< May 10	May 12 >

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Támar[edit]

Probably not notable, partially unverifiable, not citing any sources, not NPOV. Tinctorius 12:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say even if most of the article's information is true it passes notability, but there are no references and certainly not NPOV. It's not an unsalvageable article, but if nobody does it then yes, it needs deleting. Mentality 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: passes notability? What notability criterium does she pass then? Is she the subject of multiple non-trivial published works? The article doesn't mention any chartered hits, gold certifications, major music awards or competitions, notable works (I guess) or international tours, she has published only one album (which appears to be canceled)(this part is very unclear to me)... in what respect is she actually notable? --Tinctorius 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? From the article lead section, "She sang the co-lead vocals on the Grammy-nominated song "Beautiful, Loved and Blessed" from Prince's 2006 album, 3121 and on backup vocals throughout the album." That sounds like a notable work to me. JulesH 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Minor celebtrity; might as well have an article on her, as long as somebody is willing to clean it up and ensure it is sourced to reliable sources (hint for the page's authors: the current source, being a forum, is not reliable, but does have links to some sources that are). JulesH 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, barely passes WP:MUSIC. There seem to be some things written about her out there. The article needs those sources and other improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 08:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean Up I have sources!!!!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nycboi1 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: what sources? The only source that might pass WP:RS is the MTV bio site. --Tinctorius 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, she just crosses into notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Article could still be expanded, and more sources added. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 01:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- passes WP:MUSIC Thunderwing 11:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Jusssst notable --St.daniel ^Talk 11:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep some notability. Needs to add sources -Lemonflash ^(t)/_(c) 23:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Should be cleaned up to remove original research. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinelandic[edit]

Contested speedy. Unreferenced article about some term, suspected of being original research. I suppose it should be deleted if no sources can be found. W.marsh 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be deleted because the term Rhinelandic is not used in Germanic linguistics - there is simply no need for an article with this title. No one has been able to cite any published peer-reviewed work in which the term is used. Add to this the fact that the content itself is clueless nonsense. I originally questioned the value of this article 10 months ago. The fact that no one has attempted to answer the criticisms in all that time suggests that there is no need to delay deletion any further. --Pfold 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a corresponding article in the German Wikipedia and the Germans live happily with it. They gave three (similar) meanings of "Rheinische Sprache" and our article is about the third one. (Both English and German articles seem to be of low quality, but it is possible to make them better.)--Ioannes Pragensis 20:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And even if it's not the proper translation, it should be kept as a redirect to the more proper one. Dhaluza 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't read to much into the link - if you look through the history, it's apparent that the link to the German article is the work of the same user who wrote most of the nonsense on this page. In any case, the German page doesn't inspire confidence - it's just an unsourced listing of usages, with no implication that the term has any status in linguistics. --Pfold 10:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we should be check to make sure that Rhinelandic is the appropriate and most widely used English translation of "Rheinische Sprache". If Rhinelandic is not used, its German counterpart seems to be used albeit infrequently by German writers, as Google Scholar brings up 1,880 hits for Rheinische + Sprache, the vast majority of the Rheinische's are not of the Sprache, but of the University or location of the research, which are not relevant however, Google Scholar also brings up a couple of hits for "Rheinische Mundart" but that gets us in to the eternal langauge (Sprache) vs. dialect (Mundart) debate. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep Googling suggests that the word is used to discuss dialects. Whether it is a colloquial or technical term is unclear, however. Mangoe 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; babble, badly translated. "The Benrather line both clearly divides the tonal area into two language areas and clearly fails to conceal they are yet very similar." The English is Benrath line, which divides Low from High German. Original reasearch; whether or not this is a genuinely useful concept, we would do better starting over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, seems like OR, but, like Ioannes Pragensis said, there is an article on the German Wikpipedia, and a Google search turns up a few results. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, however, that the German article is de:Rheinische Sprache, which would be "Rhenish language" or "dialect" in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; on the whole I agree with the concerns that have been expressed above. On the question of the translation of "Rheinische Sprache", I suspect that the word "Rhenish" would be the closest term in English. I don't know if this would be the same thing as the Rhenish dialect of German, on which subject Google Books finds over 600 separate works. -- ChrisO 00:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That becomes 83 hits when one introduces quotation marks. Still significant, but since the German wikipedia treats the term as ambiguous (I read it as saying there is a High German accent, a Standard German dialect, and a bunch of Low German local variants) I am still concerned that the present article is OR. Rhinelandic gets 5, of which at least 4 have nothing to do with language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub. Clearly this is not completely made up, e.g. see sidebar in: [1]. Dialects are a serious topic in German, probably more so than in English, so this may be a case of WP:BIAS. But the unreferenced content is a problem. Move most of it to the talk page pending reference inclusion, leaving a valid stub. P.S. I also tagged the German page for lack of references, in case that will bring any forward. Dhaluza 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; article has been expanded. Krimpet (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voight Pipe[edit]

It reads like nonsense - but I don't think it's speedyable Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 11:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's jargon-filled and technical, but I believe it's valid (I grew up around engineers who designed speakers, and this sounds a lot like their techno-babble). The article needs Wikification badly, though. --Dynaflow 11:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to Wikify it. This is my first post. Help would be appreciated. Thanks--JacquesPHI 12:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I don't know where the nominator got the idea that this "reads like nonsense." Google either "Voight Pipe" or "Voigt Pipe" and you get plenty of examples. I'd suggest that the article either be expanded or redirected to Loudspeaker enclosure, which already has descriptions of TQWPs, also termed Voigt Pipe in that section of the article. But the nom doesn't make deletion for me. 74.134.59.45 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good work JacquesPHI; to the above editor - the reason was that it was just repaired. --Haemo 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Googling lists dozens of links that make clear this is a real thing. Mangoe 04:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Pea ceNT 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russel Walder[edit]

WP:RS:No sources listed appear to be reliable. Sources appear to be a google dump, & many of the sources listed are simply other wikipedia pages.
WP:ATT/WP:N: Claims of grandeur without attribution. No reliable sources to verify claimed notability.
WP:NPOV/WP:COI: Possible COI, definitely not written from a neutral point of view ("redefining the possibilities of the oboe", etc.) /Blaxthos 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Blaxthos AFD does not work through voting (unless policy changed I havn't been here for awhile).--M8v2 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity self-promotion--created by a single-purpose oboe-POV-pushing vanity account--the first of its kind I've ever seen. Qworty 02:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The article is something of a mess, but that's cause for clean up, not deletion. The subject seems to have some legitimate degree of notability as a jazz oboist: [2], [3], [4] Mwelch 04:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up as per Mwelch. Walder released three well-regarded albums with Ira Stein in the 1980's. Horologium 06:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, this article is a mess but if cleaned up and wikifyed, it could be suitable.The Sunshine Man 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is notable enough that this can and should be salvaged. RFerreira 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted, copyvio --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out Out[edit]

Fails WP:BAND. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - According to the article, this band had a few releases with Metropolis, maybe the largest goth-electronic label in the USA, and that alone establishes their notability under WP:MUSIC. ~~However, the article is so POV and so WP:SOAP and so desperately in need of cleanup that it'd be no great loss if you did get rid of it.~~ AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, no wonder - this article was AfDed 3 minutes after creation. It could have been tagged instead with the notability tag, the cleanup tag, or the other tag to beg for sources to be added. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But major, major work is needed on the article, as its current form is atrocious. I remember spinning these guys when I was an electro DJ and they were fairly notable in the scene in the late 90's. Would be willing to work on the article and bring it up to standards if kept. Tarc 15:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us your reasoning? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio[5] without prejudice against re-creation.--FreeKresge 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Homecooked[edit]

This seems to be a fairly recent book largely of interest to watchers of Australian celebrities. Given its recent publication date and the fact that it doesn't seem likely to be terribly influential or unique, I figure it's probably a prime candidate for AfD. Have at it, then. Haikupoet 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is merely about a cookbook - and notability is hardly established throughout. It's a short article providing little context and no sources. --Ali 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the notability of its participants can be extended to the book. It is also orphaned. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tackett[edit]

More self-serving and promotional than notoriety Shoessss 17:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most notable claim is to have been the student of the student of Bruce Lee. No sources of notability.--Work permit 03:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant advertising (CSD G12) and NN subject. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only way this martial arts hobbyist could become notable would be if he beat up someone famous. Qworty 02:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely nothing more than an ad. A martial arts instructor in Redlands? Maybe he's notable for being the only martial artist in Redlands... BlackberryLaw 08:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, no references.The Sunshine Man 11:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well-respected martial artist; please note the six books listed. The Hsing-i kung-fu books are rare and valuable English-language works on the subject. This is a notable martial artist and not a hobbyist. He has intentionally kept a low profile over the years. (I am in no way affiliated with him or his group.) The Wed, night club is also well-known. JJL 17:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, well-respected, and well known martial artist in the Jeet-Kune-Do world and in martial arts in general. He is is one of the top instructors world-wide. I'll try to find some sources to assert notability. --Kimon^talk 22:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the person is very notable in martial artist world yuckfoo 00:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George & Joe[edit]

No hits at all on this show from Google or Yahoo. Likely a hoax. Blueboy 96 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I reckon that it's probably a local program on public access. Not notable. --Haemo 00:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Haemo. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity. The article was created by someone named George. I guess Joe will be dropping by soon. Qworty 02:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without a description of the show itself, this article seems to be completely made up. KJS 77 02:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Hill Country Club (Fitchburg , Massachusetts)[edit]

I removed an A7 speedy since holes designed by a notable designer is an assertion of notability. However, it is unsourced and lacks the necessary secondary sources to establish notability so I am bringing it here so that editors can take a view on its notability. This is a procedural AfD on which I abstain. TerriersFan 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a country club, apparently just like any other. Mangoe 04:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources. Fg2 02:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unfortunately unless reliable sources attesting to its notability, independent of the Club, are added before the AfD is closed my view is that the article cannot be kept, on policy grounds, since it would fail WP:V. TerriersFan 03:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the holes are notable enough. I would have said to move the information to the designer's article, but I can't find his complete name. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Fg2, keep and add sources. Recently created article, will be expanded. Smee 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:N, WP:CORP. A quick Google search reveals mostly directory listings. The only non-trivial coverage I could find was this article, which says the course will be the site of two minor tournaments. Don't see how this country club is any more special than thousand others like it. Ytny (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ytny above. ~~The best coverage I could find is this article which basically says the course is the backup location for the Senior PGA Championship if "something cataclysmic" were to happen.~~ --Kralizec! (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that article refers to Oak Hill Country Club, an actually notable golf course. --Ytny (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. In that case, I will say delete as per WP:NOTE. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Slavlin 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging is an editorial decision that anyone can make if they feel like it. - Bobet 00:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmondo games[edit]

Johnny Whatever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Momma Can I Mow The Lawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Milo and the Rainbow Nasties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Angel Fish (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(View AfD)

Articles about apparently cancelled Gizmondo games, created by Nextreme (talk · contribs); originally nominated for speedy deletion. Little to no references (just an outdated link to screenshots at Games Asylum, another broken one to Warthog Texas [I didn't find any mention of the games using Internet archive], with a Youtube demo video in one of the articles). I am nominating the articles for deletion due to notability and verifiability concerns, but making no vote myself; consider it a procedural nomination. - Mike Rosoft 20:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - independent sources are needed to establish notability, for instance reviews in significant magazines saying these are good or innovative etc games. Bridgeplayer 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Johnny Whatever The game created far more buzz than any other Gizmondo game, released or otherwise, as it was set to come out on the home consoles and the demo/preview featured a number of notable artists (i.e. The White Stripes). See, for example, the coverage done by IGN ([6]) and GameSpot ([7]), the latter of which did previews of both the console and handheld versions. -- Kicking222 21:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Johnny Whatever: This one had the most (and most relevant) hits on this google search. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all When it comes to conole games, being unreleased is not necessarily grounds for deletion. All of these got some attention in mainstream gaming publications, and I recall seeing screenshots for at least some of them. Needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into List of Gizmondo games, as it is unlikely these articles will ever be de-stubbed unless another company purchases them. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am with Kralizec!. Merge it into the List of Gizmondo games Slavlin 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, no consensus to merge, and no consensus to move. Either of the latter two can be purused editorially to try and develop a consensus; however, there wasn't one as a result of this discussion. Cheers, Daniel 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star_Wars_Technical_Commentaries[edit]

Not a notable website. See Wikipedia:Notability for criteria for notability. Also see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction) for reasons why this website is inappropriate for Wikipedia. New guy 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New guy 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, or maybe merge into TheForce.Net. The specific guidelines for assessing the notability of web content are at WP:WEB. I should think that such a comprehensive and supposedly contentious set of webpages must be central to much discussion about Star Wars, though I can't actually find much supporting secondary evidence on the internet. However the fact that it is also the source of two notable books is in its favour. Smalljim 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - since Saxton is a published author with verifiable links about him and Lucasfilm not particularly getting along, perhaps we should move the article to Chris Saxton, and add further information on his writings? I won't vote because I have been a reader and fan of this website for ages and ages (He has a "what's updated" feature that he added after I suggested it to him sometime back in the mid 90s), so I'm biased. --Golbez 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean to call it Curtis John Saxton or Curtis Saxton (that's what he uses on his web site), and I think its a good idea. But I note that he is still a postdoc, with 9 published papers and may not yet be notable purely as a scientist. DGG 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yeah, whatever his name is. :) I'm not saying he's notable as a postdoc or scientist, though he may be; but he DOES seem notable as an author. --Golbez 06:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has existed for a long, long time, with no reputable citations added. Smee 09:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Move as per Golbez above; Curtis John Saxton appears to be one of the authors of the Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections series, and Amazon.com shows him as the co-author for two other SW books. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
move per consencus — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Lv Timothy (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus O'Higgins[edit]

Contested speedy. Article does not establish any noteability of the subject beyond being junior player of the Dublin Wanderers Rugby football team. The creator of the article contested the speedy deletion, with the following argument:

The page I ceated concerning Fergus O'Higgins should certainly not be deleted. Mr. O'Higgins is extremely well known in Dublin and Irish sporting circles. It is also increasingly probable that he will in future become a professional player for Leinster, an Irish province, currently competing in top flight European rugby, boasting such stars as Brian O'Driscoll, Gordon D'Arcy and Felipe Contepomi. The reason I know of him is because I am an avid fan and season ticket holder of Leinster and a member of the Leinster fan club, on whose message boards he has been extensively discussed.

No sources have been provided, the only thing I found through google was a story about the youth teams tour of tolouse, from the Wanderers homepage. In short, it does not appear that this meets WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. Dr bab 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS. I cannot find anything to verify this info. the_undertow ^talk 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for crystalballing. When I see him selling cars on American TV, I'll change my position. Qworty 10:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if he makes it as a pro player at some point in the future. Oldelpaso 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, crystal ball, unreferenced, etc. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, per Oldelpaso. ---Charles 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge all to Abadia Retuerta. Daniel 08:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abadia Retuerta Selección Especial[edit]

A brand of wine. No real claim to notability as I've never seen a wine that didn't claim at least some awards. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons, though am holding off on the Abadia Retuerta corporate article for the moment:

Comment You write "I've never seen a wine that didn't claim at least some awards" You must be a very happy man. I'm starting to envy... - The article claims they won "Silver medal International Wine Challenge of 2003"; it seems to be at least partially notable to me.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Seriously, when you walk into a wine store, every single wine appears to have a tag proclaiming some stellar rating in a magazine or a prize in some contest the average person has never heard of. In this case, International Wine Challenge has its own article, which states that there are no limits to the number of trophies awarded, which is a huge red flag. Unless there is a more rigorous proof of selectivity, this seems about as strong an argument as "You shouldn't disagree with this Wikipedian because she has received a barnstar." Note that while labels like Dom Pérignon (wine) have articles, and there are many articles on wineries, the nominated articles on labels don't have anything approaching the notability of Dom Pérignon. Not that they don't sound tasty, though... - BanyanTree 09:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment as I have said you are a happy man. Probably I live in a wrong country. Life is too short to drink bad wines... --Ioannes Pragensis 21:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to the Abadia Retuerta article, which is about the winery that makes all of them.
A winery is the sort of business I am inclined to give the benefit of a doubt to. They necessarily have a physical plant, continuity from one year to the next, and tend to generate fairly substantial independent press coverage; I suspect it would be easy to make the main article meet WP:CORP even if it doesn't already. I don't see the need for separate articles on each of its products, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. A winery or a winemaker may be notable in the WP sense but an individual wine very rarely is. andy 17:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge all - barely notable, but deserves to be included in its winemaker article. Elfin341 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Abadia Retuerta; not only are the wines lacking notability, but the articles are completely unreferenced and even the quotes lack proper citations. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge them all under the vinyard. Slavlin 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Recording studio. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal booth[edit]

It looks like it is promoting a product. My reason for believing this is because the creator's name is "vocalbooth" (I linked to his user talk since he has no userpage) and he has in the past added spam links to a website of a similar name ([8]). If "vocal booths" are more than some product that the creator is advertising then it may be a good idea to add appropriate references to show this. Also note that the creator has been indef blocked for a "promotional name" already. I thought this article could be speedy deleted but apparently not. Funpika 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a generic term to me; however I doubt it should have its own article. So, I would say merge into Recording studio. --soum (0_o) 02:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Recording studio - this is no more than an isolation booth, which is covered in its own subheading under Recording studio. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: redirect to Recording studio. Doctormatt 23:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Recording studio or Recording studio#Isolation booth if that is allowed. I'm not sure if the concept is broad enough such that a vocal booth or an isolation booth would ever warrant its own article. (Requestion 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Merge and redirect into Recording studio#Isolation booth; the concept is notable, the term is in common use, but they are the same thing. -- The Anome 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Recording studio due to being un-notable. It may also be worth noting that zero articles and only a few talk pages link to this page. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment being bold I changed this to a redirect. It seems to have removed the AfD template from showing up, though it is still there. Should it be removed before this is closed? Slavlin 17:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was smite with fire and brimstone. Krimpet (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Clement[edit]

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. No independent reliable sources. Lexis Nexis search shows no articles to verify any of its claims. —Ocatecir ^Talk 01:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention NPOV problems most places you look. DagnyB 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clement's credentials have been referenced by receiving ministries all around the United States. His book Secrets of the Prophetic is a biographical sketch in accordance with and supporting the information posted in the article. What else would one be looking for to verify information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.103.219 (talk)

WP:V has all you need for verifiable information; WP:N and, in particular, WP:BIO will help you find what you need for the notability factors. Also pay attention to WP:BLP as Mr. Clement is, evidently, not dead. =^_^= As for Secrets, I'm not sure a biography would would count as a reliable source (yep, check there too). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, Delete. The biggest problem I really have is a lack of notability seemingly outside of word-faith Christianity, and nothing to really verify it with. Has huge issues with POV here, and almost seems to be a promotional article for a Christian prophet. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hmm, since he speaks for God, I guess he didn't have to sign the comment above. He appears to be really good at predicting things years after they've happened. This is not a notable skill. I predict this spam will be deleted. Soon. Qworty 02:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ~~WP:HAIR~~ WP:RS. the_undertow ^talk 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone. Has a very promotional feel to it as well. I like the post-predictions too. --Charlene 04:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGEST REPAIR RATHER THAN DELETE Not sure where your coming from regarding "post-predictions" as I found Clement's prophecies are listed every week after each of his events in the US. Apparently he gives the predictions in his public meetings, makes recordings available, then has the evening transcribed for public posting on his website 1-2 weeks after each event. When something comes out in the news they post it again to show that it has come to pass. You will find the Churches listed are some of the largest and most reputable in the US with well known leaders. Unfortunately, it sounds like this is becoming more of a controversy with religion or the possibility of the supernatural than anything. This and the above are not signed, simply because I chose to revise the article, and have no interest in becoming a "regular" on here. I was under the impression that I need not sign? This article was originally posted by someone else and I simply did a little research to help. I agreed that it needed to be informative and less biased, but I think according to the preceding comments on this page we're more at risk of taking a pessimistic approach, which of course is also not balanced. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.108.159 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 May 2007 (PCT)

Comment. His predictions are so vague that that they can be fulfilled in a great variety of ways, much like those of Sollog. This is nothing more than an old carnival trick. We've already got enough articles about stregas, witches, warlocks, the Mormon belief that the Garden of Eden is located in Jackson County, Missouri--whatever. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. This article is a vanity advertisement for a man who pretends to predict the future. Let him go buy a website with the donations he takes in. Also, Wikipedia articles do not have to be 50-50 balanced. Such a balance would in fact violate the Undue Balance Policy. The article should reflect the preponderance of the evidence, not a 50-50 balance. In this case, there is zero evidence that this article is anything more than an advertisement. Qworty 09:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primarily because his first name is Kim. I digress. If making vague predictions is all that is needed for notability criteria in articles, every weatherman in the country should have his own page. I'm sorry, but predicting a hurricane in the height of hurricane season is like predicting in September that the Devil Rays won't win the World Series. This guy isn't a prophet, he's just like the psychics on televison. He plays the odds. And if we want to get technical, the biography section of the article is copied directly from here[9]. I'm sure there are more violations like this, but frankly I'm not going to spend the time to find them. If he can see the future, then tell him to start sending me lottery numbers. When I start winning I'll change my mind. --Cyrus Andiron 13:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, problematic article which fails WP:BIO as well. Burntsauce 16:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability not establish, major POV issues and apparent COI. Plus the copyvio mentioned above. If you removed all this stuff all that would be left would be the guy's name and therefore ((db-empty))! andy 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Do as you wish, but I suggest finish cleaning it up and keep it. --EscMatrix 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It doesn't help that the article reads more like an advertisiement for the man than an encyclopedic article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge are we debating about whether prophecies are being fulfilled? we just have to decide whether its notable. I think it is, but is is based on the blogs. I think we can verify what he says easily enough, but I see no reliable source for even the basic events of his life or career. The work then should be merged into the article on his church.DGG 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't believe I just suggested that (I can't stand the guy), but I am suggesting that it be kept. He is very notable in the Word of Faith community, and is either loved or despised in the Pentecostal Community (unfortunately mostly loved). It looks to me like the person writing the article doesn't know how to properly source the article and just put the sources down as External Links. If the article has POV problems then fix them, don't delete the article.Theophilus75 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, g6, WP:NOR, school essay. NawlinWiki 01:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dewar peterkin[edit]

Delete. It's a school essay. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Tagged as such. —Ocatecir ^Talk 01:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Witches (2008 film)[edit]

hoax, faked poster, all speculation. ThuranX 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe in witches. They do not exist. I do not believe in movies that do not exist about witches that do not exist. Qworty 02:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. It's all rumors at this point. No prejudice to recreation if more information comes about. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Unfortunately, not much content here to begin with. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, whether hoax or crystalballery. Doczilla 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 11:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, either hoax or crystalballery. Burntsauce 16:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is my understanding that the proper term was "crystallballification". Did someone tell me wrong? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I do not believe in crystalballificationism. ---Charles 23:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You're an anticrystallballificationalist? Is there a userbox for that? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness, I hope so! If not, and I knew how, I would make one myself. ---Charles 04:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a project for such things, no? ZZ 04:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaahhh... good to know. Thanks! ---Charles 04:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even a year out from release, there would be some press coverage, and thus some sources upon which to base an article. Here, nit. ZZ 04:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence that this exists in any shape or form. RFerreira 04:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As much as I loved the movie as a kid and hope this is true, there just isn't enough information and only rumors at this point. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight (disambiguation)[edit]

Created by new editor who tried to rearrange a number of Batman related pages. ThuranX 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a reasonable disambig page. Nominator offers no valid reason for deletion. Resolute 04:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I get what you are aiming at. This is a duplication of The Dark Knight, which is already a disambig page. Delete as redundant, and highly unlikely search term. Resolute 04:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, keep as a redirect to The Dark Knight? FrozenPurpleCube 04:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per duplication of The Dark Knight. Carlosguitar 05:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as duplicates created by newbie user. Doczilla 07:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can we move the DAB page to Dark knight and prevent Dark Knight from being redirected to Batman? (There's no hatnote on that page, and DC comic fans today seem to want it redirected) 132.205.44.134 22:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Sinice nothing is called 'Dark Knight', and all Batman related items and articles rely upon the Article as part of his moniker, or as their titles, based on said moniker, using a phrase that's NOT going to be serached for so often is a bad idea. Further, Dark Knight was already established as redirect to a sufficent Disambig. ThuranX 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's talking about Batman as "The Dark Knight" but the question was about "Dark Knight" as a disambig over having one at "The Dark Knight" . Since we could redirect to either title just as easily, I think that's a fair option to consider. Certainly there's no need for *two* pages on the same content. FrozenPurpleCube 23:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, the problem with this particular article is that it has the word 'Disambiguation' in the title. NO ONE is going to search for it that way, who doesn't know it's already there. It should be deleted. As to the second point: So why should we change it? The phrase, even by The creating editor, and the IP's assertion, is primarily associated with Batman, and then with the musician and the charaters from the video game. Why should we reverse it, so that the less popular phrse becomes the disambig, and the popular becomes a redirect? that's contradictory to common sense. The way it's been has worked fine for a long time. THis is a case of 'It's not broke, so don't break it.' ThuranX 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the likelihood of a particular search term doesn't mean much, redirects are cheap. So that's not a real problem. Sorry, but I just don't see a need to delete on that basis. Besides, it might be worth doing something like George Washington or University of Wisconsin does, with the main page to a real article, and the disambig on its own. In any case, it seems to me you're adopting a position of "It's always been that way, why change it" which isn't very convincing. Frankly, I might be convinced to have The Dark Knight as a redirect to Batman with Dark Knight as the disambig page. This is because "the Dark Knight" is associated with particular things, but "Dark Knight" as a term does apply to a broader set of usages. FrozenPurpleCube 00:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that 'The Dark Knight' would refer directly to both Batman, the Character, and the film, as well as closely tying to the Frank Miller projects, and the musician. 'Dark Knight' alone refers to two character types in games. IF you want to split it, have 'The Dark Knight' link 'Dark Knight' to a disambig for the video game, and 'Dark Knight' link 'The dark Knight' to the disambig for the Batman related topics. that's a compromise I can live with, which more accurately than any current solution reflects the most exact ties at the right sites. ThuranX 03:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight refers primarily to Batman though (even most of the alternatives are Batman related), as such the disambig would serve in the same way as the disambigs for the pages I mentioned above. Not sure what you're saying in the alternative, it's not very clear what you're proposing there. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On May 10, Dark Knight was a DAB page, on May 11, Dark Knight was redirected to Batman. 132.205.44.134 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither a The Dark Knight nor a Dark Knight page is needed; redirect the terms to Batman and, if necessary, link to Mark Knight there. JJL 02:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems that the vast majority of people here are unclear as to the problem with this page. It's not the content. It's the fact that the TITLE ITSELF has the word DISAMBIGUATION in it. No one is searching for "The Dark Knight(disambiguation)", they search for "The Dark Knight". I found the page through my watchlist, when the editor moved the content of 'The Dark Knight' to "The Dark Knight(disambiguation)", which he made. The content at The Dark Knight was restored. It really is that simple. A new editor made a page with a bad name while moving stuff around, ruining an existing disambig by moving it's content to one he chose to label Disambiguation. It should be deleted for that reason alone. ThuranX 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a problem that needs to be fixed by a move, I'd think. Is an afd necessary for this? Is it controversial? JJL 03:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. do what you want. I'm the only one reading the page history and editor's contribs. I keep summarizing what happened, and no one here gets it. the title of the article os four words, not three. the three word version existed. as a disambiguation page. which he made into a redirect. like he did to a bunch of other pages. then he made useless new pages. into redirects. to replace the disambigs he made into redirects. but his new pages all have 'disambiguation' in the titles. for no reason. I'm done with this. I nominated the damn thing, I've explained it over and over and over, and everyone here is like 'well, yeah, i'd never search for 'The Dark Knight' when i could be searching for "The Dark Knight(disambiguation)". And since the disambig should list both the character and the film and quite reasonably the frank miller works, there's no good reason to eliminate the page that was there, and no reason to expect people to get to the disambig page otherwise easily. Expected a three step hop from The Dark Knight>Batman>The Dark Knight(film)/The Dark Knight Returns(Comics)/Whatever, is foolish when we can reduce it to >The Dark Knight>what reader wants. Forget it, I'm done explaining this. whatever. bye. ThuranX 03:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems to me that you're taking this a bit too personally. Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying. I just don't think it means much. Adding (disambiguation) or (disambig) to page title doesn't make for a bad page. It doesn't create a real problem, and there are many cases where this sort of thing happens. If instead of focusing on an editor's decisions (whoever they may be, and whatever their reasons), you took an approach of "How should this information be presented" you might get better results. Me, I'm not sure if "The Dark Night" should lead to Batman, with a link at the top to a disambig page elsewhere or not. But whatever decision is made, it's not a serious concern if this page exists or not. FrozenPurpleCube 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reasonable disambig page per Resolute Feydakin 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there is to be a DAB page I think it would be better sitting at Dark knight or Dark Knight. The pages The Dark Knight (disambiguation) and Dark Knight (disambiguation) can either be redirected to the proper DAB page or deleted. The Dark Knight should either redirect to the DAB page or point to Batman. Batman itself should have a hatnote explaining that The Dark Knight redirects there, and point to the DAB page. 132.205.44.134 22:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I still don't see why we're going to bounce people three times, when we can do it in one. ThuranX 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was just a redirect see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Knight (disambiguation), closer of that AFD will deal with this page as needed. W.marsh 16:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Knight (disambiguation)[edit]

Created by new editor who tried to rearrange a number of Batman related pages. ThuranX 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a redirect, should be handled at WP:RFD instead. In general, I'd redirect to the disambig page for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 04:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, this is a page which has the Parentheses and word disambiguation in its title, making it a highly unlikely search term. See the related deletion on this page, thanks. ThuranX 11:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bomb[edit]

Hoax; none of this is confirmed by other Wikipedia entries (and there are lots of pro wrestling entries), and none of this can be confirmed by a Google search, which is unusual for an allegedly well-known professional wrestler. fbb_fan 01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Google turns up no search results for neither Aaron Bomb nor Aaron Boem. KJS 77 02:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, the name is spelled wrong. That is why you haven't heard of it. The wrestler's ring name is "Adam Bomb", also known as Bryan Clark. Delete this article. The one about Bryan Clark is written much better and also spells his name correctly. --Cyrus Andiron 12:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Thomas Smith[edit]

non notable person C5mjohn 02:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another guy with a website. Qworty 02:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources establishing notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another unsourced, unverified article. 09:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)KrakatoaKatie

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasters of The O.C.[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Similar to articles deleted for such other shows as Desperate Housewives, Smallville, The Simpsons and so on. Otto4711 02:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto's comments. Extranet ^talk 08:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unnecessary article Fritzpoll 23:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I am correct on what is usually done, this can be shortened, put in a table at the end of the main article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in The O.C.[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The songs on this list are unrelated to each other except for the coincidence of having been played in an episode of a TV show. There are no sources attesting to the significance of the songs either in the context of the show or in the real world. Otto4711 02:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete with Comment I'm willing to change to keep if an argument can be made against redundancy. At the moment this article links to articles on 6 different CDs of collected music from this show, making the article (in my opinion) a list for the sake of having a list. However, as there is an argument that cross media promotion has an interest value (not to mention that at times TV shows are the first widespread appearances of lesser known up and coming bands), I can see this article having some value IF it relays information about music that does not appear on those CDs. -Markeer 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Music plays a significant role in television - especially this show[10]. Listing songs used in episodes is encyclopaedic (though I'd personally prefer it if they are on episode pages...). Remember: Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopaedia!. I believe that eventually this can turn into a quality article. Matthew 19:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an exceptional list, especially considering the indie music on The O.C. was one of the defining concepts of the show. We have to be more careful about what we delete.-BillDeanCarter 22:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To turn into a quality article, cleanup to notable songs only. Change the first sentence to "Only notable songs used in The O.C. are being listed" Tonytypoon 23:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all songs should be listed. As far as WP:NOTE goes it's important to note that it is the article subject that needs to be notable, not everything in the article (WP:NOTE#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content). A complete list of the songs would be required to go to WP:FLC.-BillDeanCarter 23:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just another useless list. Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. Just add the songs to each episodes page Black Harry (T|C) 15:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not a useless list; I personally accessed it specifically for the purposes of having a clearly compiled list of songs from the oc which I could use to research the bands with. The OC is famous for its unique use of indie music, and this page acknowledges and pays tribute to the show's widely acclaimed status as being musically enterprising in its selection of more obscure music from recent decades. This list of music as a unified entity is of popular social importance.

Making this point clear in so-many words at the top of the page would make the page seem meaningful within an enclyclopedic context. References should be made to online articles which make mention of the special status of OC music and sustansiate the above claims(there will be plenty). 81.179.112.177 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC) SAMDANZIG 17:37 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful as a reference. Mikael GRizzly 13:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Consensus is to keep. Sources added. Article has been improved.diff Pea ceNT 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles George Arbuthnot[edit]

NN Army Officer. Part of the Arbuthnot walled garden. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a walled garden. Not the first British Arbuthnot to be nominated for afd, none of which have been deleted. Notable for the number of men under his command. In the DNB. Nevertheless expansion would be good. These afds don't allow much time for improvements to be made! - Kittybrewster (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's been there for 18 months. I realise a lot of the Arbuthnot clan are notable, but there are limits. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guy died in 1899, has had 108 years for his notability to be established, and has failed so far. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site--go see the Mormon websites for that. Neither is an encyclopedia a repository site for biographies of every military officer, no matter how minor, who ever existed. Qworty 02:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, seems to be of some importance, but is a copyright violation of [11]. KJS 77 02:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's a Wikipedia mirror, which copies information direct from the article that's up for deletion. No copyvio there I'm afraid. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a person of some importance? - Kittybrewster (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 03:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wrakest of all possible keeps~~Mild Keep; appears in Oxford DNB. But really, the commander, not of the Indian army, but of the Madras presidency ~~- in peace time!~~ ODNB says commanded end of the Third Burmese War, in succession to Bobs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a random army officer. Mangoe 04:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At the moment this page just seems to be a vehicle for linking to other Arbuthnots of equally dubious notability. However as the subject qualifies for listing here Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the Bath (and I expect that list also includes a few of equally dubious notability too) there must be more to say. I strongly suggest Kittybrewster takes most of his pages into user space, to protect his work. Then perhaps the main space could be deleted - to protect Wikipedia's reputation and standards - and allow Kittybrewster and a team of volunteers (any offers?) to bring the possibly notable up to standard without risk of being nominated here. To me, this seems a fair solution to what is becoming large wikipedia problem. Giano 07:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but please add the information that makes him (and other relatives) notable, rather than creating even more of these stubby articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look - I have even tidied it up for you. But there must be more to say about his service in the Crimea and afterwards, particularly if, as is mentioned above, he was in command for the final stages of the Third Burmese War. Correspondence with Earl Roberts is held at the National Archive.[12] -- ALoan (Talk) 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Lt General - CinC of the Madras army and Knighted is not 'a random army officer'. Yes, this needs cleaned up, but no reason to delete it. -Doc^g 13:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Presently lacks multiple reliable and independent references, since Mrs Arbuthnot's "Memories of the Arbuthnots" clearly does not qualify. Perhaps additional independent and reliable references could be found by the end of the deletion debate. It has been on Wikipedia long enough that one would think those who like articles about their relatives would have found and added such refs. Edison 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable army officer in the British Army. Astrotrain 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know people want to shut down kittybrewster's project, but can they please not over-reach themselves? The head of a Presidency army is perfectly notable. Hornplease 16:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I think this is interesting Kittybrewster uses as a ref: Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot "Memories of the Arbuthnots" (1920). George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Yet the same publishers in the same year published "Memories of the Arbuthnots of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire" by Ada Jane Evelyn Arbuthnot [13]

Odd that two Arbuthnot wives should simultaneously publish works so similar - very odd! There is the possible explanation that Kittybrewster forgot to add the last part of the title - but would those qualifying Scottish counties include the Irish branch? Then the name Ada Jane could have been Mrs Peter Arbuthnot - but why change the author;s name. Too many questions? Giano 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Download it and find out [14]?--Doc^g 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could but I am immediatly concerned because Kittybrewster himself appears as "copyright is owned by Sir William Arbuthnot, Bt" quite how he owns copyright of a book published 87 years ago by someone else is something of a mystery. I would be interested to see an exact copy Giano 16:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The facsimile is probably copyright - the book sure as hell is not.--Doc^g 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Unquestionable notable, with a full signed entry in the DNB. I added the exact reference, the refs listed in the DNB article, and a quote or two from it. If only the author had kept to subjects like him... DGG 23:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you give a fuller citation though. Simple listing the Dictionary as an article doesn't do much. Author? Page/article? Publication date?--Doc^g 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference and link was where it belongs, in the article--here it is again "E. M. Lloyd, ‘Arbuthnot, Sir Charles George (1824–1899)’, revised. by James Falkner, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (article 608). Oxford University Press, 2004 accessed 11 May 2007 subscription access". DGG 23:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. KCB's are not given out every day. John Vandenberg 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKitty uncharacteristically missed something. Not only was he KCB, but he was Knight Grand Cross of the Bath (GCB), the highest level. Kitty missed something else--the links went to the ranks in the OBE. a considerably less distinctive honor. I've fixed them. DGG 23:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to see the improvements to this page being made. It is a pity that the only way these Arbuthnot pages can be brought up to an acceptable standard is by nominating them here. If their primary author and his friends could initially do some basic research so much unpleasantness could be avoided. I suggest those keen to see this page retained now rapidly turn their attention to the other many pages concerned with this family, before they are moved to "Genes reunited" which, at present, is the correct place for many of them. In the meantime a good place for the Arbuthnot retainers to begin is here Kenneth Arbuthnot where Kitty's grandfather is in some distress. Giano 10:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been much improved - it's a shame all those references and sources weren't there to begin with. I withdraw the nom. Now, is it possible to save Charles George James? EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This guy is a GCB and a Lt. general, born in 1824. Frankly, anyone who was born before about 1900 and who is verifiably distinguished in any way is "notable" because their activities resonate down through the years to the present.-Arch dude 00:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even stronger keep This guy has an article in the Dictionary of National Biography. Since Wikipedia strives to have an article for every subject in every other "encyclopeidic" work, we must have an aricle for this guy, even if he is a complete bozo, which clearly is not. -Arch dude 02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable army officer. I'm quite baffled as to why this would be nominated. Leith p 18:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been majorly improved since AfD. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with the added references. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles George James Arbuthnot[edit]

Another NN military person from the walled garden. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, another copyright violation, this time of [15]. KJS 77 02:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No - ~~see above nomination. EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)~~ that is a mirror of wikipedia.[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I was pointing out. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as an MP, an equerry and by virtue of the number of men under his command. Nevertheless could use expansion. There is no walled garden. - Kittybrewster (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and Delete. Sorry, this goes too far. "General" of a regiment, now a battalian of the Seaforth Highlanders, is not notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another random army officer. Mangoe 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a "random" army officer would, in terms of numbers, be much more likely to be a lieutenant than a general.DGG 05:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost making it into government isn't the same as actually doing so. Military career unremarkable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Military career unremarkable"? Are you serious? David Lauder 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Allthough it does not mention it this man was one of the first people to quarry Iron ore on his Northamptonshire Estate. That may or may not make him very notable, allthough I did fleetingly mention this when editing Woodford, Northamptonshire a few days ago. I just wonder if the Woodford page would be the proper place to mention these all military officers who lived there rather than giving them pages of their own. Mentioning particularly the effects, as presumably squires they had on that village, quarries etc. However, I do mean a few words not swamping the page with their second cousins and their neighbours. In the meantime, I strongly suggest Kittybrewster takes most of his pages into user space, to protect his work. Then perhaps the main space could be deleted - to protect Wikipedia's reputation and standards - and allow Kittybrewster and a team of volunteers (any offers?) to bring the possibly notable up to standard without risk of being nominated here. To me, this seems a fair solution to what is becoming large wikipedia problem. Giano 07:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not a "large Wikipedia problem". You seem intent on making it so. David Lauder 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something is added to explain why this "general" [sic] of the 72nd Duke of Albany's own Highlanders is notable. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a clear keep, following recent additions. Well done everyone. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Presently lacks multiple reliable and independent references, since Mrs Arbuthnot's "Memories of the Arbuthnots" clearly does not qualify. Perhaps additional independent and reliable references could be found . Edison 13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless there is something in Smith's book. I do not feel the usual confidence that there is, because the article used as independent source in the John_Alves_Arbuthnot article did not contain a single word about him. There were other more notable Arbuthnot generals--see my comment in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Alves_Arbuthnot Once again, nothing in DNB or GS.
Suggestion Why not do what do do in other cases of borderline notability: merge into articles for the principal figures of the same generation--which is what the DNB often does, or write the article for a group of brothers, with redirects, as we do for middle schools? DGG 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Montco 15:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General of a regiment, and held positions in the courts of both King George III and Queen Victoria. The article has been updated to reflect this. John Vandenberg 04:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Update: I've found a source for the Equerry position that gels pretty well with the bio, but it only refers to him as "Colonel Arbuthnot". [16] John Vandenberg 05:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable army officer and equerry Astrotrain 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for a number of reasons. Could do with expansion, but I didn't think we were in the business of deleting stubs. Leith p 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I've filled out the article a bit more, and it turns out he was, in fact, Member of Parliament for the charming little rotten borough of Tregony for about a year, hence notable by our criteria as a member of a national legislature. The article's still not great, but getting there. Choess 03:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Speedy?" Oh, well, someone is bound to say that, I suppose. The "filled out" article goes into agonizing detail about a military life and never once explains why this person is encyclopedic. Why is a general reader hearing of this person and wanting information? Why is someone outside of the estates seeing the name and needing knowledge? How does this "filled out" version answer any fundamental questions (other than, "gee, what is the chronology of this person's life")? Persons like this often affect the world in some way, but I have no evidence that this particular person did. Geogre 12:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well. I said "speedy" because I discovered that the subject of the article was, briefly, a Member of Parliament, and even stubby articles on MPs have generally been kept as fulfilling WP:BIO (politicians belonging to a national legislature). I freely admit that this is a defense rather more in the letter than the spirit of the guideline; although I'm happy to discuss the spirit in a forum more suited to it. Choess 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I find most of those stubby MP articles to be rather subsaline, as well. However, my problem with the article as it is now is that we have a list of labels, of awards, of ... names of things ... but no description of the things he did. We need flesh to hang on these skeletal prominences. It's rather like a title rather than a biography. I appreciate that there is a potential biography, but what I found most noxious about the biographies kittybrewster had written, or ones like it, rather, is that they were treating awards as accomplishments and favoring the all important Valuable Award over the actions that changed the world. This is in addition to the fact that they never gave us biographies at all, but merely chronologies. Geogre 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see where Geogre is coming from, at present this is just a ghastly cringe making page full of award and titles and honours written by a relative, and in one instance referenced by a relative (I wish my family were so adoring) the remaining refs confirm his existence - so does a tombstone. I'm sure some of these honours were deserved - but can we all be let into the secret Giano 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after the expansion and improvement. JavaTenor 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I join with Choess in agreeing that all Members of Parliament should be kept. I'd even consider a rule that we should keep all generals, because such a high rank indicates it might be possible to find sources for future expansion of the article. Delete. OK, I see the point. He was an MP, but from a rotten borough (perhaps one of those abolished by the Reform Bill of 1832), so he didn't win a free and fair election from a real district. He was in parliament a very short time. He was a peacetime general, and did not see any action (as an adult) except in the 'Plug-Drawing Riots'. So I'll go with 'delete', not seeing any sources that testify to important deeds.

The stories told about Charles George James Arbuthnot in Mrs. A's "Memories" are mostly human-interest anecdotes. It's clear from her account that *his* father, Charles Arbuthnot, was a more important man. EdJohnston 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I'd be wary of declaring general officers and flag officers to be generally notable. Many promotions to these ranks occurred on the basis of seniority long after the officer had gone off active duty and exercised no real prerogatives of generalship. Choess 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just don't believe these wanton AfDs. Here is a person who was a Member of Parliament, an extremely notable military individual, etc. Of course we should keep such a good potted biography on Wikipedia (regardless of surname - in answer to the nominator).David Lauder 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, get a grip of yourself - the only thing that makes this person notable is his two minute (shared) stint in the Houses of Parliment. It was not known that this person was an MP before the AfD (even if some editors above have altered their comments to make out that it was!)--Vintagekits 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Wanton AfD? Did you see this article before the AfD started?? WP:CIVIL. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amused by "potted biography." That is, indeed, the problem -- potted meats. Also, I should point out that promotions in the officer corps prior to 1900, at least, if not prior to 1950, could take place strictly due to money and family connections. In the 18th century, officer ranks were explicitly purchased. Therefore, I would say that, at most, these point toward something, but they are not themselves anything at all. Geogre 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could say a little more than that, I'd say indicated but not conclusively proves. Whether they got there by longevity, money, or family, they were in positions of responsibility. They at least had the public role of the member of a US state legislature--and such are considered automatically notable. (Similar things are probably true of a great many business executives and others in what to most of us are not particularly interesting professions). The harm to WP is not these articles being here, but the standards to which they were done. And the harm from the Louisana State Assemblymen is not that they're here, but the absurd amount of length and detail. Good concise sourced articles are needed, as well as notable subjects. Therefore, Keep'DGG' 05:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of which argues for a speedy improve tag or something similar rather than afd.. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, because without huge amounts of in-depth research it's impossible to tell which of these articles are notable and which ones aren't, whereas AfD kicks people into actually proving notability rather than leaving the article alone. This is proved by this particular AfD, where the subject's main (only?) claim to notability, being an MP, wasn't even mentioned in the article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a former MP of the UK.--padraig3uk 23:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an MP, but did you see in the above discussion that he was elected from a rotten borough and only served for a year? Lack of a real district means that the post was awarded as a 'plum', possibly with the help of his father who was an MP of near-cabinet rank. EdJohnston 02:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I did see that and I would agree that it was a plum position, but that point should be refered to in the article and is not a reason for deletion in itself.--padraig3uk 10:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plum position or not, former MPs are still notable. CJCurrie 02:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If being a MP makes one notable, being from a rotten borough is even more so ... only in a less-savory sort of way. Kudos to Choess for the expansion and Kittybrewster for the references! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Therefore passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Greenshed 19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featured on The Office (UK TV series)[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common beyond the coincidence of being used as background music in an episode of a TV show. Otto4711 02:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - people love making lists, and love sharing them, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic. Notinasnaid 09:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the most notable of these are included in The Office article. Think outside the box 11:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listcruft, songs have nothing in common other than their use in this show. If an album was to be put out then that would be different, but otherwise it's just an indiscrimate collection of songs. A1octopus 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedic. Calliopejen1 12:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 23:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Audio is an integral part of TV. These lists of songs are very notable. They are also excellent resources.-BillDeanCarter 23:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the multiple independent reliable sources that establish this article's notability? Otto4711 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a groundbreaking, and much-imitated, TV series, and the songs used in it are often obscure and far from indiscriminately chosen. Unlike in soundtrack-oriented films and TV programs, the music was not usually "highlighted" in The Office, and this list serves a useful identification purpose. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. the songs should be listed in the episodes in which they appear. Black Harry | Talk 15:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot[edit]

Notable? Not that I can see. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Seems notable enough to me. The text of the article says "Arbuthnot was well versed in the ancient literature of Persia (Iran) and India. He collaborated with Sir Richard Burton..." (Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton, that is) "...in Burton's translation of the Kama Sutra of Vatsayana (1833), and he wrote the books Arabic Authors, The Mysteries of Chronology, and The Ananga Ranga. He edited The Rauza-Us-Safa, or Garden of Purity by Muhammad Bin Khavendshah Bin Mahmud, Translation by E. Rehatsek." AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely well known Arabic and Persian translator. Possibly not your area? Maybe you intended a "nn" tag? I do hope this is not a personal crusade? - Kittybrewster (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgghhh Sorry. Wrong Arbuthnot. Well, it's easy to make a mistake with so many, isn't it? Apologies and Nom closed. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Bangs[edit]

This band fails the notability criteria for WP:MUSIC. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources provided that would indicate this band is notable. Mwelch 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No, won't do, no decent sources and the band hoping for future success is crystalballery. A1octopus 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. In 2006, Tin Bangs were in light rotation on 102.1 The Edge in Toronto c/o Dave Bookman and the Mod Club DJs (Live to air Thursdays) and were written about by an independent reviewer in the National Post as can be seen here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/artslife/postmovies/news/story.html?id=3e6558a2-0581-4792-843f-fbfa63f7b685 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.61.234 (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried van Blem[edit]

Delete as hoax. Not one Google hit for "Siegfried van Blem" or "Theory of cumulative political campaign with downright percolation", etc. No one by that name at University College Dublin or Princeton University. ... discospinster _talk 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete as hoax. I'm trying to remember my trip to Amsterdam--not entirely sure, but I think "vanblem" means something dirty in Dutch. Qworty 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything on this guy. I will never understand the reasoning behind hoax articles. What is the purpose? --Cyrus Andiron 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I have to go with obvious hoax with this one. Nobody by that name was ever an academic at UCD. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 19:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Charles 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete as hoax, no such UCD professor; no such works or theories. Author with low humor threshold and excessive freetime. 65.241.15.131 20:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a non-notable hoax. RFerreira 05:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor McCA[edit]

Article fails to assert notability, and article subject fails notability under WP:MUSIC anyway. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I always love quotes like "Some of his work is reminiscent of Harry Nilsson." as if that proves anything! ---Charles 23:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. The main reference is his own Myspace site, suggesting a lack of third-party commentary. EdJohnston 04:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaded (comic)[edit]

Non notable comic. Another user contested speedy on the grounds that independent publication constitutes notability. However, google searching revealed the mentioned newspaper Concrete be a student publication at a college. I do not believe student publications constitute any proof of notability. Someguy1221 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being published in something like that is not notable; generally, college weeklies tend to just accept virtually any half-decent material that comes their way. I know The Martlet does just that. --Haemo 03:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to establish significance. Being published, in itself, is not notability. Jay32183 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who draws the arbitrary line between which publications are notable, and which ones aren't? If the publication is independent, that should fulfill the criteria for notability, regardless of personal opinion as to whether the quality of the publication is 'good' or 'bad' or how discriminately they accept certain additions. The criteria for notability should not depend on the subjective opinions of certain administrators. It is not sufficient to simply "believe" the publication unnotable, and to do so is to ladel out subjective opinion as god-given law. It fits the clause in the notability criteria demanding at least one independent secondary source (while multiple sources are preferable, they are not necessarily demanded, though they can be found on numerous profile pages in web databases such as 'stumbleupon', which should constitue an "independent secondary source"). Please leave personal opinion aside, and demonstrate the comic, or the publication's lack of notability objectively. After all, it seems to follow that if a university newspaper such as The Martlet is 'notable' enough to warrant a wiki entry, then any other university paper is 'notable' enough as an independent secondary source, and therefore the criteria for notability has been fulfilled.

Hectorlowe 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No. Multiple reliable independent sources. Just because a source is notable or independent does not imply it's reliable. The Colbert Report and the Daily Show are extremely notable, but completely unreliable sources of information. Someguy1221 21:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's policies on what Wikipedia considers notable over at Wikipedia:Notability, and a definition of what constitutes a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No coverage by reliable, fact-checked sources = not notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Concrete considered neither reliable nor notable as a source (due to its being a university paper,) when another university paper, The Martlet, has its own wikipedia entry, which presupposes some level of reliability and notability for university papers?

Hectorlowe 18:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, notability and reliability have absolutely no inherent correlation, as I tried to explain above. Second of all, The Martlet's having an article does not mean it's notable. It might be notable, or it might be non-notable and simply slipped under the radar (I shall not discuss this here, it's irrelevent). Please note, "that has an article, why can't this?" is an unnacceptable argument for inclusion of material on Wikipedia. Further, we are not arguing whether Concrete is notable for inclusion, we are arguing whether a comic that appears in it is. A web comic must be the subject of review or discussion by multiple, reliable, independent sources to be proven notable. Student publications are generally not considered reliable sources, and it is also most likely that this one is not independent. Someguy1221 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary comedy[edit]

Delete - "documentary comedy" does not appear to be recognized as a genre by reliable sources. This is original research. Otto4711 03:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge anything useful to Dave Gorman, as it does appear to be mentioned in articles and interviews about him. JavaTenor 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as protologism and original research. -- The Anome 16:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Invented Here[edit]

This article is an original research. Most of the facts that cited as an examples of NIH term (NIH is a term used to describe) have way more complex roots, like program cost overruns(Harrier), unfree licenses(KDE), poor economic performance(China was not developing it own weapons -that was 30 years ago). Whole military section I believe ridiculous. TestPilot 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, topic is notable, article is a complete mess. Not Invented Here is a recognized "problem" in many contexts -- especially engineering, most often software engineering -- and it should be possible to source those. The article should probably be less about mostly-apocryphal or anecdotal instances and more about how NIH is seen as a problem and methods to counteract it. It's definitely had full treatments and not just passing mentions or references. (Google News Archive results with potential reliable sources.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with topic itself - I'm taking about an article, it is awful and most likely, qualify as original research. TestPilot 07:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, remove everything in the article you think is awful. This should leave something (the first paragraph at least seems ok). We really should have at least a stub on this subject. Tizio 11:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The topic is important, but the article is largely unreferenced. I have read over the years various accounts of inventors bringing devices to large corporations who shun a clear improvement to their product because it did not come from their own R & D program. An example is ""When you have a new idea, it's hard to get them (big car companies) to believe that an attorney in Indianapolis came up with a better idea than their team of engineers did. It's the 'not- invented-here' syndrome," said Troy J. Cole, Griffiths' patent attorney at Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry of Indianapolis. "The outside guy always has to swim against the current."" from "Little engine patent that could," Tom Spalding. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: May 8, 2007. pg. 1. Proquest shows numerous articles about the NIH syndrome every year. The article just needs editing, not deletion. Edison 13:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmitigated OR. If it talked about the history of the phrase, it might be worthwhile, but instead it is an examination of various projects and whether they might have been affected by the phenomenon. Mangoe 17:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can be reduced to a stub, if needed. I believe that at least the first few paragraphs are of reasonable quality. Tizio 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rambling and invented definition with a pseudo-sociological explanation of a simple vernacular term. NIH = closed mind (like mine). That's all. andy 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article on notable topic; remove OR content (even if that means moving everything except the first few sentences to talk page to be sorted through). A search should find large numbers of mentions in reliable sources beyond the two books in the "further reading" section. Almost all of the existing content is unsourced, and a lot of it reeks of unsourceabilty, but this is a matter for heavy cleanup, not for AfD. Barno 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between deleting all the content and an AfD? :) andy 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not saying "delete all content", we are saying "reduce article to a stub". A stub can be then expanded using only sourced material. Otherwise, we could just program a bot to delete all articles in Special:Shortpages. Expansion is clearly possible given that this concept is referenced in a number of books and articles [17][18]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tizio (talk • contribs) 11:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The subject is notable, and deserves a good article. Keep, even if that means reducing it to a stub, and expand from cited sources if possible. -- The Anome 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is unambiguously notable, and there are two clear references to explanations, ~~Hundreds~~ thousands of examples can of course be cited where the term has been used. The present main content of this article, the detailed description of what the author thinks notable about various militaries and NIH belong in separated cited articles.DGG 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Assuming that that Tizio is correct, and the the article is reduced back to its first few paragraphs, I think that would amount to a dicdef and should be transwikied to Wiktionary as slang. The question to me isn't about deletion; to me, it's whether it is a subject unto itself, or if much can be said past defining it. YMMV, but I doubt it's much more than a heading entry in one or more of the Management category articles. (If AfD is denied, then it should be in Management category, even though I don't personally buy into the notion it should be kept.) 74.134.59.45 04:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but de-OR-ify. "NIH syndrome" appears to be a fairly notable term. - Sikon 12:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a concept the NIH syndrome is significant, and worthy of a good article and analysis. The article may benefit strongly by moving the military examples to it's own page, perhaps with a title less strongly affiliated with "NIH syndrome". This is so, because it does not strike me that the real NIH syndrome influences military technology any more than any other technology. Further more the NIH syndrome is not even limited to technological inventions, but the "invention" can be anything that the human mind is capable of. Mahjongg 01:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found this entry after seeing it in print being used to describe the New York Times attitude toward the Walter Reed scandal. I wasn't sure what "not Invented Here" meant until I found it on Wikipedia. I think it's an important entry, is notable, but requires serious cleanup.

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music venues in the United States[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Unmanageably long and indiscriminate list. This article is functionally equivalent to Category:Music venues in the United States. notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list would be forever incomplete, and that category is fine. --Strangerer (Talk) 06:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, this list is woefully incomplete and probably could not be maintained. --Cyrus Andiron 14:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As has been said above, this would be impossible to maintain. ---Charles 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, neither a list of indiscriminate information. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyathamby[edit]

Suspected hoax. Vsion 05:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR, WP:HOAX, WP:V, nonsense. I've never heard of this person before, and no matter how much the SGpedians' tried to verify it, we have to conclude that it is a hoax. Some imaginary person, or if he really exists, non-notable. Terence 13:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. DarkAudit 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and likely OR; see the talk page for full details. Resurgent insurgent 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of 'yes, it's all true' statements there, but no one has yet been able to produce any proof. Saying that The Straits Times has proof in their archives, but no one can get to it is a useless statement. DarkAudit 16:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can access back issues of The Straits Times at the National Library of Singapore – you don't need any particular "level of authorization" to do that. Is it possible that some of the comments in support of the article were by sock puppets? Jacklee 23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As mentioned on the Talk page, I ran all the books listed in the "References" section through the on-line catalogues of the National University of Singapore Libraries and the National Library of Singapore. The only one which popped up was the first book in the list. I also did a "Find" on the web page containing the Genealogy of the Royal Family of Jaffna listed in the "External links" section, and "Eliyathamby" did not appear anywhere on it. Cheers, Jacklee 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ksufans[edit]

Non-notable fan site Corpx 05:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, it's just another message board that has no impact outside its core group of users. Joyous! | Talk 10:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB by a wide margin. DarkAudit 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB without the shadow of a doubt. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.C. Ray[edit]

non-notable martial arts instructor, seems like article was created to put him in negative light. In addition, there's been an OTRS complaint by the subject of this article. Yonatan ^talk 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per non-notable Corpx 06:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the martial arts crufters are freeping us. Here's another one nominated for deletion: Tim Tackett. I guess I'd rather see the martial arts guys flaming each other in Wikipedia than taking it out on each other on the mats. But we should tell them to take it elsewhere. Also, since Mr. Ray has the supernatural power to heal the sick, maybe we should hook him up with this other deletable performer of miracles: Kim Clement. What is it with all the faith healers and psychics pushing their vanity articles lately? If they really have these supernatural powers, why do they need Wikipedia? Can't they just create international advertising by willing it into existence? Qworty 09:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. --Kimon^talk 22:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. KrakatoaKatie 09:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, CSD A7 (notability not asserted). Krimpet (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarBallz[edit]

Sophomoric porn-hoax. Looks like it's been PRODed a few times, so here we go. Masamage ♫ 06:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability may also be a bit lacking, even if true. +A.0u 06:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be some American guy's homemade flash video, in which case, yeah, NN kicks in. Also, apparently the only reason that PROD didn't go through was because some people didn't know what they were doing and reverted eachother a bunch. Oh well. --Masamage ♫ 06:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding sheep[edit]

Though not entirely as silly as the title indicates this article provides no proof of notability as per WP:N and WP:RS. It is mostly about exploding sheep in a group of video games and has then been expanded with references to various unrelated uses of the words "exploding sheep". This survived an AfD 3 years ago which is available here. back then it was more specific. MartinDK 06:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete pretty well-known Worms weapon, but lack of reliable sourcing kills it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as someone said at the time of the last AfD, "I'm going to regret this later!" I think a references tag should have been apllied first so that one of the game enthusiasts could have addressed the needs brought up in the nomination. There's enough of a trend to suggest this is not trivia. Rgds, --Trident13 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article has existed in its current version for 3 years. During those 3 years the only reference that has been added is a link to a fansite that asserts no notability. WP:N and WP:RS are pretty clear on what makes a reliable source and how notability is asserted. In a situation like this a references tag is just a way to avoid AfD. I think we all know deep down that no one is going to add any references because you tag it. The backlog of unsourced articles is huge already. If sources are indeed available then there are 5 days to add them and the AfD template on the article is pretty hard to miss. MartinDK 21:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's nothing to establish this as a notable phenomenon any more than "blue car." We need sources talking about the subject, otherwise it's original research to consider it as a unified topic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Starblind. —A • D ^Torque 21:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a surprisingly far-reaching phenomina over a large selection of games. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keeps a funny article that covers a concept. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 19:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Krimpet (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several reliable sources have been added by User:Pomte over the course of this AfD, so I'm relisting it. Krimpet (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a popular cultural thing and seems have notablility. DBZROCKS 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be widespread enough to warrant notability, and the article backs up the claims with plenty of sources. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced article about an interesting video game phenomenon. Resolute 04:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other arguments given above. —Lowellian (reply) 03:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read the references, at least 2 of them mention the usage of exploding sheep in the different game previews and reviews. Those secondary sources are reliable, and the article now is notable by Wikipedia standards.--Kylohk 09:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Pea ceNT 04:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeachersCount[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as spam. Is obviously promotional in tone, but not properly spam, and has been brought back after WP:PROD so probably needs a fuller debate. Hard to say whether the group is truly significant or not. Clear conflict of interest from creating user, User:TeachersCount, which accounts for the advertorial tone. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple cited third-party refs assert notability. DMacks 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wikified a little, & removed the lists of prominent celebrities who nominated their favorite teacher & appeared in ads and sponsors. It doesn't look that spammy now. I think the inline links to some independent sources, such as the NEA and whitehouse.gov show Notability: I'll rework them as references. The site is intended for the promotion of the profession, but that is what many N organizations do.DGG 19:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I rewrote the entry to avoid a copy paste from their website. I think the organization might be notable per the media coverage it received after Mrs Bush visit. But the article lacks reliable sources attesting its notability. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most expensive comic books[edit]

This is a de facto recreation of previously deleted material. See List of most valuable comic books, the just-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most valuable comic books, and the frivolous DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_10#List_of_most_valuable_comic_books.

The deleted list of "most valuable comic books" was deleted largely for being based on horrendous original research. The author, who is also the author of the article being considered here, simply took a table from an article on super-hero first appearances, copy/pasted it, and claimed they were the "most valuable" comic books. This was patently absurd, of course, as there was no basis for the assertion, and an overwhelming consensus opted for the deletion of the article. But reading the AfD, there were other concerns based just on subject matter. Editors raised concerns that such a list could ever hope to be valid, as per one comment, for instance: "You can certainly source how much some individual comics (were reported to have) sold for, but can you put them together in a list and say they're definitively the most valuable comic books? I don't really think so... I've never seen a real comic book publication even try to do that." My interpretation of the prior AfD is that, even beyond the terrible foundation and nonsensical basis of the prior article, there were just too many potential issues about any type of list, most importantly the roadblocks in building even a remotely accurate list. So, based on the prior AfD, Delete.

Lets say you disagree with the application of the previous AfD and want to examine the merits of this article, what little of it there is. Perfectly fair. So lets see what this "List of most expensive comics" is based on... Lets look at the first sentence of the article: "This is a list of the ten most expensive sold comic books, according to listings at Esquire Ccomics in order of most to least." Who are Esquire Comics, you ask. Good question. Tooling around the site, I see they are an online high-end comics retailer run by one guy out of Maryland. So why are they special, do they provide a definitive resource on comic values? The answers are that they aren't and they don't. There are thousands of online comic book retailers, both high-end and bargain basement, tens of thousands of brick-and-mortar comic shops and specialty stores, and hundreds of thousands of collectors who sell books at conventions and online in personal stores or on eBay. The secondary comic book market is a multinational multi-million dollar industry - so choosing one unremarkable online retailer as the definitive resource on something as volatile and fluid as comic book values is pure, utter folly. I can already tell you, that right now, there are comics on eBay with higher prices than some of these. This list just plain is not the "most expensive" comics. Period. Delete.

OK, so the editor chose a really, really poor basis for his article. What about the subject in general, you say? Again, the prior AfD provides excellent arguments to the contrary of such an article's potential. In short, how do you gather data, what data do you use, and is such data, even if sourced, reliable and representative of the notoriously fluctuating comics market? There is simply no conceivable way to know what the most expensive comics being sold at every retailer, every convention dealer, every collector conducting private sales, or every eBay auction of X amount is going for. The author of the article is fond of pointing out that there are lists of most expensive pictures and works of art and the like. The difference with individual works of art is the individuality of the pieces. The most likely valuable comic by any likely measure has just 100 copies left in existence. Not much, you may say, but in contrast, there are only three The Pond-Moonlights, only one Portrait of Dr. Gachet... what works for one thing, does not always work for the other. So lets throw out actual realized values and look at potential values. What source do you use? CBG? Wizard? The standard-bearer of the industry, Overstreet? Even Overstreet will tell you that the values listed in their guides are out-of-date rough guesses that are not representative of whats actually going on in the market. And ignoring the obvious and valid issue that WP:NOT a price guide, as noted in the prior AfD, relisting any specific source's prices may violate copyright, a la IMDb. Because of the lack of any logical way of collecting definitive information, and because the nature of the subject is too volatile, again, this should be Deleted.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreation. This list is unsourced. If sourced, it will almost certainly violate copyright. Wikipedia does not reprint other published lists. The recreation's creator (recreator) knew it was a recreation and should have awaited the results of his/her own request for deletion review. Doczilla 07:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Extranet ^talk 08:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the previous AfD I suggested, based on the existence of similar lists for photographs and paintings, that a properly-sourced "most expensive" list could be created. My intention was that the sources would be reliable secondary ones like these (for UK comics) [19], [20]. But a quick internet search hasn't revealed similar news articles for US comic books (perhaps Americans have more important things to write about!). So I don't now think that such a list can be properly verified. As it stands now, the list is actually A list of the highest prices that the Esquire Comics website states that it has sold comic books for, which isn't notable. Smalljim 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't believe this article seems to be deleted as well.I recreated this after the other one was deleted because the problem was that the article was on most valuable comic books, and I thought this would be a better article. And as for the sources, those were the most reliable sources I could find on the web, because most were about the estimated value of the comic books.If anyone knows a better source, I'de like to see it. And here is the source page [21]. I don't think anyone even found this page yet, and there saying its unsourced.Like I said, can anyone find a better source. Rodrigue 12:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to read the nomination, my reasoning for the deletion is not because it is unsourced Rodrigue. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is diffucult to find much other sources, and I don't think there are any reall ones for most expensive comic books, and I haven't heard from anyone who knows any reliable sources. Rodrigue 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... Exactly why this article should be deleted, and why the subject of the article can never likely have an article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong userfy. Sigh. I wish people weren't jumping all over the creator here. There's no reason he can't attempt to make this article. Yeah, okay, it's not up to snuff yet, and it's a harder topic to write about than most, but let him work. So, let's userfy this so he can work on it in peace, and have a debate, if necessary, after that point. This article was created in the past day for chrissakes. Mango juice^talk 12:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for that, but you know the same person who nominated this page for deletion nominated the previous version for deletion as well, and to me it seemed like the other AFD was implying that the article should be about more expensive and not most valuable comic books, as the comments pointed out. I would also like to point out that I found other sources to verify the first two entries of the article for Action Comics #1 [22], as well as Superman #1 [23]did indeed sell for those prices, and I hope this reassures people that I am not making up this list. Rodrigue 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did not nominate the prior page for deletion. Second, the other AfD was not implying that. Third, nobody is saying that you are making it up this time, Rodrigue. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the article was created in the last day has nothing to do with the fact that it is simply not possible to craft an article on the subject of the article (paragraph three of my nomination above). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we can tell that yet. I mean, there are challenges to making objective and reasonable criteria for inclusion, but it can probably done with work. (See Emperor's excellent suggestion below; I also have a few other ideas.) You express your skepticism well... but I have to strongly object to skepticism being carried to the point where we are actively trying to prevent someone interested in writing a potentially good article from even trying: that just flies completely in the face of the openness of Wikipedia. Mango juice^talk 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the creator of the entry admits there are no clear definitive sources for this. I do wonder if a "List of the highest prices paid for a comic book" might be an approach to this as they might be notable and newsworthy along the lines of the expensive paintings. However, this isn't that entry hence my vote. If Rodrigue is interested in pursuing this thenI'd suggested starting it off in you sandbox and running it past the Comics Project to see if we have any advice or input. It might never lead to a viable entry but it might. (Emperor 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment. Rodrigue: I strong support Emperor's sandbox suggestion. I was going to make that same suggestion myself. Doczilla 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment OK cool. I have dropped in some thoughts on how such an entry could be recreated at some point in the future here. It isn't going to be quick or easy but it might be doable and a lot of people on the comics project will be happy to give feedback and advice and help out with sources, etc. (Emperor 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Well, as it stands right now, the first two entries of the list have a third-praty reliable source,for Action comics #1 [24], and Superman #1 [25].But that does not mean there aren't sources for the other comic books, and if we can't find them, then those 2 can still be on the list.
Technically speaking, the list should be the ten highest prices for comic books that people can find from soruces, even if they may or not be in fact the highest prices, because according to Wikipedia:Attribution,inclusion is based on what can be sourced, not what people believe to be true,even if more than likely.So all that needs to be done is find the published prices for selling of comic books. Rodrigue 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So anyway, I have removed the other comic books from the list that were sourced poorly, and I left the only two that I could find a proper, published source that distinctivly sais the prices were in fact records, and I hope other published sources will be found soon to fill the list. Rodrigue 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First and foremost, this is speedyable G4 as recreated content. Not only is DRV that way, but this material is already there! But, for just a moment, let's pretend this isn't a G4 candidate. In that case, it is inadequately referenced, inadequately discriminate, and -- often -- simply wrong. Are we listing book prices ($485,000 for NM Action 1) or auction realizations ($190,000 for Action 1)? For that matter, are we comparing at a single grade, or just whatever sold for the most? If we fix to a grade, like NM, what about issues that aren't extant in that grade, or don't sell? What about concerns over CGC's grading, such as the pressing controversy? What about British comics such as The Beano and The Dandy, which aren't often covered in American comic book listing but have recently drawn very high prices at auction; do they count? And, of course, these inclusion issues aside, the content provided is simply incorrect and incomplete, containing uniformly DC issues and overlooking things like the $172,500 sale of Marvel Comics 1, the debut of Human Torch.[26] I'm not certain that this article can be written, though someone with a lot of reference-digging time might prove me wrong, but what they would write certainly would bear no real similarity to the article whose fate we're currently adjudicating. Not to mention that its still G4. Serpent's Choice 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G4 - As this is recreation of previously deleted article with a slightly different name. However it is also Listcruft because the inclusion criteria for this for this list is much too wide and so the list is always likely to be an indiscriminate collection of information. A List of Highest Prices Ever Paid for Comic Books would be acceptable provided that the prices were properly referenced. A1octopus 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You people should not be blaming the creation of this article just because a similiar one was deleted.If you read the list of most valuable comic book deletion page page, it said that the list be moved to most expensive comic books, simply because value was a vague term, and thats what I did, I changed the prices to reflect actuall sale prices and not the sighnifigance of each one.The only problem with the article is that it does not have much sources, and I admit that is a big problem and I can see why that is a reason to dlete it.That is why I first decided to create a list of most valuable comic books article, because it was actually al.ot easier to find sources that say how much the best comic books are worth, but there is no direct source for sale prices. Rodrigue 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one "blames" the creation of the article, whatever that's supposed to mean. The matter at hand here is the content of the article, not it's creation. Also, the outcome of the AfD for List of most valuable comic books was delete, not rename. That was just suggested by a few editors.Atlan (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Such a list might be useful trivia for the comic book collecting category in a more fleshed-out condition. (And why is it arbitrarily limited to 10 comics and not, say, comics that have sold for over $10,000-$20,000?) -Sean Curtin 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until extensively sourced As I said in the previous AfD I believe it's possible to source an article on this subject...but only with great difficulty. Another high end comics source would be [here] (need a free account to see figures). This auction site lists the sale of a9.6 graded Flash Comics #1 on January 21st, 2006 for $273,125.00 as their highest auction, followed by two other sales over $200k, three single issue sales $150k-$200k, then 8 sales in the $100k to $150k range (and then several pages of other auctions that sold in the high 5 figures). If the author wishes to begin trying to build an article on the highest individual sales, there's another source, but as I mentioned last AfD, one would need to contact Christies, Sotheby's, eBay and probably several other auction houses and sites before one could even begin to start making any claim about highest selling single issues. And of course there would always be the uncertainty of individual personal sales (e.g. it would not be surprising to hear that an Action Comics #1 was sold privately from one person to another for an undisclosed amount). -Markeer 04:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please, do not userfy this. It is either WP material or not. Remmber Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. Slavlin 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am not suggesting the data be moved to the user's sandbox so he can look at it and point his friends to it. Don't know about those above, but when I say Userfy I meant move the existing data (including links) to the article creator's sandbox so that he may spend some time researching the subject for awhile so that a solid article could be created in the future (with verifiable citations on every asserted comic book sale). That's what the sandboxes are for, test pages and works in progress that don't belong in the main namespace. A reasonable argument has been made that there's some encyclopedic value to a genuine list of the highest selling items of these collectibles (with precedent given of similar lists on artwork, etc). The main problem with this current article as far as I know is that the data is wrong and the citations do not point to reliable sources. So...userfy it if the article creator is willing to do more research on the subject. Not a unusual way to deal with this sort of thing as far as I know. -Markeer 20:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see what people are saying, that the subject is so unreliable and sources are why the article should not be created unless quality ones can be found.

But I have to be clear on this, are the sources the only problem with the article??So if the article had the proper sources it would be just fine, it has nothing to do with whether or not the topic is important enough to be an article?, no one has made that distinction yet. Rodrigue 22:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There's still a very open question about where it is possible for this article to be cited Rodrigue. As has been mentioned, it's unclear if any definitive source for the highest sale prices of individual comics exists. The closest I've thought of is to at least source every major auction house and notable comics retailer for their sales information, with the stated understanding that it is possible that something has been missed (similar to the disclaimer on this article). Better than this would be to find a secondary source that has already done this research, and cite that article, but I'm not aware if any such exists (note: I haven't looked though). Unlike the article on expensive paintings, I would guess it's more unlikely to find a New York Times article with the headline "biggest sale in history" on a comic issue, although it's certainly not impossible.

In the short term though: Until the question of whether an article on this subject CAN be cited is answered, it doesn't belong in the main namespace. Wikipedia policy is to avoid any assertion that cannot be sourced and verified, period. And in the even shorter term, it is clear that this article in it's current form is very definitely not correctly cited. -Markeer 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, ok.I got from your responce that the big issue really is the sources, so I guess you answered the question.But I had a point earlier, that technically speaking, there is no problem with sourcing the article

The way youre looking at it is that you have an idea of what the most expensive comic books are and you need sources to make it official.But thats not how it works.You have to find the highest priced comic books on the web wether or not they are likely the most expensive.So hypothetically even if you have a list where the most expensive one sold for $2,000, if it is the highest priced one you can source then that is what goes on the list.

Unless your saying that the problem is there are a lack of sources for comic book sale prices in general, and not just a lack of sources for likely most expensive comic books, because only that would really be a problem.

And what about the sources for the two comic books on the list now, are they really as "dubious" as the administrator tagged them as?. Rodrigue 23:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan O'Reilly (wrestler)[edit]

Prod contested without improvement. Non notable minor league wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, fails WP:BIO for reasons stated. Burntsauce 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Charles 23:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the current content and sources delete for now. Theophilus75 22:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 13:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Orlinger[edit]

Prod contested without improvement. Non notable minor league wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, biographical article which contains no references, not even an external link. Burntsauce 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. No proof that this person did what was claimed, or even existed. DarkAudit 18:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Charles 23:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've provided references esablishing his notability as a former wrestler for World Championship Wrestling, in particular his participating in the WCW Cruiserweight Tag Team Championship tournament in 2001, as well as his title reigns in Ohio Valley Wrestling. He is also signed to a developmental contract for World Wrestling Entertainment and, although I found no suitable reference for this, OVW is a developmental territory for the WWE and he has appeared on several televised events for the promotion in 2005. MadMax 00:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you'd like to provide non-trivial sources then? The only source that isn't just his name on a page is a website that states This is just a wrestling fan site. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you'll notice the "reference" section above "external links", Prowrestlinghistory.com and the Puroresu Dojo are the reliable references I was refering to. MadMax 06:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and they are clearly the "name on a page" sources I was referring to, so how about some non-trivial reliable sources please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

Comments. The previous two arguments supporting the article's deletion are biographical article which contains no references, not even an external link and No proof that this person did what was claimed, or even existed. The two references I provided clearly show both his existance and valid evidence of his accomplishments. MadMax 07:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sadly you've yet to provide evidence of notability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Participating in a televised championship tournament for a major promotion such as World Championship Wrestling is notable, nevermind his numerous title reigns in Ohio Valley Wrestling or the fact that he has appeared on televised events for World Wrestling Entertainment. The resources provided support the former two points of notability. MadMax 07:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any of those criteria in WP:BIO, perhaps you'd like to point out where they are on the page, or have you just made them up? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As per WP:BIO, the article fufills the criteria for a person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field (competed in a tournament for a championship title) and Competitors who have played in a fully professional league (in this case, World Championship Wrestling, Ohio Valley Wrestling, and World Wrestling Entertainment). This also fufills significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions requirement used for actors as the individual regularly appeared televised events for all three promotions. MadMax 08:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I think you're confusing theatre with sport. Wrestlers are actors, not sportsmen. As for his role being significant, please prove that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That may be your opinion, however many wrestling promotions in the U.S. such as Maryland Championship Wrestling are regulated by state athletic commissions and are under state law considered sporting events. However, as this is not a discussion on the differences between athletic and sporting events, even under the "actors" guidelines of WP:BIO he does meet this requirement. MadMax 08:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No it isn't opinion, it's a fact. Professional wrestling is not a sport. As before, please show how his minor role was significant? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, I would think his role in a televised championship tournament is a fairly significant one as well as his frequent appearances on Smackdown! and WWE Heat. As I've already provided a reference for his role televised tournament match, I do think it would be excessive to cite every televised event he's ever appeared in. As far as your thoughts on professional wrestling, I would ask that the topic be kept on the article itself. MadMax 08:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The facts about professional wrestling are wholly relevant to this debate, and you've also ignored your constant use of wrestlecruft arguments that ignore notability guidelines in other AfDs. Simply appearing on a few occasions on a number of TV shows does not make him pass WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you would like to discuss this issue with the members of WP:PW, I'm sure they would welcome such a debate. However, as it applies in this case, I don't believe there is any consensus on Wikipedia classifing professional wrestling as theatrical performances. Furthermore, appearing on televised events for three notable promotions against notable competitors does make him notable weither you choose to refer to them as "performers" or "athletes". MadMax 09:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no wish to engage in any such debate, as the majority of members, including yourself, are rabid inclusionists for every four sentence stub about every wrestler that has ever existed, and show little inclination to include encyclopedic content. This is an encyclopedia not a wrestling fan site. You are again mistaken with your assertion of notability. Is every actor that has appeared on Friends notable? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would politely ask you once again to refrain from making negative remarks of myself and other editors. If you wish to refer to professional wrestlers as actors, that is your right although it remains your personal opinion. However, in comparison to television series with televised professional wrestling events, your analogy does not apply in this case. I might as well as you if characters from Star Trek or the Simpsons should be covered as well. MadMax 10:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One Night in Hackney, you don't seem to care about the criteria of WP:BIO unless if meets your wishes. If you don't succeed in getting rid of an article trying to cite WP:BIO then you go to WP:V, and if that doesn't work then you try something else like WP:POV or pull WP:COI completely out of nowhere. Maybe you just need to read M:Don't be a dick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theophilus75 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Has competed at the highest level. His career may have gone downhill afterwards but notability is forever, remember the policies! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's for sportspeople, not actors. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Professional wrestling is known as "sports entertainment" and its workers as "athletes". It may not be legit competition but then again, Synchronised swimming is an Olympic sport! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If pro-wrestling was in the Olympics I'd be happy to say they were sportspeople, but it isn't and they aren't. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I guess I'll have to remove my vote and be glad that rules for wrestler bios aren't as strict as those for adult movie 'stars' (see WP:PORNBIO). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Benjamin William Robertson, Sr.[edit]

The article claims that Robertson is "one of the most prominent African American theological figures in the Richmond, Virginia area in the 1950's" (thus avoiding a speedy deletion under A7), but does not even hint in what way Robertson was prominent.
The article was created by User:Robinsonwc as Dr. Benjamin Robertson, moved by User:Discospinster to Benjamin Robertson, moved again by Robinsonwc to Dr.Benjamin William Robertson, Sr.. This deletion discussion concerns all three articles.) Austrian 07:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seven Google hits including the article itself. And the article makes no case for notability. Qworty 09:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. -- The Anome 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion. andy 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Charles 23:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Peters[edit]

Prod contested without improvement. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had a look at the external links available, I then updated the article and added a short bio, career section covering the bits. Added citation from the external links, there are couple of hundred hits for him in a google search also. I think this is worth keeping now. Govvy 10:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I see reference wise is a geocities site and a wrestling fan site, neither of which meets WP:RS. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment heh, well seemed good enough to me when I done it, still seems fine to me. :/ Govvy 10:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Geocities is not a reliable source, especially for biographical subjects (living or otherwise). Burntsauce 16:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's as reliable as any other site! Govvy 16:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...yet another glowing example of what is systemically wrong with the project you devote so much of your time to. Burntsauce 17:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is that suppost to mean? Anyway, you wish to delete the whole project, you never contact us on the WP talk page, you just remove everything the people on this project work hard for. So I would say what is wrong with this project is you. Anyway, the citation I provided is more than adequate. You are belittling goecities and the information it provides, when information is correct you use it. You don't throw it away like you have being doing. Govvy 17:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone can have a Geocities site. They can put just about anything they want on it. There is no onus on the site owner to have their facts straight. That puts Geocities in the same league as MySpace and YouTube. They are not reliable or verifiable sources. DarkAudit 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes Wikipedia:Notable and has 230,000 google hits Neldav 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain what exactly about this article passes WP:N -- arbitrarily pointing to a list of Google hits isn't it, and without reliable third party sources, this fails much more than just notability. Burntsauce 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:N because Peters has competed at the top level of his sport. Additionally, this article (though it previously didn't, it does now) have reliable third party sources, which also support the notability of the person in question.Theophilus75 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge to Brady Boone. The wrestler in question wrestled for almost every notable wrestling promotion during the 1980s including the WWF, WCW and the Universal Wrestling Federation, apearing in the 1991 PPV event UWF Beach Brawl. He also competed for international promotions such as All Japan Pro Wrestling among others. MadMax 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GeoCities? C'mon, it's just a webhosting service. Any idiot can put any absurd thing he wants up there. A GeoCities site is proof of nothing other than somebody had some time to kill. ---Charles 23:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Geocities can be used as a source, but look at the other sources also, I still can't believe all you young people never knew who this guy was. Was a very popular wrestler in the 80s. Govvy 13:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe an in depth bio on his WWF "BattleKat" character was written on Wrestlecrap by R.D. Reynolds [27] although prior articles are only provided through weekly repostings. [28]

KEEP I was just working on the "Brady Boone" article on Wikipedia and was searching for sources when I came across this article (I didn't start the other one...I was just cleaning it up). The two articles need merged together and cleaned up, which I was already in the process of doing. This article should really be redirected to the Brady Boone article (or vice versa). Theophilus75 04:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that certain people seemed to be obsessed with removing wrestling info from Wikipedia, especially when it has to do with wrestlers from the pre-1990s who it is harder to verify information with. I have been working on articles on wrestlers from the 1950s to the 1980s, and it is hard to get good source material for them. Wikipedia in its sourcing guidelines says that what is a valid source for some subjects may not be a valid source for others. I think these people who are obsessed with removing wrestling info should let the pro-wrestling project members work on cleaning up these articles.Theophilus75 04:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment Wikipedia recommends merging over deletion IF an article is found as not notable (I would disagree that this article is not notable, but hey...I was around in the 1980s and followed wrestling then...but I digress (or not really). So, here's a question I ask of the person who suggested this for deletion and those who would support it, where would you suggest we merge this article to if you don't agree with me that it should be merged with the Brady Boone article? Remember, Wikipedia suggests merging...Theophilus75 04:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll support that idea. Great work! MadMax 08:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There shouldn't be two articles in the first place, and merging one article that fails WP:BIO into another article that fails WP:BIO isn't a good idea at all. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware there shouldn't be two articles to begin with, didn't know there was until I started working on the other and found out this one existed. I'd disagree that it doesn't meet notability however. Just an FYI, I placed my Brady Boone article into the Dean Peters article and have placed a redirect from Brady Boone to Peters.Theophilus75 05:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, subject is non-notable and sources are shakey at best. RFerreira 05:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question & Comment Please expand on exactly what you mean by sources being "shakey at best?" It should be noted that the sources used when this article was recommended for deletion are not the same sources that are currently used in the article. The current sources are standard sources for both wrestling and non-wrestling articles on Wikipedia and I have worked to add various sources verifying the information in the article. Additionally, the added number of sources further contributes to the notability of the individual. Theophilus75 06:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well I think the article has improved and is better than it was since it was prodded. The geocities citations have been taken out, you have to remember, that older wrestlers wont get the same kind of coverage on the internet like the new ones. Hopefully those that are voting for deletion will have a rethink. Govvy 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this was nominated there was a major edit to the article, it was actually a merge with another article (at the recommendation of the nom) that resulted in the nominated article basically being swallowed up. Since the major edit/merge, that includes sources, there has been only one "Delete" recommendation, and that recommendation is "per nom" when the nom's reasons for nominating the article no longer exist. All other reasons given for the delete (prior to this major edit/merge) have been addressed and corrected in the edit/merge. Theophilus75 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been substantially improved. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - doesn't seem to have done much. --Counter-revolutionary 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this prod is now invalid considering the extensive over-howl of the article. Govvy 12:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article now has enough reliable sources to show that the context (which seems to show notability) is true. *Cremepuff 222* 00:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne (drinking game)[edit]

This page fits in with the 7th species of articles for speedy deletion (due to the fact that the article doesn't even assert the content's importance or significance). Furthermore, regardless of what the article asserts, this article has no significance, and the only place it belongs is in a one-sentence mention on an article about drinking games in general... IF it can be referenced, which it never has been BlackberryLaw 08:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an urban legend, like going to the ball game and drinking a beer an out. Do you have any idea how many times the word "Roxanne" appears in that song? Everyone playing would be dead of alcohol poisoning before the song was over. In fact, you would die if you were playing the game with water. Qworty 10:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Absolutely no assertion of notability. DarkAudit 16:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete on A7 grounds (author) BlackberryLaw 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the same as taking a shot every time someone buys a vowel on Wheel of Fortune. Does it get your drunk? Definitely. Is it notable enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia? Not so much. --Cyrus Andiron 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Delete all drinking game articles on sight, is my philosophy. Let somebody start Fratopedia if they want articles on drinking games. ---Charles 23:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 15:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Female body shape[edit]

Contested prod. This is a lot of unsourced original research, and our medical articles about the female body cover the subject better. >Radiant< 09:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Would there be an appropriate medical article to redirect this to? -- saberwyn 09:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of the most factual articles I've ever seen. It might need a few more citations. Also, some fair use pictures would be, uhm, nice. Qworty 09:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean free use? Yes, the fair use ones are nicer, but they fail WP:NONFREE. :) MER-C 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want pictures of a female body shape, I'd suggest the rest of the internet is full of them already :P >Radiant< 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so we should be able to find some good free ones--ideally, even those for which the classification can be sourced, DGG 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and i'm very disappointed to see this at AFD just one day after a productive discussion started on the talk page to fix the issues. There are plenty of very good references (it's the citation that is poor, OR is not really an issue) and it's a valid topic, it just needs some work. Contrary to radiant!'s assertion, this information is not covered in any medical article I could find. The reason this was tagged unencyclopedic is because an editor believes that the article is inherently sexist because it talks about female bodies (and because there's no article on male body shape.) --JayHenry 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I found this article VERY helpful!! It told me exactly what i needed to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.69.101.11 (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Seems like a pretty encyclopedic topic, and there's already a few sources on it, I'm sure more sources could be found. There's a couple parts that are questionable and border on OR, particularly the "Other Descriptions" section, but those can be excised as the article is cleaned up. Krimpet (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just some bloke's essay on the matter. Mangoe 17:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article combines many different topics (e.g. in medicine, art, aesthetics) which are adequately dealt with elsewhere. It does so in the context of an essay, and a somewhat suspect one with sexist undertones. The history is interesting: first created as a redirect to a sex magazine (since deleted); then developed as an essay about male sexual preferences for voluptuous women; then passing through various revisions, mostly with a distinctly sexual theme. So, delete as an unsavoury essay about women as meat. andy 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources. Reliable peer reviewed journal sources. They don't cover everything, but the rest can be sourced also. The popular use of terms also I think can be easily sourced. I'm not sure what happened to Male body shape, but if was deleted it can be rebuilt properly after this is done right. If the article had poor content earlier, that's no reason to delete it now. The overall article for this entire range of topics is Human variation, an excellent article. This can be more detailed, & I think it's a good start. DGG 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure this is saveable. Secretlondon 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the female body shape is very notable to have yuckfoo 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep how beautiful article. im keeping a backup of the article fearing article maybe deleted.58.68.87.3 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm biased because I added the sections of "inflection points" and common apple/hourglass/spoon/straight and other discussions. These are actually very analytical in nature, but will not be covered in more "medical" areas. In fact, while analytical, the female body is a work of art and can and should be analyzed outside of pure medical reasons. As such, to delete this article would be like saying art is not a valid entry either, especially when it crosses other subjects of a different analysis. What this article needs is some clean-up, I agree, and some more, professional/expert links, etc... But the article itself should remain an entry. Categorize it as "art" if you will, but trying to dissect the female body form into simple, medical anatomy is part of the problem -- it is an artform in its whole, entirety -- and it can actually be analyzed, mathematically as well. -- Professor Voluptuary 14:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Goodness gracious me. I refuse to comment. - ∅ (∅), 11:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP-- But, be more stringent, less talkative, shorten, don't repeat yourself, information in right paragraphs. jmak 06:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep now i arranged things a little.— vinay 10:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redir to Human figure after massive rewrite/OR purge, write equivalent section on male body shape. - ∅ (∅), 11:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC) delete as per andy - ∅ (∅), 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Seems interesting, and encyclopedic. Clean it up if it needs to be cleaned up, but it doesn't need to be deleted. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge the important parts with sexual attraction or femininity. Aminullah 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be fixed, doesn't all contain original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flubeca (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Based on sources included.--Xnuala (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete mostly boring sleaze, the encyclopedic topic would be something like 'attitudes to ...', & perhaps shld be dealt with in misogyny or sexism ⇒ bsnowball 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now most part of article are properly sourced. cleanup original research sections than deleting the whole article202.41.72.100 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. There are still plenty of questionable "facts" such as the ideal shape for a woman is 36-24-36. The tone remains sleazy and the article conveys little information of real value. andy 07:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true >_< - ∅ (∅), 12:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those who nominate for deletion are nothing but gentleman vandals. you could always delete or tag ((fact)) ot content of dispute. simply posting for afd is waste of time of so many people. see above how many people came here and spent their time. these vandals dont understand the difficulty in developing a good article— vinay 08:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and i wish to give some details of above [29] of User:Andyjsmith. he seems to be delete expert, he has 50 contributions to deletion within 5 days! i recommend this user to be banned, (i donno how to propose this formally)— vinay 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please. - ∅ (∅), 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay, you need to be aware that many things NEED to be deleted from Wikipedia. Someone nominating a ton of articles that need to be deleted or at least considered for deletion is doing a great service. Please assume good faith unless you have explicit reason not to do so. Slavlin 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came across this article a couple of weeks ago when I started keeping half an eye on user vinay -- who has now earned himself a one-week block from editing. He's been impetuous, and his English is poor at times, but I haven't found him to be rude. Mostly he seems simply... a young man new to Wikipedia's rules. When I first read this article I'll admit I laughed out loud. NOT because the article is absurd, but because it's a remarkably forthright article about a topic that everyone seems to want to consider only within the context of sexism, eroticism or medical science. That says more for the readers' minds than it does for the content of the article. Human interest in the shape of the human female body will not go away by deleting this article. I think it would balance things out to add an article on Male body shape, but I see no reason to delete the current article. --SueHay 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep @above even if Male body shape is created, "intolerant extreme feminists" pick up quarrel saying that the other article has fewer no. of characters also that there would be lack of "equality". this article is enough sourced, needs little cleanup thats all. it needs to stay: female body shape is normally searched after for details and there is no alternate source inside wikipedia. i feel admins are delaying without reason. this should be closed fast as keep.122.167.157.235 08:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this anon is vinay speaking, I suggest you be quiet for awhile and let people consider the article and offer their opinions. That's how Wikipeidia works. Be patient. --SueHay 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced original research, just like Human figure. / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Worthwhile information. Weaknesses can be improved per the usual wiki method. 68.101.128.40 20:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Human figure. There is some useful information if used in conjunction with the already aforementioned article, but this article is quite meaningless alone. *Cremepuff 222* 00:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Pea ceNT 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyashilp Academy[edit]

Please delete this page as it is getting subjected to a lot of vandalism..in fact, the whole of wikipedia is getting subjected to vandalism! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpkmallya (talk • contribs).

Comment fixed the nomination, the article was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidya Shilp Academy/ -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, vandalism is not a sufficient reason for Deletion. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original article (first revision) seems to have been created as an attack page, or advert for a rival. It has been much edited since, but it does suggest the initial motivation was not notability. Therefore the question of notability should be considered: is this educational establishment notable enough for inclusion? I don't understand the notability rules for schools, so I cannot comment. Notinasnaid 12:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment The initial deletion seems to have been partly motivated by a belief that the editor "owned" the article which they claim to have written (presumably rewritten, and presumably under a different username), see [30], and is fed up of other people changing it. Sorry, see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Notinasnaid 12:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination based on WP:OWN. DarkAudit 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As currently written the article reads like an advertising brochure, and is unsourced. Indeed I would be hard put to defend it agaisnt a speedy deletion as spam. I suspect this school may be notable, but without sources, I can't say. weak delete unless proerply sourced and cleaned up. DES ^(talk) 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep compares favorable with most other articles on schools, and even has a RS in Times of India. If it's in there it will be elsewhere as well. Spam can removed, though in this case it will need rewriting some sections, not simple cutting DGG 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per lucasbfr. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 12:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Delete an article because it gets repeatedly vandalized? Heck, the Los Angeles, California article gets vandalized all the time. --Oakshade 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No valid reason given by nominator, who blanked the article and replaced it with nonsense. Jyothisingh 10:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Jyothisingh. John Vandenberg 08:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UltraExplorer[edit]

non-notable software, see WP:SOFTWARE -- Y not? 09:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it non-notable? This software has several notable features for file managers. Such as Plugins support and others. I added the parts about features and about lacks to the article recently. What else can I change?

--AlexT12 09:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you can't change notability by changing the article (though if the subject is notable the article should say so, and say why, and source it). Some subjects (like, say, my cat Mittens) just aren't notable. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability for guidelines on whether a subject is considered "notable" by Wikipedia standards. For example: has anyone independent written a book about this software ("UltraExplorer For Dummies" would go a long way)? Has there been a TV show about it? An article in the New York Times? I don't know the software, I have no view on whether it should pass or fail these tests. Notinasnaid 09:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Notinasnaid, I understand your comment. I may agree that UltraExplorer is not notable currently. OK. Let's wait some time, a year maybe. --AlexT12 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you consent to the deletion, add ((db-author)) to the article and we'll bypass this debate and delete it for ya -- Y not? 10:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your template ((afdm)) is enough, you can do your deletion if you sure it's non-notable. --AlexT12 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this product lacks significant coverage and notability. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable Think outside the box 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. andy 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete or merge all. Suggest further discussion about merging some (on their talk pages), as there seems to be some support for that. W.marsh 15:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straferunning[edit]

Fails WP:N, because it has not been covered by multiple, independent, reliable sources. The only mentions of this term are in fansites of the games mentioned in the article, and web forums.
Large amounts of original research, with nothing attributed to any source at all. The OR here is not a straightforward mathematical calculation or logical deduction based on fully attributed data that neither changes the significance of the data nor requires additional assumptions beyond what is in the source.
Wikipedia is not a game guide, and not an instruction manual. The article writes how to use a specific technique appearing in a very limited number of games.

I am also nominating the following related pages with the same arguments as above:

The WP:NOT argument applies to the above three as well, though they are all less of an instruction manual and more of a game guide.

-- User:Krator (t c) 09:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to make an umbrella nomination, then I also suggest:

Bunny hopping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Conc jumping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ramp jump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Strafe-jumping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Telefrag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(For that matter, may as well CFD Category:Trick jumping)

Comment: So what's the difference between an instruction manual and a game guide again? It seems to me that these topics all deal with various aspects of videogame physics design (specifically FPS's), but beyond that.... Google gives "straferunning" only 1,200 hits, at least half of which are fansites and/or forums. The only way to disprove original research is by referencing a reliable source on the matter, which none of these articles do.--Stratadrake 11:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Agreed on listing the others as well. --User:Krator (t c) 14:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all; too many to make a single decision on. While some of these articles may constitute some degree of game-guide or original research, you're trying to bundle too many different articles together. BFG10K and Quad damage, for example, represent completely different topics from the other articles being nominated. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of the articles listed are subject to the three arguments above for deletion. That they represent slightly different topics is not a reason to keep them. However, I would be willing to split the AfD between BFG10K and Quad damage, and the other topics. It would just be a matter of copying the reasoning, but if it helps speed up the process ... --User:Krator (t c) 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BFG10K though I'd be happy with it as a redirect/disambig to the relevant games. Undecided on the rest. I'll have to look at them individually. FrozenPurpleCube 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a discussion, not a vote. What are your arguments for keeping? --User:Krator (t c) 22:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee, I'd be happy to say that it's a likely search term for a reasonably distinctive concept within the game, and as such, should be covered in some way. But I thought that was obvious from the prior discussion above. For the rest, I'm still thinking. So you'll have to wait. FrozenPurpleCube 22:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, it might help to leave off the commentary and simply ask questions. Certainly it's a concern that many people do treat AFD's as a vote, but something about your response just feels patronizing to me. FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and if wanted, and relist separately& I would suggest selectively. The articles though on similar subjects have been written differently with participation from many different editors (varying by article), with varying amounts of detail and various approaches to the subject. Although none of the articles are either instruction manuals or game guides--they do not talk primarily about how to play particular games. The specifics however, can undoubtedly be sourced from published guides. If any about moves in a single game, those could be directed, but most of them are about more than one. This is one of the areas WP has a well-deserved reputation for covering in depth.DGG 01:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, some of the articles clearly do fall under the territory of "game guide". Quad damage, for example does nothing but provide an in-depth description of a power-up occuring in Quake -- and dare I say that the article is actually more in-depth than you would see in the average printed Quake strategy guide, and certainly more than would be described in the game's own manual. --Stratadrake 05:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep' or merge and reduce to relevant parts. The doomsday is here! No one really listened to me when I rambled about this, like, a year ago, and here we are now, in AfD, like I predicted! I should have AfDd most of our computer game terminology articles back then because someone was going to do that anyway, but heck, no use to look back now ... You know, this is exactly the sort of material that is is in grey area what comes to Wikipedia. It's highly relevant to computer gaming in general (no, this stuff isn't specific to one game - these are generally stuff that's exhibited by many modern game engines). It's stuff that's good candidate for encyclopaedic discussion. Yet, when you really start thinking of it... where's the darn sources? Where are the papers - or even random websites by Quake/Doom/Etc sourcedivers - that discuss straferunning in detail? The answer is simple: We need the articles by yesterday because they're not discussed anywhere, but heck, we can't write about this stuff because there's no sources. So I have to say this: Merge whatever sourceable parts you can to some other article. Keep the unsourced material in article history in case we get, like, a Wikiversity research project devoted to these phenomena, or something. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly knowledgeable on these subjects, and am confident that I can find sufficient (online) sources to make a solid article. There are plenty of sites that cover the games that exhibit these techniques, and there are also some speedrunning websites that have more technical information. "Bunny hopping" in particular has been analyzed to death in some communities. If we do, though, I would also support a merge. —msikma (user, talk) 10:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Merge or Redirect I think these articles are relevant. But if they are to be deleted please let me move them to a gaming wiki before they get deleted so they can be used as reference. --Cs california 23:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would references outside a video game context help? For example 'rocket jumping' is an optional rule in the board game Frag. Marasmusine 08:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though maybe the nomination bundle isn't the best, all the articles listed lack sources and look like OR or at best neologisms. Wickethewok 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or relist individually. These articles are too different for a blanket nomination. I also believe they are easily attributable, since many there are many independent publications about (especially) the Quake series of games. I don't see them as game guides at all, because they are not how-to articles (at least, the ones I looked at). — brighterorange (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Too broad a collection of articles to be comprehensively discussed. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Straferunning. It's a popular feature in FPSs. And the article has sufficient info. カラム 06:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might recommend renominating some of these articles individually later, as I've rarely seen mass nominations turn out as anything other than "no consensus". Among these, I'd probably argue to delete Ramp jump and Conc jumping, but keep Rocket jumping, for example. JavaTenor 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conc jumping looks like a reasonable merge to Rocket jumping, as it just describes a specific-game variant of the generic "blow self up with explosives to jump higher" concept. Ramp jump looks pretty obscure (it only references QuakeWorld), so it would probably get deleted if it were nominated on its own. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, minus BFG10K, which could be merged into the actual BFG 9000 article; rocket/bunny jumping, telefragging, and everything else is game guide material, as well as strafe jumping.Aramjm 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Bunny hopping, I think its notable enough with over 1 million ghits --Exarion 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bunny hopping, Rocket jumping, Telefrag, BFG10K because they are common concepts in number of different games; Merge Quad damage to Power-up, Conc jumping to Rocket jumping, Strafe-jumping to Bunny hopping (they are different techniques using the same basic engine mechanics); Delete Straferunning and Ramp jump because they are not widespread. --Voidvector 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Merge or Redirect these articles, as they are useful and common terms describing actions in video games and should be represented in some way. Blademaster313 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or Merge. As per Blademaster313 and カラ. —Visor (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also, define "multiple, independent, reliable sources". Do you seriously expect someone to write an academic essay on BFG 10,000? Mikael GRizzly 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. No reliable source is going to discuss the BFG 10,000. That is why it's not notable, which is a criteria for deletion. See WP:NOTABILITY. --Teggles 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist seperately, articles are too different to be nominated together, even if they violate the same things. Also, to Mikael GRizzly, please see the policies WP:Verifiability and WP:NOT, for something to be included it does, in fact need "multiple, independent, reliable sources", though perhaps not academic essays. --PresN 03:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - They all provide relatively accurate information about their respective subjects. Whilst references are needed for all of them, there is no reason to delete them. Any important information which could be innaccurate and is not common knowledge should be edited out. – ARC Gritt^TALK 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per ARC Gritt --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 02:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except BFG10K (merge that one into BFG9000), merge articles - other articles are notable enough to warrant inclusion, and should later be put up for merge. They are all [competitive] video game techniques in the context of first-person shooters, so one umbrella article may suffice. —msikma (user, talk) 09:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - the organization fails WP:CORP and, per nom, there is no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. Plain and simple. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Wrestling Association[edit]

Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. Non notable independent wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems a fairly good article atm, doesn't look like it warrents deletion just yet, really should of been raised on the project talk page first. But it could certainly do with more citation. Govvy 11:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A virtually unsourced article is not "good". It was previously kept as "no consensus" in November, and it's been tagged as unsourced since February. The project have had ample time to show it's notable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know everything that is nominated, I tend to stick to what is on the project talk page. Govvy 12:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom never puts anything on the talk page or discusses the issue; they simply put up the unsourced tag, what a few weeks to a few months and then prod it for Afd.

Delete per nominator, fails WP:CORP with no reliable third party sources. This should be pruned back to stub status if sources cannot be provided by the week end. Burntsauce 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I see some notability, but very little, pwtorch.com covers some stories which aren't even mentioned in the article. But there seems to be a lot of what I would call rubbish in the article, like Burntsauce said, it should be skimmed down. But I feel it is worth keeping once it has been skimmed down. Govvy 10:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The pwtorch.com story you have linked to in the article doesn't mention the promotion once. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment o, that link was already there know, I was just referencing it... wasn't reading it so much! heh. Govvy 11:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe we should get rid of all of that... Govvy 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep , however the article should be expanded with more reputable citations. Smee 10:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death On The Wind[edit]

previously db-ed, the article is unreferenced, and a quick search on the Internet doesn't bring any result on the creator's name doesn't bring any result, the sword name doesn't bring anything significant either. So I'm inclined to think this is an hoax and bringing it to AfD -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax or not, it appears to be both unattributed and not notable. But it's likely a hoax: "this blade is estimated to be worth enough to buy a country as rich as the United States of America"? --Charlene 10:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Haha... I agree, it's obvious that the article is total b*****ks when you get to that bit. No refs either. Though in response to Lucasbfr, if the sword existed and was really worth that much, it would definitely be notable ;-) Fourohfour 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This hoax is what you get when Death on the Nile meets Gone with the Wind. Qworty 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from the content of the article, I can't even tell whether it is fictional or supposedly real. Maybe CSD criteria A1 applies? Deli nk 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a nonsense. It could be speedied under CSD G1. There is no such sword. --Cyrus Andiron 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. DarkAudit 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any refs on the internet either. I suppose the author would claim that's because they're all in Japanese, but it reads like a hoax to me. Smalljim 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the context of my understanding of Japanese history - this article makes no sense to me. --Gwern (contribs) 23:22 11 May 2007 (GMT)
Delete "Worth enough to buy a country as rich as the United States", "it can cut through most other forms of metal", can fly through the air and makes great coleslaw. Bollocks indeed. QuagmireDog 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary Pragmatic Model[edit]

Textbook (in more ways than one) original research. Contested prod. MER-C 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a school assignment or a thesis. Definitely WP:OR, and very far from an article in the current state. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, but the Elementary Pragmatic Model (EPM) does look like a bona-fide subject - Google Scholar lists 25 articles that mention it: it seems to be central to this apparently independent paper, for instance, which states in its introduction that EPM was developed over 30 years ago. These [31], [32] also look good. So the subject may be notable and worthy of an article, but this obviously isn't it, being apparently a paper written by the inventor of the model. So can I actually !vote that someone who understands the concepts should completely rewrite the article? :) Smalljim 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't see any assertion of notability and the article seems unsalvagable. Someguy1221 07:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Ann Crumm[edit]

Totally non-notable person, the creator of the page is its subject and she has repeatedly removed maintenance tags that flag her possible conflict of interest and non-notability. The article is a vanity page - consisting of speculation, personal trivia and unverifiable claims. Only sources are the subjects blogs and myspace page. BigDaddy1981 9 May 2007

Delete.

Keep Agreed that the article was first written in contravention of WP:COI. Agreed that the article as it is now requires one heck of clean-up. Don't agree, however, that the subject of the page fails WP:BIO as a few click around Google shows that she does have a fair bit of fame. Also noted that this nomination is not signed and that the nominator has made no other contributions, so faith of nomination is in question. A1octopus 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Delete - Following a more thorough search however, I cannot find enough non trivial sources to back up the article. Given that and every other reason already stated, my vote is changed. Apologies for questioning faith of nomination. A1octopus 12:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We've got to stop cluttering up Wikipedia with these kinds of entries. As for fame, Google often produces falsely exaggerated hits for people who've done minor work in the entertainment industry, as credits get duplicated by imdb & yahoo film sites which are repeated in different languages/countries. Message board, LJ or Myspace hits also inadvertently pad google results. There's no real newsworthy or content-worthy basis for this entry. 17:49, 10 May 2007

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Read the Village Voice featured & quite serious review, cited in the article DGG 01:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable 02:05, 12 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.241.15.131 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy and delete. Cúchullain ^t/c 03:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caste system in south India[edit]

Nominating article Caste system in south India for non-notability/redundancy; most of this material that is not covered in Indian caste system seems to be not notable; also the article is completely uncited and unwikified - I was starting to work on it but I think it's not worth keeping. CredoFromStart 14:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for the time being with User:Jayasrinivask. The subject seems at least potentially worthy of an article. This is that user's first contribution. He needs a bit of practice with Wiki syntax and style, but should be encouraged to keep working on this. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've done some basic formatting so it's at least readable. Should help (me if no-one else) determine its worth. Smalljim 00:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The first half seems to be about the caste system in general, and could/should be cut or moved to the larger article. But the last half shows the beginnings of a good article about how the caste system was brought into the south, etc. It isn't Jayasrinivask's job to know all about WP, adding material to be wikified by others seems to be a noble and fine task for a new user. Indian caste system's mention of the book Early Evidence for Caste in South India shows the depth to which this article could be developed and the notability of a discussion of the caste system in South India independently (but interdependently, of course) of a discussion of the system as a whole. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 75% of the article is copied from Indian caste system. The rest is just a list of some castes that originated in South India. There is already a List of Indian castes. The caste system in South India is same as the caste system in rest of the India. There is nothing unique about castes in South India that deserves a separate article. Jyothisingh 10:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the bits that aren't covered elsewhere into the existing articles. Smalljim 13:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered in another article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the first half after carefully checking that the content was in Indian caste system; of what is left, there are two castes which I couldnt easily find an article for (Sali (caste) and Vokkalinga) and both are missing from the list of Indian castes. I havent cross checked the other entries to ensure they are mentioned on the list. So I think there is some new material here. John Vandenberg 08:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it ought to be Vokkaliga. Not Vokkalinga. Sarvagnya 08:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We don't need an article on the Caste System in every region of India. One page article is enough. Gizza^Chat ^© 09:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Indian caste system, as per Wp:delete#Merging. --SmokeyJoe 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-duplicate parts into Indian caste system and/or List of Indian castes. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ines Vargas[edit]

DELETE. The character only appeared in a handful of episodes. When I created the article I thought she would be more permanent. Kogsquinge 01:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Have there been other substantial edits? If not, yout could tag it via Template:Db-author. --Tikiwont 13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant character, the only edits not by the nominator appear to be typo fixing. I'm not sure if it qualifies for ((db-author)), but a PROD probably wouldn't have been contested. Jay32183 02:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus and article's improvement. Sources added. diff Pea ceNT 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Verasamy[edit]

Strong Keep I cannot understand why this page is up for deletion? She has an Offical Fansite at www.lucyverasamy.com and is one of the Sky Weather presenters. Please can someone explain what copyright this entry has infringed upon?

--Visionaryone 12:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I wholeheartedly agree with the above, why is this being nominated for deletion? She is a well recognised weather presenter on Sky News. And can I also point out the following page which lists Sky weather forecasters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sky_News_weather_forecasters

If the individuals listed there are acceptable, why isn't Verasamy's page not acceptable?

And if notability is an issue, can I also point out there are plenty of news articles which quote her as a source, both when she worked for the PA Weather Centre and more recently as a Sky News weather forecaster.

--Lonewolf 1183 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no assertion of notability here beyond being a weather presenter for a satellite news channel. Nothing that shows she has done anything notable beyond being a weather presenter. Sources are also lacking. Blogs and personal sites are not verifiable or reliable sources. DarkAudit 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Better. Maybe add a bit about how often UK news sources cite her as their source. WP:BIO met as an oft-cited source. DarkAudit 14:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Being quoted as a source does not assert notability. The person must be the focus of an article per WP:BIO. DarkAudit 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Exact same criticism applies to the other weather forecasters she is listed alongside, and further she is now listed on IMDB. Aside from Sky News she also presents on the national Five (channel) terrestrial channel, thus further notability. Lonewolf 1183 14:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Personal websites and IMDB are not reliabe source. Key grips have their own IMDB pages and anyone can create a personal website. There needs to be more secondary independent non trivial sources to assert notability. I'm going to do some digging before I decide on whether this article should be kept. --Cyrus Andiron 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. Articles must stand or fall on their own merits. DarkAudit 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, this AFD appears to be missing a reason for deletion nomination, but to follow up in spirit of AGF, there are several ways this article subject passes WP:BIO. By simple affiliation with the SKY conglomerate (aside from being a recognizable face and name in UK and Europe), this sort of presence is in constant supply of "WP:RS". Murgh^disc. 16:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would counter that mere affiliation with SKY is irrelevant. There are many other newsreaders and meteorologists throughout the various networks under the News Corp. umbrella. Few would rate an article, but not the person reading the 12:15pm bulletin. DarkAudit 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - With due respect, isn't this a contradiction of what you stated earlier, that an article must stand on it's own merits regardless of other articles (hence, whether other New Corp presenters have articles or not is irrelevant to this discussion)? Either way, Murgh is correct in saying she is a recognisable name and face in the UK and Europe, hence that does merit her some notability. Bigredmonster 18:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was challenging the statement that the subject was notable merely by reason of working for SKY. That basis is not enough to meet WP:BIO guidelines. DarkAudit 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I didn't mean notability merely by employment of SKYcorp, but inherent to her work on TV and web, SKY's regular use of her as an "expert commentator" and keeper of an Ask column would in other context be cited as WP:RS. Murgh ^disc. 19:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The article as it stands now does not assert any more notability than the person who presents the weather at 3am. If she's a UK comparison to Al Roker, Willard Scott, or even Lloyd Lindsay Young, there needs to be more than 'a weather presenter on SKY'. DarkAudit 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree the article is lousy ATM, but we can't delete it on that basis. Just her exposure on web print (SKYnews syndicates to vast numbers of publications) that end up quoting her, Calcutta Telegraph for instance, makes it difficult to get around the extent of her fame. But yes, the article needs a lot of work. Murgh ^disc. 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just quoting her adds nothing to her notability. WP:BIO says she must be the focus of an article. She may be as famous as you say, but the article here and the sources it cites make her out to be 'just some weather lady'. DarkAudit 20:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but WP:BIO but also states that "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition". Hers is intercontinental. Murgh ^disc. 20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        On that point I will invoke WP:IDONTKNOWIT and step aside. :) DarkAudit 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the external references properly establish her notability. --DropDeadGorgias (talk)
~~Delete~~ If I understand well the article, she is one of a many weather presenters of a TV Channel. I don't agree with your WP:RS argument, since it is a primary and not a secondary source. The citation from the Calcutta Telegraph is not relevant either. I wouldn't call that substantial media coverage. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the context, it never claimed to provide "substantial coverage" but illustrate wide name recognition. Having no stake in this article my only bother is seeing deletes voiced on account of a poorly written and unreferenced article and not the article subject, which would stand normal NN scrutiny if someone took the time to present the sources. Although not looking to get slapped with any mentions of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, US equivalents could be Femi Oke or Mari Ramos. Murgh^disc. 15:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to add to this, I know quoted articles citing the individual as a source aren't deemed worthy, but for the sake of those people who are wondering exactly what these articles are here is a brief summary of some of the articles which cite her (this is not an exhaustive list): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Lonewolf 1183 15:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/Immediate Close due failure to follow due process WP:AFD - Firstly, I think the originator of this AfD should follow due WP:AFD process, and give reasons as to WHY this article is facing AfD - alone, that's enough reason to close this AfD immediatly. Secondly, the editor Portabello has only ever made two edits - one to WP:AfD, and this AfD nomination. I could be tempted to suggest this is a piece of vandalism, possibly by a Sock Puppet. Thirdly, she passes WP:BIO with sufficent WP:RS - accepting its a poor article at present. Fourthly, if this were a program by an editor to clean out the category of Category:Weather presenters, and this AfD is succesful; then it seems this article on Elise Finch should be next as it would also for the same reasons fail AfD. Rgds, --Trident13 17:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination may have been flawed, but the article at the time did not pass WP:BIO and did not have any sources beyond a couple of blogs. The discussion that has followed was sound. DarkAudit 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair there was only one blog used in the original version. Lonewolf 1183 12:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try the new version - which does pass WP:BIO, and WP:RS. Rgds, --Trident13 10:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement changed. See above. DarkAudit 14:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most weather presenters will be notable because they pass "Entertainers: … television personalities … With significant roles in … television …", to paraphrase the relevant bit of WP:BIO. The consensus implied by the large number of entries in Category:Weather presenters tends to bear this out. Smalljim 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am changing my vote to keep per the new version. I still am not convinced all weather presenters are notable, but the new version highlights some work that, in my opinion, make her more notable than the average anchor. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system warming[edit]

Recent AfD consensus was to redirect; the article has unfortunately been resuscitated. Original rationale for deletion still applies: a textbook case of synthesis as proscribed in Unpublished synthesis of published material. The small amount of factual material in the article is duplicated in other articles. Article serves no purpose other than synthesis and original research. The term is a neologism that does not appear in the scientific literature: a Google Scholar search for the phrase "solar system warming" returns zero (0) hits.

Keep Hi. I started this page again because I thought it was reasonable to do so. I think the article (since my last edit) gave credence to the fact that it warrants an article, fully supported by peer-reviewed, scientific literature. The article I started up again was from scratch, not from the previous article that was nominated for deletion and redirect. The article I created has nothing to do with "solar variations," to which it was original redirected towards. The article I started does not espouse previous claims made in the deleted article. For this reason, I believe it possible to have a sensible article that discusses warming on other celestial bodies that is fully supported by the scientific literature. ~ UBeR 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~ambivalent~~ but leaning towards keep (the term itself is a neologism but the concept is plausible; but it must be defined in such a way as to make it clear that there is no evidence for the idea; the article can only (given the current state of science) be about why it doesn't work). However, a couple of comments: I don't think speedy keep is a plausible vote: keep if you like, but there are no grounds for "speedy" such. Its only "speedy" state would be a return to redirect. Also the article isn't from scratch: the Mars bit looks rather familiar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Well, not from scratch, but not copied from the previous deleted article. Mars and Earth bit was summarized from climate of Mars and global warming, respectively. ~ UBeR 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an OR synthesis of information. Please find a single reliable source that ties these events together. I believe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar system warming still largely applies. This should not have been recreated. Someguy1221 00:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite a different article and is not synthesizing any material. My regards, ~ UBeR 05:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if it's not blatantly promoting an unfounded theory like the last one, or mixing sources together, I still feel that bundling information from over a dozen sources into a single article is OR. These sources are mostly about the warming of individual heavenly bodies, not solar system warming. So without at least one reliable source claiming each of these is connected, I still think this is synthesis. Someguy1221 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scientifically, there does not appear to be evidence that the solar system as a whole is warming, so the page is OR/synthesis as it gathers together bits of information about individual planets. Some of that info about each of the planets is interesting and useful but it should go in the planets' individual articles. Now, the topic is notable in a non-scientific way since this is one of the global warming skeptics' standard talking points. Since this is just one of many such talking points I think it would be more appropriate to mention it at Global warming controversy rather than in its own article. If the article is kept, it should probably stick to the skeptics' talking points and discussion of evidence for/against; right now I get the impression that the article took this skeptic argument as a starting point and ran with it—hence OR. --Nethgirb 07:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR synthesis, and restore the redirect to solar variation. A lot of work was done on this article. I see notes that selected bodies in the solar system are warming. Given that they have elliptical orbits, there should be variations: some getting warmer, some getting cooler. Was an exhaustive search done for planets and moons undergoing a cooling cycle, or was there synthesis of reports of increases only? A ref for Jupiter actually argues against solar increases as a cause. There is not a multiplicity of reliable sources saying that some common element is making all the planets warmer, and specifically there is no reference to show that an increase in solar output is causing it. The article title is a neologism, and suggests this may be a POV fork to use as a counterargument against global warming on this planet being a result of human activities. Edison 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is arguing the Sun is the cause... Maybe if I say it three times someone will understand: This isn't about debunking global warming. ~ UBeR 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The title prejudices toward that impression, correctly or not. The neologism "solar system warming" immediately evokes the parallel to "global warming." Raymond Arritt 15:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So be it. I think the title suggested in the talk is a reasonable solution then. ~ UBeR 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and reinstate the redirect. With the dearth of reliable sources on the subject of "solar system warming", the wealth of sources here simply becomes synthesis and is still a form of original research. The author has done a good job on the article but it does not change the fact that the concept of "solar system warming" is one that has not been treated as an academic subjet, has no reliable sources of its own, and as such is not fit for Wikipedia. Perhaps other venues for something like this can be found. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only because the suggested redirect doesn't reflect the current state of the article. If we're not saying the Sun is necessarily the cause, it seems like a redirect to solar variation doesn't make a lot of sense. And in response to the neologism comments above, a Google Scholar search for "solar system" warming yields 3700 results. "Solar system warming" may not specifically be a scientifically published term, but warming in the Solar System (which would be a fine new name for this page) is clearly something that exists in the literature, as per all of the sources currently on the page. Oren0 06:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources on the page are not about "solar system warming" per se; they are about individual planets. Hence bringing it together and concluding there is solar system warming is original synthesis. As for the redirect, it seems fair to either (1) delete without any redirect, since no reliable scientific evidence has been presented that the solar system is warming; (2) redirect to solar variation since this is the clear implication of the cause of the purported warming when the concept is advanced by GW skeptics. Anyway, it's a bit silly to worry about "the cause" of a nonexistant or unsubstantiated phenomenon. --Nethgirb 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. If any of the well-cited facts aren't already in the relevant planets' articles, they should be added there. But as others have said, unless the author can come up with reliable references where the concept of Solar system warming (under whatever name) has been discussed, it is not valid to put the separate facts together like this in Wikipedia - that's what personal websites are for :) Smalljim 16:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and possibly salt). This is an OR synthesis of (largely doubtful) disconnected factoids. andy 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - switching from ambivalent above. Having tried to work on it, and being hampered by not really knowing what it it supposed to be about, I think the OR/SYN makes sense. Useful info in there should be put together somehow, maybe under a different title William M. Connolley 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable scientific theory--RCT 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? No-one else - not even those voting keep - seem to think so. If you know of reputable sources discussing this theory, why have you not added them to the article, since they are glaringly absent? William M. Connolley 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and comments - it's an original synthesis, appears designed for advocacy. Guettarda 05:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and do not redirect as an original synthesis designed to advance skepticism about global warming. As others point out above, some of this material may have a home in the articles on the planets/moons, but it shouldn't have an article of its own. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this has been extensively discussed around the internet, usually in relation to global warming eg. [33]. Although the term SSW is not always used, using this as a compact description is not a synthesis, given that the subject itself is notable. Iceage77 21:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing about this article speaks of its being anything by original research, and many of the supporting posts only lend credence to that viewpoint. Internet discussion groups are not reliable sources, and noone can seem to point to reliable scientific sources supporting this article's contention. To the extent that climate change may be due to solar variation, that possibility is best documented at the climate change article itself. --EMS | Talk 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per previous AfD, above statements by Connolley, and my filters for WP:BOLLOCKS. Michaelbusch 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as I did on the previous incarnation of this article, I attempted to remove irrevalancy, inaccuracy, original research, POV, weasel words, and nonsense from the current version. When I did, I found that there was exactly no article left. So I've left the article as it is for the moment, in the hope that it will be deleted and this time stay deleted. Michaelbusch 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - why are you deleting such a wonderful information.all planets are heating up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs)

Comment. This is false. Some planets and other local heavenly bodies are heating up. Others are cooling down. Someguy1221 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which? Just curious. ~ UBeR 01:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Halley's Comet is cooling down, to give an example. So is Pluto. Note: all planets heating up would not be 'a wonderful information': it would be very bad. Fortunately, this isn't happening. Michaelbusch 19:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ha! So it appears someone is voting to delete an article they haven't even read. How novel. ~ UBeR 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I attempted to find refereed scientific papers on solar system warming at the ADS Abstract Service, but none of the papers that I found use the term "solar system warming" in the sense that it is used in this article. A Google search on the term primarily turns up blogs and other informal websites that cannot be considered reliable references. Since this article cannot be supported by reliable sources, it must be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 07:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The last AFD's result on this article was to redirect to Solar variation#Solar variation theory. — Pious 7 10:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per original reasons. This is a phrase someone might type in. The way, the truth, and the light 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common — The article title and subject-matter seems to be encroaching on WP:SOAP. If it was only about climate variation or solar variation then I'd be inclined to prefer keep. But this seems to have too much of a polemic agenda. — RJH (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect, this article was recreated and had already gone through an AfD, where the consensus was in favor of a merger. Like before, the article has weak sources. *Cremepuff 222* 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually this article has phenomenal sources. It's a shame people never read the articles they vote to delete. A real shame. ~ UBeR 05:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, hmmm, I don't know what I was thinking before. The sources do back up the information pretty well, so I've changed my vote. *Cremepuff 222* 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep after revision and sourcing. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen_Crimmins[edit]

Note to closing administrator: the article was substantially revised early 15 May 2007; that might change how people view it. --Myke Cuthbert 03:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user page of the article's creator was started in a very unusual way and the creator has been involved in apparent spamming. The speedy deletion tag has been removed from the page twice by people connected with the creator, who like those people appears to have problems allowing speedy deletion tags to stay in place until seen by an administrator. Some or all of WP:COI self-promotion, autiobiography, close relationships and campaigning may apply. There are no sources and no citations of published work.ER ^Talk 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(the user page was started by my error in putting a request for sources note there instead of the talk page)DGG 13:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Speedy Delete Here are a few links to publications from Eileen Crimmins. That should confirm her notabiliy. There are plenty more links if you wish to see more evidence. [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41][42], [43]. --Cyrus Andiron 12:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, the entire page is a copyvio from this page [44]. I've nominated for Speedy Deletion. The subject is notable, but the page will need to be recreated without plagarizing. --Cyrus Andiron 12:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. I removed the copyvio and stubbified the page. For people who seem N, that's a reasonable course. The bio will be re-addded written properly form sources, and the references added. The nom is unaware of WP policy that speedy cannot be used if there is an assertion of notability, and that any ed. other than the author may remove a speedy. I did so (before my recent successful RfA, not being aware at the time of the copyvio. Copyvio is of course another matter. I have no connection whatsoever with the creator or the subject, except for urging the author to write the articles not copy them. The nom. has commented on the article talk page: "science bureaucrats become just that through trivial publications etc. and as I'm sure you know most universities today run special easy option courses especially for bureaucrat students and profit".

Keep on the basis of the published work. DGG 13:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although not sure these are refereed journals. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable question: using the lists of titles in WoS, as listed in Journal Citation Reports, they are all there:

In Journal Citation Reports-Science: J Geronto -A , Science, Ann NYAS,

In JCR-Social Science: Am Sociol Rev, Demography, Public Opinion Q, , SocSci & Med, J Aging & Health, Research on Aging.

All of which are actually pretty good, since all are in top 1/3 of their JCR category by impact factor, except Res Aging which is about midway. the ones that dont have a WP article yet will when we get to them. Ann NYAS is actually a series of peer-reviewed symposia at the NYAS, but the indexes treat it as a journal. JCR has only peer-reviewed journals except for a few professional magazines that are edited in a discriminating way & of very high quality, but not specifically peer-reviewed, but none of these are in that group. If these had not been in good journals I would have said delete. I do say that for scientists when that's the case (smile). DGG 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~comment delete~~keep Her ISI WoS h-index=17, but there is no article here, this does not even rise to the level of posting a CV on Wikipedia. WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not the white pages." It's only been tagged since "May 2007" so it doesn't seem appropriate to delete, but I think if an article explaining notable achievements does not appear here in 6 months to replace this stub, then it ought to be deleted. Pete.Hurd 04:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC) change to delete Pete.Hurd 02:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC) changed once more following Myke Cuthbert's edits. Pete.Hurd 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not on notability (she seems notable), not on reliable sources (they could probably be found), but because the article as it is is not an encyclopedia article. --Myke Cuthbert 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC). Keep: I hate to see DGG lose an AfD, so I rewrote the article. Please let me know if it's keepable now.[reply]
Delete As the nominator I'm not sure this is necessary. However, particularly per the above reason given by Myke Cuthbert, along with apparent poor faith and copyright violation in article creation, poor faith deletion of speedy deletion tags, and the poor attempt at an attack above (which also appears to be unsigned because of indentation ...). Pete.Hurd, please note that the attempts to have this page deleted for obvious reasons go back to February. More recently, I came across it and put it up for speedy deletion. DGG, who seems for some reason to have a mission to protect any page about anyone who can be termed an academic, removed the speedy deletion tag twice; another user did the same for three times since mid-April; neither bothered to try to improve the article. DGG even claimed an intention to put the article up for AfD but didn't bother with that either.ER ^Talk 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(smile) as for AfD, you beat me to it. For the rest, people here know to what extent I am impartial. DGG 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm, you know ER, I *have* seen DGG vote to delete academic bios, it might not happen often... But he has a point in this case, and I don't think you should belittle it, this person almost certainly passes WP:PROF. Where you and I agree is that this bio is so poor that it merits deletion - something I'm certain DGG would never condone ;) - because it's simply a sub-CV entry into the WP rolodex of eggheads (and I really dislike WP serving as a rolodex). Pete.Hurd 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the other side from DGG on this issue (though in all honesty, I'm probably more often on the "preserve academics' pages" side than average), but I'm not sure his support record is really an issue here. As long as WP operates on the consensus of interpretations of policies, I think that less typical interpretations are welcome voices in the sea of discussion. The only requirement about holding an unusual viewpoint is that you have to be a good sport about losing now and then, and from what I've seen DGG personifies good nature. --Myke Cuthbert 02:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article "touched-up" a bit. Perhaps qualifies for changing opinion on AfD? (Though I don't know anything about Gerontology, so still could use an expert). --Myke Cuthbert 03:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good enough for me, changing !vote. Pete.Hurd 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly looks a lot better, and thanks for the message, Myke Cuthbert, and pertinent comments above, Pete.Hurd. Though agreeing with the below comments, too, (particularly the bit about speedy tags, which appears to be based purely on a current absence of policy) I won't change my own bold type on the article since this comment clearly applied every time the speedy tag was applied to earlier versions of the article and the conclusion now looks obvious.ER ^Talk 10:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten; clearly notable, but the most important is that it is now referenced and verifiable. Nice work. Antandrus (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the fixup was done on 15 May I believe the article is now worth keeping. In general I share the view of DGG that full professors are notable, though I would not have gone along with 'keep' if there were no significant publications that could be shown and discussed. Now that the defect has been remedied, I'm OK with keeping the article. I, too, was surprised to learn that anyone besides the author can now remove a speedy tag per WP:CSD. (I seem to recall a template that used to forbid that). EdJohnston 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Just another accomplished person, one among hundreds of thousands. Writing a book etc. is normal for a full professor. She is no more notable than an accomplished attorney, doctor, etc. Herostratus 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, named professor, on the panel of national body and notable journal. John Vandenberg 15:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intialy Online[edit]

Completely non notable MMORPG, discussed on some game fora, but seems to have failed to make any verifiable impact. No reliable secondary sources, no indication that it meets WP:NOTE (or any of its derivative guidelines). Fram 11:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any WP:RS sources indicating there would be anything for WP:ATT, which a notable MMORPG ought to have. Murgh ^disc. 12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Web forums are not reliable or verifiable sources. DarkAudit 14:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that there appear to be no sources, and there doesn't even seem to be that much discussion on the game fora mentioned. JavaTenor 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Africa (MMORPG)[edit]

Unreleased, probably cancelled game without any claims to notability. No previews, articles in major magazines or newspapers, ... Fram 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL, void of any WP:ATT. Murgh ^disc. 12:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cancelled vaporware where no information exists, or ever existed. DarkAudit 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aleveria[edit]

Online MUD in pre-alpha stage and without any claims to notability. No reviews, no awards, no company apparently (just a group of nicknamed developers), ... if it becomes notable after being published, it may warrant an article, but there is no reason to have one now. Fram 11:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any evidence of meeting WP:WEB and the article provides none. Deli nk 11:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without anything for WP:ATT there is no justification for article keep. Murgh ^disc. 12:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Eidolon Online has been prodded and seconded, and should vanish into the ether later this afternoon. DarkAudit 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much anything in the "pre-alpha stage". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lottocracy[edit]

Walled garden, part of which was previously deleted. As far as I can see this is a non-notable author with some non-notable books containing some non-notable ideas. Haukur 11:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:A.Edison 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indep. sources showing notability. Speedily deleting Lottocracy as repost (g4). NawlinWiki 00:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete only ghit for L Leon either as real name of pseudo is the web site of Ad van der Ven -- see page histories for possible COI DGG 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antilia (game)[edit]

MMORPG in development by a non notable company. Game has review on some wiki's (like the IGN link), but no reviews, awards, or other indications of notability by reliable independent sources. May or may not become notable later, but isn't notable now, and thus shouldn't have an article. Fram 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Antilia shows up frequently on major gaming sites in reputable sources, but only in relation to the fictional Zone of the Enders colony. Given the apparent lack of available secondary sources, there's no other choice but to delete for now. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 11:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one would assume there are chances of WP:ATT once this game is actually released, but until then it is based on 1st source sneak preview speculation and WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Maybe User:LizardPariah would like it userfied until sources potentially appear? Murgh ^disc. 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and crystalballism. DarkAudit 16:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LOL WUT --TV-VCR watch 05:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE a7. Herostratus 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Velvet[edit]

Non-notable webcomic, does not meet the demands of WP:WEB (as indicated by a specified google search), providing no sources for attribution. Murgh ^disc. 11:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, must have missed this one when cleaning out the webcomics. No claims to notability at all. Fram 11:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is because we just cleared out Category:Comics and I found a couple of webcomics in there, both of which I moved to Category:Webcomics and flagged as suspect for someone more knowledgable to look at (there were possibly a dozen suspect entries in there all told). The other one is Point Guardian. (Emperor 12:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment, Point Guardian was actually pegged for deletion some time ago. Murgh ^disc. 12:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, didn't even leave a link. Perhaps because all I could find was a webcomic that hasn't been updated in nearly a year (and it seems to be currently broken). [45] It is possible that it might be more an ad for their DJing (if they are one and the same) [46] but the whole purpose of this entry escapes me. (Emperor 12:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy delete per Fram. Tagged. MER-C 12:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atriarch[edit]

MMORPG announced in 1999 and currently approaching testing! Well, an unreleased game by a non notable company (have they done anything besides Atriarch since?) and without any verifiable claims to notability. Fram 11:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article describing vaporware with no chance of WP:ATT Murgh ^disc. 12:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sources and notability. This is no Duke Nukem Forever. DarkAudit 16:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacking any media coverage. World Fusion doesn't pass WP:CORP. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Page blanked by creator. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AVC/H.264 Encoder[edit]

Page is almost completly Spam and no sources listed St.daniel ^Talk 11:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the sources are listed is it alright? vicadin

Delete, no notability shown, almost free from context, article is advertising language and a spec sheet. Also, the fact that it opens by describing this gadget as a (h)ardware-software solution, a phrase which sounds like the squeak of styrofoam friction. - Smerdis of Tlön
Speedy DeleteThe article presently has no content and no references. Edison 14:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- author has now deleted all content except for AfD notice, now qualifies for speedy deletion as ((db-author)) -- The Anome 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Swift and Steele (Comics)[edit]

Non-notable comic, subject of article of claims with nothing to attribute to any sources. Specified google search indicates considerable obscurity. Murgh ^disc. 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in this day and age most people who want to can create a comic but that needn't mean it deserves to be here. I did a similar Google search and found virtually nothing beyond the creators site. Obviously if they get major coverage in the future then they can have a go at trying again but this seems to be the least notable comic book I have seen. (Emperor 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, not-notable, and might even be a hoax. The article certainly makes some rather unlikely claims: "The original transcripts are kept under lock and key in a laser-guarded facility in Florida. The only other publication can be found in a leather-bound book in a museum in Gainesville, Florida." Suuure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is Ben Pearson. I'm one of the co-creators of Swift and Steele. We just recently had our comic recognized by the copyright office of the United States of America, and I think that if the government officially recognizes our work, then that alone is grounds enough for our Wikipedia page to stay functional. Granted, that "laser guarded facility" comment was a little ridiculous, so I've gotten rid of it. Now everything on this page is completely legitimate. And just because there aren't multiple Google hits when you type in the name of our comic book, I don't think that should mean that our page needs to be deleted. Thanks a lot for your consideration. Hopefully we can see eye to eye on this matter. Ben Pearson74.234.13.72 01:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of google hits will have nothing to do with how this article fares, but whether there exist sources that justify the article existence based on the Wikipedia principles. Since WP can't be the only place to read a given fact, everything stated in WP must be available to read elsewhere from decent sources. That the gov't copyright office recognizes your work doesn't help but coverage in publication does. Murgh ^disc. 07:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to burst anybody's bubble or anything, but the copyright office isn't exactly discriminant with what it copyrights: if somebody wanted to copyright a stick figure drawn on a napkin, they could do so. If you really want the article to be kept, show us reliable sources. That's what really matters. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was posted on the internet and no-one on the net (or anywhere else) has reviewed it? Then it's not notable. See WP:WEB. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to advertise it. Smalljim 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Newyorkbrad 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fibonacci numbers in popular culture[edit]

Another "in popular culture" article. The way to deal with bloated popular culture sections in articles is to take an axe to them, not to split them out into "articles" consisting solely of cruft. Numerous precedents, let this one join its fellows in the bitbucket. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reason for an article like this or anything similar, such as Lima beans in popular culture. --Cyrus Andiron 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long history, since the Greeks, of Fibonacci numbers in architecture and art; see e.g. "The Geometry of Art and Life" by Matila Ghyka among others. This entry is salvageable. JJL 13:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can't seem to find anything about the Greeks in this particular article. There isn't much about architecture and art either; it's all largely about films, popular novels and video games. If there are examples of real historical significance, shouldn't they rather be in the main article on Fibonacci numbers? Henrik Ebeltoft 20:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back. There is information in here that transcends "cruft", especially what relates to music and architecture. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fibonacci number is long and the topic has a whole category: Category:Fibonacci numbers. The amount of information related to Fibonacci numbers makes it impractical to keep in a single article. Some of the listed popular culture entries are weak and unsourced but that is not sufficient reason to delete the whole article. And it isn't just mentions of Fibonacci numbers but also practical applications. PrimeHunter 14:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not just cruft and it's just waiting for the day that someone can turn it from a list into prose. Fibonaccis are popular in pop culture. SchmuckyTheCat 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fannish list of every time someone says the now-fashionable word "Fibonacci!" (sort of like getting to yell Bingo!). Mangoe 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we don't need a list of every occurence of Fibonacci numbers in films or popular culture; this just serves no purpose whatsoever. If there are examples here of real historical significance, they should be merged back into Fibonacci numbers; also, perhaps, that article could do with a couple of representative occurences of Fibonacci numbers in popular culture, to show that they are popular; but we just don't need a list of every such occurence. Henrik Ebeltoft 20:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic, too long to merge back. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well structured and referenced list. The length and diversity of the list shows that the topic is notable. It was split out from the main Fibonacci number article for good reasons and should stay as a separate article. Gandalf61 11:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The list, like almost all such lists, is in fact almost completely lacking in references, as there are at this time only three. The short passage in the main article gives sufficient examples and gives an adequate explanation why the external list is so long. Mangoe 12:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The mentions of books and movies are sourced in text; there's no point in adding <ref>[[Phillip K. Dick]], ''Valis''</ref> to the existing mention of the book. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and prune; if we delete, this stuff will only reappear in the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:You know, I wonder why we don't already have the articles: infinity in popular culture, pi in popular culture, Mõbius strips in popular culture, etc? Is there just not enough interest by Wikipedians for such articles? Or is there some reason these are different from the one under discussion? Just curious. --C S (Talk) 13:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This would probably shorten and improve Pi noticeably. Just lack of impetus, I guess. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's listcruft, but it serves a useful purpose in helping keep the cruft out of the main article. It is in severe need of sourcing and pruning, though. —David Eppstein 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G11. -- The Anome 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BiPolar Express[edit]

Delete as non-notable radio show. Only 9 Google hits for "BiPolar Express"+Albynoh and 3 for "BiPolar Express"+WAIH. Also not written encyclopedically. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 12:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advert. -- The Anome 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 blatant advert and I have tagged it as such. A1octopus 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obvious advertising for a college radio program (!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect still possible as an editorial decision. W.marsh 15:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daywalker[edit]

Unsourced and non-notable neologism Chunky Rice 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found and added the only ref which shows up in Proquest, which is a review of the film Blade. Lacks multiple independent and reliable refs to show the neologism has sufficient usage and notability. Edison 14:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blade. 132.205.44.134 22:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is pretty clear on what it means. In most fictional settings in which vampires are present, daylight is deadly to them. Yet there are always characters able to negate this rule. he term is not a "neologism" in the strictest term. it was Created by Marvel comics. Should me delete "mutant" because of it's use in Marvel comics? Also, the articvle is sorceable. Comic issue numbers, films, television series and videogames all count as sources. If I could pinpoint the first issue of "Blade" where he was called the "Daywalker", then that would be on source right there. Also, you have to account for the fact that the term has worked it's way into pop cultrue. See it's reference in South Park for that. Should we delete "D'oh" too? I think this page is saveable, even with the ridiculous stipulations put on it by wikipedia. (Animedude 01:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Blade (film). Non-notable neologism with no real currency outside the Marvel universe. Another alternative would be a disambiguation page pointing to Blade and to dhampir. But almost all of this is WP:OR and fails WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all daywalkers are dhampir. Also, the term has been used outside of the marvel universe, as refwerenced on the page. How is it original research at all? (Animedude 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Weak keep - Animedude makes an interesting case above, but if no more reputable citations are added, I would not object if it were deleted. Smee 09:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unless significant references outside of the Blade movie and comics can be found, I say it needs to go. Slavlin 15:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pochinko[edit]

Only cite given to show notability is a geocities page. Does this pass the WP:BIO criteria? The Anome 12:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Geocities is as reliable as MySpace or YouTube. In other words, not at all. As such, it fails WP:BIO. DarkAudit 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with new references. But I still feel Geocities is not a reliable source. DarkAudit 12:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A website on Geocities is not absolute evidence of non-notability. Of course, it doesn't show N. But by looking at what was there, and at the 560 ghits, about half are real: there's an academic lecture on the subject from the Institute of Canadian studies at the Univ. of Wollongon, a study guide from the Canadian Arts Center, etc. I've added a few quotes in the references--they will need to be integrated into the article. Circus studies is a real field academically, and circus performers can be N as artists. DGG 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE with a rediret to Mansoura University. Herostratus 13:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mansoura Univeristy[edit]

Appears to be an auto translation and almost completely unsalvagable content. Potentially copyvio of webpage in another language. Very few updates since added in Feb 2007 and no inbound wikilinks. Bren ^talk 13:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation. The University is likely to merit an article, but this one contains almost no comprehensible content, and the few sections I think mean something may have been intended by their author to mean something entirely different. EALacey 16:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As bsnowball has pointed out below, there is already an article at Mansoura University. This typo is no more worthy of being kept as a redirect than any other transposition of two adjacent letters; we don't have one from Univeristy to University. EALacey 10:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup The University is notable, deletion is about the topic and the topic is notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
delete/redirect correctly spelt, the real article is here Mansoura University ⇒ bsnowball 10:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect - Looks very hard to salvage, unsourced. Smee 09:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stowarzyszenie Umarłych dusz czyli traumo-pocieszne przygody Znicza Deathsoul[edit]

Completing nomination for 83.31.207.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). No opinion yet. MER-C 13:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, since the Polish interwiki doesn't function, this article stands on its own, and nothing I can recognize as WP:RS is to be found for WP:ATT. Murgh ^disc. 13:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Agree with Murgh. Also note that this is the English language Wikipedia, a fact that makes this unwieldy title unlikely to be searched for. If kept, move to an English language title, or the simpler Znicza Deathsoul. Am open to persuasion that this is a notable book in Poland, in which case I would cheerfully change this to a keep. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be a self-published book of no notability. No evidence otherwise has been provided. DenisMoskowitz 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims to have a book review, but the link is broken. The other references, a publisher's website and the author's webpage clearly fail the independence requirement of WP:A. A notable work of fiction in a non-English language could have its own page in the English language Wikipedia if it satisfied WP:N and WP:A, such as Voltaire's Candide. This is no Candide. This is not the place for a directory listing of every book in the world, and the burden is on the authors of an article to show that the subject is notable enough and has enough good references. Edison 14:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
Weak Delete - Agree with User:Murgh. Elfin341 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, following the deletion in the Polish wikipedia. --Austrian 21:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as copyright violation. Same text found here. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOLOPHANY[edit]

Advertisement, boilerplate text, NPOV. JJL 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all of the article except the last paragraph is a copyright violation from [47] which is copyrighted [48]. Hut 8.5 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs improvement, but AfD isn't cleanup.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies[edit]

This book does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. What's more, the page basically functions as a way to unduly promote the opinions of a fringe astronomer, Halton Arp. Whatever content is useful can be kept at his biographical article. ScienceApologist 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely redundant POV fork. This article should be about the book, but isn't. Instead of describing the structure of the book, how it came to be written and the other topics addressed in serious writing about books, it discusses only the man and his idea. What's more, it does so in a POV manner. Anville 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Halton Arp was a fringe astronomer? For heaven's sake, why did they ever let him work at the Palomar observatory or the Max Planck institute? Right. Alternate theories to new ideas are an essential element to science. While his views are not widely accepted, I still think he had a notable role in determining the nature of QSO. Challenges to accepted views lead to more thorough testing. As for POV-ness, I have to disagree. It seems quite neutral in perspective. — RJH (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really addressing the point of notability. --ScienceApologist 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - I recall reading this book because I read about it. Arp made a splash with it at this time. Since then, the weight of the evidence has become totally against these views, but that is a different matter. At the time, the issue of what quasars are was still a fairly active controversy, although the majority view was already that these are the cores of active distant galaxies. IMO, this book probably is notable under criteria 1 of WP:BK, but the article fails to establish that notability. --EMS | Talk 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - See [49]. This is the kind of review that led to my buying this book. It may also be possible to find articles written about this book in places like the New York Times and the magazine Sky and Telescope. --EMS | Talk 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A creationist review? I'm not sure why you would use a creationist site to confer notability on this subject. Nor am I sure that it makes sense to rewrite this article from a perspective on notability given to it by creationism. --ScienceApologist 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure why you conisder the review to be creationist, although I agree that this site is insufficient to confer notability on the topic. I did see a mainsteam review along similar lines which got me to buy it. What I can tell you is that the book hit a nerve when it came out, and did get noticed at the time. OTOH, it's long-term impact has been negligible other than to help establish Arp as a crank.
      Let's just say that I am dealing with competing concerns here: The article is not well written and I would rather not help to promote Arp's views, but OTOH what I know about the book says that it probably qualifies as being notable. --EMS | Talk 22:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some material could be merged into his bio, but by and large there's nothing suggesting any kind of independent importance of this book. Mangoe 18:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ All POV or other questionable content aside, there is no assertion of notability. Someguy1221 06:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. ...with Halton Arp. There is little description concerning the book per se, but some of the information is suitable for merging with the author's page. --Iantresman 15:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search on NASA ADS reveals that this book was reviewed at least 8 times in the scientific literature, including reviews in Nature and Sky & Telescope which are widely read outside the professional community. Few books by scientists get this much attention. This amply satisfies the notability criteria given at WP:BK. For good reason: Arp was a major figure in astronomy in the 60s through the 80s; to dismiss him as "fringe" is a travesty of whig history. Obviously the article could be improved and focussed more on the book; but since the book is a justification of Arp's views the current focus is not grotesque. PaddyLeahy 18:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. That is the data that I though was out there somewhere. --EMS | Talk 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So it is notable. The Nature article is here. Good read, too. Someguy1221 09:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep My reason for staying neutral has become a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The notability is now established, but the article is still in need of some editing to describe the book iteself more and to note the attention that it got when first published.
Keep for goodness sake! This is a good summary of a notable book by a respected astronomer. As for "fringe"... why not read the list of awards he's received at Halton Arp? andy 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Arp is an excellent astronomer but a mediocre astrophysicist. In the past (the 1960s through the 1980s), he was prominent as a suppoter of the steady state universe. However, since that time the the wieght of the astronomical evidence against his views has become, well, astronomical. So today, those same views are just plain fringe. Even so, that does not bear on the notability of the book or of Arp himself, nor should it diminish his excellent contributions to astronomy or the fact that the questions he raised about Big Bang theory looked good at the time. --EMS | Talk 17:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis E. Reed[edit]

Local politician. Achievements do not rise to the level expected of WP:BIO. No verifiable or reliable sources. Virtually no sources whatsoever. Personal sites do not count. DarkAudit 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as campaign material for an alderman. Mangoe 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. No indication that person has been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party sources. -- Satori Son 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. I will redirect for now, editors of these articles can merge additional content W.marsh 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda (Buffyverse)[edit]

Non-notable minor recurring character who doesn't really deserve a place separate from Buffyverse Slayer timeline#Amanda as she is deceased, culturally insignificant (unlike say, Buffy or Willow) and will likely not appear in future episodes/comics as she has been killed off. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minor character lacks independent reliable sources. Unreferenced except as OR of fan watching the program and writing down their observations and inferences. Pure fanspew. Edison 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite what Zythe and Edison claim, Amanda, although a recurring character, is an important character, considered important enough to have received her own Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode, "Potential" and to factor into other episode storylines, when none of the other Potentials besides Kennedy received such treatment. Between her and Kennedy, those were two of the most important recurring characters during the show's seventh and final season; in fact, an article about Sarah Hagan in the February/March 2005 issue of the American version of Buffy Magazine considered Amanda as one of the most memorable of the Potentials, and a few excerpts from that article, stated by Hagan herself, illustrate that point:

"I felt like I was one of the more known Potentials, the one who got a little more to do than other people, besides Kennedy...

"I killed that vampire all by myself and all those other girls were sitting there training...

"...no other big Potential really died in ("Chosen") except for me...They wanted one Potential who had the most impact on the audience to die—I guess they wanted people to be affected. (They thought that some of) the other girls dying wouldn't have as much of an impact on the audience."

By comparison, Amy Madison, another recurring character who factored into episode plotlines, appeared in fewer episodes than Amanda has, yet she has her own Wikipedia article and a spot on the Buffyverse template. Of all the Potentials who appeared in the seventh season, aside from Kennedy, Amanda (as proven by the Buffy Magazine article) was the one who stood out the most and has sufficient depth to her, so that warrants Amanda being able to have her own Wikipedia article. Starbuck-2 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Madison is a major character (a Big Bad) in Buffy Season Eight still. She had a presence over the entire run f the series too.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to indicate real world significance. According to WP:FICT that is how the difference between major and minor character is decided, and minor characters do not get their own articles. Jay32183 02:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In amendment of my original vote, rather than delete the article altogether, I think its text should be merged into the Amanda section in Minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, this way the gist of the text is not lost. Starbuck-2 02:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, as long as most of the text is not deleted, there is no need for her to have her own article. Her article is not long. -- Noneofyourbusiness 20:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean American gangs[edit]

Only ethnic list of gangs that I can see. Why is this one ethnicity separated out for a list? Subject to continual vandalism, and almost impossible to keep correct and accurate. Also, what makes a gang a "Korean American" gang anyway? 100% Korean American membership? 50%? 25%? Even the article, when listing NY gangs, says they tend to be of mixed ethnicity. So, to me, the definition of what would go on this page is mushy. And are any of these listed gangs even really noteworthy enough for the project in the first place. If they are not noteworthy enough for the project, why bother keeping a list of them? Overall, appears to me to be far more trouble than it's worth. TexasAndroid 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, categories would be much more effective for this, the list is not manageable. Burntsauce 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists of a heap of unreferenced, questionably notable gangs being added indiscriminately by anonymous contributors. Completely unmanageable. --Closedmouth 06:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, last time I checked it was much bigger and had no references. Anyway, point still stands --Closedmouth 06:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to verifiability concerns. RFerreira 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The in-line references look suspicious to me: they don't point to anything and are named Asbury, Butch, and Charlie. Calliopejen1 12:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 14:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CATALOG[edit]

disputed PROD for website, no assertion of notability delete Cornell Rockey 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per ((db-web)) and it reads like an advert so you could slap ((db-advert)) on there aswell Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom SGGH ^speak! 16:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comments made on the talk page of the deletion article: The CATALOG article is extremely informative. It provides useful information about library training schemes. Many people are woefully ignorant of the fact that a person must take a degree to become a librarian. This page gives information about the Cambridge library traineeships and provides links to SCONUL, CILIP and the University of Cambridge. These useful links to professional bodies are invaluable.

This article does not 'belong in more than one category.'

If this article is deleted, it will truly be a terrible shame for potential librarians everywhere. As the managers of information and the people at the forefront of Web 2.0, this seems to me to be a bit of a paradox. Mrsradcliffe23 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page is not an advert. 131.111.130.215 15:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as a librarian myself, I think this article is of local interest only--its about the Cambridge University system--to the extent that it actually says "A new position, at Corpus Christi, begins in May." -- the UK section of Education for librarianship needs work, but even there it wouldn't be a place for job listings.

'Delete'DGG 00:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do have to say that the point about the new position is not a job advert - the page is simply making the point that another traineeship is now in place in Cambridge. Perhaps the article could be more general but I still maintain that people in the UK considering librarianship as a career would find this an invaluable resource. The traineeships are a fantastic way of launching a career in the information sector and also give potential librarians a taste of the profession before they commit to a postgraduate course. The positions in themselves are highly courted. This article is intended to provide some more detail about the traineeships and what they fully involve. 131.111.130.67 11:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for promotion or publicity, even for worthwhile activities. We should not carry job listings. EdJohnston 03:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is not an advert or job listing. If the article is to be deleted, please delete it on relevant grounds (eg too specific to Cambridge.) Traineeships are advertised through relevant sources and this article is intended to provide information not act as a recruitment service. Please note the difference 131.111.130.215 11:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE feel free to recreate as a redirect -Doc^g 14:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewisburg High School[edit]

Not every high school warrants an article. This one lacks notability as nothing newsworthy has happened there and no notable alumni have come from there. Clerks. 14:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SCHOOL - an article on a school is required to be "the principal subject of multiple reliable independent non-trivial published works," which this school is not. --Ali 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DeSoto County, Mississippi per WP:LOCAL unless better (non-trivial) sources can be provided. Burntsauce 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to DeSoto County School District, a far better choice than the comparatively destructive nuclear option. As the school was founded in 2006, there has not been much time for notability to be established, and a review of the school's web site and searches of Google and Google News Archive finds just about nothing that would demonstrate notability. Alansohn 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools are not generally notable, this being a good such example and per the debate that has been conducted on the subject. Eusebeus 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 06:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect this to county or school district article makes most sense to me yuckfoo 00:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. There's nothing here worth merging. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district page or appropriate locality. RFerreira 05:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is almost impossible to find any news articles or any outsider information to warrant its notability, nor are there many famous alumni.--Kylohk 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 08:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shareasale[edit]

This article was originally deleted through AfD. DRV overturned, claiming that too few commenters had the opportunity to see the new evidence brought forth at the AfD. Please consult both the original AfD and the DRV before commenting. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An affiliate marketing web-based business, especially one involving sales, IMO ought to be treated with the greatest possible skepticism. These people are in the business of serving up banner links and web ads. As noted in the prior AfD, there does seem to be a whiff of conflict of interest here.
The article tries to build a case for WP:CORP notability out of a claim that the company has received some kind of distinction because its affiliates are apparently obliged by their contract not to use adware. This is not enough to achieve notability IMO. The links reference sites like "affiliatefairplay.com", "revenuetoday.com", "affiliatesummit.com", and "wayneporter.com", perhaps a personal site. None of these links seem to be substantially independent of the web marketing industry, or reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the "these people" and consider your statement inappropriate. Affiliate marketing is much more than serving up banners and web ads. This is so pre dot-com crash. If you have a personal hatred against affiliate marketers in general then I wonder who the COI really applies to. I would rather discuss the issue in an objective manner and come to a consensus that will satisfy everybody. Your comment shows though that there is far too less information about the affiliate industry available at wikipedia and because of that are general misconceptions and bias the norm when it comes to the subject. I will address your objective comments in the explanation of my vote. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad brochure copy. Mangoe 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pretty bad for an ad brochure IMO. It is missing the sales pitch. Seriously, which part sounds like advertising to you? Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ... In addition to the detailed arguments and verifiable evidence to support the notability of the company made at the first nomination would I like to add another source, which is outside the affiliate marketing industry. The "Internet Retailer", an eCommerce (~~eTailer~~ IR) print publication, online resource and organizer of the ~~eTail~~ Internet Retailer (IR) trade show and expo published recently statistics from the affiliate marketing industry benchmark report AffStat. I used the AffStat report as reference in my original argumentation, but the problem was, that the content of the report is not accessible for the public which made the reference less verifiable (you would have to purchase it to get it). The Internet Retailer publication however, is accessible by the public here. One of the stats shows the major networks in affiliate marketing within the United States and each of the networks share, measured in number of merchants that use networks to operate their affiliate program.
- Comment. Internet Retailer also published this statistic in their print issue from April 2007 on Page 80. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to point to guidelines, but statements were made that refers to those guidelines as if they would strongly support the deletion due to not meeting notability and because the reliability of the cited sources was questioned. I will cite important passages of the guidelines for WP:CORP and WP:RS to show what they actually say to the subject.

Quote from WP:CORP "notability (corporations and organizations)":

“

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".

...
Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

”

WP:RS "reliable sources":

“

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

”

Major general press is not covering the subject very well, with exception of the negative examples of people that use unethical methods to make a quick buck. I am referring to the coverage of AdWare and Spam (email and search engines). If the subject makes it to the main press, is it virtually never mentioned individually, but under the general umbrella of internet marketing. It is widely overshadowed by the larger types of internet marketing which include paid search, email marketing and display advertising (the banners and pop-ups/pop-unders on large websites). The sources which I provided are not the best, because I am unable to find any publication relevant to this discussion in any of the nationwide newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post or similar. However, the sources of the available publications are reliable sources. Those sources are real companies with editorial staff, address, phone number and email address. They do also not fall under the category of unreliable sources like tabloid press. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other Affiliate Marketing and Ad Serving companies are inlcuded, so I see no validity in arguing this - other than a personal distaste for people who make money or serve ads. This is not just a legitimate business, but a seven year old business of note amongst everyone in the affiliate marketing community. Someone above mentions the AffStat survey (listed at MarketingSherpa and written about at ClickZ) where ShareASale is highlighted and has been there since the survey's inception. Is it notable? Ask ten people attending AffiliateSummit and see if you can find more than one or two who have not heard of them.

Look at their Google results. They get an extended listing with subsection links. Not many sites get that. Search the news for them and you get the most recent article from Practical ECommerce quoting a recommendation from Shawn Collins of the top five providers "I'd suggest Commission Junction [CJ.com], LinkShare [Linkshare.com], Performics [Performics.com], Kolimbo [Kolimbo.com] and Share a Sale [Shareasale.com]"

Look at their 2,000 plus merchants and you will find thousands of legitimate (mostly) small businesses who are using this service to expand their sales and help real people make money from sending them these sales. BTW, they do have some larger/well known merchants, such as Rockler Woodworking (I see their brick and mortar stores all over), Chinese Laundry, Old Time Candy Company and Sportif.

Other than being in the industry a long time, I have no special involvement with ShareASale. I used to give three hour courses on how to select and set up Affiliate Programs, and if I were to do that today, ShareASale would be one of the top companies listed. If I had a person asking me where to set up an affiliate program and they did not have a six figure budget, ShareASale would be the number one choice and I'm not sure if there would be a number two. That's how notable and good they are.Bcwaller 18:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ShareASale is notable from a purely technical comparison with Commission Junction. The Internet's largest interactive and free database of affiliate management solutions and notable networks [50] includes data for ShareASale, LinkShare, and Commission Junction. Of 228 possible features that an affiliate management solution can have, LinkShare fully supports 150, ShareASale supports 134, and Commission Junction 119 supported features. From this objective point of view I submit my vote to keep ShareASale. Peterkoning 05:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per roy, notable within the field of affiliate marketing, passes verifiability standards. Burntsauce 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per user:cumbrowski. I think the company is noteworthy within the industry it is active in. Shawn Collins 19:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Theft[edit]

Non-notable as per WP:BAND.

the subject of multiple non-trivial published works NO
- a review in a non-notable webzine, 2 interviews in non-notable webzines, 2 blog interviews
- the CMJ "article" is three short paragraphs about an as-yet unreleased Pixies tribute album, not specifically about Morning Theft (though they are mentioned)
- the article in the Phoenix is about Lunch Records, not Morning Theft. (There are quotes from the singer—talking about the label).
gone on a national concert tour… reported in reliable sources NO (tour, yes; reported, no)
released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels NO (one self-released album, one appearance on a local indie compilation)

The rest of the criteria are unequivocal "no"s. Closenplay 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and also delete their album The News Says It's Raining In New York The nom is absolutely right- all of the articles listed are either not from reliable sources, or only trivial mentions (that is, the band is not the subject of the articles)- and they fail all of the other criteria of WP:BAND. The album's page confirms no additional notability, and the only reviews are from two non-notable websites. -- Kicking222 15:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-yet notable article entry with nothing for WP:ATT Murgh ^disc. 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the band's profile on Budweiser's True Music show? It's broadcasted on HDnet, which is only available in HD broadcast, but they were a major feature during that hour program.

Also, the Pixies tribute CD will feature more well-known bands, including They Might Be Giants, OK Go, and Mogwai (all of which have Wiki entries). It seems that if a band were worth inclusion on a prominent CD meant as a tribute to a prominent artist such as the Pixies, which also features other prominent musicians, they'd have proven well-known enough themselves to earn a Wiki entry.Morningtheftnyc 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interview #1=55 sec., song clip #1=46 sec., interview #2=1:16, song clip #2=2:42; total airtime=5:39

WP:BAND criteria: Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast, not "one of a number of subjects", THE subject. Closenplay 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then, if the band does not satisfy the requirements, then you should perhaps examine some of the other NYC indie rock band inclusions, as many of Morning Theft's peers are listed and have not been deleted. Morningtheftnyc 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then go ahead and nominate them! --Haemo 21:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not sure if it helps the case at all, but i found an interview the lead singer did on the VH-1 Best Week Ever blog. Last time I checked, VH-1 was a big media outlet. I've added that link to the "Sources" area. Morningtheftnyc 10:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mitchell Primary School[edit]

Seemingly non-notable primary school in the outer southeastern suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. No independent sources establishing notability. Orderinchaos 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not asserted (unless one counts "fully equipped canteen", etc.). LexisNexis turns up merely trivial coverage from local media, mostly "what's on" entries and mentions in articles about local schools in general. I thought of suggesting a merge into Endeavour Hills, Victoria#Education, but the school is already mentioned there, and the only additional content in this article is a list of facilities; it would be too close to advertising to transfer that into the Endeavour Hills article without any other information. EALacey 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per nom and EALacey, fails to demonstrate notability totally. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 06:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources and not likely to be notability. John Vandenberg 09:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N (not even asserted) and WP:V (no source other than school website). --Butseriouslyfolks 20:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete notability not asserted.Ga rr ie 03:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 15:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Gottlieb[edit]

Contested prod; No evidence of notability, tagged as unsourced since October 2006, delete per WP:BIO. Burntsauce 16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly any context provided - clearly fails WP:BIO. --Ali 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non-notable individual with no WP:RS to indicate reason of article inclusion. Murgh ^disc. 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per well-caught info by Eastmain, if WP:RS can be allocated. Murgh ^disc. 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely saying 'famous' should not be an assertion of notability. No sources to back this up, or to even show he exists. DarkAudit 16:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep National level politician is well within the guidelines of WP:BIO. DarkAudit 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's important to check the article's history rather than just looking at the current version. All current or former members of a national legislature are automatically notable. He represented the constituency of South Abaco from 1987 to 1992.. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Gottlieb&direction=prev&oldid=128253722 He is or was chairman of Bahamasair as well. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=73098&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=132956&highlight= --Eastmain 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If sources other than a Wikipedia diff can be provided I am more than willing to reconsider my position, but as of right now this article still fails WP:A and WP:BIO, amongst others. Burntsauce 17:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the article was improved, please refrain from removing AfD tags. DarkAudit 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Eastmain. Theophilus75 22:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as according to our consistent policy. DGG 00:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demonizer[edit]

The article about this Cuban brutal death metal band does claim some sort of notability but there are no references to any non-trivial third-party coverage and the article's creator seems to be a former member of the band. Pascal.Tesson 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal delete for nn brutal death metal. SchmuckyTheCat 17:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC) move to Locations in Hogwarts and rewrite into a more encyclopedic, less speculative tone. Krimpet (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts layout[edit]

Complete and total Original Research by fandom - it even says so in the second intro sentence! "contributors have deduced the location of every room" Putting your research off-site then coming to Wikipedia is not "published" Doin' it for the shorties 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. DarkAudit 17:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete Under WP:WAF, this seems to be OR because the sources for the information are the books themselves (primary sources). The article doesn't formally cite the books, but it's implicit. But my impression is that the VAST majority of content in articles about fictional worlds, and the things and places inside them, comes directly from the books themselves instead of secondary sources. (Look at [[Harry Potter {character)]], for example.) I'm aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but deleting this on the grounds of WP:OR still seems excessively arbitrary. Propaniac 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The opening paragraph admits to the work being original research. DarkAudit 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sentence says that the contributors to the Harry Potter Lexicon website "deduced the locations..." It could just as easily say that they compiled the information. It's not as if they actually went to Hogwarts and mapped out the school grounds themselves, which would be pure OR. As I said in my above comment, I believe this does qualify as OR based on WP:WAF, but I don't think you're being fair in how you're interpreting that one phrase, considering that the article's actual content appears to mostly be objective and taken directly from canon. Propaniac 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft and OR. --EMS | Talk 18:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite likely WP:ILIKEIT support, it fails WP:OR. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is a classic definition of original research. --Haemo 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Jacek Kendysz 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is entirely original research and has no means of clean-up. Jay32183 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article has no orignal research because it is just extrpolation from the plot, then it fails WP:NOT#IINFO#7 by not presenting any real world context. Jay32183 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not OR. It's a compilation of established information. OR would be character analysis or speculation. --Ellissound 05:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Character analysis on Simpsons and Family Guy characters are also deduced from the plots of their episodes. But this one should at least try to find external sources from multiple perspectives to prove that it is not original research, rather than say fans have contributed etc.--Kylohk 11:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't vote yet, because I'm in two minds. But what else can you use to describe the layout of a fictional castle, if not informations from within the fictional work or secondary sources, who based their information on on the fictional works (like the one in the Harry Potter Lexicon)? This is not about any interpretation of the work, where I believe this Original research rule can be really useful, but about *Facts* mentioned within the book. For example, if it is stated within the books, that the Divination classroom is in the North Tower, how can it be Original Research, to mention this in the article? Neville Longbottom 20:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, edit: Rename to Locations in Hogwarts or something and remove all evidence of it being a layout diagram. That way, it would be a listing of places in the castle, which have been mentioned in canon, and would not blatantly rip off the Lexicon, whose contributors have spent countless hours deducing on which floors these rooms lie. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without much work, I have transformed the article here to resemble more of a list than a layout. I did not put any effort into its formatting or the lead, but you should get the general idea. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I plan to add more chapter references to it in the near future but, really, it is not OR, it's all there in the novels. Soapy Sunshine 23:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I agree with the above statement, as information obtained from the books can hardly be regarded OR. There's some useful information in this article, but it does need some cleanup, it seems a bit to formal for an encyclopedic article. I also agree with renaming the article. Monkeymox 09:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, edit per Fbv65edel. Neville Longbottom 18:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, edit Descriptions of the rooms, and a list of locations as they are given in the books would be nice. It is after all interesting. It is hardly "Original Research" anymore than other pages here are, locations, names, and descriptions are simply being pulled from the book. Some opinions are there that could be edited out.--Talroth 00:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sweeting[edit]

Prod contested without any improvement to the article. Fails WP:BIO without evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. Burntsauce 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a but Needs sources, but passes WP:BIO as a member of a national legislature. DarkAudit 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup It still needs work, but passes WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 09:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance Air[edit]

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia & Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) McA 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a company so the notability guideline is WP:CORP, not the other ones... Never had significant media coverage. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no third party source showing notability. An airline with a fleet consisting of one Raytheon Beech C99 is not going to be notable

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

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

The result was redirect and merge. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BK Crown Jewels[edit]

Non-notable. It's a sandwich. To be more precise, it's a line of sandwiches apparently offered in Burger Kings in New Zealand. The article is a list of the different sandwiches and their ingredients. About a month ago (when the page had been dormant for several months), I redirected the page to Burger King#Products, but the redirect was reverted eight days later by the page's creator, who has since added to the page. The page links to several other pages about Burger King sandwiches (most created by the same user who created this one), but those all at least seem to have some additional content besides just describing the sandwich itself, so I'm only nominating this one. There are no references indicating this is more notable than any other fast food sandwich. Propaniac 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! Please! Mangoe 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some reasons for keeping:

You should have created a merge discussion or talked about the creation of the redirect on the discussion page before going ahead and removing the article. This is the proper way to go about removing articles you believe to be substandard or inappropriate for Wikipedia.
There was criticism about the Burger King articles being US centric in their content, as I expanded the article I tried to include global and regional menu variations to reflect BK being a multinational corporation and expand beyond the US oriented content. In creating an article about a product sold in country besides the US helps to create more neutral articles about said multinational corporations. By nominating this particular product you are going against the reason for its creation in the first place.
There is an ongoing Wikipedia project to create articles about fast food products, this is in line with that project.
It takes time to compile information on subjects like this since it is a product sold outside the US. As I am located in the US, it is more difficult to obtain information regarding "foreign" advertising campaigns, history, nutrition information etc. Hence it still being labeled a ((stub)).
The article is still just a stub. As more information becomes available it will have all the data that is found in the other articles.
The redirect you created caused several loops.
These sandwiches may be take global

Jerem43 19:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

1. The article had been dormant for months and I believe I found it on the Orphaned Articles list, leading me to think that it was not of particular interest to anyone, and it seemed to me a clear redirect. If the redirect was inappropriate, I knew it could be easily reverted, as you did.

2. I didn't nominate the article because it's foreign, I nominated it because it doesn't assert notability and doesn't seem notable.

3. This project was not mentioned on the page or its Talk page, and I don't see why non-notable articles should be immune to deletion or redirect simply because they're part of a project to create articles regardless of their notability.

4 and 5. A stub that doesn't prove the notability of its topic is eligible for deletion.

6. As I said, I believe the article was orphaned when I found it, meaning there were no links to it at all; none of the articles currently linking to it seem to have been linking to it at the time, so I'm puzzled how my redirect created "loops." Even if it were a bad redirect, though, I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. I redirected it, you reverted it. If editors voted to redirect it, I'm sure any problems with the redirect would be immediately corrected.

7. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Propaniac 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just a stub, then it should have been expanded, rather than hanging around for months. I don't understand why a particular local sandwich is notable. Delete or Merge into one of the other BK articles. --Haemo 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Burger King products (which has been moved to a non-WP:NC-compliant name and seems to have some article ownership issues). --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Dhartung. I see no valid notability argument for a separate article.--Kubigula (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wikisource. Daniel 08:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology[edit]

This AfD is representative for all lists at Category:Gray's Anatomy-related lists.

Systematic organisation of the available resources of commons: should be done there, perhaps by subdividing commons:Category:Gray's Anatomy plates. And thousands of external links to a site with popup ads aren't needed at all.

Pjacobi 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move This is the wrong place for that kind of work. Which may be valuable, I guess, but it's not for an encyclopedia. FrozenPurpleCube 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move. I'm the person who created the page, and I'm the person who uploaded more than half of the 1247 Gray's images into the commons. It is very important to be able to see the original caption, and the context in which the images originally appeared. --Arcadian 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surely not wanting to destroy valuable information, but it should be alongside the actual images at Commons.

What I'm not clear about are the links to bartleby.com -- is there something lost when we delete them?

Pjacobi 14:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move or transwiki - This can 100% be appropriate for one Wikimedia project at least, not to say that it doesn't need improving. This collection of the data is more useful than just raw images, or messy categories. --R e m i 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like OMG, I love that show, don't delete it! But seriously, these pictures come from one of the most recognized antaomy textbooks of all time. But, I don't suggest keeping the article as a repository of images, that's not what Wikipedia is for. The images should be used in articles, not be the focus of one. --Cyrus Andiron 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted in WP:LISTS, "Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind...". Unless I misunderstand how Commons works, this hierarchical browsing function would be lost. -- MarcoTolo 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong transwiki all to WikiSource. This isn't an encyclopedia article (we have that), it's the actual contents of the book. As such it belongs on our sister project, not here. It would be fantastic if we had a wikified version of the book over there. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ladonia (micronation) and merge Nimis (artwork) into it. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nimis (artwork)[edit]

This is an art project by artist Lars Vilks, spread over 2 articles. Lars Vilks is a redlinked artist; he has no other incoming links. The first article, Nimis (artwork) about a sculpture, offers up no assertions of notability and no reliable sources whatsoever. It has 1 incoming link (excluding a link from Ladonia and a dab link from Nimis) and I think it can be safely deleted as non-notable.

The second article, Ladonia (micronation) (previous nomination), about the place where the scultpure was made has several problems too:

The article presents the entity as a country and not as an art-based concept (WP:NPOV)
The most serious concern is the lack of reliable sources to demonstrate compliance with the verifiability and notability policies. If we examine the sources provided:
- Implode Ladonia website. Not an RS by any stretch of the imagination.
- A Swedish website. I'm not sure exactly what it is, it's either a museum or a contemporary art site.
- www.powerofculture.nl, not a reliable source as far as I'm aware
- (an article in Swedish)
- a trivial BBC News South Asia piece about Pakistanis applying for visas in the belief it's a real country. Not everything on BBC News is enyclopedic.
Very few incoming links.

I recommend deletion or, if the sources can be found and if he's notable, moving and refactoring both into an article on Lars Vilks. --kingboyk 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous nomination of Ladonia made it clear this is a real, verifiable, notable instance in local Swedish politics. The artwork is a real, notable thing that attracts tourists who want to climb it. It's easy to find google references. Reliable references should be easy to find as well, but they might be in Swedish. Not being able to read Swedish references is not a valid AfD nomination.SchmuckyTheCat 17:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I say that this is nominated for deletion because I can't read Swedish? It's nominated because it's 2 unsourced or undersourced near orphan articles on one piece of work by a (non-notable?) redlink artist! The previous AFD was 2 years ago and had pretty much no intelligent content whatsoever; I wouldn't pay much attention to it personally, plus we're not bound by precedent, we're here to form a new consensus. --kingboyk 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: There was an unequivocal 80% consensus to KEEP in the last AFD on Ladonia - and the only "unintelligent content" in that discussion was contributed by the dissenting minority. This renomination is another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Gene_poole 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge The BBC article, the Power of Culture article, and the Svenska Dagbladet article appear to be reliable sources, and this subject is notable per the work done by Uncle G at the previous AfD discussion. But there's no need for two separate articles about basically the same thing, so they should be merged, probably to Ladonia (micronation). Please avoid the temptation to automatically assume foreign language and offline sources don't count. Svenska Dagbladet is a major Swedish newspaper. Wikipedia isn't about the English-language Web. PubliusFL 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say foreign language or print articles don't count (and geez I'm quite annoyed you could even think that I'm so stupid; print sources are better than online crap almost every time); I merely put it the Swedish source in brackets without further commentary because I can't read it. Articles must be sourced and there should be help for readers - if it's a major Swedish paper the article should say so. It's also incumbent on Swedish editors to get these articles referenced properly if they want them kept. I maintain that the sourcing here is totally inadequate, and notability isn't clear. I totally reject any notion that the BBC article can be used to assert notability because it is trivial at best; the BBC are of course purveyors of reliable material, so certainly don't dispute that. --kingboyk 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize for the offense, I should have been more careful in my wording. Apparently I misunderstood you when you said on the Morac-Songhrati-Meads AfD page that you "don't see any reliable sources in the article," while noting there is a published book listed as a source. What I meant to say is that when an article has references that are offline or foreign language, editors ought to assume them to be valid unless they have some real reason to believe they are not. I think that's part of "assuming good faith." But when you say "no reliable sources whatsoever" as in this nomination, it sounds like an assumption that the sources that are in the article are unreliable unless someone proves otherwise. In other words, there are often better ways to clarify the reliability of sources than proposing deletion and hoping it gets sorted out in the AfD. I do understand that you're trying to be bold in clearing up what many editors consider to be a long-standing problem area, though. PubliusFL 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding the BBC article, I would argue that that source is non-trivial. The wording of WP:N on this point has been the subject of a lot of discussion lately, but notability currently requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." Significant replaces non-trivial, and the guideline further clarifies that significant "does not require that a topic be the sole focus of a source, but does require that the source speaks on the subject in detail, rather than a mention in passing or name drop. Significant means more than trivial but less than important." A BBC story specifically about Ladonia (sole focus), although a fairly short one, is far more than "a mention in passing or a name drop," and I think falls within the spirit of "significant coverage" as used in WP:N. PubliusFL 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think, unless I'm mistaken, that I only said no "reliable sources whatsoever" in relation to Nimis (artwork), which I deal with in the first part of my nomination and which does indeed offer no references at all. Never mind; it's only semantics. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the BBC source, as far as I'm concerned it's a "fun" news story more about Pakistanis' eagerness to emigrate than it is about Ladonia (it's in the South Asia section after all). Thanks for the response, and for the message on my talk page. PS I generally prefer printed sources to low grade online links (the world existed before the internet!) but it's damn inconvenient when one doesn't have the books articles are relying on :) --kingboyk 21:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The last sentence was the nail in the coffin for me: All interested persons are invited to apply for a citizenship in Ladonia. To me that sounds like advertising or that they are in need of suport. Either way, it's definitely not NPOV. How can you belong to Ladonia, when it isn't even recognized? Also, if this is a long running dispute, where all of the reliable and independent secondary sources that confirm the conflict with the government? There are not any sources listed that could verify any of the claims. My other question is this: How are driftwood statues made by one person in a nature reserve notable? If you're going to claim it's a popular tourist attraction, then provide some statistics on the number of people that have visited. Instead of claiming it's notable, show that it is notable. If this article is going to be kept, then some sources need to be produced. I'm sure that the editors of the article are fine people, but we can't just take their word that this topic is notable without any proof. --Cyrus Andiron 19:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That sentence is definitely objectionable, and should be removed immediately. Which I'll do unless someone has beaten me to it. NPOV issues can be fixed. But I think people have shown that Ladonia is notable. Starting with Uncle G's comment in the last AfD, which led to the article being kept then. PubliusFL 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. We have a sculpture in my town centre. It too was rather controversial, and got written about several times by the local daily newspaper (a reliable source). I could write an article about it. I won't, of course, because the artist is red linked like this fellow, and probably not notable, and it would be a WP:POINT violation... I do accept, of course, that the artist didn't then create an "independent state" or get mentioned in a trivial BBC item; that makes this a touch more notable but not notable enough AFAIC unless I see more sources. --kingboyk 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lars Vilks has written and published many books, as you can see from here. Among them a book called "Theory about Everything" (Original: Teori om Allting). How can somebody who wrote a theory about everything not be notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.192.198.233 (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and merge per PubliusFL - there's no need for two articles, but the micronation is of itself notable. JRG 08:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known micronation, referenced in numerous reliable sources as well as participant (as a micronation) at a current ongoing exhibition on the subject of micronations at the Palais de Tokyo (Paris' main contemporary art museum). --Gene_poole 12:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge - Per above, sculptures alone are not particularly notable; but their combined influence as a proclaimed micronation carries more significance and notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thisisbossi (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as above. No real reason for deletion. Lankiveil 01:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Ladonia and merge Nimis to Ladonia Ladonia is quite notable; Nimis is a different story. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 19:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sounds like a good solution. >Radiant< 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ladonia and merge Nimis to Ladonia Ladonia is notable, well-sourced and well-written. The fact that the artist is redlinked is completely irrelevant; who says that an artist must necessarily be more notable than his artwork? — Kwi | Talk 19:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ladonia and merge Nimis to Ladonia per Kwi. Perhaps in the future there will be enough to say about Nimis to merit its own article, but for now it doesn't seem to say much more than is already said in the Ladonia article. --Quuxplusone 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Air Cargo[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP guidelines. More info on the talk page of the article in question Russavia 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. The article does not have independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary sources to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 08:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:CORP for he reasons above. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynacell[edit]

Article unreferenced, and sounds like blatant OR and POV. There *is* a company called "Dynacell" out there (dynacellcorp.com), but I can't see anything resembling a Duracell knock-off, so it's probably a different company with the same name. I suspect that *this* "Dynacell" is just a ten-a-penny pseudo-brand used by a generic Far East manufacturer. However, that I am having to guess this much in the absence of sources is indication enough that this article should be deleted. Fourohfour 17:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unsourced. DarkAudit 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the only Dynacell I found was the same one as mentioned above, and this company doesn't seem to make duracell-like batteries. Also, it is unsourced. KJS 77 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the other problems, it was created by User:Chloride who has been banned. Some of you may want to check his other contributions as well. Academic Challenger 21:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; have gone over most of his/her edits and reverted them, tagging most of the rest as dubious. Given quality of Chloride's contributions in general, I think erring on the side of removal is justified. Fourohfour 13:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable product ~~in any case.~~ DGG 04:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected about the value of a possible article. DGG 00:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's an article waiting to be written about DynaCell, but this ain't it. DynaCell was actually a trademark belong to, Circuit Semantics an electronics company based in San Jose. I'm going to guess they died and East Penn manufacturing snapped up the brand. Chris Croy 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain When i have the time to do the research im going to create a better article on the company, Including history and photos of the battery package (they do sell them at a nearby dollar store, and they are as described in the article.) I have a picture if anyone is interested, but the picture quality is poor wich is why i havent incuded it in the article. when I make the full article i will be starting from scratch. I have personally tested the batteries, and under similar loads and conditions, they are having a life expectancy of 1/12th that of energizer. (lasting 12 hours powering a small led fashlight, compared to 140-150 with energizer) Enigmar 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nothing has been put forth indicating that the book itself is notable, though the subject may be. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp[edit]

Non-notable book; article also has a misleading title, as the book does not appear to have been published in English. Suggest that this article be merged into Jasenovac concentration camp and deleted, unless evidence of notability is provided. —Psychonaut 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors: remember that this is not a vote and that your advocacy for keeping or deleting this article must be supported with reference to relevant Wikipedia policies. The closing admin should be aware that this article touches on a politically charged subject about which many editors may have strong feelings, and should therefore be careful to examine not only the !votes but the rationales. —Psychonaut 12:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as none of the links provided describe the importance of the book, but provide information on its subject. KJS 77 19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All published books are notable.--Clearspeak 23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC) — Clearspeak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No, they are not. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (books). —Psychonaut 14:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the book has been published. ISBN: 9789958471025. The publisher: The Congress of Bosniak Intellectuals, in Sarajevo (2006). Thanks. Bosniak 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can the editors above link to the policy or guideline that says that published books are notable? Because there are likely one hundred million published books in the history of the world (excluding self-published books). --Charlene 01:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can the editor above link to the policy or guideline that says that published books are not notable? Because there are likely more than one hundred million articles on the English Wikipedia, and there does not seem to be any shortage of photons in the world that would hamper the energy supply of Wikipedia.--Clearspeak 06:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment While one would need to be rather naive to think the Clearspeak user is truly a new independent voice here, the question posed can be answered by reading the criteria given by wiki policy which follows. The real question is quite simple. Does the book meet this criteria? If so, how?

Accordinig to wiki policy... quote: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

The book has been the subject ^[1] of multiple, non-trivial^[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,^[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
- The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.^[4]
The book has won a major literary award.
The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.^[5]
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.^[6]

The book has not been the subject of multiple published works. This book has not won a major literary award. This book has not been made into a motion picture. This book is not the subject of instruction at multiple schools. The author is not historically significant. So why continue arguing to keep the article as is, when there is an apparent consensus that the article would be accepted if it were on the topic not the book? Those who want so dearly to have this article can easily re-write it as several have suggested such that it is on the topic with the book as a reference. As it stands now, this book does not meet wiki notability standards and if accepted it opens the door for books of far less credibility. There is a standard for a reason and it cuts both ways. Fairview360 18:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment Yes, but Wikipedia wisely leaves the door open to a case based on other criteria when it inserts the qualifier "generally". Is it really an absolute that the work can be considered notable if its author is historically significant even if the work itself is trivial or worthless while a work that is the sole accessible work by a respected author dealing with a historically significant event or situation is not notable? The reason why we have the expression "Rules are made to be broken" is because we are supposed to be intelligent beings with recourse to judgment and common sense.

I have no argument with the case that turning the article into one about the subject rather than about the book would be reasonable, although others appear keen to have it deleted without reservation or to have the subject lost in the general article on Jasenovac. But that suggests that the status quo is intolerable and action needs to be taken. The question is why has this article been targeted for action when its content is agreed by a reasonable proportion of respondents to be significant in its substance even if not in its form.

This article has been targeted for action when many other articles of relative triviality are completely ignored. This is one of the issues with Wikipedia. It is not subject to a systematic review process and consequently rule enforcement often carries with it the suspicion of arbitrariness or an agenda. This article could have been left in its present form to take its turn in a process of review based on the practical usefulness of the article, its relative ranking in terms of triviality - perhaps dare I say it, an article dealing with crimes and atrocities of current relevance has the right to a degree of forbearance whatever its formal failings - and the realistic likeliness of this article serving as a precedent for a general process of trivialisation. --Opbeith 21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is the question here? Bosniaks were taken to the Jasenovac Concentration Camp. Maybe not as much as Serbs were, but there is proof that they were taken to jasenovac. Can someone present a real argument against these books besides simply saying "let's question them and maybe this way the 'third view' parties will delete the article". These are books with evidence in them, not 'novels' written by amateurs. Vseferović 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is not about the content of the book (i.e., whether the events described are true or notable), but whether the book itself meets the notability standards set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). —Psychonaut 14:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the book is a significant one. The atrocities at Jasenovac were not only a significant element in the history of World War II, controversy over the precise details of what happened continues to feed into inter-communal conflict in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. The subject of the title is an aspect of Jasenovac that I have not seen covered elsewhere. Bosniaks were not the major victim community at Jasenovac and the treatment of what happened at Jasenovac in the main article will inevitably focus on what happened to others (particularly given the determination of some editors to summarise and reduce the length and complexity of Wikipedia articles). So I would strongly oppose a merger with the main Jasenovac article.

[Paragraph deleted. Psychonaut, you believe that my questioning of the reasons for this proposal being submitted has no bearing on the discussion and so I should delete this paragraph. I disagree with you but I believe the other arguments in favour of retaining this article are sufficient as they stand.]

Psychonaut is correct in saying that this book is not written in English. Which means that I don't have access to the information it contains. And I would find it difficult to access the article if the title were given in its untranslated version. I hope that the article will be further developed in order to provide me with more otherwise inaccessible information about its subject, its author and the context of its publication. --Opbeith 09:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That the subject of the book is significant is irrelevant. The article in question is about the book, not about the subject of the book, and therefore the Wikipedia:Notability (books) policy applies. —Psychonaut 14:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's significance is relevant when you are suggesting that the article's content should be subsumed into the main Jasenovac article where it may be be lost and certainly will be more difficult to locate. The book is also significant in that at present it is for practical purposes the embodiment of the subject. An alternative to having this book as the subject of an article would be to keep the article but restyle it as a general article whose content is, for the time being at least, entirely drawn from the content of the book. I think we're starting to drift into the realm of discussing angels dancing on pinheads. --Opbeith 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Without taking into consideration angels dancing on pinheads; perhaps one option could be to have a general article on Bosniaks in the Jasenovac concentration camp, using the book as a major source/resource for information and references? Gardenfli 03:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jasenovac concentration camp; the subject of the book is a significant one, like Opbeith said. I don't see, however, that the book is a significant one. I fail to see how it satisfies WP:BK#Academic books; if anyone can demonstrate otherwise, I might change my opinion (but the burden of proof is on the one who wants to include the contents). Duja► 08:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duja, thanks for the reference to the guidelines on the notability of academic works, which are to be treated differently to general and fictional works. I find the following advice: "Try not to apply guidelines reflexively; as if they are written in stone. All deletion discussions should be approached on a case-by-case basis, with an eye toward the peculiar circumstances presented. Keep in mind that subjects are not notable because they meet a particular standard, rather things are notable because of their impact, influence, fame, etc., and the standards are an attempt to catalogue that which notable subjects share so that we can recognize that notability." [51] I suggest that the case advanced that this book is an academic work which is a unique and respected contribution in a significant subject area enables it to satisfy the guidelines for notability. --Opbeith 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as NN, with not a single reference to the book from any source whatsoever. The article itself is clearly about the overall subject --not even about the specific subject at the book, which I assume is this particular camp, , but about the genocide of Bosniaks back through World War II. Refs 2 & 3 are to the general subject and irrelevant. Ref 1 is to the listing of the book in an online bookstore. DGG 01:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore points previously mentioned such as the fact that the original title is not in English but that this English rendering of the title and the article itself help inform us that a treatment of the subject exists. I thought librarians were supposed to be helpful, information facilitators rather than rule enforcers. --Opbeith 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless, as Gardenfli suggests, the article is revised such that it is about the topic, not the book. Otherwise, wikipedia becomes amazon.com without the option to buy. Why this book and not every other book about a worthy topic? Is wikipedia going to have an article for each and every worthy book out there? Fairview360 04:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenfli has chosen to keep this article and your anti-Bosniak sentiment is nothing new. I always wonder, why do people have so much hate against certain groups. It's really sad. Bosniak 01:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked yet again for this. Duja► 07:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Bosniak was against victimhood politics as he calls it? In any case, yes, as all can see, Gardenfli has voted to keep the article and she has offered an alternative which is have a general article on Bosniaks in the Jasenovac concentration camp, using the book as a source/resource for information and references. If the article were written such (ie. were on the topic rather than the book), then, whatever sentiments I may or may not have, I would vote "keep".Fairview360 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the book is cited with its title given in both Bosnian and English as a significant reference in an English-language review of the subject at http://www.bosnjaci.net/egt.php?id=1169&polje=. A Cincinnatti Enquirer story by Cameron McWhirter at Enquirer.com includes an interview with Nihad Halilbegovic seeking his views on the outcome of the Dayton Agreement as "the Bosnian government's secretary for invalids around Sarajevo" (a translation suggesting ministerial responsibilities - can a Bosnian speaker please investigate and confirm?), suggesting that he is a figure of sufficient substance and authority to distinguish his writings from the general run of the mill at Wikizon.com - http://www.enquirer.com/bosnia/stories/bosnia0421.html --Opbeith 11:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is Web Magazine at Bosnjaci.net; actually, not entire article is devoted to the book, but to the subject of Muslim victims in Jasenovac in general. In the other, Halilbegovic has a passing mention as a government official in an unrelated story. No one here is suggesting that he's not competent on the issue or that the book is fringe, just that its relevance and notability is (quite) iffy. Duja► 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making was that the book was cited in the Bosnjaci.net article as a significant reference on the subject. Hence the book's claim to a degree of notability. --Opbeith 13:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is not explicitly stated in the Enquirer article it is not unreasonable to assume that Halilbegovic was being interviewed about the impact of the settlement imposed by the 1995 Dayton Agreement - ie the division of Bosnia between the ethnic communities - because of his responsibility for the invalid victims of the crimes against humanity that had been perpetrated by the Romanija Corps of the Bosnian Serb Army in their deliberate targeting of the predominantly Bosniak civilian population of Sarajevo and the surrounding area. The history of the atrocities perpetrated against Serbs by the Ustashe at Jasenovac is often referred to by way of explaining and even justifying what might be described as the Bosnian Serbs' "proactive self-defence" between 1992 and 1995 as part of which Stanislav Galic and others committed the war crimes and other atrocities against Bosniaks that so massively inflated the invalid population of the Sarajevo area. The research contained in this book poses a significant challenge to a part of the substance of those explanations and justifications that remains particularly valid while Dragomir Milosevic's trial continues at The Hague and pending the detention and trial of radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. I'm not arguing that this interview is a determining factor in conferring notability, just another element to be taken into account. --Opbeith 15:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete as nominator. —Psychonaut 12:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per guidelines established in WP:NOTE#General_notability and WP:NOT#IINFO, what makes this book notable? This book should be used as a reference in the Jasenovac concentration camp article.// laughing man 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 14:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Challenge[edit]

Promotion of non-notable web page that purports to track cash-based awards offered for various challenges, no independent citations provided. Spam. Ronnotel 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable website. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really notable, but i'll rescue onto Internet Wikia. Rysin3 21:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulceby Cross[edit]

Subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline. Requests for additional information have gone unanswered. Thebisch 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is about a street intersection and traffic circle; not about an artifact, a heraldic device, or anything else the title might suggest. No notability shown. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete it's a roundabout. Nothing more. DarkAudit 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable roundabout. MER-C 01:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Avalon 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this is encyclopedic. --El on ka 12:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slavlin 04:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by me as WP:CSD#G11 (spam). —dgies^t_c 22:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma bolton[edit]

Spam bio of author of one book, see also related afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Udston Pit Disaster Hamilton 28th May 1887 Tim! 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Tagged as such. DarkAudit 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn Tim! 07:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Udston Pit Disaster Hamilton 28th May 1887[edit]

Probably a valid topic for an article, but this is just spam for the book of Wilma bolton, see related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilma bolton. Tim! 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Tagged as such. DarkAudit 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Much better! DarkAudit 22:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a notable incident. It is far more helpful to the Project to clean these up than delete them. ~~I'm on the job ...~~ TerriersFan 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The incident may be notable, but the article was written with no other purpose than to promote the book. The article cuts off with the line: "More details can be found in the acclaimed book by local Historian Wilma Bolton The book is entitled Black Faces and Tackety Boots'". The article needs to be completely scrapped and rewritten if it's to be kept. DarkAudit 21:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now cleaned up. It's for others to say, but I reckon that, though more work is obviously needed, I have done enough to remove the spam concern. TerriersFan 21:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, excellent WP:HEY by TerriersFan. Notable as a major disaster and loss of life.--Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced polyphase systems[edit]

Copy'n'paste (and not a great one at that) from AC power (or perhaps some external website that got it from that article). I don't think this needs its own article, nor is this splitoff linked from that parent article. The idea is viable, but this article would need some (maybe a lot) of context to be a stand-alone page, may as well leave it in the context of its parent. DMacks 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a cut and paste from the aforementioned article. Totally pointless to duplicate a section of an article with a stand-alone article. Edison 20:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Someguy1221 07:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a complete mess and the information is elsewhere. Keep if extensivly expanded Think outside the box 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 14:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday Called Off[edit]

Non-notable; no useful text (e.g. contributors unnamed, arguments not given) William M. Connolley 19:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found at least a couple of independent reviews from reliable sources, but the article is clearly a stub and it should be annotated with citations. Also, FWIW, this topic (global warming) is somewhat contentious - I suggest we error on the side of caution to make sure all sides of the debate are heard from. Ronnotel 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please provide those sources and prove Bill wrong, if you wouldn't mind. Someguy1221 07:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You can watch it online at Google Video. It's not a particularly good documentary, IMO, but I can't see any reason not to keep the article. It could easily be expanded to present the points that are mentioned in the movie. Bueller 007 05:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no prejudice against the topic, but we have no sources establishing notability of this particular program. Wikipedia is not a directory of argumentation in debates. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of assertion of notability, the only possible assertion is propaganda from the station that aired it. Someguy1221 07:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 883,000 google hits says this is a bad faith nom--RCT 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
883k google hits says you forgot to put quotes around it. If you can find any notable reviews of it, please put them onto the article page William M. Connolley 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no assertion of notability. Guettarda 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, no notability Vsmith 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: garbagey. --BozMo talk 11:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is said that it's "Non-notable; no useful text (e.g. contributors unnamed, arguments not given)." But articles on the movies, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure and Transylvania 6-5000 currently are not being considered for deletion from Wikipedia. Why, because those are notable or useful? A Google search on the title of the film in question yields hundreds if not thousands of hits. Most anyone versed in the prolific debate on global warming has an opinion on the film. Why not allow the next newcomer to that debate begin to form his or her own opinion here? --Contontos 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)— Contontos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Someguy1221 07:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starsiege: 2845[edit]

I'm not entirely sure that this is notable - besides, there are no sources Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a wave of internal links, and no sources. DarkAudit 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just incase the game is picked up again. Perhaps a merger into the Starsiege entry? Seems a shame to just outright delete it... --Tarage 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Canceled game, no reputable citations in article. Smee 10:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Slavlin 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 17:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winterkids[edit]

This may not be notable enough to warrant it's own article. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this one seems to meet WP:MUSIC based on media mentions and touring - they've played SxSW [52] [53], have been written up by Teen Vogue (the second link there, as a short mention) and Spin.com [54], as well as a review by Pitchfork Media [55] - based on a quick search. The article needs work, better refs, and all the quotes yanked out in favour of links to reviews, but to me (and I'm pretty tough on bands), they seem to make it. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article reads like an advert and needs a massive cleanup of all POV and COI to make it acceptable by out standards, but the subject of the article is notable under the terms of WP:Music for reasons mentionned above. A1octopus 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trebor 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.[edit]

Procedural nomination. It has previously been tagged as blatant advertising, but it isn't completely promotional or non-notable. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to KEEP article -- I volunteer to take the first cut at its re-write.

The Ball article has over 40 links to it, 95% of which are aerospace industry related links. Ball has and still is producting satellites for NASA and DOD. The first 3 paragraphs are not written well for Wikipedia. Of the many contributors to this article, one of them should step forward for the re-write...maybe the person who mark this article for deletion could take the first cut, too. The impact of deleting this article would leave those links as unreferenced/not cited properly/stubbed articles.

I will look at other aerospace contractor articles and use some of the styles of writing found in them and start there. Respectfully submitted,LanceBarber 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- if I read the history file correctly, an unregistered editor, IP 67.101.163.82, marked the article for deletion. Wonder why this person does not want to share their identity.LanceBarber 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you" to User:Fleminra for jumping in a doing the first cut. LanceBarber 05:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, company is notable for its prominent work in aerospace. (As a defense contractor it is definitely second-tier.) Article should be better referenced, but that's a cleanup issue. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very appropriate article and at this point free from commercial spam. DGG 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company seems notable. It's hard to claim that a top-100 defence contractor isn't worth an article. The article itself could certainly be better. There might even be an argument that a single article on the parent Ball Corp. would be enough, if there is not enough third-party coverage of the defence contractor's activities. Most likely it will be possible to dig up enough info, though. EdJohnston 03:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A1 (short article / no context). —dgies^t_c 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“ 闇に惑いし哀れな影よ・・・人を傷つけ貶めて、罪に溺れし業の魂・・・　いっぺん、死んで見る?[edit]

This is a nice story, but I don't think Wikipedia is about collecting random stories without background information. -- Prince Kassad 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for several reasons: The title is not in English, it seems to be either non-notable and/or completely made up, and it has no sources. KJS 77 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the description of an anime show, Jigoku Shōjo. Redirect to that title. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. There is virtually no way someone on the English Wikipedia will ever get to this article except by the Random button, so a redirect is not warranted. DarkAudit 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that you mention it, I notice most of the article is copied from the Story caption of Jigoku Shōjo. -- Prince Kassad 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per KJS Blueboy 96 20:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as having no context. I have no idea what they're talking about, and I don't even know what the title of the article says. --Haemo 21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. There may be a topic here, but it is not being communicated. --EMS | Talk 21:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Why is this even up for debate? I would've just used the ((speedy)) tag. --Kimon^talk 22:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jigoku Shōjo 132.205.44.134 22:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete duplicates material at Jigoku Shojo. 132.205.44.134 22:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being with Dying[edit]

Nonnotable counseling program, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 20:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May make a decisive "vote" later, but my initial thoughts are: would a merge into Joan Halifax be appropriate? →Ed Gl 22:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independant information about the article's subject; I see no availible reliable sources to build a verifiable article around. I am not convinced that Joan Halifax has enough reliable sources to build an encyclopedia article around either, but that is a discussion for another day...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above but also copyvio of http://upaya.org/htmls/BeingDyingHome.html Kernel Saunters 20:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent third-party sources. Can't judge the notability without them. EdJohnston 03:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Life Quality Depending on IQ[edit]

No hits on Yahoo or Google, unless I missed something. A likely hoax. Blueboy 96 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So, if I understood this article right, smart people are more likely to be successful and....people who live in more developed countries are more likely to be successful. I got the same grand total of 0 ghits, probably just someone's own little theory to quantify the obvious. Someguy1221 07:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research / hoax. —dgies^t_c 17:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sheesh. JJL 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there may be some validity to the claim but can't find anything about "ILQDIQ" - unsourced and probably a hoax Think outside the box 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. andy 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete My theory is that someone got a wierd text message and tried to write a wikipedia article to explain it. Slavlin 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Trebor 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moniclave and Chandrulox[edit]

Non-notable or non-existent piece of Friends trivia. No references or google hits. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non-notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calliopejen1 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete only visible in a deleted seen, never really mentionned. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g12, copyright violation (thanks, Blueboy!). NawlinWiki 04:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearwater Chargers[edit]

Amateur youth soccer club in Florida. Successful club, but our precedent is that nonprofessional clubs aren't considered notable. NawlinWiki 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaning toward keeping it, since there are quite a few amateur soccer clubs in other countries with their own articles. However, after seeing it was a carbon copy of the team's history page, I must say speedy delete.Blueboy 96 22:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Trebor 11:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Landes-Levi[edit]

doesn't seem notable... she's translated some books and published chapbooks. i can't find third-party sources from a quick google search. Calliopejen1 21:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. The way the article is written makes me think a relative wrote it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article reads too much like advertising or promotion; it is almost a speedy deletion candidate. We need it to be written in neutral language, and we need independent third-party commentary about the importance of the work. However, in one of her poems found on the web, this was a good line: O the eagle's no longer happy to be The-Great-National Bird. "Put me on your flag," says the robin. EdJohnston 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Trebor 11:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Winkler[edit]

A bit actress, if her bio on IMDB is any indication. Not notable. Blueboy 96 22:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not famous enough to be notable Corpx 23:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KrakatoaKatie (talk • contribs) 07:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kidnappers[edit]

No assertion of notabality or sources. Article also has very little content.--St.daniel ^Talk 22:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This book actually does exist [56] but needs a ton of work to be a serviceable article.Blueboy 96 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - lots of books exist; no notability asserted for this particular book. --Haemo 22:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedy delete declined; leaving here for full debate. NawlinWiki 00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it doesn't assert any notability? There are literally billions of books - surely being a published book is not notable in and of itself? --Haemo 02:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish notability. ((db-a7)) does not apply to books. Jay32183 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced. I would say not a speedy, but the AFD has already run its course. Smee 10:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas A. Monteleone[edit]

No hits for this businessman or his supposed company on Google. Even without this to consider, notability is shaky at best. Blueboy 96 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - added speedy deletion tag —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corpx (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 14:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bootblack[edit]

This is not an encyclopaedia article; it is an essay, and a highly speculative, POV, and unsourced essay at that. More than half of the essay is about bootblacks, i.e. boys who shine (or shined) men's shoes. The last half or third of the essay is full of speculation about the place of the "bootblack" in homosexual leather culture, and how this might have originated. This was previously speedied, and I tagged it for speedy again, but was overruled by an administrator. So, I bring it here. Charles 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom.Blueboy 96 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously the current content is a problem, as it is at the least, unsourced, and written in a very essay-like style, but it's not grounds for a speedy deletion. I can see some usage of the term in the Leather-community sense [57][58],[59], and it's certainly got its own meaning simply as a shoe shiner, but there doesn't seem to be an article on shoe shiners. Whether or not there is enough potential for an article on that profession/practice I don't know, nor am I sure how extensive the usage in the fetish sense is. FrozenPurpleCube 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay, unusable material Alex Bakharev 00:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopeless jibber-jabber. ...much of the history of bootblacking has been lost to time, as should be this 'article'. Eddie.willers 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. It seems well written, but not a Wikipedia item. Slavlin 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no case for notability. Smee 09:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep & Improve It reads like an essay, but it is an article on a notable subject within the leather subculture. I'd go so far as to say stubify & rewrite, just don't delete an article that could be improved. To me, that runs counter to the goals of the project. --Ssbohio 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nckcym[edit]

No hits at all on Yahoo--seems to be a hoax. Blueboy 96 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not relevant Corpx 23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, and no verifiable or reliable sources. DarkAudit 02:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Should be WP:CSD for non-notable subject about a group. — Indon (reply) — 08:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count Estruc[edit]

→ See also: Count Estruc section on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

No reliable sources? The book listed is a real book, though how important it is, I don't know. But there are no English language sources for this supposed vampire, and the ones in Spanish and French look tentative. Corvus cornix 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not relevant Corpx 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources # Tali Carreto, "Dossier Vampirismo" Revista Freek, Cádiz (20 de febrer 2006)

Angel Gordon, El gran libro de los vampiros, Morales y Torres editores, S.L ISBN 978-84-96106-49-9
Miguel C. Aracil.Vampiros, mito y realidad de los no-muertos Editorial Edaf, S.A. ISBN: 8441412421

--Estruch 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, please. --Estruch 12:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google searches for '"Count Estruc" vampire -wikipedia' and '"Count Estruch" vampire -wikipedia' yielded precisely 2 (two) hits each. — Athaenara 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. Add my vote against the deletion of an article we are not sure about its fiction. --Otermin 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- You can read this discussion to get some background. MER-C 13:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since I have been following the discussion at WP:COIN, this topic has begun to seem more and more unreal. The very late appearance of proposed sources in Spanish, that I can't check myself in a local library, doesn't sway me from a 'delete' verdict. The probable (though not admitted) COI disinclines me to trust further statements by the article creator. EdJohnston 16:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and COI tainted. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, pleaseBokpasa 14:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Without prejudice to the AFD on the Catalan Wikipedia, the fact that sources for this article are only in Spanish suggest that this so-called legend (if notable at all) is definitely not notable outside Spain and therefore should not have an article on the English Wikipedia. A1octopus 17:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments[edit]

In catalan Wikipedia this article is now is being considered for deletion (like here), and in Spanish wiki is delete.--Britzingen 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many strange. This user only speak about this question in all the wikis. Many strange. This user only speak about this question in all the wikis. — 62.57.217.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:32, May 15, 2007 (UTC) (UTC).

Yes, but you (User -62.57.217.118) speak about the same in all the wikis, but you don´t have name, only a IP. Why? Too easy, you are Salvador sainz, or a friend of Salvador sainz, and you try to promote for no deletion in Catalan wiki[60] and I suppose that you try the same here. This is a deletion page, so don´t disturb and if you want to tell me something, go to my user page here, in Spanisw Wiki or in catalan Wiki. Is ok for you? And maybe, dear User -62.57.217.118, you need to see my user page [61] and you can see that I have a lot of contributions in spanish wiki and not only about Count Estruch. Can you say the same? Oh, I don´t think so. Wikipedia is not a forum, never attack me in a deletion page or something similar.Thanks. --Britzingen 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find such article as a deletable item. It worth to be included as a stub but as a legend it should and must be present in Wiki. Just my 2 cents. --Otermin 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it may not be a real legend. The sources are very weak. We don't like to keep information in the encyclopedia that could be pure fiction. It would be better just to read the novel by Salvador Sainz. EdJohnston 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psi Delta[edit]

Individual chapter of Alpha Phi Omega, no reason for having own wikipedia entry for a non-notable chapter Justinm1978 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Alpha Phi Omega since no independent sources provided showing notability. Bridgeplayer 21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable Corpx 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the chapter were involved in some controversy, or in a current event (Delta Zeta's Delta Chapter comes to mind), then an article may (or may not) be appropriate. As it stands, though - Non-Notable. ZZ 02:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Ostad[edit]

Non-notable plastic surgeon. Having a lawsuit filed against you does not make you notable. PRODded, PROD removed by original author. Corvus cornix 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has not had 1 lawsuit. I think he has had 13, legal action by Botox, and lost of medical license.Newcolex 23:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I oppose deletion until there is a proper review at the BLP. I submitted it for BLP review immediately after writing the article. If wikipedia does not want an article because it is negative (even if well referenced), then I will abide by the decision without further review or fuss. BLP review may generate suggestions or edits from other editors. If there are no useful BLP comments, then I support AfD listing only after the article remains for 5 days (which is the PROD time period).

This article was in place less than 20 minutes when it was AfD listed. Too short!Newcolex 23:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actual news sources are next to nil. Of the 20 citations (actually more like 10, since the user didn't user REFNAME tags): Seven come from court document PDFs (lending an unhealthy whiff of WP:OR), and three are the same URL ending in .exe, which I'm totally not going to click on to find out what it is. And one of the cites clearly does not support the statement the article uses it to support ("There are news reports about alleged unsatisfactory care by Ostad regaring [sic] patient Tanya"), and in fact says something neutral or OPPOSITE (that Ostad is an okay doc who treated Tanya), so the whole article seems a little like a bad-faith POV create to me. Getting sued a lot and being a bad doctor are not sufficient proof of notability. Ford MF 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comment: Shouldn't *.exe "references" be removed pronto? — Athaenara 07:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Ford MF 14:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a question of whether Wikipedia does or doesn't want negative articles, as the author of the article is implying on the BLP page. (Also, as far as I know, there's no 'minimum age' for an article to be on AfD, nor does the author (or anyone else) get to state the terms for it to be discussed here). There are big verifiability issues here, in my view. Mainly primary sources are used, and some unreliable secondary sources - that's it. If the article was backed by an article about this guy in, say, the New York Times, it would be different - but as Ford MF stated above, there are no reliable secondary sources to be found. --Joanne B 09:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; being sued by a major multinational corporation makes you notable, and the article has reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 21:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something, but could you point me to the reliable secondary sources that are listed in the article? There are plenty of primary sources, and one could argue that those are reliable, but that would make it original research. --Joanne B 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I created majormultinationalcorporationsux.com, and they went to court to get a case and desist order against me, I can be in Wikipedia, too? Corvus cornix 23:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not verified -Doc^g 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Notability not established. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griddlers Solver with Animator[edit]

Delete - No notability is even attempted to be established. Page created as spam for a product frequently removed from nonograms article as spammer and continuously put back by owner of the website in question. Person who created this article also placed it back in the article against consensus and has no edit history other than doing so, clear sockpuppet of previous spammer, User:Jsimlo (not user name's similarity to name of website URL, and he has admitted it's his software he is promoting. DreamGuy 23:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article, because I feel it is notable to the problem of solving Nonogram puzzles with computer. I am gathering and preparing data for my bachelor work. I am not an expert, but yet I have not found this kind of alogrithm anywhere else yet. Yes there is other software that tries to solve this puzzle, but they work a bit differently with different results. Also some are notable for their gains as well and I would want to write about one of them as well, after this is resolved.

I believe that the User:DreamGuy is twisting the policies here, pushing his POV and pushing his personal feelings because:

He seems to have personal issues with User:Jsimlo (the author of the Griddlers Solver with Animator) all over the Nonograms history. My guess is that this is just another step in a longer crusade.
He fails to recognize the importance of attempts to solve nonograms by a computer algorithm. Example: Talk:Nonogram#Links, AGAIN.
He removes external links in good faith of removing spam, however, in this case he is trying to delete, what might not be a spam. I have been given an approval from User:Majorly, who apparently thinks this software might be worth of keeping.

Therefore, I believe that User:DreamGuy is pushing his own POV, which does not include any kind of algorithm for solving the Nonogram puzzles, even those that were mentioned by other people as well. And I believe he is pushing his own personal feeling towards User:Jsimlo, accusing me of being a sock puppet of him.

I claim to be no sockpuppet of User:Jsimlo, though my history is small and it started with writting about Jsimlo's software. Give it back 12:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google hits for "Griddlers Solver with Animator" are merely directory entries, and there are no hits on Google News Archive or LexisNexis. The program may be innovative, but that doesn't count as a claim to notability in Wikipedia terms; the program needs to have been covered by independent secondary sources, and apparently hasn't been. EALacey 13:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about this [62]? Freeware Guide pages do not list poor software. Give it back 15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only 20 Google hits, seemingly all from freeware directories or mirrors of this article, or from its creator's own site. No evidence of any coverage by reliable sources. -- The Anome 16:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not right since searching for "Griddlers Solver" only [63] gives much more hits than 20, a lot of them even in different languages. Give it back 18:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The shorter search term does produce some relevant extra results, but I can still only find directory entries and a small number of brief mentions on personal sites. Mentions like these are generally considered too trivial to indicate notability. Can you indicate any reliable sources that have discussed the program in more detail? For example, if it's been reviewed by a magazine or a website with editorial oversight, that could be used to show notability. EALacey 18:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have not searched all the returned links yet (doing this was never my intention in the first place, it just happened, sigh), but all I have found (searched the english only) was directories, blogs or forums. No magazines. Though, I have found Softpedia report here[64], they seem to review software. And directories report amount of download hits, thus the software has some base of its users. Looking at other articles in Category:Freeware, I think the Griddlers Solver keep up with a lot of them, doesn't it? I do not understand spanish or italian, but there are a lot of articles in these languages. Since the author does not speak any of these languages (according to his CV[65]) they must have been written by other people. Give it back 21:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think some information about using algorithms to solve nonograms would be useful, but I'm not sure an article dedicated to this one piece of software is the right way to go about it. There was a big discussion in the Telegraph letters pages back in 2003 about using programming as a solving mechanism. I tmay be worth either adding a section to the nonograms article or having a new article solving nonograms by computer or similar. Tim (Xevious) 09:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was already entered into the main nonograms article. And there'saboslutely no justification for a whole new article about computer solving, as it's not any different from how people solve them (that's kind of the point, if the person can;t solve them thn it's no fun to play), and I'm sure our little dedicated spammer would just try to convert it into talking about his own software and ignoring all the other computer programs out there doing the same thing (and better, I might add). DreamGuy 13:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very small paragraph about nonograms in computer science in the main nonogram article. I think that this ought to be expanded and reworded at the very least. Also, please assume good faith when referrring to others' edits. Tim (Xevious) 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a significant section there already and is probably already more than it really needs to be. But this isn't the place to discuss what should go on other articles, it's to discuss the very unrepentant spammy article up for deletion. As far as assuming good faith, the person who created it is a very clear sockpuppet whose only edits have been spamming that site and harassing other editors/vandalizing user pages. He also admits to being a "friend" of the person whose site the article is spam for, which is immediate evidence of meatpuppeting. Assume good faith is for situations that are not clear abuse at work, and everything that editor has ever done is abuse of the system.DreamGuy 18:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Majorly (talk · contribs) with summary This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense (CSD G1). This non-admin closure was brought to you by →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victory tingle[edit]

Silly neologism with 0 ghits. Trying to coin a term, are we? Coren 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G1 (patent nonsense) on the basis of WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Will (aka Wimt) 00:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note it has already been deleted under this once before and recreated. Will (aka Wimt) 00:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Submitter states flat-out that the purpose was to popularize this newly-created term. "Violation" of WP:NFT. --Finngall ^talk 00:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - My reading of G1 doesn't fit: it's coherent nonsense. Very much WP:NFT but that makes it AfD fodder, not speedy. I think. Coren 00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Well then, oops. Sorry Wiki, and might I add, man you guys are fast at that picking these out.Brian Mattocjk 00:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. W.marsh 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time Space Visualiser[edit]

Unnotable fanzine. Anytime your printing method is photocopying you know you're not exactly Time Magazine. The article creator does have a detailed defense on the article talk page. Herostratus 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate keep. Fairly notable on the NZ science fiction scene - would be one of the country's top two or three fan publications. Award-winning at national level. If not kept, then a merge into the New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club would be far more appropriate than an outright deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There aren't any sources establishing notability. Jay32183 02:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails noteability. The Doctor Who fandom article already covers fanzines and fan groups without the need for separate articles for each and every one. --The Missing Hour 10:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Doctor Who fandom. This magazine is probably not individually notable, but the fan scene as a whole is. EALacey 13:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banana cream pie[edit]

I don't think Wikipedia is a cookbook. Not to mention the article is poorly written. TV-VCR watch 05:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ Keep- 226,000 ghits, clearly a notable type of pie. Get someone to rewrite it, then. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 05:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghit? As in Google? --TV-VCR watch 05:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What speedy keep criterion are you referring to, Wooty? --Iamunknown 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize, I was under the impression SK was used in clear cases (e.g. with precedent, such as what JJL pointed out below). Clearly we should have an article on this kind of pie, but SK was inappropriate. Changed. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clearly we should have an article on this kind of pie - agreed. It does, however, need to be cleaned up. --Iamunknown 22:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Wikibooks Cookbook. There's precedent for moving recipes. There's not much encyclopedic content to work with to make an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See e.g. Chocolate creme pie, Chocolate Apple Pie, Mock apple pie (all redirects). At the very least, redirect it to Cream pie. JJL 21:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per MacGyverMagic/MGM. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL. Like with cocktails, pies are different from one another based on what's in it; therefore, including the "recipe" (actually just the ingredients, as a recipe would include more detailed baking instructions) is relevant and we should ignore the rules on this one. Slic e NYC (Talk) 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - other kinds of pie linked from the main Pie article have their own articles, including Apple pie, which has a pretty good history of the topic. I'm surprised that this article isn't linked from Pieing, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to cream pie. The current article sports only poorly sourced claims; other cream pies redirect to cream pie (Chocolate creme pie, Coconut cream pie), which certainly has space for specific information about notable varieties. I don't see anything worth a transwiki. — Scientizzle 22:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable article. Tastes good, too. --Eastmain 04:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only is it a good dessert dish, but there's a lot of potential for references in popular culture. There have been SO many Looney Tunes reels that have involved the use of a banana cream pie as a practical joke.--WaltCip 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Williams[edit]

Actor that won a regional award (the Golden Apple) for Best Supporting Actor in a Musical. All the article is unsourced. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source link for the theatre indicates that this supporting actor "award" is nothing more than a local, amateur, community theatre group honoring it's own performers every year. It is not an accomplishment in professional theatre, as the article purports. And the other "awards" are for high school competition. Nothing here meets Wikipedia standards of notability.--208.127.115.247 11:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as failing WP:MYSPACE, WP:BIO, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOT. I also suggest that it falls under WP:COI, or WP:OR if you assume good faith - the sources in the article only mention his Golden Apple and his debating awards, yet there is a lot of biographical info in this article that seems to be coming from the author. Note, I personally cut away a lot of the content before this AfD began (stuff that I thought egregiously violated WP:NPOV and WP:LIVING), and I asked the original author to provide references, providing him a list of Wikipedia policies that the he should try to meet, letting him know that the article was in danger of AfD as it stood back then. He has been editing the article over the past day, and thinks he's fixed it (as he took down all my warning boxes), but I guess he simply can't find enough sources to back the article up to the level Wikipedia requires. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - if you look in the history you'll note I originally ((prod))ded the article. Eastmain found a couple sources for it and let me know, and then I removed the ((prod)) because the original writer had come back and started working on the article. I wanted to give him a chance to clean it up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I commend you for your patience with the author. You're clearly dealing in good faith and making every effort to allow the author to meet Wikipedia standards. But I think it's equally clear that you two are working at cross purposes. While your goal is to have the article conform to standards, the author's rather obvious goal is to post an (auto)biography. Headings like "Early Life" and "Family" prove as much. And at the end of the day, I suspect, the result will be the same. Simply because nothing in the article rises to the level of notability. So no amount of editing/rewriting can address what simply isn't there. I've discussed this in detail on your talk page, so there's no sense in beating the dead horse more here. But ultimately I'll leave it as your call. Although I must say that I can't even name another editor who would be this generous. And as you know, it's probably only a matter of time before someone else does end it. But again, kudos to you.--208.127.115.247 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was just giving background info above. As you see up there, I also voted delete, as I do think the article fails notability as it stands. I just didn't want to be the person to actually instigate the AfD on this article. But I agree with everything you've said. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote --Infrangible 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --208.127.115.247 03:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for utter failure to establish notability wrt wiki standards. Eddie.willers 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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