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

The result was Delete, beneath the massive storm of single-purpose accounts lies zero keep votes. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Online[edit]

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

This has been discussed twice previously (first nomination, second), and I feel that there were several problems with the previous nominations. There are still no independent, reliable sources for this game. While perhaps every sentence needn't be cited, notability needs to be established. And it has not been here, despite a great deal of concern. It fails every applicable criterion. In previous nominations, some claimed that it met WP:WEB criterion 3, which I see no evidence of. While this much concern should've generated some level of sourcing, this has not happened. The article should be deleted as nonnotable. Eyrian 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Oh, it has been up for afd before? Oops, I had prod'd it on 9th of May :/ My comment then was: No independent references, no assertion of notability (WP:ATT and WP:Notability). I ran a google search but only came up with the usual user-written review sites like gameogre; no professionally written articles or reviews. Prod was removed by an anonymous user without comment. Marasmusine 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, reading wwwwolf's comments on the first AfD concerning the high number of players, I hasten to point out that popularity is not notability. Marasmusine 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD A7 - no assertion of notability is made anywhere in the article in any way, even unsourced. See also ((db-web)). Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Still has value. Culverin? ^Talk 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? Please reference Wikipedia policy or guidelines. --Eyrian 05:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, it has some references to keep it going, but only to keep it going. Elfin341 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Forget it. I checked multiple times and there are no independent references. fails WP:WEB.--Elfin341 00:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Failed to find any reliable secondary sources discussing the subject. JulesH 16:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, delete - Another article that cannot provide reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. DarkSaber2k 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, keep - Sources have been added. --Anonymous 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC) — 66.138.98.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  They are sources, yes, but not independent or reliable. They do not, therefore, suffice for notability. --Eyrian 00:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree they are very reliable because there coming from a official sticky on the Endless Forums making it approved by the game developers. On another note they come from one of the earliest Endless players with much experience in the game and on the message boards. --Anonymous 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC) — 66.138.98.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I'll perhaps grant reliable, but they are still not independent. Which is what is required for notability. With no independent sources, the article does not possess the notability required for inclusion. --Eyrian 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hard to find a good independent source for a game in the Alpha Stages. I've edited the article a bit more hopefully more members of the Endless community can help out to fix it so it meets Wikipedia's standards. --Anonymous 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) — 66.138.98.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Your edits still do not make the subject notable. Please read WP:NOTE to determine what will. If it's hard to find an independent source because so few exist, an article shouldn't exist, either. --Eyrian 02:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no independent sources findable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whpq (talk • contribs).

• Strong, keepI have been an independant reporter on all things Endless-Online for well over a year with a daily reader base of well over a thousand members. There are at least 4 independant sites that report on Endless-Online regularly and it is referenced on a number of commercial gaming sites. In addition, a simple search with Google yields many credible outside references to this game which ought be considered.Wickedfrost 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC) — Wickedfrost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Care to supply a few links, because my search is just turning up fansites, directory sites and blogs. DarkSaber2k 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endless Links Theres plenty of independent sites listed right there. --Anonymous 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.98.89 (talk • contribs) — 66.138.98.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  So, fan sites, guild sites and personal websites of players? Funny defintion of 'independent' (They are independent of the games creators, but not independent from the game itself). Exactly the same as the un-independent sources I found when I looked. DarkSaber2k 08:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep its a shame these are still being deleted. I still don't agree that they have no place on WP. From what I can gather Endless has been around for years, is popular and is relatively notable as a semi commercial, long established, popular game. One of the worrying trends in all of these deletions is the tendency to discount non commercial sites as sources and only accept commercial sites as 'reliable sources' to be trusted. Some "3rd party" sources include: mmorog.com (a commercial site), gameogre Game of the week. Long established site with knowledge of these things, there's also the obligitory mopgd.com entry and a Gamefaqs page. Clearly notable enough for WP. Bjrobinson 10:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't get your first link (mmorpg.com) to load, and gameogre seems to principally consist of self-published content. I can't get mopgd.com to load, and Gamefaqs is also user-created content. Those simply will not suffice for notability. You should know, notability is not popularity. Those sources you listed are primarily user-generated content, or self-published anyway (being a popular site doesn't mean something is a reliable site). --Eyrian 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, GameOgres Game of the week award is just as unreliable as MPOGDs regular award, since it is voted for by visitors to the site, and most of the games can (and usually do) organise their fans to spam votes in the poll. A quick check on most web games message boards usually reveals a stickied thread dealing with such matters. As for Gamefaqs, what he (Eyrian) said!DarkSaber2k 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP Guidelines are just that, guidelines, when I first started editing here some years ago, these Notability guidelines were slowly introduced, basically to get rid of blogs and personal webpages, not popular notable things like communities and interesting games. One day perhaps we will go back to that, WP is not a written encyclopaedia and can be as big as we want it to be. You might as well continue deleting the whole category now then, because under current WP:Web only 3-4 of these games will meet such strict criteria. I bet in 5 years time we are putting these all back in. On another note actually i feel you are both wrong about GameOgre. And what about MMORGP?Bjrobinson 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, they are guidelines. And a compelling reason must be given as to why they should not be followed. I find the article in question to be low-quality, and a popular target for vandalism. That does not speak to me that an exception should be granted. The fundamental problem with trying to preserve "popular" things is that this means something very different in all cases. I don't think this game is popular. What makes your assertion fundamentally different from mine?

  These notability guidelines aren't derived ex nihilo, anyway. In order to preserve an encyclopedia that is both verifiable and neutral, things must be covered in reliable and independent sources. Reliability ensures verifiability, while independence ensures neutrality. As the sources here are not reliable and independent, they cannot be used to generate a verifiable and neutral article. Which is in violation of Wikipedia's core policies.

  And how am I wrong about GameOgre? --Eyrian 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is a guideline, but verfiability is policy, and there just does not seem to be any reliable sources to provide verifiability. -- Whpq 16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You make the assumption that anyone involved with the game can't be a credible source which means that eye witness testimony as a basis of fact within articles could not possibly be considered. With that reasoning you might as well just erase the section on the holocaust and let the Iranians win. http://endlessreport.xm.com/ may be based on a blog engine but that does not diminish the amount of research I put into the game to write my particular articles. If something is referenced to my site then it has been researched and the information valid.Wickedfrost 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC) — Wickedfrost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - Lacks multiple credible third-party sources which all articles must be based on. Wickethewok 04:48, 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 Withdrawn by nom, non-admin closure by me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triscuit[edit]

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

As far as I can see, this fails WP:N. It has had a prod removed by an anon user. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- the article is in terrible shape, but this is a legitimate cracker that has been around for years. Does not fail WP:N. -- MisterHand 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going with a Nuclear Powered Speedy Keep, on account of a huge advertising campaign ("Don't forget the Triscuit!"), millions upon millions of boxes of these things sold annually, scads of these things on my local supermarket's shelves, and many and sundry other reasons too numerous to list. In short, Triscuits are many things, but they are certainly not non-notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as obviously notable (I've heard of these things and I live in the UK) though the article desperately needs a cleanup. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --ROASTYTOAST 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - definitely sourcable - clean it up! --Haemo 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - My apologies...they haven't made it to Australia, hence my not knowing of them. This AfD may be closed now. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 01:46, 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 Speedy delete a7, MySpace band, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Moving Lights[edit]

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

Not referenced by reliable sources, unencylopedic tone, questionable notability. The only existing release mentioned in the article gets 4 Google hits apart from Wikipedia, which all seem self-published (including this BBC page, which "allows for "aspiring bands" to submit their data). Information about the second EP which "is scheduled for full release in March 2007!" can only be found on Wikipedia High on a tree 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non-notable band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MisterHand (talk • contribs) 00:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete patently fails WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. Philippe 02:21, 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 snowball delete. Sr13 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmological meaning of human life[edit]

Cosmological meaning of human life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A very large chunk of WP:OR. Despite having a long edit history, it's also incomprehensible in some places, and sometimes reads like it was auto-translated from another language. A number of sources, but they merely source items that are tangentally referred to. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like an essay of some sort, which falls into the WP:OR department. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- is very much original research. -- MisterHand 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete OR essay. Bucketload of sources do not prevent this from bbeing WP:SYN. No WP:RS to establish WP:N Pete.Hurd 02:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - OR. Philippe 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:OR and a giant messy essay. Ford MF 05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the author having put a lot of work into this, Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Cardamon 08:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given the expansive nature of the article and the references provided perhaps it would be better to request it be rewritten to a more encyclopedic nature rather than deleted outright Guycalledryan 11:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OR, not to mention incomprehensible rubbish in places. Lankiveil 11:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Darkbane 12:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. AniMate 12:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I know it is frustrating to see an article this long go down the drain, but the article in its current state is full, if not completely, of original research—not acceptable in an encyclopedia. —Anas ^talk? 13:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, weakly. This is either a large chunk of original research, or else it is a theory being presented without the sort of context that is vital in an article like this, such as who originated this hypothesis and who accepts it. Were a simple lead section added to this article that explained these things, the article might be worth keeping. Without one, it seems soapboxy and unverifiable. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would make a nice sientific[sic] essay but is a bad article. --St.daniel ^Talk 17:19, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FinanceToGo[edit]

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

One of those tricky ones. A piece of shareware with a few reviews here and there, but no substantive coverage. The article doesn't make any claim of particular notability. Google returns 152 unique hits [1] a lot of which are blogs or mirrors of press releases. Notable or not? EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The notability is that unlike most software, this one uses the double entry system, which means it could be used for a business as well. I've never actually seen it, as I have never used a Mac, but it seems this article squeaks by. the_undertow ^talk 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as well by virtue of by-the-skin-of-its-teeth notability. Ford MF 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep by virtue of reviews from Macworld ([2]) and Softpedia ([3]). EALacey 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - it's been reviewed and it is somewhat notable. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above comments, it squeaks by but is notable enough nonetheless. RFerreira 06:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Above is false - double entry bookkeeping is pretty standard. download.com 20 programs, sourceforge 34 programs, etc. I was not brave enough to try a Google search for "double entry". DewiMorgan 22:57, 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Metros[edit]

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

Questionable notability (according to the article, the band has only recorded two untitled demos), unencylopedic tone, not referenced by reliable sources (the band's web site seems to be defunct btw). High on a tree 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non-notable band (see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Moving Lights) -- MisterHand 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC Tennis DyNamiTe 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for notability. Philippe 02:22, 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. Sr13 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest 2009[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Kanabekobaton 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Kanabekobaton 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2007 only recently concluded --ROASTYTOAST 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOT. Philippe 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Many months too soon. Not enough is knowable yet. BTLizard 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as well. Ford MF 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, why delete it? Lilduff90 07:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CRYSTAL isn't enough of a reason for you? Morgan Wick 07:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, you have article about Olympic Games, regional Games (Asiad, etc) or other sporting events which are much further in the future. Eurovision is more important than most of these events in terms of public awareness. 193.56.37.1 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please see WP:INN --Darkbane 19:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP.--Uannis 08:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Due to the national finals and semi-finals, preparation for this event begins well in advance and is easily sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everything said above. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until the host is known. Punkmorten 09:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2024 Summer Olympics  !!! Hektor 09:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Also, that's different since cities bid to be Olympic hosts. There appears to really be some merit in starting speculation 20 years in advance. That doesn't excuse that article, though, since it appears to mostly be crystalballery. However, the site of the ESC is only determined one year in advance, not seven - and more importantly, absolutely nothing is known or can be affected about it until then. Morgan Wick 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until the 2008 event in Belgrade has taken place. There's potentially a lot of change coming including the possibility that the 2009 event doesn't happen. MLA 10:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No useful info. (What is there is wrong: I see an important typo in the lead.) The JPS^{talk to me} 10:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very little non-speculation content can be written about 2009 yet since 2007 has only just finished and disputable with WP:Crystal. Camaron1 | Chris 11:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think its a little to early, the 2007 one only just finished, let alone thinking of the 2009 one.The Sunshine Man 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Lankiveil 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. Write it again next year, without a whole slew of TBA. --Darkbane 12:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: apart from a rumour, this article contains no content whatsoever. --RFBailey 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wanted this to be protected before some one edited it. AxG ҈ ^►talk 12:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then protect, the same thing happened with Eurovision Song Contest 2008. --Philip Stevens 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect if necessary. Despite being a certain and notable event, the article currently has no content. It can be created when at least basic information is announced. —Anas ^talk? 13:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until something more than "rumors" and "it will take place" can be written about it. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL Thunderwing 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL JDBlues 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- clear case of WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as being nothing but rumours (the location can't even be known until about a year from now, and I think you'll find that at least one of the rumoured new entrants will have difficulty broadcasting the performance of a certain country with a star on its flag, even if there's chatter that it might enter). The only verifiable fact is the statement that there'll be two semis, and I'm pretty sure that's already at the entry on the 2008 ESC, which is a better place for it to be right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Highly speculative. With any luck, Eurovision will be cancelled well before it. *Ducks for cover* Axl 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (for now). For one, not enough info, for two it is still two far away.--JForget 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article states the obvious with nothing to contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweboi (talk • contribs) 22:06, 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. Sr13 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer 30[edit]

Beer 30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod for this beverage. Speedily deleted on 3 May; recreated, then double-prodded on 4 May and contested on 9 May. Delete as non-notable, really awfully-marketed product. — mholland (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per OR and no RS. the_undertow ^talk 02:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Here at the office, Beer 30 is the time we get off work on Fridays.  ;-) RFerreira 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thought I could dig up some sources on Google to save this one, but there aren't any. Ford MF 05:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spammy promotion. Lankiveil 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. No sources. --Darkbane 12:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, weakly. This is apparently a real product - I wondered, since it read like it might be a hoax. I did find some references to this beer on state alcoholic beverage board websites through Google, but precious little about the beer itself. Suggest a redirect to Reverend Horton Heat, who has a song called Beer:30, which is likely the source of the name. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If redirected anywhere, it should probably be to The Full Custom Gospel Sounds, since the group's own article doesn't mention the song. EALacey 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-more of an advert than an article. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think the source is an empty beer can. - Crockspot 05:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unreferenced and advertisement --JForget 19:39, 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 delete. Sr13 01:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxed[edit]

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

Apparently a neologism coined by people infringing on 20th Century Fox copyrights and bitter that they got caught. —tregoweth (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article contains a vast amount of original research. Although a source is provided for the definition of the term, I do not consider it to be reliable. the_undertow ^talk 02:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR. Ford MF 06:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN neologism. This was all over the internets back in the late 90s but doesn't seem to have made it to many reliable sources. It's basically a synonym for terminating copyright infringement on the internet by means of a cease and desist. There are other articles that handle the legal issues better.--Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn neologism. Lankiveil 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete or possibly merge into 20th Century Fox article. AniMate 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, too many reliability issues for such a neologism. Burntsauce 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete(or merge, as said by AniMate). Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --JHP 01:36, 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 Speedy delete a7 (no assertion of notability) and g11 (using Wikipedia to advertise her selfpublished book). NawlinWiki 02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea DeVries[edit]

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

Might be a talented young girl, but one self-published book is simply not enough for an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). And the article is lacking sources. High on a tree 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a vanity press does not a 'published' author make. The article is also written in a very promotional style. This isn't an article, it's a commercial. DarkAudit 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per High on a treeVgranucci 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unfortunately, even the newspaper ad for her mother doesn't make her notable. ... discospinster _talk 02:38, 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. Dsmdgold 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hanna-Barbera works on DVD[edit]

List of Hanna-Barbera works on DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary fancruft (that is, there's no List of CBS Television works on DVD). Created by The Tramp (talk · contribs) after I removed this same list from the Hanna-Barbera article. It doesn't help that this list is non-comprehensive and missing a significant number of Hanna-Barbera DVDs. FuriousFreddy 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems like a legitimate content fork of the main article, in keeping with many of the articles in Category:Videos and DVDs. If it's missing content, source it and add it. Otto4711 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen this category before. Wasn't aware that there were more of these, but it still doesn't really seem particularly encyclopedic to me. DVD releases would do better to be mentioned in the articles for TV shows or their episode sub-articles. But if there's a precedent for it, fine. As far as adding DVDs...there's far more than even I know (and far more than just these), and it doesn't make sense to me to try and sit forever trying to list every single DVD with a Hanna-Barbera cartoon on it. --FuriousFreddy 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally the information starts out in the main article and gets forked off as this one was (although there usually isn't a content dispute involved as far as I know). If you don't want to spend time editing the article you certainly don't have to. Otto4711 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. These kinds of lists are hard to maintain accurately, and frankly are more trouble than they're worth, but I reckon the info is encyclopedic enough. Ford MF 06:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, cruftalicious. Wikipedia is not a product catalogue. Lankiveil 11:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as cruft. `AniMate 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I noticed this list when it was added to the Hanna-Barbera article by an IP editor that took 25 edits to get it right. I was going to suggest its removal on the talk page, before its own article was created. As it stands it's just a list of titles and release dates, so I can't see any particular reason for keeping it. Either way, I oppose merging it back into Hanna-Barbera, it was out of place there and added nothing to that article. Pufnstuf 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It did not take 25 edits. It was created in one edit on April 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanna-Barbera&diff=119746181&oldid=119629122 Tjguitar 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The one I was referring to was added on 6 May 2007, and it took 25 edits by an inexperienced editor to get it right:
      • Edit number 1
      • (additional edits omitted to save space)
      • Edit number 25 Pufnstuf 04:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know why the May 6 edits were even happening, it looked very unprofessional and was borderline vandalism. Someone screwed it up and then I had to go back to the April edit and re-format that section because nobody bothered to revert to the correct listing.Tjguitar 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The precedent was the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmation#Filmation_on_DVD. If you have more to add, then add them. As far as "every single DVD with a Hanna Barbera cartoon on it", that's not what the intended list was, the list was for complete seasons/series sets that have been released, and I suppose H-B movies could potentially be added as well. It is encyclopedia content. It's relevance is that it allows the viewers to see the Historical Chronological Order in which these sets were released without having to reference every Amazon.com (or whatever retailer) listing for every set. Tjguitar 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not encyclopedic content. It's fancruft. Were it intended as encyclopedic, it would mention every Hanna-Barbera DVD ever released, not "just the season sets" because it's easier. Purposely leaving out releases leaves you with an inaccurate article shaped by your (or someone else's) biases. DVD releases of series should be listed in the article for that series. And for the record, Filmation#Filmation_on_DVD is just as poorly formatted and unsightly as this Hanna-Barbera list. On to of that, the history reveals that some of the information is based upon pure speculation. As Lankiveil said above, Wikipedia is not a product catalogue, and certainly not a cherry--picked one. Things like this are what Tripod is for. --FuriousFreddy 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If one wants to add single-disc releases, they are more than welcome to. It doesn't make it any less encyclopedic just because some people are lazy and do not want to add more information to complete the list.Tjguitar 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SS. Matthew 14:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Can it be converted into a category with an appropriate name? If so, do so. -T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Total junk, the info only needs to be on the respective show's pages. Biggspowd 21:10, 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 Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic bracket[edit]

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

It is inaccurate and no one seems to be willing to fix it Cronholm144 02:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's inaccurate, then fix it? --Haemo 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the resources and I am not sure if it is notable enough even if I could.--Cronholm144 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've posted this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, which handles math RFCs and similar. Might get someone to come and have a look. Tearlach 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have talked to Silly rabbit first... He might fix it.--Cronholm144 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I vote emphatic delete. If necessary, it can be revived ad hoc later. But I doubt we'll ever see it again. Silly rabbit 02:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If the assertion is that this entry is inaccurate then it needs to be deleted. Misinformation is worse than none at all. the_undertow ^talk 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • As the article is being corrected, I rescind my 'delete.' the_undertow ^talk 20:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename. These algebraic brackets (and similar ones, due to Gerstenhaber et al.) are notable. A stub is a useful reminder that there is work to be done. Geometry guy 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added the stub. On the talk page Silly Rabit thinks the definition might be inaccurate, but no errors are pointed out. The nominator seems to be echoing that whilst substituting certainty for doubt. --MarSch 09:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Nijenhuis-Richardson bracket and have this as a dab. Also Bracket algebra is currently red. --Salix alba (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Rename. Inaccuracy is no reason in and of itself for deletion. Lankiveil 11:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep The only problem with this article is that it needs a bit of work doing to it, just becasue something needs work - doesn't mean to say we just leave it and delete it - does it? The Sunshine Man 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's in the process of being expanded and corrected. Silly rabbit 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and move to Nijenhuis-Richardson bracket, in my opinion. Silly rabbit 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• move as per rabbit--Cronholm144 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't need an AfD discussion and closing admin for that. Do I take it that you are withdrawing the nomination?  --Lambiam^Talk 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article has been improved, and moved to a more descriptive name. Can we all agree that this is a satisfactory resolution of the matter? The renamed article looks pretty good to me. DavidCBryant 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, as it appears legit, now. linas 00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I guess I am... but I don't know how to close a discussion. Anyone who wants to, feel free to do so.--Cronholm144 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can strike through your nomination ("It is inaccurate...") by including it between <s> and </s>, and appending "Nomination withdrawn. ~~~~". This is a ground for speedy closure, and then anyone who knows how to can do it.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, it's clear what Cronholm wants. I closed the discussion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:05, 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 speedy delete (CSD A3). Krimpet (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic algorithm[edit]

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

Poorly written, unattended stub, worse than a dictionary entry Cronholm144 02:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot... this is the entire article "Algebraic algorithms are algorithms for algebraic problems. Or in other words, the term algebraic algorithm refers to the algorithmic approach of algebra."(citation needed)--Cronholm144 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the article in question, because it just repeats the words "algebra" and "algorithm". -- Gesslein 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oooh, first time I've gotten to use this response in AFD. Speedy delete A3. Content is only a restatement of the title. Serpent's Choice 02:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per the above. They're algorithms to do algebra. --Haemo 02:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A3. Merely rephrasing the title. DarkAudit 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete looks like the best option, and the most fun way to consign this article to its fate :) Geometry guy 03:03, 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 merge. I will add the merge suggestion tags so editors of this topic can do the content merge. W.marsh 13:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical demos for the Virtual Boy[edit]

Technical demos for the Virtual Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be little more than a gallery of non-free content with brief explanations of each demo. Beyond the fair-use image gallery, this topic really does not seem notable. I would not even really support a merge into Virtual Boy as there are no independent sources (outside of one video-game fan site) confirming that this (1) existed and was (2) notable even at the time. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the Virtual Boy article. There's some useful info here, but not enough to support its own article. Ford MF 06:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. The demos are not notable. Someguy1221 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to appropriate section in Virtual Boy and trim to the essentials. Neither article is particularly overlarge, so a well planned merger is practical. Cannot think of even one single reason for this article to exist at all, outside of the context of the "parent" article, for "historical" perspective or something, given that Virtual Boy itself has foundered in the sea of mediocrity. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:46, 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. Sr13 01:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule p[edit]

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

Delete - This is about (or a copy of?) a schedule to some insurance document for which no article occurs; there is no context, and despite requests to add context, the creating editor cannot or will not. Carlossuarez46 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an article about a piece of an insurance industry reporting form that we do not have an article about. Does not assert notability, and I think having articles about all US government tax and reporting subforms would probably be beyond Wikipedia's scope regardless. Serpent's Choice 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability, no context. Ford MF 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no context. Possibly a joke. Lankiveil 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, Per Ford MF & Lankiveil. --Random ^{Say it here!} 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- prob a speedy candidate as ((nonsense)) Thunderwing 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. This is the most notable schedule used by Actuaries. People who peruse online discussions about accounting scandals regarding insurance companies will wonder about the "schedule P." If Wikipedia knows what it is, that is a plus for Wikipedia. Perhaps the author should add some history and controvery surrounding the schedule P. (there are both.)

• Author's response:

1. Here is the context that I put for this article. I did my best to follow the templete of other wikipedia entries:

[Category:Insurance] [Category:Accounting in the United States] [Category:Actuarial science]

Please clarify if this is not what you meant.

2. You have to start somewhere. I'd like to add more as I have time but if wikipedia is missing an entire category of information you can't put it in context until you make more entries. You can't do that when your fist one is deleted for not being in context. Also this is not a 'tax subform' any person's (stock market analyst) who's job it is to analyze the financial strength of an insurance company knows what this is. Any accountant who works in the insurance industry knows what this is and would benefit from this information. Also as for the 'scope' of wikipedia apparently it's okay to have extremely esoteric topics from the tech industry but it's not okay to have esoteric topics from other industries? Here are some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_ring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments

There are 10x the number of people in the US who would need to know what schedule P was for an insurance company than would need to know about a Token ring. Do we a separate wikipedia for insurance professionals? another one for banking professionals? another for gardening enthusiests? another for physicists?

3. addressed above

4. Please try googling before making the assertion that something is a joke. http://www.ambest.com/sales/schedulep/ http://www.naic.org/store_idp_sched_p.htm http://www.casact.org/dare/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse_lev3&lev1=100&lev2=240&categorylist=249

• Give time for improvements, then Delete You need to do a lot more to make something notable than to list its seven parts. You have to explain, to a layman on the page (not here!) why the thing is notable. You also have to link to external references that explain this. Explain, in an encyclopaedic way, why this would be relevant to the person searching for that term. For the moment, you are just describing a bit of esoteria on some bit of paper in a country I may never see. At the very least explain what it is, because I don't even get that much from the article as it stands. DewiMorgan 22:07, 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 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel Games[edit]

List of Disney Channel Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe this list is like a directory. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also, unencylopediac. I don't believe is an appropriate topic for a list. --Random ^{Say it here!} 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a product catalogue. Lankiveil 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. AniMate 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would be useful if there were articles on all these games, but as is definitely not. Nyttend 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Lankiveil. --pIrish ^Arr! 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:13, 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. Sr13 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibiting Imperialism[edit]

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

This is essentially a restatement of the argument of one book (Malamud, Randy. Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals and Captivity (1998)) that zoos are imperialist. Violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If Mr. Malamud or the book are notable, they might get articles, but not a separate article for the theory. NawlinWiki 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:POV in the extreme. DarkAudit 03:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, zoo=empire? However, sometimes this sort of thing does happen. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV and essayistic. Ford MF 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too unbalanced Monkeymox 08:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as POV white guilt nonsense. Lankiveil 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete POV essay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an essay <3Clamster 00:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Éirígí[edit]

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

Someone tagged it for speedy, but seems like it does have some notability since Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, a famous activist and politician apparently has some association with it now (see McAliskey's article). Procedural listing, no opinion. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hold on there! It's a stub, barely 24 hours old. Let's give the authors some time to make their point. BTLizard 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's stubby now, but there are references to be found, and notability is sufficient for my money. Ford MF 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if it's a current political party it shouldn't be hard to expand it. Nyttend 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, Sunday Mirror article and a Sunday Tribune article substantially mentions it. Not much else in terms of independent reliable sources, but these two articles are just about enough to keep it in my opinion. Demiurge 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  14:53, 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. Sr13 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Prize[edit]

The Queen's Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book; "The Queen's Prize" + "Susie Cornfield" gives 68 Ghits, which are booksellers. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN. There's not even really an article here, just some dust jacket copy. Ford MF 06:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotion for an nn book by an nn author. Lankiveil 12:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete non-notable book. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farewell, my Lovely which is another book by the same author. JulesH 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable per nom. DaveApter 09:25, 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 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Rapoport[edit]

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

Non-notable illustrator. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ford MF 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn artist. Lankiveil 12:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable artist. I guess one could argue that there's a copyvio as well since the article basically consists of nothing more than the content taken from her homepage, a tag line and two links. -- Seed 2.0 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If her work is notable is she? See Farewell, my Lovely where her art is featured in the book, which has been deemed to be notable enough for inclussion. It seems that if she is prominent enough for mention in that article, then who she is should be expained either there or here. A bad article is not reason to assume non-notability of the subject. I think this bears more scrutiny and/or research before deletion. It appears to be more than vanity spam. Can we find a coupe of independent references to her work? The onus should be on the nominator to demonstrate that we can't. --Kevin Murray 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in any case, Farewell, my Lovely is up for AfD as well (it's the AfD right below this one, as you know). On a more general note, there's no such thing as automatic "notability by extension". In some cases, a single notable work might make someone associated with it de facto notable but it's not an automatism. And, for the record, before I vote I always do at least a cursory search and, when voting delete, I usually verify the results with several follow-up searches. I did do that in this case, and I haven't been able to really come up with, well, anything at all in terms of RS. Now, granted, we're not talking in-depth research here but I do stand by my initial assessment. -- Seed 2.0 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable per nom. DaveApter 09:26, 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/redirect. W.marsh 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell, my Lovely[edit]

Farewell, my Lovely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book; "Farewell, my Lovely" + "Susie Cornfield" gives 68 Ghits, which are booksellers. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is this title not better known as the title of a book by Raymond Chandler? BTLizard
  • I'm sure the estate of Raymond Chandler would be interested in this - I would assume such an iconic title is copyrighted? Crazysuit 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Titles can't be copyrighted in the US. Per [4]. --Charlene 05:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nor in the UK. I think if Chandler's book isn't notable enough by itself to rate a separate article then this certainly isn't. So, delete. BTLizard 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Chandler is: it's at Farewell, My Lovely. This isn't. Delete (and check out SkeaterMedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for simialr promo). Tearlach 09:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, thanks. Still delete. BTLizard 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, again, as NN. Ford MF 06:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, an nn book. Lankiveil 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect to Farewell, My Lovely. The Cornfield book is non-notable, but someone might plausibly try to link to the Chandler with a lower-case "my". (I'm surprised to see that the Chandler article currently features a link to the Cornfield article, but not vice versa.) EALacey 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nominations is based on the nominator's assertion that the Cornfield books are non-notable with no real demonstration why they are not. Citing Ghits is not relevant. The rest of the discussion about Chandler and his book is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. It probably is a situation that the nomination is right for the wrong reason, but let’s follow procedure here and not get lazy. --Kevin Murray 18:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pointing out that a book has received no discernible media attention is irrelevant? Ford MF 18:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Talking of "following procedure", maybe you should try that, Kevin Murray? If you, or anyone else, disagrees with my assertion that this book is not notable then it is up to you to prove it is notable. Of course, you won't be able to, which will show that my nomination is right, and for the right reasons. Crazysuit 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ford MF and Crazysuit; a lack of Google hits is absolutely relevant to demonstrating a lack of notability. A lack of Google hits = a lack of reliable sources = lack of notability. Simple. Masaruemoto 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article subject does not appear to meet WP:BK, as I can only find one (possibly) non-trivial mention of the book by a non-related party that isn't trying to sell the book and is geared to a general audience (a review in Fur & Feather). All other mentions of this book I can find are either by booksellers, publishers, or in blogs or the like. --Charlene 04:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Farewell, My Lovely, per EALacey and Charlene. I haven't been able to find anything else either. Fails WP:BK. I don't see any harm in keeping the history though, so I think I simply redirect would do the job (I guess in this case that's a mere technicality though). -- Seed 2.0 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparently self-published book: publishers web site only lists two books published to date and one due for publication soon, all three by the same author; publisher is based in Croydon and 192.com lists a Susan K. Cornfield as a resident of croydon[5]. Redirect per other users' suggestions. JulesH 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Susie Cornfield should probably be considered for deletion as well. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Prize and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sticky Rock Café which are already being considered for deletion. JulesH 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Confirmed: the book's self-published. See [6] JulesH 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree, I'll nominate Susie Cornfield when these related afds have closed, unless anyone wants to do it before that. Crazysuit 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of Google hits for any reliable sources shows this is non-notable. Masaruemoto 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a book that's been published and when you claim it is non-notable, it features Jilly Cooper in the book and is also available on Amazon amongst other retailers. It's not an advertisement it's just an entry. The reviews are sourced and legit. SkeaterMedia 10:42, 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 speedy delete per G11. Sr13 01:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sticky Rock Café[edit]

The Sticky Rock Café (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

tagged speedy, but I don't think it should be, procedural listing, no opinion. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you need to review WP:CSD#G11, which unquestionably applies to this article. Also, this article should not have been placed here as a procedural listing as the original reason for deletion was advertizing, which is not a reason for listing in AFD, even for procedural reasons. However, I have added valid AFD reasons below. Crazysuit 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I originally tagged this non-notable book for speedy deletion as an advert using CSD G11, which is for Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. This article is book promotion from beginning to end I have no idea how this cannot be considered an advert, containing phrases such as; "an edgy satirical novel", "pacy, action-packed modern thriller", "could not be more pertinent", "the book published in 2006, is being enjoyed by boys and girls, and men and women of all ages", "taken up by fans of cyber-punk and sci-fi", "Listen to the great British actor, Martin Jarvis, give a wickedly mischievous reading". And I haven't even got to the selected press quotes.

Anyway, forget the blatant advertizing, this is a Non-notable book; "The Sticky Rock Café" + "Susie Cornfield" gives 87 Ghits, which are booksellers. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. At least now this makes a set with the previous 3 articles. Crazysuit 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G11 is valid in this case, especially in light of its creator. Phony Saint 05:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as an advert and deeply non-notable. Ford MF 06:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn book. Lankiveil 12:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment, I've rewritten for now, but I haven't been able to find any reviews in Google. That doesn't mean they don't exist - and, for a Garret novel, they're likely to - but I suggest if people have access to literary reviews for the UK to check that out. Or, tell me where to look and I'll do the legwork. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure what you mean by "for a Garret novel, they're likely to" as this publisher has, according to their web site, only published 3 books so far, all by the same author. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farewell, my Lovely and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Prize. JulesH 17:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable self-published[7] book. JulesH 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Self- publicising. DaveApter 09:27, 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 06:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Ventrella[edit]

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

No supporting references; only 954 GHits; I can't find any way to establish notability for this person. Mmoyer 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as there are no notable sources or media coverage. Ford MF 06:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. He sounds like the sort of person who could attract independent coverage, but there doesn't seem to be much. All Google News Archive and LexisNexis turn up is some brief mentions of his involvement with There and MIT Media Lab. EALacey 17:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Projection (Charmed)[edit]

Astral Projection (Charmed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cruft, original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's nothing specific about the concept on the show that 1) deserves its own article, and 2) isn't already covered by Astral projection. Ford MF 06:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, charmedcruft. Lankiveil 12:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Otto4711 13:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wave a magic wand and make it vanish - Since this is at the extreme end of fancruft. A1octopus 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- completely not notable Patar knight 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Doesn't need its own article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I had already tried to redirect it to astral projection.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, separate article is unnecessary, as there is already a perfectly acceptable "List of terms" article. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a reason why you brought this to AfD? Zythe had already redirected this page to the Astral Projection article and you reverted it and brought it here instead. You could've just left it as a redirect and saved everyone some time. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Check the history, this article was nominated for deletion before Zythe attempted a redirect. Using a redirect is a lazy way to avoid dealing with a problem article as it allows for reversion to previous content. "Astral Projection (Charmed)" is a useless search term anyway, who would type that exact phrase in the search box? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:38, 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 Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. If after the release of the film there are enough reliable sources discussing the Brethren to warrant an article, it can easily be restored. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WjBscribe 12:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brethren of the Coast[edit]

Brethren of the Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fictional organization set to appear in an upcoming action-adventure film. No assertion of notability, no references, plenty of questionable fair use images. Unnecessary fanservice. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep!: This is absurd, might as well delete Dumbledore's Army from Harry Potter and the Council of Elrond of Lord of the Rings! And the fact that the Lords are considered to have a backstory and to have existed for hundreds of years and how the former two have no backstory and the Army existed for a few months and the Council for one day. Therequiembellishere 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Luckily were not discussing Dumbledore's Army or the Council of Elrond, or any fiction other than Pirates of the Caribbean. Do the "Brethren of the Coast" have any notability outside of the film? Have they been covered in multiple non-trivial sources? Are they in any way important as anything more than a plot device in a Disney flick? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The backstory may go back hundreds of years, but the story is only a couple of years old at best, coming from a gaggle of near-anonymous screenwriters. Not in the same league as Rowling or Tolkien. DarkAudit 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. DarkAudit 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as not notable enough for its own article. Ford MF 06:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article, but delete the articles on individual pirate lords except Jack Sparrow, Hector Barbossa, and Sao Feng. The "Brethren of the Coast" are clearly intended to be an important part of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, and no doubt the article will be in much better shape when the film is released in less than two weeks. If the images are not appropriate, then nominate them for deletion separately. *** Crotalus *** 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Does every important plot device in a blockbuster movie deserve a separate article, or just this one? If so, why? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar plot devices in other major film series often do have separate articles, as mentioned above. If you think they shouldn't, that is a defensible position, but according to the standards now in place this is acceptable. I do think the fair use gallery should be deleted since it doesn't have any commentary and doesn't meet our standards for inclusion of fair use images. *** Crotalus *** 07:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The standards now in place are not dictated by personal preference, they are codified by fairly clear Wikipedia policies (WP:FICT, WP:OR, WP:NOT, a few others). Perhaps if I had run across the other examples offered by Therequiembellishere, we would be discussing their deletion instead. I don't think that the purported precedent of crufty fan service (o.r.) justifies the purported notability of this subject. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, as this organisation is not notable outside of the Pirates of the Caribbean milieu. Lankiveil 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, agree with Crotalus, they are a key part of the movie. If it is deleted now, it will just be made into a new page that will probably have even less verifiable information. Might as well get ahead of the game Skhatri2005 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've removed the fair-use gallery and marked all the images (except this one, which is also used in Hector Barbossa) for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - First concern is that 'Brethren of the Coast' was, as far as I'm aware, historically used to describe a society of real pirates/buccaneers. Yet there's no mention of that here - the only important thing seems to be what happens in the film (and yes, I'm a big fan of POTC myself). Second is the spoiler element. POTC:AWE isn't released everywhere yet - it might be worth a little consideration for those who haven't had chance to see it. - Shrivenzale 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The movie comes out in 6 days leave it be till at least then so a proper decision can be reached. It may wind up that the breathren of the coast are hugely important to the story line On3manarmy 02:10, 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 keep. W.marsh 00:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry West[edit]

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

nn. although its great to see independent candidates, does not appear notable. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, this person has been in the news multiple times, and is currently making a run for office. There are multiple creditable sources for everything mentioned on this page. -LuvataciousSkull 03:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Article needs cleanup, including all those links to YouTube (rich media are to be avoided per WP:EL), but the person is in fact covered in some independent secondary sources, thus meeting the first criteria under Wikipedia:Notability (people). Furthermore, the article seems well-researched and the author has made good attempts to assert notability. --Darkbane 04:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Once you take away the YouTube links and the footnotes that just link to the guy's own website, the article has hardly any citations at all. But the remaining ones do seem to establish a genuine, if local, notability. If cleaned up and wikified, I think it's fine. Ford MF 06:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good Point OK, I'll get rid of the YouTube links. I'll ask for some other people to help clean it up. -LuvataciousSkull 08:53, 14 May 2007

• Corrections Got rid of the YouTube links, and cleaned it up as much as possible. --LuvataciousSkull 12:46, 14 May 2007

• Strong Keep Everything has been kept in good shape, and I do believe that is worth keeping at this point. -LuvataciousSkull 07:19, 16 May 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude Eggs[edit]

No evidence that this is a common term, within the southern region of the United States or elsewhere. Google turns up roughly 1,700 hits for "Dude eggs" [8] the bulk of which are Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary mirrors and a few links to second rate Jackass episodes. Suggestion deletion unless evidence of encyclopedic merit can be provided. RFerreira 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism. A Jackass video does not notability make. DarkAudit 04:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. Here we call them "pickled eggs".  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. (Also, there's such a thing as a first-rate Jackass episode?) Ford MF 06:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. Lankiveil 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. ---Cathal 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, even if it had sources it would be nothing more than a dictionary definition. Burntsauce 17:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per WP:NEO Thunderwing 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NEO. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absurd. — MichaelLinnear 03:56, 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. W.marsh 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokéthulhu[edit]

No "multiple, non-trivial" secondary sources to speak of on covering this game. THe article links to the home page (not a valid source) and a wiki (hardly reliable). Talk page shows a GameSpy page, but GameSpy themselves did not make the page, and the RPG review is only one site. Prod removed without a reason. hbdragon88 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Did what I could for the article, adding references to two reviews, and mention of the spinoff line of Steve Jackson Games miniatures. Serpent's Choice 05:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The article could certainly be beefed up, and subcultural notability is often an iffy thing to establish, but I think this one's got enough. Ford MF 06:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Maybe a bit of an expansion but notable. It is said the review is only one site, but that one site is RPG.net the largest RPG site in the world. It should also be noted when looking for information that more people spell it Pokethulhu than Pokéthulhu. I've added another review link. Ben W Bell talk 07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, personally. What notability criteria can miss out on, when interpreted too strictly, is the mass of encyclopediac use that effectively amounts to "what the heck is _____?" While a quick browse of the topic on the internet shows sites like gamespy.com basically advertising the game, rpg.net reviews the game. I suppose that latter counts as a notable source, though I'm not sure just how to work it into the article. I don't see how deleting this improves wikipedia, though, & oppose on that basis alone. --mordicai. 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the above copied from the article's talk page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I explicitly rebutted the GameSpy bit, though not in great detail. GameSpy offers hosting (I've seen PsyPokes hosted on GameSpy), there is an application process for it. That makes that all GameSpy links must be treated with care. In this particular case, it looks like a personal site, which isn't reliable. Also makes WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:HARMLESS arguments. hbdragon88 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable (if very niche) RPG, with a number of notable people involved, including Kovalic. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention "notable" three times withotu defining it. Who are the notable people involved in it? If it's notable enough, wouldn't you think that it would have more coverage than the two sites it has currently? hbdragon88 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specifically, the involvement of John Kovalic, S. John Ross, minis bu Steve Jackson Games, and published by Dork Storm. More references would be better, sure, but what's in the article is adequate to support what's there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't assert notability and doesn't seem to be very popular. DBZROCKS 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - the article is referenced, it exists, etc., I say, give it more time to expand. ~I'm anonymous
  • Nobody is denying that it exists. We're debating the notability of its existence, whether it deserves an article or not. And it's been three years! (I was surprised to see that it as started in February 2004.) I doubt that this will gain more attention than it has now. hbdragon88 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Non-notable. Andre (talk) 17:10, 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 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rickard[edit]

I tagged this for proposed deletion because it's an unsourced orphan biography of a living person. The tag was removed as "vandalism" so here we are. I suggest that unless something verifiable and useful can be said about this person we should delete the article. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable local presenter. BBC Kent != BBC to the whole UK. No significant coverage outside of Kent. DarkAudit 04:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He's a student broadcaster. Plenty of those around. No notability. andy 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn regional broadcaster. Lankiveil 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, nn. Crockspot 05:31, 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. W.marsh 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon NetBattle[edit]

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

Fails WP:N: Does not have mutliple reliable sources independent of the topic itself. Smogon, Nintendo.com forums do not qualify as reliable sources. Last AFD was a unanimous "keep and cleanup." It has since been 15 months without any improvement, and the third-party sources tag was put up there six months ago. hbdragon88 04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. hbdragon88 04:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It is considered good form to provide a link to the original AfD. Morgan Wick 07:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There's absolutely nothing there to assert it's notability (WP:N) and no reliable references (WP:V). Marasmusine 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While it's while written, it lacks sources proving notability. Unless sources can be found (I tried, but came up with nothing) it has to go. Perhaps someone might care to transfer the bulk of the article to a Pokemon wiki, but that's up to them.Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Large, active community, many fan sites to source from, and a bajillion Google hits says notable, but Alexa rank for download site and lack of media coverage puts me on the fence. The Smogon fansite (basically NetBattle's new home), however, has about a 40,000 Alexa rank (don't let the week average fool you; the site's been down.) So, keep. I can maintain if no one else wants to. -- Chris is me _{(user/review/talk)} 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Another article that cannot provide reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. As usual, requests for sources have been ignored. 15 months is more than a reasonable amount of time for improvement. DarkSaber2k 08:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete. The unofficial rules started in Netbattle have carried over to the actual games. Either keep this, make a Pokémon Metagame article, or both. --Gaming King 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any evidence that these rules were not merely a coincidence? Suppose I were to write a Star Wars fanfic where Darth Maul was cloned; if that event then happens in the new TV series would I really be able to say "wow, George Lucas used my story", or would it just be him thinking of the same obvious way of bringing back a popular villain? Pokémon games are developed years ahead of the first announcements of their existence, so it's quite possible that ideas the NetBattle team had were already dreamed up by GameFreak's think tank a year earlier. Wikipedia articles can't be based on hearsay and circumstance. If you can find a publication of some sort that mentions NetBattle's ideas were implemented, then yes, that's something to consider. Garrett^Talk 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The pokemon games, starting with the Stadium Nintendo 64 games, already incorporated a metagame dynamic similar to the standard battling rules used on Netbattle, such as a sleep clause and a ubers ban, all while some other standard netbattle rules such as evasion clauses and ohko moves clauses were never implented in the games to my knowledge. So no, I dont believe Netbattle had an impact on the actual games, although it certainly had one on how wifi battles on the new pokemon ds games are played. That said, Netbattle's popularity shouldnt be measured by its own website, as it has been abandonned years ago. It is still used by hundreds of battlers from every country imaginable every week and many sites gravitate around it. I know that first hand from hosting the main server for more than a year. --Vineon 05:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not appear to meet the notability standard for video games or software. Hardly verifiable. Andre (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No references, despite reference tag being up forever. I don't find any through my Googling, so doesn't seem to pass WP:ATT/WP:V/whatever we're calling not having sources. Wickethewok 04:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 15 months with no improvement pretty much shows there is nothing out there. -Amarkov moo! 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In my opinion, it's as notable as any hacking/editing program of games. They aren't made by official companies, neither is this. TheBlazikenMaster 23:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father of the Nation[edit]

Father of the Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article Father of Nation has been tagged for lacking sources, for needing cleanup and for being original research since 2006. It's a long exercise in original research, where a "father of the nation" is chosen for each country. Every single choice is original resarch, just one is sourced. To take but a few examples. Nobody denies the importance of George Washington but I for one have never heard him being called Father of the Nation. The authors of the article have decided that Micheal Collins is the FotN for Ireland, not Eamonn de Valera. No sourced reason is given to suggest why. I'm a Finn myself, and I can guarantee that our "FotN" is never called that, and many other good candidates could be found if such a title existed. I assume we can find the same situation for each country, the article just consists of persons picking their own favourites. One of the more amusing ones, naming former SNP-leader Donald Dewar as the FotN for Scotland. I can see no reason for this article to be left on Wikipedia. Not only is the title Father of the Nation not used in most countries, the choices are original research in each and every case. JdeJ 04:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, OR to the extreme. Wow. fethers 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. This is way to POV laced and completely unreferenced/unfixable. meshach 06:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, most of these leaders seem to have been pulled out of a hat.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Huge subjectivity problem as clear from the talk page. Seems to attract opinionated editing to promote 'pet' fathers. Problem has not resolved despite extensive discussion. My involvement was over Iran and it has been a complete mess. The Behnam 14:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete strange OR article Bigdaddy1981 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No defence for this to be here. Drmaik 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- It is not original research for Donald Dewar- he is often referred to as the Father of the Nation in relation to Scotland. See the BBC article reporting his death 'Father of nation' dies, the Guardian's obituary "Dewar earned himself the label of "father of the nation"" for example. Thunderwing 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This disaster of an article is based on OR. It is highly subjective and provides few sources. The very concept of the article is subjective. --Agha Nader 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I actually learned that Washington was the "Father of our country", but that was way back before schools taught how eevil our founding fathers were. But this article is still OR. - Crockspot 05:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as extreme OR, and what little is sourced could be considered synthesis, as the sources don't necessarily support what "Father of the Nation" is defined as here. Someguy1221 09:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I believe the text in article is original research and should be removed. I also suggest it should be changed to only a list with referenced entries. At least I know for sure Muhammad Ali Jinnah is widely called by this title. please see Google Pakistan Gov website. --Webkami 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just to add a bit to the examples: In Italy, king Victor Emmanuel II was officially adressed as "pater patriae" (father of the fatherland), but he is not listed in the article. Rather, Giuseppe Mazzini, Guiseppe Garibaldi and others are listed, who would certainly not have dared to use this title... The list given for Germany just seems risible, e.g. I've never heard of socialist Karl Liebknecht given such name that might remind one of a king. --B. Wolterding 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added the page Mother of the Nation to AfD as well.[9] JdeJ 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but trim intro and add references for all examples. Seems like a valid topic to me. BobFromBrockley 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which respect do you think it's valid? --B. Wolterding 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Slavlin 15:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pater Patriae. OR as noted above. Sandstein 22:39, 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. W.marsh 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian (form of Russian internet slang)[edit]

Not notable neologism we already have article Padonki it is more than enough Alex Bakharev 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with Wiktionary Nyttend 15:38, 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 delete. Daniel 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton South Public School[edit]

Carlton South Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable primary school in Sydney with lists of vice captains and school captains. The book noted in the footer is not in the State Library of NSW catalogue. Orderinchaos 04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 04:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is a book on it that is mentioned in the article, and i feel it is therefore notable. If it isnt mentioned in the state library of NSW, who cares? Twenty Years 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:RS: "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." If we can't even find the book, it's a bit hard to judge not only this, but which information was actually used. Orderinchaos 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Published book about school would be a strong claim of notability, but further details are required. Article will benefit greatly from expansion. Alansohn 16:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lots of schools write books about their own history, get a vanity press to print them, and sell them to parents for fundraising. That doesn't meet the independence criterion of WP:RS. And I see no evidence [10] that this book is anything but such a vanity publication, given that it has no ISBN, no publisher, and no record in the official library of the state in which it was published. cab 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. There is nothing that even indicates that the school history is a book, much less a published book; it could very well be a research paper or promotional brochure produced by the school. Therefore, this article probably fails WP:V as well. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the book isnt in the NLA either. John Vandenberg 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are a couple of articles in Google News Archive where it is mentioned. [11]. The book could be a useful source but does not seem to have been widely distributed. Capitalistroadster 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:N,WP:RS - best source is a book that seems to be self-published if it isn't in the state library.Garrie 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the book can be cited - for all we know it is a 3 page photocopy. Otherwise, there is nothing that distinguishes this school from a million others. - Tiswas^(t) 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per above. Not convinced that the book noted is real or reliable. Otherwise seems an NN school. Lankiveil 04:57, 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 withdrawn. This has been completely rewritten since I nominated it. Chick Bowen 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journeyman (sports)[edit]

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

I wrote this article, originally, almost two years ago. It was more or less original research at the time. Now it's worse: it's turned into a list of journeymen, which is of course a rather subjective judgment. Of course, an article could be written about the use of the term by sportswriters, but it would have to be sourced (and something more than just a definition), and this isn't it. I say axe it and start over. Chick Bowen 05:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems reasonably sourced Computerjoe's talk 20:37, 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. W.marsh 13:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SanSan[edit]

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

Defunct, inaccurate term only used once in a book from 1961. Google shows one mention that isn't a Wiki mirror. Delete. fethers 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable neologism. -Will Beback ·:· 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and add the paragraph of the article explaining the term's non-notability and inaccuracy, into the related articles like Jean Gottman, Megalopolis (city type), BosWash, to discourage resurrection. --JWB 05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Aside from Gottman, I remember both of those place names from Mack Reynolds novels of the 60s-70s. Don't know if that's sufficient enough, but it's more than one reference, anyway. -- LaughingVulcan 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a human geography term. If not kept, save as a redirect to BosWash, at least, and add a sentence per JWB's suggestion. —ScouterSig 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have read about this megalopolis in my secondary school geography textbook, hence it must have a certain degree of notability. (I can't remember its ISBN number though)--Kylohk 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I live in San Francisco. This phrase is used a lot by people (or at least the people I know) who live between San Jose and San Francisco, it has parallels in names like Baltiwash or those other conglomerate names, and labels a distinct human geographic phenomenon with no other decription: the continuous urbanized landscape extending down the penninsula and into Silicon Valley. Zelmerszoetrop 13:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of interesting, and quite different from the original usage (in this article) for San Francisco to San Diego! Hey, if you include San Mateo, would it be SanSanSan? And how about San Rafael? --JWB 19:47, 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 no consensus to delete but could still be merged/redirected as an editorial decision. W.marsh 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cayuga High School[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N Delete Nick Garvey 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no assertion of notoriety. meshach 06:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Minimum satisfactory H.S. article. — RJH (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - could use some expansion <3Clamster 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets minimum requirements (ex: there are two sources as external links), could use some more information concerning noteworthiness. If we delete this article, there are several others of less quality that would quickly follow. Truthanado 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , per Truthanado. Just as AfDs sometime get articles improved fast, they can also be a good way to indentify additional articles on non-notable subjects. DGG 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 01:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N, no assertion of notability so even qualifies as speedy, and external links are not noted as sources, so deletable per WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Cayuga County, New York per WP:LOCAL and various proposed school guidelines. RFerreira 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cayuga County, NY per above. --TREYWiki 03:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Additional sources exist and should be added to further expand the article. Alansohn 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. As it stands there is nothing to defend notability, per WP:SCHOOL. The "creator" of the article Kappa, who last maintained it May 10th by deleting a reference source due to "link rot", may be prepared to abandon it: "You might be able to kill off this one. Actually I don't enjoy making articles about random high schools but I can make if more necessary. Kappa 23:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)"[12]. If no editor is willing to go to the trouble of searching for notability references, national recognition, famous alumni, historical importance, athletic accomplishments, etc. with reliable sources, then there is nothing to defend a Keep, even for proposed improvements. Article has been essentially a stagnant stub since October 2005 [13]. No school pride? Just sad. If someone commits here to making major improvements, and already has some strong examples of notablility to post, then Keep would be appropriate. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - I don't see any external links that 1) actually assert any notability and 2) which are independent. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Pig[edit]

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

nn. not a crystal ball. delete —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Logic Pig is the creation of a Philosophy student at Leeds University - ie something made up in school one day. Zero useful ghits. BTLizard 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as local meme, fails WP:N completely. meshach 06:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, sources?? Omega Archdoom^Talk 07:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Something Made Up in School. No sources. No proof that it has ever seen in any form except on a piece of copy paper. DarkAudit 14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as something made up at school one day. Literally. --Cyrus Andiron 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, made up in school. Burntsauce 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources at all, and seems to fail WP:NOT YET ON THE WEB.--Xnuala (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The university in question has about thirty thousand students and the comic has cult value. Also has small but growing notability outside of the institution in question.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Association for Science Fiction[edit]

National Association for Science Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. This was speedied as an article "asserting no notability". However, it does assert notability, as this was New Zealand's first science fiction club, and was the founding organisation of New Zealand's annual science fiction awards, the Sir Julius Vogel Awards, and an organisational force involved in the coordination of national conventions. it was also the country's only nationwide fannish organisation for one and a half decades. My own view is a strong keep on that basis, though I have to admit bias as a primary editor of the article and a former member of NASF. Grutness...wha? 06:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sourcing, which given the era will likely be deadtree, would be nice. But I see no pressing requirement for deletion. Serpent's Choice 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Grutness, although I agree a source or two would be nice. -- Avenue 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the information is accurate (and google confirms it is likely to be) then it is without doubt notable. Finding sources is the next task... JulesH 17:13, 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 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Statistics[edit]

Human Rights Statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unencyclopedic original research vanity article. user makes abusive/attacking edits on other pages as well. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a POV-laden rant. Violates WP:N (not asserted) and WP:V (no sources cited) meshach 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Plug for the author's website. No other content. BTLizard 07:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Blaring POV use. Ad for website. I see no reason to keep Omega Archdoom^Talk 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising and lack of encyclopedic content.--Xnuala (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy by moving the page back to User:Maxcrc, where it was created. (The creator moved it into article space on the grounds that this made it "easier to find teh content".) Some might still object to the site-plugging, but as a user page I don't think it would warrant deletion. EALacey 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very POV, essay-ish <3Clamster 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't belong in main namespace. - Crockspot 05:40, 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 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psych Desktop[edit]

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

Software with no evidence of notability. No independent sources, article title gets 62 google hits. Weregerbil 06:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An ad for software of no notability. BTLizard 07:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to its website, this doesn't appear to have been released yet. JavaTenor 07:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. No sources. An advertisement. Omega Archdoom^Talk 07:37, 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 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parachute (smoking)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual Richard 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Where to begin? The article doesn't even say why it's called Parachute. No assertion that this is anything other than fiction and even if it isn't, it's completely inappropriate here. BTLizard 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated, wikipedia is not a how-to. Omega Archdoom^Talk 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless expanded Guycalledryan 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Expansion wouldn't save this. This is a how to article, and Wikipedia is not a how to guide. DarkAudit 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SNOW Nyttend 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and other comments. Burntsauce 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a manual for "how-to-something". --Nehrams2020 04:06, 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. W.marsh 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayatabad Town[edit]

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

Duplicates Hayatabad and has even more POV than the original. Deprodded by creator. Morgan Wick 07:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yep, duplicated and debased content. BTLizard 07:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This one is just bad! Biased (for example Hayatabad is the most beautiful town of Peshawar", badly written (very unencyclopedic), and much, much more. Omega Archdoom^Talk 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hayatabad, for duplication of subject? -- saberwyn 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could work, but even the Hayatabad article is poorly written, and again shows the POV used in this article (as this article is a copy). Frankly, I think both should be deleted, unless someone puts a lot of effort into fixing them up. Omega Archdoom^Talk 08:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to a redirect (and the reason why I didn't just do so) is that it's an unusual title for a redirect. Also, Hayatabad appears to be a real town that may be notable. Just because the article has POV problems is not a reason to delete. Morgan Wick 15:35, 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 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topeka Capitals[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N guidelines and no verified sources (google) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:24, 8 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 07:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Without prejudice towards recreation if sources can be found that confirm notability.--Xnuala (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable --ROASTYTOAST 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable per nom. DaveApter 09:28, 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 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poker mustang[edit]

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

Non-notable. Ideogram 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable, related to poker dream, which does not have its own article. Some parts a bit unencyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega Archdoom (talk • contribs).

If you can add references backing up your claims, it will be fine. --Ideogram 10:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that would be a problem. WP:COI strongly discourages anyone writing about a business they have a financial interest in. If it is worth writing about, someone else will write about it. --Ideogram 11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, and I couldn't find a single reliable source to verify. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, verify, using reliable sources. If no reliable source has written enough about this web site to verify the accuracy of the information, then there's not enough reliable information to create an encyclopedia article. And no, the word of someone who claims to be the site owner is not a reliable source, because the conflict of interest means that the information is likely to be biased. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do need an article on Planet Poker and we would be very grateful if you write it. I can pretty much guarantee it won't be deleted. --Ideogram 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Leaving aside the notability issue for a moment, it seems fairly clear from the protestations above that the article is primarily an advertisement. The originator would seem to have little or no idea of the purpose of an encyclopedia. BTLizard 11:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. From above: "3) it's so small with almost zero players". There's the notability issue, very succinctly stated. BTLizard 11:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. From above: "4) Peter Criss's 1982 album....can you name it?? Prob not, no one bought it, but it's listed here!

So is KiSS "The Elder" who the heck has those albums?? Why dont we exclude them items of interest as well from this site. In any rate, it doesnt matter either way, the site is there and thats that, maybe in a uear when it's bigger, we will then revist it sand include it because it's then "worthy", whatever. GmanIV 11:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please don't WP:BITE the newbies. --Ideogram 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete for reasons all too obvious now. 2005 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. per above. Also, is there a process to help GmanIV learn proper WP etiquette (eg not posting [14])? —Gaff ^ταλκ 11:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave him alone. Don't respond to him for a while. --Ideogram 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. AniMate 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment note that there have been deletions from this AfD. See [15]. JulesH 17:19, 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. Sr13 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Jewish Humanism[edit]

Orthodox Jewish Humanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD[[)

There is no such animal! This is a neologism and this article violates WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Sure, Humanistic Judaism exists, but it does NOT have belief in God as one of its tenets! Hence it takes a "leap of imaginary faith" to posit that it can be somehow meshed with Orthodox Judaism to create such a hybrid. IZAK 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero ghits for Frum Humanism except this article and very, very few for Orthodox Jewish Humanism.It's doubtful therefore whether this is a "movement" as the article says. I think it would need to demonstrate the existence of some organised or at least recognisably discrete bodies that recognised the tenets outlined as their raison d'etre. BTLizard 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable - essay -Doc^g 08:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:VERIFY, google returns only 8 results and it looks like most of them are sourced from wiki Guycalledryan 11:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete humanism and Orthodox Judaism are clearly incompatible. It is possible that there is a tiny fringe group who call themselves "Orthodox Jewish Humanism" and do not understand at least on the those words. Nevertheless without any sources I have no reason to believe that any such group exists. The essay implies that any Orthodox Jew who does Charity work is a part of a Humanist movement - which is a misunderstanding both the ideas of humanism and the definition of the word "movement". Jon513 15:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article itself provides no sources, and I only found 7 ghits, none of them meaningful, and not a single item found in Google News/Archive. There seems to be no reason not to treat this as WP:NEO or WP:OR. Alansohn 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Origional research--Sefringle 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- looks like OR. --Wassermann 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I heard one of these OJH guys on Art Bell the other night, but I also heard a guy who was a time-traveling tourist on Art Bell too. - Crockspot 05:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be a neologism that doesn't comply with WP:NEO. There's plenty of evidence that some Orthodox Jews are involved in various social causes -- Avi Weiss and Joseph Lieberman are prime examples -- and this may be what the article is intending to say (I can't really tell for sure), and an article on such a topic might well be reasonable. However, because of the existance of Humanistic Judaism with its own ideology (and ideological baggage), saying that some Orthodox Jews are humanistic has a completely different meaning. In general, if an article claims to describe a contemporary phenomenon but its sources turn out to be nothing more than quotes from the Bible or similar, it's almost always an OR essay that's advocating what someone thinks should be rather than describing what is.--Shirahadasha 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete according to IZAK and Shirahadasha. --Shuli [[User_Talk:Shaul avrom|talk to me]] 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No such thing -- Y not? 06:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. If just one example of someone notable or some organisation describing itself in this way were given, that'd be different. BobFromBrockley 15:09, 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 speedily deleted as A7. Non-admin close. --Seed 2.0 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Mosler[edit]

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

This is nn bio. The band named does not have a WP page and would not meet WP criteria. delete. —Gaff ^ταλκ 08:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN. Only ghits are this article and the group's MySpace page. BTLizard 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - being in a band != assertion of notability. Note the nonsense at the end. MER-C 09:31, 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. Merging could still be considered, but some arguments against it were made that should be considered. W.marsh 13:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal terrorism[edit]

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

This term is nto in widespread use, and much of that use is actually not as discussed. The reference link does not support the content. A few reliabel sources discuss it, but usually in editorials as informal usage, not in main content. I don't see a proper scholarly discussion of the term. Main use seems to be bloggers-after-truth, trying to get one over on The Man and failing, representing the results as legal terrorism. It is, needless to say, a grossly POV term. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is entirely POV. Nick mallory 11:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on the terms reference in legal case. Article definitely needs more backing Guycalledryan 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to Vexatious litigation. It seems to describe the same phenomonon. Chunky Rice 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Include the information in Vexatious litigation as suggested by Chunky Rice and leave as a redirect. --Nehrams2020 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Nehrams2020. It has been used in official legal sources, and does seem to be another name for the same concept, so should probably be mentioned on that page. JulesH 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Also, the term legal terrorism may be a more popular and informal than Vexatious litigation. Explain (and avoid) jargon per WP:JARGON. User:Krator (t c) 18:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly less formal, but I don't see any indication that it's more popular.Chunky Rice 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight merge per above, but redirect to State terrorism, which I assumed at first this was about. Sandstein 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - I'm sorry, but in reading this article, I think it is on a topic specific to India, using language specific to India, and therefore should not be merged into Vexatious litigation - or into SLAPP or Chilling effect, as a box in the article itself suggests. Merging into one of these will separate it from other articles about Indian law - such as 498a, which it references; and will bury it within articles centred around other nations' legal systems, where any refernce to the phenomenon in India will be lost. However, it's still a very stublike article and should be marked as a stub for further improvement. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: I deleted the box for mergeto:Chilling effect, as whatever outcome from this AfD should change that. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, there's no reason not to merge, really. The legal concept is the same. Take a look at Murder. We don't need separate articles on how each country deals with the concept and what they call it. We have one article that discusses the concept and how it is applied in different countries.Chunky Rice 22:17, 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. Sr13 18:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Position[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:V. Not a widely-known figure skating position (no relevant GHits[16]), named for an amateur figure skater who herself has only 20 unique GHits[17]. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable position. Also, it appears to be self-promotion. If/When someone does it as part of a competitive program, then I'd suggest sticking it into spiral (figure skating) or figure skating spins as a variation, but, for now, just delete. Kolindigo 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like well-written self promotion <3Clamster 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- or at the skating rink, either. Unless/until this skating trick becomes notable enough to be described in multiple external sources, this falls into the category of a vanity page. If I'd spotted it before it was AfD'ed, in fact, I would have just marked it for speedy deletion instead. Dr.frog 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kolindigo. Caroline Zhang is more noted for this spiral position, which as far as I know is unnamed. --Lmblackjack21 10:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep' * To Whom It May Concern--The Taryn Position has been done in both qualifying and nonqualifying competitions beginning at the Los Angeles Open in July of 2006. The position was created in early spring by Taryn Horacek during a lesson with her coach Mary Becktell. Caroline and Taryn are friends having both trained with Becktell. Taryn can be seen doing the position at El Segundo during elite freestyles on Monday and Friday of each week.

Recently, the Glacier Falls Figure Skating club president, Don Rabbit took the move to the Governing Council and was told to call it the Taryn Position and attribute it to Taryn in all discussions and when teaching the move. There is no other way to name a move, but it is correct to assume that the first to create it and present it should receive credit.

I find it amusing that the move is notable and amazing on Caroline Zhang’s page, but not so for Taryn Horacek.Sk8rmom2all 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've gone through all the stuff from the GC that I can find on the USFSA site and I can't find anything about this position. Do you have documentation of this? Kolindigo 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the text from the Caroline Zhang entry that claims that she both invented this move and is the only person to have performed it, since there are no sources given for that information, either. Again, regardless of who invented it, why is this spiral position notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia entry? We don't have a separate entry for the far-more-ubiquitious change-of-edge spiral or dog-peeing-on-hydrant spiral positions, after all, and I believe those are at least specifically recognized in the ISU regulations. And this particular spiral variation is so obscure that there are not even any reliable sources describing it by the name given here! No reliable sources == not suitable for Wikipedia. And, the fact that you claim this skater has been seen at such-and-such rink doing this move is original research, not a reliable source, and again not suitable as the basis of a Wikipedia article. Dr.frog 19:05, 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 Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Discoveries[edit]

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

The article cites no sources, and is simply a list of episodes in a series, providing no additional information Monkeymox 09:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Expand - just a list. More needed and soureces. Think outside the box 09:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article asserts notability - "critically acclaimed" - although it doesn't as yet cite sources. Inasmuch as it's only been up since yesterday, perhaps the contributor might be allowed a little while to flesh it out? BTLizard 09:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs expanding. This is an actual show on the History Channel. More encyclopedic than all the Dances With the Stars type crap we have to put up with...—Gaff ^ταλκ 09:56, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landon P. Jones[edit]

Landon P. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn vanity created by user of same name as page. Listed for speedy, but user contested. —Gaff ^ταλκ 09:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.BTLizard 09:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as A7. I'm afraid there are a couple of things wrong here. First of all, the tag shouldn't have been removed by the editor who created the article (that's what hangon is for -- the db tag should have stayed in place though). Second of all, there's an excellent chance that the editor just didn't know that, which would also explain the lack of an explanation on the article's talk page. Since I believe the article to be speediable, I went ahead and re-tagged it as A7 for procedural reasons and notified the article's creator and only editor that it's up for AfD and CSD (in order to explain what's going on and to avoid being a biter. -- Seed 2.0 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability. Hosting a radio show on a campus station is not a claim. DarkAudit 14:27, 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 The JPS^{talk to me} 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heathy D[edit]

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

Bogus article. —Gaff ^ταλκ 09:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like a hoax-in-progress. BTLizard 09:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. For the record, Stephen Hibbert played The Gimp. Your choice of G10-in-progress or A1/A3/A7 now. Serpent's Choice 10:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate work. Heathy D is an aspiring actor and if you think his "failures" are not work writing about that's not really the issue.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no assertion of notability at all. Kafziel ^Talk 12:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirots[edit]

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

Generic band vanity. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Full of quite trivial information, with no indication of success. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:17, 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 speedily deleted as A7. --Seed 2.0 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe le Taxi[edit]

Joe le Taxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band with an unsourced article. No real claim to notability. I appreciate the standard for music are lower than for any other subject but this is not an article about the notable Vanessa Paradis song. MLA 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete No assertion of notability. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added tag —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corpx (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete article and then redirect page to Vanessa Paradis A Welsh zydeco band? Whatever next? Seriously, however, I agree that is absolutely zip in the way of verifiable notability for them. A1octopus 14:45, 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. Consensus and some holes in the keep arguments, eg the board is a lobby group with no article not a govt department, and the multiple sources may not actually be non-trivial, since some of them seem to be a directory. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo[edit]

Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another of the numerous non-notable Arbuthnots. At first reading this person seems notable, but when one analyses the text he is not. The positions he held are not notable. Such phrases as: "He was instrumental in obtaining the chair of Moral Philosophy for his intimate friend, Dr James Beattie" beg the question - so what?. The references are a family history by a member of that family., and two peerages which will list him because he was the father of a baronet. I shall also be nominating his son the equally un-notable George Arbuthnot, 1st of Elderslie. Giano 10:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Perhaps I'm wrong, but his place on that board sounds impressive enough, if it's an official government-related board. If it's what today we'd call a special-interest group, that's different. Nyttend 15:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being the secretary of the non-notable Board of Trustees for the Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland or even the organization Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland apparently is also unworthy of note does not satisfy WP:BIO; would the secretary of the Board of Trustees of Harvard University or the secretary of the Board of Directors of IBM be notable? Probably not; why should the secretary (is this they person who is an officer or just a go-fer?) of this obscure organization be notable? Presumably Mr. Arbuthnot has predecessors and successors to his illustrious secretaryship, and they'd all be notable no doubt? Carlossuarez46 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wikipedia is not a genealogical site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete.Hurd (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. Needs more sourcing if we are to consider him notable. The info here is hardly anything more than genealogical. The board of which he was a trustee does not have its own article. EdJohnston 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Clearly fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:N/HWY, and appears never to have played football in a fully professional league. However, the Oxford DNB includes a paragraph on Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo in its article on the Select Society, "an Edinburgh debating club for gifted and socially prominent members of the city's intellectual élite". That should be an inviting red link for anyone interested in Scottish intellectual history. Pharamond 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is our command. We already have an article, The Select Society, though it has no mention of any Arbuthnots. EdJohnston 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of an article... It seems the poster had little info to start with, but there are plenty of sources listed in the DNB article. Anyway, I made the redirect from the name without the article. The content of this article could be merged there, once somebody gets around to expand it (now it would just look ridiculous) or to the Arbuthnot family article, if that is kept. It is funny that the author of the Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo article completely missed the one thing that made the DNB include him somewhere. Pharamond 06:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can be shown he was a prominent member of the Select Society.Hornplease 06:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reality appears to be more nuanced than that. Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo has not been deemed important enough by the DNB to be given his own article (the society also included people like Adam Smith), but he is one of the only four members (out of at least 133) to be mentioned in boldface and with a significant amount of biographical detail in the Select Society article in the DNB. So is he notable enough to be given his own article here? Is he perhaps just notable enough to be merged somewhere? Or is he so disastrously non-notable that he needs to be purged to avoid making Wikipedia the laughingstock of the world? Pharamond 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: To Pharamond's questions, let's suppose that the most startling claim in the present article is true -- that he was the "intimate friend" of James Beattie and was the reason for Beattie's appointment. Fine. That, combined with the Select Society, would indicate either great brains or great money and some brains. Well, we have diddly in this article to explain, to justify, or to trace this figure's life as an intellectual. What we have here is more pedigree, more money as qualifications. Therefore, anyone with an encyclopedic desire and knowledge would not be aided by what exists there now. In other words, I do not see anything here to be saved in order to make a future article that fills the gaps between the mystery of the DNB 's (the 1898 one?) mention and actual encyclopedic standards. Geogre 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--From the DNB article: "the society was clearly a desirable club to enter, one which had no trouble rejecting peers and gentry in favour of men of talent." The UK DNB does not set the limits of our coverage, just as the Brittanica doesn't set the limits, and I would expect we'd have many more entries than they. I'd agree with George that anyone mentioned in either a full article or in bold as a paragraph is unquestionably notable. For one thing, they're a RS, and they always give references, so all of them will have two--and usually considerably more-- non-trivial references from RSs, which is the general standard. It's unfortunate that Kitty didn't think to use information from there, preferring his family genealogies as sources. Another example why paying attention to COI is important--not only will COI lead to insertion of dubious material, it can lead to ignoring good ones if one trusts one's private knowledge. DGG 02:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone with a subscription to the DNB tell us what the sources were for Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo? Until we know what the sources say, the long-term fate of this article can't be determined. EdJohnston 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know where people were finding the article, for my part. I jog down to consult the 2004 DNB fairly regularly, and I hadn't seen in it any of the prestigious societies getting articles, although that had been the sporadic case in the first edition. The fact that such an article wasn't picked up for 2004 doesn't mean that it's not worth knowing, or that it's dubious, but it does mean that I, at least, can't go check. Geogre 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, and particularly as per Geogre. Nothing of value here. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep multiple non-trivial reliable sources, listed in the article. No question that this article meets WP:N. JulesH 17:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet more ArbuthNotNotable spam. You would not want me to start listing all the Morgans! Or, say, the Smiths! DewiMorgan 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Three sources: one (Memories of the Arbuthnots) is not independent, and the other two are from directory listings. The posts listed do not meet WP:BIO, and the subject's main claim to notability is his position as Secretary of the Board of Trustees for the Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland. That may have been quite a significant position, but we don't know, because we have neither an article on the Board of Trustees for the Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland nor any references in this article to confirm its importance. If someone writes an article with proper sources to establish notability, that would be great, but right now all we have is an inadequately-sourced stub on a person of questionable significance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge If he is in fact in DNB for his involvement in The Select Society, his information could be put in there. Probably there are other less notable members that could be included to flesh out that page as well. I keep hearing the assertion that Memories of the Arbuthnots isn't independent, but it's never backed up by any evidence. As for DewiMorgan's insistence on delete votes based on the Morgan and Smith families; I say write them up if they've done anything or include them in articles pertaining to institutions they held a prominent role in. As a final note I'll say that Pharamond's statement "and appears never to have played football in a fully professional league" will keep me laughing for a while. Aspenocean 03:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memories of the Arbuthnots was published by a well-known, mainstream publisher. I find it hard to believe they published a book purely because of its author's vanity. JulesH 20:04, 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.