaw 07:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, oh boy, a wiki game that's surely notable, if only there weren't a string of unfortunate circumstances that mean that none of the many, many solid references to it can't be shared or found anywhere. WP:NFT applies. Lankiveil 08:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NFT, possibly WP:HOAX, WP:OR, WP:WEB, WP:ASR, WP:NOT#IINFO, as well as numerous other guidelines which I currently can't think off the top of my head.--TBCΦtalk? 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 10:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable game, similar to countless others. No assertion of notability and no multiple sources in breach of WP:ATT. If this game really did make WP random article games popular in Australia in 2002 there will be lots of sources to confirm this, right?Jules 11:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - article is not notable whatsoever, and the editor responsible is lying to try and keep the content. I'd put a watch on this one so it doesn't get created again. JRG 12:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Connect-A-Pedia is a game that was invented by Australian High-School student Daniel Doyle. All the game requires is for the player to be browsing on the wikipedia website." This is a textbook example of something non-notable that shouldn't be included on wikipedia. Reference WP:NFT as per above - also the fact that the creator of the game is involved in this discussion is very fishy. THE KING 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NFT: "Your search - Connect-A-Pedia - did not match any documents." Krimpet 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:NFT and WP:COI. Despite creator's assertions of this game's popularity, there aren't even any hits on the Australian Google [16]. I don't suppose that Mr. D'Brickashaw could supply the Application or Tracking Number he would have been given by the USPTO if he really did submit this, as he alleges? (There are advantages to working for a law firm that handles intellectual property disputes!) Frankly, the evidence is piling up big time that this is utter BS, and the sooner the creator either puts up or ceases the malarkey the better. Ravenswing 17:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia namespace Al-Bargit 19:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia itself wasn't popular in 2002, how amazing that this game transcended the popularity of the site to become so well known in the eastern states of Australia! Even more amazing, it's an internet meme with no mention on the internet at all. The PC World "reference" is obviously bogus - the first 40 pages of the magazine consist of a review section called First Looks - they would not have an article on "Random Wiki Games" on page 29. Connect is published in the Daily Telegraph every Wednesday, yet your copy is dated 16 December 2005 which was a Friday! --Canley 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Keeper I am reading the article the creator was talking about in the September 2006 PC World right now and it all checks out. Besides this, the article seems to be factual, well-written, and by the evidence in PC World alone it is notable. Bamkazam 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Worth-Saving - In my opinion articles like these are good to have, they help to make Wikipedia, more unique, user-friendly and universal. I don't understand why everytime an article that is a little alternative to the usual, people call for it to be deleted. There is room for everything on Wikipedia, people should just cut the nonsense. And if what Bamkazam said is true, it seems notable to me. Maximum andy 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Lets not be hasty First of all, I am a deletionist, but I think this is notable as I know for a fact that one of the sources checks out. I work for the Sydney Daily Telegraph and decided to look in the archives that are not available to the public, these contain everything. To my surprise this was mentioned in the December 16th 2005 issue of connect. At first I wanted this deleted, but now I have totally changed my tune. PS Canley, throughout late 2005 and early 2006 we did run Connect on Friday and Wednesday. Jojodeletionist 06:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fuck Connect-A-Pedia - Delete this fucking thing, it is pure bullshit. To the creator, you are a (Personal attack removed)! Goshuckurself 06:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hmmm. Very convincing argument, is that the way you treat people who you slightly disagree with, you are quite the skilled linguist and debater. D'Brickashaw 06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, isn't this charming ... the only three editors to agree with Mr. D'Brickashaw and a convenient punching bag, all four new accounts created within a twenty minute span of one another. Someone should explain to him what a "sockpuppet" is. Ravenswing 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. This is one of the greatest pieces of sockpuppetry I have ever seen. I think I will link to this from my userpage. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a nice idea but should have been speedy deleted - no evidence of notability at all. However the comments of Goshuckurself are quite inappropriate and volation of WP:NPA NBeale 07:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN, as mentioned above, and while I'm doing my best to assume good faith here, it does seem a little fishy that a patent became a trademark, that this trademark/patent hybrid has not yet been included on a relevant site, that even if there was a trademark there'd still be no automatic notability, and that an article in PC World which would at least scrape the bottom of the notability barrel can only be found by two accounts with a very similar cadence. Meh. --Action Jackson IV 07:14, 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. WP:LIST is not rationale for keeping an article. --Coredesat 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of current OHL captains[edit]

List of current OHL captains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft, can be covered adequately on team pages. BoojiBoy 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of concerns with maintaining the list. In general articles should be static and a list of current hockey team captains isn't. As noted, articles on the teams or the individual athletes can and should note the players' status as captain. Otto4711 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:LIST - navigation and information. - Peregrine Fisher 10:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because a list may meet the guideline of WP:LIST, that does not automatically mean that all other considerations are mooted. Otto4711 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does it say lists should be static? - Peregrine Fisher 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - better handled by a Category, per most sports here. --Dweller 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. RGTraynor 17:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews nor Wikisportsrosters. While lists are not required to be on topics whose contents never change, those which aren't both readily maintainable and of some long-term significance are usually deleted. This list has no sources shown. I have trouble supporting even the similar list of NHL captains, and that's the major league of hockey. For the OHL, when a team changes captains, it will typically be reported only in the local newspaper and on the team's website. That's not multiple independent reliable sources. (I come from a city with a team in the AHL, the most important minor professional league feeding to the NHL, and even the local paper gives nontrivial coverage only once a year to the captaincy.) This information belongs in the articles on the teams and on the notable players as "2006-2007 captain", not "current captain". If someone really wants to see a "current" list, they can use team and league websites, and WP does not need to contain less-up-to-date information. Barno 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - List contains mostly non-notable players, in an amateur league. Flibirigit 04:40, 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 already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallelujah House. --Coredesat 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack M Oliphant[edit]

Jack M Oliphant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable Not notable, see associated discussion on Hallelujah House Jemather 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because I can't find enough attributable information to make an encyclopedic article. Sancho (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have been trying to get reliable independent info about Jack M Oliphant and have been unable to confirm anything. I should not have created this article without learning more about Wikipedia first and getting some solid facts with references. I do not know the definition of notable. He was connected with Lee Harvey Oswald - Ty Hardin - Timothy McVeigh and was caught planning the bombing of the Hoover Dam and the FBI Headquarters. Please go ahead and remove it. If the FOI requests I made confirm his millitary record, working for OSS or anything else someone can always create a new article right? Scottprovost 10:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you could always create a new article. By the way, I think many of us don't know the definition of "notable" :-) There's an ongoing discussion regarding whether or not this should even be a reason for acceptance/deletion of articles. Regardless, this article doesn't have attributable information (see WP:ATT), which is a policy. It seems that you understand this, though. Sancho (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there are a bunch of wild claims but hardly an attributable source in the whole article. As is it fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:ATT and WP:V. Alf^Photoman 15:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. There are a few hits referencing the name as a 70s/80s militia nut associated with the Christian Identity movement, but I just don't see this passing WP:BIO. RGTraynor 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give you an idea of the difficulty I have met with. Apparently his military rank is still classified. Even prisoners of war are allowed to give their rank. How can it be sensitive and ineligible for FOI release 60 years later and after he is dead. US News and World Report has information but has been asked not to release it. They claim that it is nothing significant, mostly related to the Kennedy event. All those surveillance records are set to be released for FOI but not available yet. Is is notable that all the other operatives involved in the Kennedy investigation are considered notable. The fact that Jack is known for being on the side of the Government in 1962 and against the government with Timothy McVeigh with a religious cult to his credit in the meanwile shouldn't make him less notable should it? Scottprovost 09:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with you re-creating this article or put it on DRV once you have the sources. With the kind of evidence you presented thus far not even a tabloid would print it. Alf^Photoman 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Wikipedia's guiding principle is verification; if you cannot verify it, you cannot include it. If you have any such facts, you should be able to provide your sources. If you have no sources to provide, then no, this fellow isn't notable. RGTraynor 14:57, 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. --Coredesat 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Northpole[edit]

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

Slight claim to notability (he is supposedly "best know (sic) for a diss track") is only backed by a myspace.com reference. Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 04:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC. No reliale sources either. TJ Spyke 04:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:V. When the lead Google hit (and there are only 132) is a Myspace page, that's the kiss of nonnotability death. All the hits seem to be from discussion forums; there are no significant third-party sources, nor any evidence backing up the assertion of a link with Ludacris. RGTraynor 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We asked you not to delete that notice.

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by BigHaz. MER-C 10:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter_Seeger[edit]

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

This page does not appear to be encyclopedic type information, as Seeger doesn't seem to be notable or famous enough to warrant an article, and the various articles and edits appear to be borderline spam or advertising. Johnb210 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete make no claims of notability. Total nonsense. --Selket ^Talk 07:47, 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 speedy deleted by Rama's Arrow[17]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulcerate[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion tag. Original tagger says that this band is not notable; author claims that the band is signed and has three albums, and is therefore notable. What say you? Richardcavell 05:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Formed in 2006? I don't care how good you are. You have yet to receive real reviews. Denni^talk 05:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Selket ^Talk 07:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under criterion G12; the article is unquestionably a copyright infringement from [18], and no assertion of permission has been made. So tagged. Kyra_~(talk) 09:02, 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. --Coredesat 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Douglas (journalist)[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger - doesn't meet criteria for WP:BIO. Sources are mostly self-published. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, derez, whatever: per WP:BIO, NN. It isn't even that he writes a blog, he writes about blogs?? If I was that insignificant I'd shoot myself. RGTraynor 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's try to be at least a bit civil, shall we? -- Jonel | Speak 04:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please be sensitive to the feelings of these people. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Errr ... "sensitive to the feelings" of dead people? You greatly overestimate my connection with the afterlife. RGTraynor 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Back on topic. Not notable. 11:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:51, 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 no consensus. --Coredesat 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarina State High School[edit]

Sarina State High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing to suggest this school is notable beyond being a school. Note also the article explicitly states it is below the expectations of other schools. Contested prod. Denni^talk 05:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN school. Article basically just says that the school exists. TJ Spyke 06:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article fails to meet notability criterion, as well as failing to attribute the sources used to create the article. Kyra_~(talk) 08:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete YET ANOTHER piece of blatant school advertizing. I am sure users and sysops are tired of deleting this junk (pardon the use of such language) from Wikipedia (I certainly are tired of contributing to discussions on it).— Preceding unsigned comment added by ANHL (talk • contribs)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete All schools are notable but this is clearly just some copied text from a site. It needs expanding and some more sources, if so ill change to keep.LordHarris 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Actual school with available sources. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NOT an advertisement, the article basically says "What a shit school don't go there". Delete it and let someone interested in the place write a NPOV article. Only contribution by User:Twigz o war who has no talk page and should have been warned for vandalism. Only other contributions have been similar vandalism by anon IP's, and deletion-related tagging.Garrie 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there isn't an editor out there who will maintain it, then it will just attract vandals. I'm all for keeping high school articles, but I'm beginning to think one of the practical criteria needs to be that the article won't just be a spot where vandals hang out, blighting the neighborhood. So an editor needs to be there to police it. I see no evidence of that in this case, so bulldoze it. Maybe one day it will be rebuilt by someone who will give it the care it deserves. Noroton 05:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• article has had rubbish removed and been referenced at this point
• Keep Delete - I've removed the weasel bits, and found at least one notability reference ( in the article now ). Will try to get more but on the face of it, seems a notable high school. 592 google hits and over 60 referring to awards ( many will be student awards but at least one is an award for the school ) - Peripitus (Talk)...After some searching I can find nothing else of note except the two added references. No news articles in the last few years, no books on the school and no mentioned notable students - Peripitus (Talk) 10:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see anything particularly notable about this school. Lankiveil 08:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Has potential to be expanded, or at the very least, merged. It actually has sources! Notability is a failed criterion that never had consensus. The article shows no indication of advertisement. SmokeyJoe 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article was created less than a week ago and needs to be given a reasonable time to find editors and develop. Already being expanded and looks notable enough for an article. I have added an agricultural initiative. TerriersFan 04:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a stub with potential for development - clearly some people here don't understand the stub concept. School articles are important and high schools are notable. Constant vandalism is not a reason for deletion, otherwise there would be no Bush article. Ardfern 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlike the other school article currently up for AfD, this one fails WP:N. This article seems more appropriate for the new MySchool wiki. (Please excuse the lack of content there, it just got off the ground.) --Butseriouslyfolks 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Nobody had to ask me to come here. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:27, 12 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 deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 10:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Maine[edit]

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

Looked like a straight case of ((nn-band)) to me but someone thinks that notability is asserted. -- RHaworth 05:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Where in the article is notability asserted? This is borderline speedy A7, but someone (who?) claims notability, so let's give them a chance to demonstrate it. Selket ^Talk 07:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No notability asserted. Take a look at the edit history, the only thing that happened was that someone removed the speedy delete tag and said "notability asserted" (without doing anything). TJ Spyke 08:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under speedy deletion criterion A7; the article does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. So tagged. Kyra_~(talk) 08:55, 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 cosmic delete. --Coredesat 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Intelligence[edit]

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

• I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion, based on the fact that it was basically nonsensical, but have since gotten a second opinion and decided to go for a normal AFD. This articles was also PROD'd by another editor, but the notice was removed anonymously without comment.
• This article is a barely coherent essay, does not cite any sources, and is by and large unintelligible. It also appears to consist of 100% original research, and fails to attribute any of its sources or claims. Furthermore, it is not clear that the topic discussed herein has any relationship to a "cosmic intelligence" and is entirely speculation. Fails WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:ATT, and WP:OR, and should be deleted.
• Note, however, that I am not contending that an article about "Cosmic Intelligence" is inherently non-notable, or impossible to produce. I am nominating this particular article because it is incoherent - presumably in the future, one could produce a reasonable, encyclopedic article about this topic. This is not it. Haemo 07:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of the more bizzare articles I've seen on AfD. Normally I think bad articles should not be deleted because they are bad, but this one is so bad that I can't evaluate it for any of the normal standards. Could this be speedied for context (A1)? --Selket ^Talk 07:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know, but my previous speedy attempt was also contested, right before I pulled it, so I don't think it would help in any case. --Haemo 08:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• BJAODN...that is, delete this wackiness. WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:A, take your pick. -- Scientizzle 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Complete nonsense. It sure is original but I don't know whether I could describe it as "research". Jimp 08:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsensical: "Credit goes to the NASA for spotting all these formations in the sky and naming them." Uhh.... Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It hurts my head to read this. Natalie 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Complete nonsense Chrislintott 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm still struggling with the concept of a bird's eye view of the universe... EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a really gigantic bird, I guess. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense and as essay--I am reluctant to call it "research"-- Article claims that the term is "popular in the new age community" without documenting it. DGG 19:27, 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. --Coredesat 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Wacker[edit]

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

Headteacher and editor of a published book; I don't think this is enough to meet WP:BIO. PC78 08:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Educator and editor who does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Moreover, his employment and religion are not attributed. --Charlene 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Editor of a book by an author we don't even have an article for. Horse first, cart later. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and the whole book of guidelines Alf^Photoman 15:09, 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. --Coredesat 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glemo[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is a neologism for an art form created by "James & Fabian" in 2005. No sources or claim of notability. Dave6 ^talk 08:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertisement. By the way, you know it's bad when the first Google hit it Urban Dictionary. Punkmorten 08:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some people might think it worse when it's wikipedia which is first. Cloveoil 05:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability for this "movement". --Selket ^Talk 09:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. In addition, the article does not attribute the sources used to compile the information within the article. Kyra_~(talk) 09:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Kyra. Does not even have a definition in Urban Dictionary Jules 12:54, 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. --Coredesat 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Burley[edit]

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

There are thousands of national record holders in athletics around the world. WP:BIO, on the other hand, demands that an athlete has competed on the highest level of the sport. Nothing indicates that Sam Burley has. And since holding a national record is not enough to pass WP:BIO, this should go. Punkmorten 08:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no assertion of anything that would make this pass WP:BIO --Selket ^Talk 09:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I'm rather astonished at the blythe assertion that the national record holder in a sport wouldn't likely be competing at that sport's highest level in this country. As it happens, Burley placed second at his distance just this past month in the US Indoor Track National Championships, won the outdoor national championship in 2003, and has competed at the Olympic Trials. All this took me about four minutes to verify. Now I've added my findings to the article, but AfDs shouldn't be filed in cases where the most cursory of searches uncovers ample verification. This is one of them. RGTraynor 16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and I agree with you and go one further - nobody seems to read Before Nominating an AfD either. This article proves it. Davidicke 17:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Being a National record holder is notable, and additonally, he is currently ranked 36 in the IAAF world rankings which certainly indicates he is competing at the highest level in his sport. -- Whpq 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am glad we can establish the reasonable guideline that national record holders in each sport are notable. It is a very straight-forward standard to establish DGG 00:56, 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. Shimeru 08:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterini[edit]

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

The idea of disambiguation pages is to provide guidance between several likely outcomes of a given search. From WP:DAB: Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?)

People won't search for Ekaterini, or most first names for that matter, to reach any of the targets included in this disambiguation - in reality it is an unencyclopedic list of everyone named Ekaterini disguised as a disambiguation page.

Exceptions from this do exist, namely when people are known primarily by their first name - see for instance Harald, Haakon. This does not, of course, apply in this case. Punkmorten 08:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to List of people by name: Ek.--TBCΦtalk? 09:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as useful disambiguation page. The nom states that people will not search for Ekaterini, but we do not know this. Bradycardia 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. This is hardly a list of everyone named "Ekaterini" (just 3 who have WP articles). A merge into List of people by name: Ek is not appropriate as the "List of people by name" is maintained alphabetically by last name, whereas this disambig page is for a first name. I'm tempted to suggest redirecting to Catherine II of Russia, but her Russian name is "Yekaterina" or "Ekaterina", not "Ekaterini", which is a Greek name. -- Black Falcon 08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is, as Falconage above pointed out, not an 'encyclopedic' list. Rather, it serves it's purpose well - I have, at many times, searched for people by first name. Possibly, you might want to consider making it a redirect to the most 'well-known' of these people, and have disambiguation at the top of that page. Black-Velvet 08:22, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-Rühm[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Musical group claiming notability, but unclear whether they meet WP:MUSIC. Delete unless claims of notability are verified. Kusma (t) 10:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and wonder if acceptable proof of notability should only be english-language. There's already et.wikipedia.org for Estonians. Davidicke 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it shouldn't. We should accept sources in other languages (otherwise we'll have problems covering smaller cities and villages in remote countries etc., see WP:BIAS) But I checked the Estonian entry et:A-Rühm, which is almost orphaned, so it probably isn't as notable as it claims even in Estonia. Kusma (t) 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then. Davidicke 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete mainly because the article is unsourced. If someone who speaks better Estonian than I, or with access to a translation service, could provide the core content in English of [19] or [20] which appear to be reliable sources we may be able to come to a sound opinion. Nuttah68 20:59, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Country Day School[edit]

Arlington Country Day School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested WP:PROD, original concern was "see WP:NOT, article seems very advertisment-like". Certainly in need of cleanup and sourcing. Delete unless secondary sources are found. Kusma (t) 10:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't imagine this being noteworthy to anyone not associated with the school. JBEvans
• Delete unless some assertion of notability is included. JulesH 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A blatant advert of no use to Wikipedia. Organisations like this should take the time to form their own page, not exploit the open nature of Wikipedia. Also, this is the 3rd or 4th article on schools forwarded to AfD. This seems abnormal and looks like it might even be a wierd type of hoax.User:ANHL
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I think this article needs improving, expanding and a few references. If someone rewrites it ill change to Keep. LordHarris 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has one team that won 2 state championships.And nothing else. There are always a number of school articles in AfD and there will be as long as we have no agreed-upon criteria for schools. N:Schools had not even been able to establish a consensus on whether it is right to say that nothing has been accomplished. DGG 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Based on what is there currently in the article. - Denny 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The school has been an athletic powerhouse that has been one of the few regularly covered on television at the high school level and has won multiple state championships in multiple sports, all of which has been covered by major media in reliable and verifiable sources, clearly establishing notability by any definition of the term. I invite those who have voted delete citing a failure to assert notability or to provide sources, to reread the article and reconsider their votes accordingly. Alansohn 00:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I am opposed to the willy-nilly inclusion of schools that some seem to favor, this one has a nationally recognized basketball program and is therefore notable from an athletic standpoint. The major edits which improved the article were just made, so I would ask that the AfD be left open for a few more days so that others have an opportunity to review the improved version. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable sports results. TerriersFan 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school; chuffed up sports results are a canard as noted by DGG. Eusebeus 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - DGG actually did not say that. He said "It has one team that won 2 state championships. And nothing else." This comment was entirely valid at the time that he made it and I agree that by itself it is not sufficient for notability. However, the sports section has now been expanded and referenced up and now indicates notability when coupled with the significant place this school has in the community. TerriersFan 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's comments by delete voters like these that amply demonstrate that some people just won't bother to read an article before voting. All of this on top of the fact that Eusebeus seems to play little part in participating in Wikipedia other than as a critic, only further undermines the validity of this vote. Alansohn 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh Alan, thanks so much for the love. Let me expand my comment (AfD is not a vote btw). The article is about a school. The school is unnotable. Pointless attempts (the teams' sponsor is Nike, eg) have been made to try to provide some grounds for notability in the ongoing and misguided belief that Wikipedia is a glorified Yellow Pages masquerading as an encyclopaedia on weekends. But the school remains unnotable. Why? It is a school & schools are generally unnotable. Their sports teams are unnotable. Their mascots are unnotable as are their school colours, their motto, and the principal's name. How can I be clearer? I am serene that you disagree with me on this issue, but let's keep the commentary on the specific message and not impugn the opinions of those who don't happen to live in your sunshine-filled happy valley of server-wasting schoolcruft. Eusebeus 15:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to deal with fellow editors, those of us who are working together to build an encyclopedia, not critics with an axe to grind. Above and beyond your clear deletionist bias and near-complete lack of contributions, you persist in pushing your agenda, rather than addressing the article in question. I still don't have the impression that you have bothered to read it. As such, your knee-jerk vote does not address the issues of notability for this article. The fact that you will not address this article makes yours a vote. That's not how we Wikipedia editors participate. Alansohn 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • If the air in New Jersey weren't so filthy, you'd probably have a pretty nice view up on top of that horse. Eusebeus 19:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's nice that you're reading my comments, but the school is located in Florida, where the air is clear and the schools are notable. Have you actually read the article yet? Will you reference anything that pertains to Wikipedia policy regarding notability or will this remain the usual knee-jerk delete vote? Alansohn 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the two of you could continue this elsewhere? Pistols at dawn? --Butseriouslyfolks 19:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Doesn't seem like much of an advert to me. School articles are important and schools are notable. Hence the hundreds of articles on schools. Don't complain about the content - make it better - that's the Wiki way Ardfern 23:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has notable sports achievements supported by references. The content needs to be improved, but not AfD. Cocoma 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for a small school those sporting achievements look pretty notable to me. The Academics section needs work but the article should be given time to acquire editors and grow. Bridgeplayer 01:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not all school articles are notable. This one, however, seems to be (following the addition of multiple sources to the article). One could argue that the basketball team is more notable than the school, but if for nothing else than proper organisation, content about school teams should be in a main school article (except for major college/university teams, of course). -- Black Falcon 08:45, 13 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, attack page. Kusma (t) 10:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr seago[edit]

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

Non-notable, seems just a sandbox test, uncyclopedic etc Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 10:32, 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 Delete. Jersey Devil 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love, hope and fear[edit]

Love, hope and fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy deletion tag removed in February, but no indication that this band could meet WP:N since then. Tikiwont 10:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC), updated by Tikiwont 15:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the serial comma must be upheld, even in minor band names. This is about somebody's band. Note to nominator: for a title like this, it helps people reading AfD to point this out. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of how the band meets WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 21:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the wise words of the folks above me.Sarcasticidealist 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The serial comma is not used in the band's name, this is the band's chosen spelling. Love, Hope and Fear is representative of the San Francisco music scene and has had a number of articles and reviews in magazines, most notably, AMP (American Music Press). don't delete the page. Comment by 24.5.132.71 on Talk:Love, hope and fear, reported here by Tikiwont 09:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you get some references in there? I could be persuaded to change my vote if some evidence of the band's notability was included in the article.Sarcasticidealist 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if they have received significant critical attention, I'd be happy to change my stance also. (And, FWIW, my comment about the serial comma was a joke. I do what I can to lighten the mood here. Obviously, if this is kept, it should stay at their chosen punctuation.) - Smerdis of Tlön 21:02, 12 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 and redirect to Childcare. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Program For Infant and Toddler Caregiving[edit]

Program For Infant and Toddler Caregiving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established. Likely advertisement, IMHO. TexasAndroid 21:23, 5 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) 10:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; it does not really claim notability and the article does not explain in any significant detail the key questions "Who, what, why, where and when". (I don't know what "WestEd" is, for instance). Sam Blacketer 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Childcare. The first external reference claims "PITC is the most widely used training system for infant and toddler caregivers in the United States." This claim may well be true. The problem seems to be that PITC has no material in an independent secondary source. Until such sources are found, PITC shouldn't have its own article, but does warrant a mention at Childcare. Don't delete as there is potential value in the history. SmokeyJoe 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Per above, until sources are found. Black-Velvet 08:25, 16 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 already deleted by TexasAndroid. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Simpson[edit]

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

Previous prod removed. Non notable contestant on a reality show. Fails WP:BIO. The sourced articles are all about the show, not about the contestants, and only mention them in passing, to highlight the level of the show. No problem with an article for the show, but articles for the contestants are overkill for now. Fram 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to merge the names of the contestants into the show's page then? Of course, then the question comes as to how much of the article to keep I'd guess. oh yeah I did want to mention that in retrospect my reasoning for removing the prod was flawed since it followed the 'if this article is here, then this should be too' kind of circular logic. Anyway apologies to Angr for that one.Andrew831 14:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The multiple articles cited, like those from The New York Times and The San Francisco Chronicle are much more than "passing mentions." --Oakshade 01:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable per WP:NN ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article cannot say anything that isn't, perhaps, self promotion or just irrelevant information. Not every single journalist that gets an article put in the New York Times should get an article; some, or most, of these people's articles wouldn't even say anything notable. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Merge with show article After looking at how pages for other reality TV shows are layed out this seems the best course of action in my opinion. The subject's notability is based on the show so if it fails WP:BIO then I think per WP:AfD we should consider merging it with the show's page instead of out and out deleting it. Also in the interests of disclosure I AM a friend of the subject so if that invalidates my vote well then you should probably know that before taking my comments into consideration. --Andrew831 17:14, 11 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 without redirecting. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox, nor a discussion forum, nor a publisher of original thought. --Coredesat 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki fraud[edit]

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

An essay on factual inaccuracy and lack of citation on Wikipedia. Prod (which pointed out that the article itself has a lack of citation) removed with the comment: WIkipedia has no policy requiring that everyone cite their sources. Thus, this author, who has written an article critisizing wikipedia will also not cite sources to make a point. Suggest move to users space? Marasmusine 11:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Wiki-fraud" or "Wiki fraud" (the article uses these terms interchangably) is a non-notable neologism, made up by the author of the article as far as I can see. The article also (regardless of what the authour says) breaches WP:ATT by not citing sources. Also appears not to be written from a NPOV (i.e. suggesting 99% of articles subject to wiki-fraud, reference to people referring to Wikipedia as "slack-jawed yokels").Jules 11:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy, per WP:ASR - furthermore, phrases like "slack-jawed yokle" [sic] have no place in article space. (Also, the "driving force behind the American Scholastic Board's barring of using Wikipedia as a source in any student's Ph.D thesis paper" isn't "wiki fraud", but a desire for primary and secondary sources in such writing - citing an encyclopedia in a thesis paper would get you laughed at; although Wikipedia is a nice encyclopedia, it remains an encyclopedia. Just sayin'.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and comments like "Wikipedia is ... Joseph Stalin's Communist propganda machine" on the talk page don't help either. Zetawoof^(ζ) 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete, or possible userfy or turn into an essay. But get it out of articlespace unless it can be proven to be an notabale neologism (complete with sources off course). WegianWarrior 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to preserve the authority of Wiki Cabal. Original research and neologism, thus delete or possibly userfy.--TBCΦtalk? 11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems more like (scathing) criticism than encyclopedia article. Opinion Dureo 11:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as above, just blatant (and intentional) criticism of Wikipedia. Articles like this are a direct attempt ot atack the integrity of Wikipedia and th creators should be treated in the same way of vandals (policy states that an attack on the integrity of Wikipedia is vandalism). Also, i'm certain that the 99% statistic is innaccurate in the extreme.

User:ANHL

if I may dissent, we don't need witch hunts and stake burning exercises on Wikipedia. Alf^Photoman 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic, NPOV and since sufficient sources aren't given, original research. 82.135.86.58 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Most of this is already covered in Essjay controversy anyway. No use rubbing salt in anyone's wounds. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog or a discussion forum. RGTraynor 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not because I want to say that there is nothing relevant in that article. All those cases should be addressed. But WE DON'T HAVE ARTICLES WITHOUT SOURCES. If the editor wants to know the pertinent rules he might want to look at WP:V, WP:N, WP:ATT .... Alf^Photoman 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as patent nonsense Al-Bargit 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete author admits to violating WP:POINT. JuJube 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - essays of any sort neither needed nor wanted. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete Nice satire, but it doesn't belong in article space. Just as a proper analysis of the % error in WP doesnt belong in article space --until it has been published elsewhere. DGG 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wiki-Fraud. Delete per WP:NOT a soapbox. Unsourced, POV, unattributable, WP:POINT, and in fact disprovable on multiple points. The underlying valid points would be far better addressed by starting a legitimate essay from scratch (without childish whining and sniping) and posting it in Wikipedia: space, not article-space. Barno 02:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a real gem "Political pundit Stephen Colbert editing a wikipedia article on Elephants, claiming that the population of Elephants has tripled in the last 6 months, that was latter used by pro-poacher groups in Africa to successfully lobby for the unbridled slaughter of thousands of Elephants in western Africa". — MichaelLinnear 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into one of the articles concerning criticism of wikipedia or such like. Cloveoil 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE

• First of all, Wikipedia's rule on Reliable sources is:

"Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." Keyword - whenever possible. So if it is not possible (for any reason at all, as there are no stated guidelines as to what defines impossibility) an author does not have to specify the sources of his facts, or even have any sources for his facts, period. AND since the author did not specify a source, one has no way of knowing whether this fact has come from a primary reference or secondary reference - thus, every uncited fact is arguably taken from a secondary source, which do to SOME factor, whatever that factor may be, citing that source is impossible. Hence, the unreferenced fact is fully in compliance with wikipeida's rules on reliable sources.

Thus, an unreferenced fact is a reliable source! (Wikipeida's rules, not mine)

Hence, the argument that this article should be deleted because not citing sources is against wikipedia policy is spurious at best.

• Second, this article has been proposed for deletion because of wikipedia's policy on neologisms. However, wikipedia has plenty of article's on neologisms already - wikipedia's page on deletion says email is a neologism, but wikipedia has an entry on e-mail. Thus if you delete the page on wiki fraud, to be consistent, you have to go delete EVERY article on neologisms; now what kind of so called "Encyclopeida" would wikipedia be if it did not have an article on e-mail.

• Thirdly, as to the claims that this article is inaccurate: Where are your sources? (Show me your sources and I will show you mine.) By Proposing that this article should because deleted because the facts contained in the article are inaccurate, without providing evidence in support of your own claims, is a little hypocritical at best.

• Finally, in response to "thought police officer's" comment: "Most of this is already covered in Essjay controversy anyway. No use rubbing salt in anyone's wounds. -- - (Elkspeak)"

Well, we see the real reason why this article is being deleted. It is being deleted, not because it is against any of wikipedia's policies, but because it points out the major flaws in wikipedia - it rubs salt in wikipedia's wounds. Hence, Jimmy Wales' Thought police, have been sent out to squash all opposition, as always.

That's why the article is being deleted; not because there is anything wrong with the article, but because its against your own beliefs'. Thus, wikipedia's ugly secrets make make their presence known again. This is not an encylopedia; its a mere forum where one party's beliefs are presented as fact, and any questioning/critism of these facts is immediately eradicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimdawg (talk • contribs) 2007-03-09 09:27:04

• Yup, I agree. Cloveoil 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Damn, you caught us out. And here I was going to spend a pleasant morning in my Jimbo's Stormtroopers uniform (complete with riding crop and razor wire) deleting articles about puppies and kittens and inserting lurid pictures of goat pedophilia on unsuspecting user pages. While you're at it telling Wikipedia off, could you ask Jimbo to raise our pay, please? We haven't had any checks for our Thought Police gig in quite some time. RGTraynor 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does that mean we have to cancel the Thought Police parade for May the 22nd? Bummer, I was practicing marching along with It's a long way to Tipperary . Alf^Photoman 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Forget all that: the page is an attack page, existing for no other reason than to disparage its subject. Accordingly speedy delete -- 62.25.109.196 09:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism. Where does it say that "email" is a neologism? Catchphrases passed through chain emails may be neologisms, but email itself is not. Your argument on "wherever possible" is missing something: If it is not possible, that probably means the article shouldn't exist. Google can serve as the "source" you seek: there are no results there that pertain to the subject of this article. I don't care whether there is another article criticizing Wikipedia; it's just that this one isn't it. Feel free work on Criticism of Wikipedia, WP:FAIL, Wikipedia:Problems with Wikipedia, Daniel Brandt, and all those other articles on Wikipedia. –Pomte 09:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Wikipedia's entry on the word Neologism

" neologism (from Greek νεολογισμός "νέος" [neos] = new; "λόγος" [logos] = word) is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") — often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context. The term e-mail, as used today, is an example of a neologism."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism)

Thats where it says that e-mail is an neolgism.

• See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms for the specific criteria of what is meant here. –Pomte 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete or redirect to Essjay controversy because it repeat information, and we shouldn't be feeding the trolls on this site. — Moe 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect without merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. Basically, right now, this article amounts to defining a new term for something that's already discussed a whole lot in Wikipedia (Criticism of Wikipedia and the bazillion subarticles). We don't need yet another one. However, since this term is kind of obvious, it's a plausible redirect. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:24, 11 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, notable, multiple indep. sources. NawlinWiki 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Cancer Trust[edit]

Teenage Cancer Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Expired ProD, contested and re-ProD'd. No opinion here. Bubba hotep

• Strong keep highly notable charity, with a very high profile in the UK. Particularly notable for its annual rock concerts, sometimes fronted by Roger Daltrey. --Dweller 11:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep As above. An important charity. I am sure that with a bit of encouragement this page could form a good article.User:ANHL
• Strong Keep a charity that people are aware of. Notable for Roger Daltrey. He has appeared on Sky News raising the profile of this campaign. Brylcreem2 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Keep One of highest profile charities in the UK. This year's concert at the Royal Albert Hall, incidentally, features The Who, Kaiser Chiefs, Kasabian and Noel Gallagher. Non-notable charities don't pull artists like that. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:13, 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. --Coredesat 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game settings[edit]

Video game settings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been nominated for deletion twice before, both discussions resulting in no consensus. Although over eight months have past since the original AfD nomination, the article has yet to improve; still unverified, unsourced, and original research. Similar articles have also been deleted before, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animation clichés (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer and video game character stereotypes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fighting game character stereotypes, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic book clichés (2nd nomination). Also, as I've stated in the previous nomination:

I doubt that the article can be cleaned up, since many of the listed "clichés" are either:

1. Seen in other forms of media, and not specifically related to video games. For example, Area 51-related facilities appear commonly in all science fiction related media, not just video games.
2. Due to technological restrictions, such as cities having fewer builings than what one would see in a real city.
3. Appear commonly in real life, so they can't technically be considered as a "cliché". This includes settings such as jungles, deserts, grasslands, and forests. TBCΦtalk? 11:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - original research Jules 12:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Again, none of your objections to these settings being considered cliche actually convince me. Something being a cliche for Video games and for other Science Fiction media? So what? Cliches are not limited to one media. Having fewer buildings? Makes sense to me that technological restrictions might determine why a cliche happens. I don't see how that possible excludes them from being a cliche. And appearing in real life doesn't make things not a cliche either. But even if I did agree with you, those are content-disputes, not deletion arguments. You'd be better of just sticking to the WP:V and OR concerns, though I do think those can be resolved. Beyond that, I do think the title of the article is poor, and it should be renamed if kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • See my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video game item clichés. If none of the cliches are specific to video games (ie they happen often in real life or in other genres) then there's obviously no merit for a seperate article. It's as simple as that. --TBCΦtalk? 08:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No place for an article of this size in Wikipedia. Possibility of continuing VASTLY cut down, but the present page should certainly go without delay; I am amazed it has survived for so long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ANHL (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete due to lack of sourcing and OR concerns. Arkyan 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. I'd be curious what ground for keeping it there'd be beyond WP:ILIKEIT. RGTraynor 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom and per being indiscriminate OR. Otto4711 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. More videogame-related fancruft is not good. JuJube 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well-written and someone put a lot of time into it. Nardman1 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a failure of WP:ATT. Nuttah68 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some of the arguments put forward for deletion are simply bamboozling, it seems to me to have the basis of a rather well written article in there. Cloveoil 05:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Infinite Matrix[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Contested ProD, re-ProD'd. No opinion here. Bubba hotep

• Delete, seems non-notable. Off course, if sources showing notability (and no, a link to a blog lamenting it's demice don't really do it) can be offered, as well as significant expantion from a single sentence, it should be kept. WegianWarrior 11:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article makes no attempt to establish notability and is unsourced. Nuttah68 21:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Timberlake[edit]

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

Fails WP:Music criteria, 49 gh, was speedied before by but has re-appeared Cricket02 12:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC) "[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Cricket02 12:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
• Delete, and I would say speedy if the article did not claim notability. Total absentia of reliable non-trivial second party references Alf^Photoman 14:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a faint claim to notability but no real claims to meeting WP:MUSIC and no reliable sources. Nuttah68 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. As an aside, I see that User:24.191.63.180 removed the AfD template from the article on March 11; however, given that the consensus here appears pretty clear-cut I have no hesitation in closing. If an admin feels otherwise, please feel free to relist. Agent 86 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Dominican Republic[edit]

Miss Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advert for the 2007 Miss Dominican Republic pageant. OK, not strictly an advert, perhaps a press release would be more accurate. Combines the blindingly obvious (Miss Dominican Republic is the pageant which selectes - you guessed it - Miss Dominican Republic) and a directory of contestants, all without the benefit of a single secondary source. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but expand. I see no reason why this pageant should be singled out for deletion but, to borrow one of the cross-references in the article, no one complains about Miss Spain. If the pageant is a hoax, then delete, otherwise this article has as much right to exist as Miss Canada. In fact, Miss Canada (even with sources) has far less information, it seems, and one could argue it's a more notable pageant. 23skidoo 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and most importantly, add some sources to the article but the contest does not appear to be a hoax, and it look like the national qualifier to the Miss Universe contest. In fact Amelia Vega who won Miss Universe qualified by winning the Dominican contest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if references can be provided, otherwise Delete Agree with the Miss Spain and Canada comparisons. But we need to have some sort of source for the info, otherwise delete. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have dug around a bit and found external references to the pageant, plus WP pages for some winners. Therefore, voting Keep, but suggest we make it more encyclopedic and less like an advert. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Advert or blindingly obvioua, per JzG. As for Miss Canada, WP:INN (or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) applies. --Calton | Talk 15:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep add references and improve per 23skidoo. TheQuandry 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs cleaning up, but AfD is not the route to achieve that. Nuttah68 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Miss Dominican Republic is a notable beauty pageant. --Carioca 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 23skidoo. --Lmblackjack21 11:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Its very well written and as per 23skidoo...--Cometstyles 16:59, 11 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.