< May 19 May 21 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mhiji 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jasbond

This article has been recreated fourteen times.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery of the Druids[edit]

The Mystery of the Druids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't understand what the page is about. It looks like a joke to me. Teo64x 20:13, 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. Sr13 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigle.ask[edit]

Pigle.ask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is apparently an inside joke for some operator(s) of VAX/VMS computer systems. The article is poorly developed and does not explain any context or details of the subject. Nimur 06:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD runs its course over 5 days and will be deleted by an admin reviewing the discussion. -- Whpq 14:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MK Culture[edit]

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

Allegedly about Mong Kok, Hong Kong culture. Lacks proper attribution and referencing. It's current and only source is a Geocities website - in Chinese. Though it may remain to be a clearly known implicitly understood concept in reality, the absence of reliable and verifiable sources does not satisfy it for inclusion. The article in its current states is highly subjective and plain original research (w/o sources). When I first came across this article in April 2007, reasonable actions have been taken to improve the quality of this article. I asked the creator of the article to provide additional referencing, for which the request has gone unanswered. I have also notified the WikiProject Hong Kong community to solicit assistance. Absence of action suggests that this article does not have enough clear notability and sources to support a Wikipedia article about the subject. Luke! 04:21, 13 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, W.marsh 23:50, 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 speedy delete as copyright violation. Sandstein 06:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gebrauche-Musik[edit]

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

Orphan article about non-notable band. Should this article be kept, please verify whether they are German (I doubt that; their name sounds a bit awkward in German) and fix the category. Delete Kusma (talk) 08:23, 14 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, W.marsh 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chungliang Al Huang[edit]

Chungliang Al Huang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not really shown. Unless notability is shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 00:04, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - withdrawn. The Evil Spartan 23:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Hayward[edit]

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

Non-notable author (who has, btw, massively spammed his page: see here) The Evil Spartan 17:58, 14 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, W.marsh 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete unless fixed. The only external source that I see listed in this article is a link to a U of K press ISBN. That proves he's a published author, but that does not make him notable. Groupthink 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm satisfied this article has been sufficiently fixed. Groupthink 05:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; struck my neutral, and now opine Keep as per the additions. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. PeaceNT 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the Music Stops[edit]

After the Music Stops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This does not meet notability standards and is little more than a track listing. The only thing that links here is the artist page. Idioma 00:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The artist was nominated for deletion, however there was no consensus and so it remained. I can't find the link the AFD debate archive at the moment.Idioma 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. The artist himself seems to pass WP:MUSIC as many reliable sources such as All Music Guide were found, as well as proof that he's hit the US charts -- so I'm changing from weak keep to keep. I'll eventually try to clean up the articles on the artist and his album. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 05:34, 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. Sr13 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Azmi[edit]

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

No refs to indicate notability. Groupthink 01:00, 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 Deletion, not a single reference, and the information has been split into respective console articles --Steve (Stephen) talk 06:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of last games released for video game consoles[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of last games released for video game consoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was considered for deletion on 16 October 2006. No consensus was reached for deleting it at that time; however, over the past seven months, I feel that the situation has changed. In the previous discussion, Wikipedians seemed to be concerned that the information in the article was useful and interesting. In general, I agree with this; however, I feel that the individual pieces of information are valuable, while, as a list, it is not particularly useful. Because of this, I added the ((merge)) template to each section, direction editors to the new pages. Then, deciding to "be bold" as a fairly new Wikipedian, I took some initiative and did it myself. Now, all of the consoles' articles contain the information in this list, making it outdated. Finally, none of the information in this piece seems to be cited, although it is corroborated by other articles (without citation). In short, this piece is no longer needed, and I think it should be deleted. bwowen T/C 01:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea. Make a Timeline of video game consoles which would cover initial release, last release, and possibly other significant events in the history of all the consoles? There's separate articles on each generation, but History of video games is perhaps a bit broad a subject. FrozenPurpleCube 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea too, provided it does NOT add more than objective marks -- in other words, keep games like Donkey Kong Country and Final Fantasy VII (to use two potential 'breakthrough' type games) off the lists, and keep to first, last, and maybe even stuff like first dual shock game and first SNES game with an extra chip, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: This is a pretty good idea, as the information contained in this article does seem to have some merit to some people; however, I think that it would be best served if it were made into a section in History of video games. That would help to cut down on the excess of pages about the same topic, which is what I was trying to do by merging this information. Regardless about how you or I feel about this new idea, though, it is a subject that is something of a tangent. Although it is important to decide what to do from here, and although I really appreciate the new ideas that are coming out of this discussion, I feel that it is being derailed to some extent as well. People in favor of the new idea would easily be confused into saying "Keep," when really they want to "Delete" this one and create the new timeline - either in History of video games or somewhere new altogether. bwowen T/C 04:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History of video games is way too cluttered, and it already has separate pages for the various generations of consoles anyway. I would consider a timeline page to be a useful way to provide a broader picture to what is right now, not going to present the information very clearly. If you want to think of it as a spin-off section of that page you can, as that is sorta what it's meant to be. In any case, while it may be a bit distracting for folks to see this AFD with this other idea in it, it's still a solution that I think is the most suitable, so it's important that folks see it. Even if they don't though, hopefully the closing admin will pay close attention to this, and decide accordingly. FrozenPurpleCube 15:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you agree that mentioning this information is valid in the individual, but object to the compilation? How do you feel about the idea I suggested above? FrozenPurpleCube 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to a Timeline of video game consoles (no caps) article. --FuriousFreddy 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI really like Mister Manticore's suggestion above... I liked the list before reading it, but if it becomes more of a timeline, then it will be worthwhile...Balloonman 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not another article in the sense that this article will be around afterwards, but instead, a refactoring of the purpose of this article to a larger one that expands the purpose of this article (collecting otherwise acceptable information) to the subject at large. IOW, this is about replacing this article with something better. FrozenPurpleCube 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is stopping anyone from making the current article better while the discussion takes place. It's a 5 day process. It lacks sourcing and is generally poorly put together. I think it would work better as a part of the History of video games article though, rather than a separate article, personally. Leebo T/C 04:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is an irrelevant objection in this case, since the primary objection isn't to the information's inclusion on Wikipedia (note how the nomination itself mentions it being moved already) and while History of video games is a possible place, it's so over-cluttered right now, that I think the information would be lost amid that sea. Thus my suggestion. I bring up the idea rather than implementing it myself to try to get folk's opinion of this alternative. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm seeing a easily made distinction between "last commercial" release and actions taken by fans. Even if they sold their work, it'd be easy to note a lack of license or even production. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One specific issue with that is the recently released Beggar Prince, which is a commercial release, but shouldn't be considered the last release on the console. I'd suggest mentioning both. - 74.136.217.72 05:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, which is why I added the information to all of the respective console articles and nominated this for an AFD discussion. Thanks for your input! bwowen T/C 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem with merging and deleting is that that might run afoul of GFDL concerns, which require a history of edits be kept. Now if you looked up the facts on your own in other sources (which is probably necessary anyway, since this page isn't sourced), you'd be able to get past that. But here's the thing, a collected representation of this information may still have value, as I suggested above with creation of a timeline page. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people never read the rest of the discussion before chiming in with their unexplained votes? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:36, 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 redirect to the main article. Sr13 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes Golden Collection unreleased shorts[edit]

Looney Tunes Golden Collection unreleased shorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Is this list really neccessary"? There's a list of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography and articles on every installment of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection. Common sense should be able to help fill in the rest. FuriousFreddy 02:11, 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. Dakota 07:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor in African American culture[edit]

Rumor in African American culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mishmash of rumors alleged to be specific to the African American community, without commentary as to their veracity, some of which are directed at specific individuals, companies or recognizable groups. Several are unsourced. No evidence that they are specific to the African-American community. Wikipedia is not the Black Urban Legend home page. Risker 02:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Friday the 13th Sequel[edit]

Untitled Friday the 13th Sequel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's... nothing to say about this movie. The only information that appears to be available is that the studio hasn't yet decided whether to make it. I understand that pre-release hype is big for movies nowadays, but this is just kind of ridiculous. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP, though it seems that some thought needs to be given to the article's general disposition. -Splash - tk 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood and soil[edit]

Blood and soil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing improperly listed nomination that I noticed. I think the page should be deleted, myself, given that it's missing sources and seems to be almost totally OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the solution to that is to look for sources. [2] gives a fair number to indicate it existed as a doctrine, though I must defer to persons with access to the full sources to recount the meaning and whether or not the current article reflects it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I am the original nominator so maybe I cannot vote, but someone started the discussion while I was still writing my reasons--Mikerussell 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted under the following wikipedia policy:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (neologisms).

This article is a neologism that does not have a clear meaning. It began as an article exclusively about the Nazis on June 18, 2005, and stayed that way unchanged, without any references or much expansion for years until April 2007 when one editor tried to claim it was Platonic and widely used in academic history. I, and other editors, have found no evidence of this. Please see Talk:Blood and soil for more info. I would have argued to keep it as a Nazi article, but when I did more research, it seems clear the term is not recognized widely enough as a Nazi-exclusive term. The German term may be Nazi-exclusive: Blut und Boden (maybe an article as this about the Nazis would make some sense, or merged/redirect into R. Walther Darré?), but the English phrase has much less definitive meaning. Here are some samples of the term unrelated to Nazism:

I am going stop now but I could go on. This list did not take any more than just doing a Google search for "Blood and soil", and I did not include here any book, website or article that related to Nazism. Thus I believe this article should be deleted because it is an English language neologism and thus violates wikipedia's purpose and policy. I also think there is an undertone of racism to this article as it stood recently. One of the above cited articles is a right-wing U.S. hate group and this article is so indefinable and "loose", like all neologisms- it can be hijacked for political, unencyclopedia-like purposes. This is the emerging power of wikipedia itself, because if you do the Google search you will notice what first is listed. --Mikerussell 03:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, an AFD is not a vote, but rather a discussion, and as the nominator, you're certainly welcome to make your position clear, especially if some mistake occurred in the nomination process obscures your argument. FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason why somebody can't possibly make an article about this concept as much as Shock and awe or any other doctrines. Lack of interest in it means nothing, Wikipedia won't be built in a day, a lot of otherwise important subjects have poor articles. The other editor's concerns about Plato are a content dispute that doesn't reflect the subject of this article. If you are having problems resolving that issue, try RFC. Again, I don't know about those other usages, but there's a clear association with Nazi's and this phrase. If you can show a clear and distinct meaning for those other usages, they can be incorporated into this article or a disambiguation. A redirect to genocide makes no sense, that'd obscure the meaning of this policy. FrozenPurpleCube 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What categories would you use? Besides English phrases, I think the categories would contradict one another?-- also- Well, my point is it isn't a doctrine. Mikerussell 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking here. What do categories have to do with the current discussion??? If you're concerned about what categories this article could belong to, well, that's not a major problem. One on Nazis, possibly one on political doctrines, if you want a quick answer. Seriously though, that's a non-issue. This is a policy/doctrine of a major political party. It has been covered in a wide variety of scholarly works. That makes coverage of it appropriate. If you're having problems covering it appropriately, that's not a deletion issue, that's a cleanup issue. FrozenPurpleCube 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, and you might want to look at [4] the German Language version] which satisfies me that somebody can write a better article on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are missing each other here, so there isn't much point in discussing it further. The issue is whether it is a doctrine, or at least what type of doctrine it is, if it is a Nazi doctrine, then the edits that say it is much more are wrong. Shock and awe has no similiar dispute. You seem to be ignoring the core issue of the debate, by concluding it is a Nazi theory- "This is a policy/doctrine of a major political party." I am not going to edit the article because as I have said, I think it doesn't belong on wikipedia, and partly this is based on my belief that junky articles should not pile up. By deleting this article now, it doesn't banish the concept from coming back when someone, or something, makes it clearer. Your attitude seems to say, well the phrase has a lot of hits on Google Scholar, the German edition has an article, that's enough to keep it around- more the merrier. Your standard seems very low. I am not going to edit the article because I think there are irreconcible points made by differnt editors, and from my research it seeems to me it would be unwise to call this English language phrase a political doctrine. I actually believe User:HowardJ87 is making just as much sense as blindly categorizing it as a Nazi Theory, which as far as I know is a German party. German concepts simply translated into English do not mean the same thing in English. Suggesting the German history and culture can just be translated and applied to an English phrase is a bit simplistic. It doesn't bother me the way User:HowardJ87 has employed Plato now, I mean he offers some quotes and obviously has a good faith belief that this blood and soil concept is an ancient doctrine. I just think the article is really beneath the acceptable standard of wikipedia, even an online user-edited encyclopedia, and since there is a deletion process, it seems there is a need to edit material that is muddled, clouded, contradictory and not useful. If others want to comment they will, but you and I seem to be missing each other.--Mikerussell 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case, the subject of the article is not itself a problem, and if the content is, well, this is one of those cases where it's a case of cleaning up. If you're not disputing that this is a major policy/doctrine of the Nazi party, then indeed, I see no reason to delete it. I see no reason to object to this translation of "Blut und Boden" as it is quite literal, and it is the translation used by others. If you want to propose a move to another location, you're certainly welcome to do so, I don't know that the foreign-language title will be preferred, but at tje least, if there's another usage you can document, you can add (Nazi Doctrine) to the English translation.
Frankly, I don't understand why you're going for deletion so hard. Perhaps you might want to look at the AFD for Health care in Pakistan which was another recent case where somebody suggested deletion, but where the consensus was even more clearly for a cleanup. Again, the solution to bad content is to edit the page. This isn't a well-done article, I won't dispute that. Neither is the Pakistani Health care one. But there's no question to me that they're both a valid subject for some kind of article. So the best option is to leave it for clean-up and improvement. The content's not so bad now that it can't be used. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to do so, but deletion isn't necessary here. I would suggest an option like WP:RFC instead. Especially since it's quite possible the problem is in the editor, not the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, i've added the rewrite tag to the page because I do agree this page needs some reworking. FrozenPurpleCube 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, I don't know that the foreign language title will be appropriate in this case, I don't see that it's a problem to use the translation as it's in regular use in English, (and I think that Living space should have a note about Lebensraum as well), but if you do, the place you want to go is Requested moves. Not AFD. And complain all you want about the weakness of this article, that's missing the point of what I've been saying, the solution is to improve the article, not delete it. There is no denying that whether you call it Blut und boden or Blood and soil, the doctrine itself was a part of Nazi ideology. If it wasn't, that'd be a reason to delete, but it's not. You don't even seem to be claiming it wasn't. Are you, or are you just concerned about the quality of the article? If so, once again, I reiterate, clean-up is the solution. Or moving if you object to the title. But the fact is, deletion is not used just because an article on an otherwise acceptable subject is poor. (Well, except for Copyvio and BLP situations, neither of which is applicable here). Oh, and I'd like to point out that going to Brittanica or Encarta is needless, I've already posted a link to google scholar. Here it is again: [8]. Those are secondary sources, which is what anybody should be using to write an article, not tertiary sources like another encyclopedia. FrozenPurpleCube 05:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, just so you know, I don't support this article. I think it needs to be rewritten and otherwise improved. This is distinct from being deleted. Deletion is for other problems. This is a cleanup problem. FrozenPurpleCube 05:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm completely baffled at your insistence that there's not enough evidence to support the idea that "Blood and Soil" was indeed a Nazi ideology. If you are indeed claiming such, how do you refute the numerous scholarly articles that refer to it as such?
You can go on if you want about the quality of the individual articles, but the fact is, they do exist, and if they're older, you know what that means? It means there is a pattern of usage across several decades. That's actually a good thing. If some of them aren't good sources, well, that's not going to mean much for the aggregate, as with several hundred choices, it's possible to find some good sources in them. I see no reason to insist on exclusiveness here, if anything, that only means you create a disambiguation page. And note, this doesn't include simple usages like cases where chemical testing is going on (IOW, instead of anything meaningful by use of the phrase, it just means they tasted blood and soil samples,). If you can find somebody using that as their motto/doctrine, go for disambiguation.
And please remember, this is NOT a vote. It's a discussion. Numbers don't matter, the reasonableness of the argument here does. So far, you really haven't been convincing to me. I doubt you'll be convincing to the closing admin. I've tried to explain why, but it basically boils down to this "If Blood and Soil is in fact, a reasonable translation of a Nazi ideology, then deletion isn't the solution here". Since even the quickest of google searches gets results that support the idea, I'd therefore say consider options besides deletion. If you think "Blut and Boden" is a better title, propose the move. If you think there's some other usage? Create a disambiguation once you can establish that usage. If you think the article is in a poor state? Propose it for cleanup. Only if you are absolutely disputing that this phrase is associated with the Nazi ideology would deletion be the proper option. However, if you did so, it'd clearly be mistaken on your part. So I suggest you consider other options. Deletion isn't always the solution. FrozenPurpleCube 17:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: It is not prevelant enough to have its own article. It can certainly be included in other articles, like R. Walther Darré. You are assuming just b/c it is mention in articles, it deserves its own article, at the exclusion of the other reasonable references, scholarly or not, that "Blood and soil" carry, which is also evident in the articles unrelated specifically to Nazi ideology.--Mikerussell 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are going in circles, the issue is this article possible to improve, if not, it suggests the term is faulty, and the article should be deleted as providing faulty or false information to the general public. This vote, or whatever, is irrelevant, the future of the article is all that matters, and in 1 year I bet it will be just as muddled and useless as it is now because it is not a viabale article, but you really never sqaured up the issue about undue prominence, which seems beyond your concern. --Mikerussell 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see plenty of prevalence. Nothing you've said has refuted the idea that it's the name of a policy of a national party. Such things warrant coverage. If you think it should be covered elsewhere? Try a merge tag, or a move. If this article isn't correct now? Revert to a version you're satisfied with. If there is no such version, blank the page, find an acceptable source, rewrite it from the start. Don't just get so locked into the idea that there's only one option, or that having a poor article means anything. Wikipedia offers a wide variety of choices of actions besides deletion, and the fact is, it's a work in progress. This is like today's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics. Note how few people there are supporting deletion. Why? Because improvement is preferred over removal. Maybe they're wrong, but so far, the arguments against leaving the pages for improvement are limited. Same here. FrozenPurpleCube 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You stated your opinion many times, it is only your voice. I will reserve further comment until others comment, which I hope occurs. So far, you are the only voice in this discussion that has responded to my earlier points (or hasn't to be more accurate). Its five days right? I'll check-in, but your points have missed the issue as I see it and your suggestions are quite condescending. Don't be so certain. --Mikerussell 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry you find my responses condescending, would you care to explain how? I've tried to explain my position to you, but if it's come across as offensive, I'd like to do what I can to not offend you. FrozenPurpleCube 21:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it personal, but you should do what you think is best, don't tell me what should be done, go ahead change it as you see fit. I still don't think it is a workable concept-article, if you do- go on with your suggestions. If you cannot improve it, that says something about my point, not yours. I am busy today and the next couple, so I have not checked the article and out of curiousity just looked to see if others have commented, which seems like there hasn't been much input. Have to go, but will check-in probably Wedneday-Thursday.--Mikerussell 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're merely upset that I suggested alternate means of accomplishing your desired ends? I'm afraid I don't consider that condescending, I consider that an attempt to be helpful on my part so that in the future you might avail yourself of other options which you are apparently unaware of. Given your initial response to the discussion, I don't think it's inaccurate for me to say you seem unfamiliar with the AFD process, most especially the availability of other options. It's actually quite common for folks to stumble into deletion without realizing that maybe there's another alternative. However, I've found you oddly hostile to the mere idea of cleaning up. You've consistently failed to address why a policy of a major political party doesn't merit an article. So why would I even try to improve it? If you'd said "Hey, let's do that" I probably would have done something. But I find your attitude to be somewhat discouraging. So I've tried to address it instead. FrozenPurpleCube 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Upset? You interpret this as an emotional response do you? Isn't that violating some common decency rule for fellow editors. My arguments are valid, you may not recognize that, or understand them, but to reduce them to my personal "hostility" is really disrespectful, not only completely wrongheaded. Your response sounds like you have taken this issue as a personal dispute which cheapens wikipedia and this article even more. I guess there isn't much point of discussing it any further with you.--Mikerussell 13:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the response "your suggestions are quite condescending" to reflect that you were upset by my remarks. It's kind of hard to imagine why else you would remark on them. If you think I'm saying something about your emotional state, I'm not. I'm merely interpreting your position as one where you are not satisfied with what I've been saying. And I don't consider you hostile to me, I consider you to be hostile to the idea of cleanup instead of deletion. I consider this odd on your part, the same as I consider your reaction to my saying so odd. I don't think I'm misinterpreting you here. If you're taking that as personal, I don't know why, but maybe you should consider you yourself have said I've been condescending to you. Well, I consider your position one of hostility towards cleanup. Is either statement offensive or personal? No, I wouldn't say so. Sometimes expressing how the other is coming across is helpful to understanding a discussion. You consider me condescending. I consider you hostile to the idea of clean-up. Perhaps you might wish to examine why. FrozenPurpleCube 18:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I wouldn't have chosen to bring any of this up, but you did open the door. If you don't want me to comment on you, then please don't comment on me. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The 4 links actually are not references, but a Google search that is just reproduced. One link is from a Florida high school teacher, the other is an admitted "undergraduate essay" on ecology from a UK media website, one I cannot quite make sense out of "Blut und Boden" is discussing Jewish Zionism on a Marxist website. To quote it:

In life it is obvious that Zionist Blut und Boden provided an excellent rationale for not fighting anti-Semitism on its home ground.

This indicates that the concept is applied to Jewish Zionists, not the Nazi theory. It suggests that Blut and Boden simply means the words used are free from the meaning this article is acribing to them, at least the Nazi theory that the above editor has claimed- "Notable and well known in the context of Darré and Nazi Germany". In fact, it seems that the words are so fluid, they can be applied to any ethnic group, not linked especially or exclusively to Darre, although he did write a book with the title, a title that tried to perhaps capitalize on the general undefinable nature of the words in Europe.
Its misleading to call the 4 new additions references. How do they even relate to the current material? My argument remains that this term is so loose, so generally used, the article is without a coherent narrative core and it will remain unworkable, as it is now. If the concept could be improved upon I would support rewriting it and incorporate some references, but a Google search seems very unpersausive. The Harpers story I cannot even read, can anybody else? What is the point of linking to an article that is not accessible, how can someone rationally calculate its application. The standrads of inclusion are obviously very low on Wikipedia, as expressed by the above editors. I am the last guy who would think of bring up the name of Jimbo Whales on wikipedia but I recall hearing him recently being interviewed on NPR's "Fresh Air", I think, and he said how the website should work towards quality articles, not quantity. I can't help but be reminded of this idea now. I have no idea how he would look at this debate, and I don't really care, but it does show that the articles qualities are almost never discussed in reply to deletion, only Google counts and related searches and a general belief that you should "park" an article, fill it with contradictory nonsense even, in the vain hope it will be made better later. Deletion does not mean censorship, it means deleting an article that is not coherent or useful. I suspect a year from now this article will remain as contradictory and useless as it is now, even when the attention of this tagging is drawn to it, it doesn't seem to help its quality improve. --Mikerussell 00:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to beat a dead horse, but the Harpers article by Yehuda Nuriel offers a list of related subjects: Hitler, Adolf, Air pilots, Military, Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel, 1993-, Parodies, imitations, etc. How can someone claim that this relates to Nazi use of the phrase and Darre, it could be an article about Parodies, imitations, etc or any number of things. This Google searching is loaded when you are applying an English language phrase, and one that really can be used in "common sense" terms to apply to any number of things. In the 7 books I cited at the top of this article, one is a novel, for example. The weight given to these Google counts, Scholar or just regular Google, are rather pointless in this case, at least compared to a Google search for a person, business, rock band, movie or book; in those cases it may have much value in determining noterity in the wider culture. Darre wrote a book called Blut und Boden and thus he would have to a connection to the term in searching; it doesn't necessarily mean he is any more the main expositor of the "ideology" anymore than Allan Bloom is associated with Love and Friendship.. A Google search of that term is here. --Mikerussell 03:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, perhaps this is a fait accompli, but just for the record, I just got more curious about these "4 References" added by Paxse, and went back to try to figure out this "Zionist" "Blut und Boden" article, it seems to be written by an American left-wing advocate with a wikipedia article, Lenni Brenner. I mention this b/c he is far from a Nazi, he would never be classified as a person that thought Nazism was "good", or would use the terms Blut und Boden in connection to racism and the justification for the holocaust, which is really the most consistent theme presented here for non-deletion. If you read the article, he uses the term Blut often unconnected to the other words und Boden; the actual phrase used together is presented only once, as in the quote above. If one reads the Keep posts, they all seem to express a certainty that the term is a undoubtably, Nazi ideology, used directly or indirectly as a reference to Nazi policy/history. This is not true, and even a editor who suggests this is presenting "references" that discredit their point.
Regarding the comment that deletion would "leave a decent sized hole in wikipedia if deleted" doesn't make much sense. Again the articles where this article links to would be improved by deletion. For instance, a Wikipedia reader currently reading an article about Nazism or Action Française are going to be "informed" the term is related to Plato, ancient civilizations, Serbian tradition and other European cultures. If they read Lenni Brenner's artcle, they are going to read how he is arguing the term can be applied to Jewish/Isreali history and the Zionist movement. Does this really improve Wikipedia? The articles that use it as a Nazi term will be improved by deleting this muddled article, it will require more explanation of the term in primary articles. The hyperlinking can be a crutch that editors use to link to a page. There is already a big hole in wikipedia, again, this article is not coherent, is the person who links to it getting any real additional insight, or this article actually harming the article it links to by indirectly confusing the reader?
Finally, just to clarify my earlier statement about another article of the 4 being written by a Florida High School Teacher,The Doctrine of Blut und Boden Gerald McSwiggan, I deduced this from the URL, if you trace it back to its root URL, it is from Coral Gables High School; I found no reference to its author on Google Scholar; on Google, the name related to driving records and alumni postings, no reference to academic positions or other writings. --Mikerussell 17:29, 26 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. Most of the valuable content is already existing in the main article, and a deletion is not necessary if a redirect to the main article can be used, which is why I'm going with a redirect. Sr13 07:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Griffin[edit]

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

Well, this article was created in October 2005. Since then the TV show in question has, hopefully, faded from our collective memory, leaving only a blank void and the lingering question Who the heck is this guy? I don't know either, but I know that his 15 minutes were up a while ago. Herostratus 02:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was article listed in order to contest a prod, unrequired, article undeleted --pgk 10:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Registered Historic Places in Coconino County, Arizona[edit]

List of Registered Historic Places in Coconino County, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In actuality I do not think that this page should deleted. It was listed as a PROD on May 11 for the reason of "A list of almost entirely red-links". It was deleted on May 17. I believe that this was a mistake. I quite simply dropped the ball and did not see the PRODing of the article on my watchlist. If I had I would have contested the PRODing which would have brought it here. Ihave used my admin powers to undelete it and bring it here, if I should not have done this, I will delete it and take it to Deletion Review. This list is part of a series of lists for properties on the NRHP, divided by state, and in some cases, by county. (See List of National Register of Historic Places entries for the top level list.) It is my belief that any article on any property on NRHP would easily survive AfD. This list, then, is list that is most useful, for the present, as a development list, as per WP:LIST and thus should not be deleted. Dsmdgold 03:11, 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 nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aldergrove Elementary School[edit]

Aldergrove Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

None of these schools exert any notability. All fail WP:NOTE and WP:ATT --TREYWiki 03:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aldergrove Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anne McClymont Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anne McClymont Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anniedale Traditional School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armstrong Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
B. C. Muslim School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bankhead Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barlow Creek Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barrowtown Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bayridge Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beach Grove Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bear Creek Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bear Lake Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beaver Creek Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beaverdell Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beaverly Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belgo Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bella Coola Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belmont Elementary School (Langley, British Columbia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Berkshire Park Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bernard Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Betty Gilbert Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Betty Huff Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Big Lake Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black Mountain Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blackburn Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blacklock Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blair Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blarchmont Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blue Jay Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blueridge Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bonaccord Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bothwell Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bouchie Lake Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boundary Beach Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boundary Park Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bowen Island Community School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bowen Island Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bradner Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bradshaw Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Braemar Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brantford Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brent Kennedy Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brentwood Park Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bridge Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bridge Lake Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bridgeview Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
L'école Victor Brodeur (Richmond) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brookside Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buckingham Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buffalo Creek Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Burton Elementary School (British Columbia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about telephones[edit]

List of songs about telephones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Consensus has been mixed about Lists of songs about... in general. This one, however, seems clear-cut. A list of songs about telephones would probably be random trivia anyway. But as the talk page says, most of these songs aren't even about telephones. Many include telephone numbers, or even just the sound of a phone ringing. Serpent's Choice 03:52, 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. Sr13 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad astra[edit]

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

Only one hit about this paper on Google or Yahoo--and that comes from a personal page at the University of Oregon. Fails WP:N. Blueboy96 03:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Sources added. PeaceNT 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigi Schwab[edit]

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

Originally tagged ((Db-band)) with comment note that there is a German wiki article at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigi_Schwab, while my German is not very good, I am not seeing anything to support him as notable in English. A google search did not lead to anything worth using as a reference but did bring back a number of hits. diff The speedy was declined. Additionally this very short article has been unreferenced since Dec 2005 so fails WP:V, I searched for and did not find references to support the article but did find selling sites Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sorry I was not clear, I was speaking of reference that are in English so I can evaluate them in context to Wikipedia content criteria like WP:BIO "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." of the 28 returns on the link provided by User:cab, the several in English are all Muze entries on Mywire.com and are about Chris Hinze and mention that he was once "in a duo with guitarist Sigi Schwab" while this hints at potential notability it does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:V and does not provide "sources for anyone interested in expanding the article" Jeepday (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement that sources be in English. You are basically saying "delete because I lack the required background knowledge to comprehend the sources." If you made this argument on a math or science-related AfD, do you think people would be convinced? cab 22:28, 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 this shit, bitch. Krimpet (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity in songs[edit]

Profanity in songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-encyclopedic list, WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. Leuko 04:18, 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. Indication of a consensus to merge, and that could still happen, but some information was added late that should be considered first. W.marsh 22:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jingletown, USA[edit]

Jingletown, USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This unreferenced article does not appear more notable then any other neighborhood in America. Other then as a target for vandalism I can see no reason for Wikipedia to have an article about it. Reference checks on Ghits are low and mostly blogs. The article does contain 3 spam links, It was proposed Prod, the prod was decline with a recomendation of merge [11] I attempted the merge, the merge had a single vocal opposer. The extensive debate can be viewed at Talk:East Oakland, Oakland, California#Merge of Jingletown, USA. If the community believes this article should be deleted or merged they may also want to consider the list of neighborhoods at East Oakland, Oakland, California. I leave it to Wikipedia to decide I am taking them all off my watch list. Jeepday (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi CharlotteWebb, thank you for giving me a chance to respond. I placed a merge tag on the potential receiving article [12] and fairly quickly got a positive response from Jude. Jude suggested a full out merge of all the neighborhoods,[13] which on review of the articles seemed appropriate, but a fairly big move. I placed merge tags on all the related pages [14] [15] [16],etc and I wanted to wait a couple days to address any concerns.[17] This lead to the extensive debate on Talk:East Oakland, Oakland, California that showed no signs of resolution. So I bring it here for the community to decide. Jeepday (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. If you agreed that the article should be merged, there was no reason for you to nominate it for deletion. — CharlotteWebb 01:48, 22 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 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about nudity[edit]

List of songs about nudity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Highly indiscriminate. Even if this were properly focused, a list of songs about nudity would be little more than trivia. This list, however, according to its own lede, is a list of songs "concerning or referring to nudity, nude, nudism, nudist, naturism, naturist, nakedness, skinny dipping, streaking, streaker, nude beach, depictions of nudity, nudity in sport, female topfreedom (toplessness), bare skin, bare all, indecent exposure, flashing, flasher, etc." This is broad enough to include "Hot in Herre" (due to a single line), and even an instrumental jazz piece, because it is named "The Stripper". Serpent's Choice 04:39, 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. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sr13 07:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about animals[edit]

List of songs about animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Regardless of what might be able to be said about an actual list of songs about animals, this list, by its own criteria in the lede, is a List of songs that mention an animal in their titles. Lists of songs by words in their title have generally been considered trivial and/or indiscriminate. Serpent's Choice 04:48, 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 --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic American entertainers[edit]

List of Catholic American entertainers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Both Category:Roman Catholic entertainers and List of Canadian Roman Catholic entertainers were deleted as instances of overcategorization where a non-notable intersection exists. In this case, the relationship between an actor's or entertainer's religion and their acting/entertaining. Bulldog123 14:35, 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. Trivial trivia. Sr13 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about holidays[edit]

List of songs about holidays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

According to its lede, "This is a list of songs that mention, but are not centered on holidays." A list of trivial mentions makes for a trivial list. Songs actually about Christmas are already listed at Christmas music; I am uncertain that other holidays have a significant enough impact on music to warrant this list even were its current content addressed. Serpent's Choice 05:34, 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 speedy delete per SuperDT. Sandstein 06:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy ninja productions[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Crazy_ninja_productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable MonsterShouter 05:52, 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, at this time. The key reason for deleting these articles is essentially that they represent nothing more than a happenstance of intersection; hardly something an encyclopedia need worry itself over. The key reason for keeping is weaker: that this particular happenstance of intersection has some utility to a user of an encyclopedia (ie that it is encyclopedic). In my opinion, the basis in policy of the deletion case is firmer, but clearly there is no settled opinion on this particular article. I observe with academic interest the distinct shift in opinion since the previous AfD. -Splash - tk 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title includes personal names[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs whose title includes personal names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list, and its subpages, survived a 2005 AFD under what appear to be less strenuous requirements than currently exist. Lacking any context or justification, I do not see how lists of song by words in title, especially envisioned this broadly, are anything other than indiscriminate or trivial collections of information.

Despite my general opposition to mass-listing, this nomination, by necessity, includes the 26 associated subpages:

List of songs with personal names: A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: L (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: Q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: W (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs with personal names: Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regards, Serpent's Choice 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What item in that wiki link is relevant to this discussion please? I'm really not seeing it. Tvoz |talk 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The best I could think of would be "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles". Ten Pound Hammer • ((([Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|Broken clamshells]] • Otter chirps))) 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but it isn't that at all - I think that wiki link is not a appropriate one to cite in this. I don't see how this list violates any principle set out there, nor is it indiscriminate. So why bring it into this conversation? Tvoz |talk 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, that assumes that one knows the name of the song to begin with. And many of the songs' artists have wiki articles but not the songs themselves, obviously, so searching does no good. For example there are over 80 songs listed with the name "Mary" but only 6 or 7 come up on the Mary dab page, and a wiki search on "Mary" yields over 100,000 hits so that's not a practical way to find this information. The list is of course not claiming to be complete, but it is an ongoing project like all good wikipedia entries, and is a compilation in one place that is a useful resource for anyone interested in seeing an array of songs for a particular name. It actually is nothing like a list of names beginning with x in the phonebook - nor is it like a list of songs that contain the word "the" in them. This is neither meaningless nor indiscriminate, and no one has explained why it so offends their sensibilities to have it here. It represents a great deal of work by a lot of editors who do find it valuable- so who is to say that their efforts are meaningless? Tvoz |talk 14:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You really see no difference? Your hypothetical example is a totally meaningless random accident of spelling - this list's entries are thematically connected and not at all random. Tvoz |talk 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but the contents of the list are not thematically related. A title is not a theme. The songs with the same name in the title as each other aren't thematically related. Some of them aren't even about people of that name, for instance, a number of the songs listed with the name "Angel" are about actual angels, not people named Angel. Otto4711 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, those errant entries should be removed, absolutely. But that's not a reason to delete the entire list. I'm sure it could use some editing - like everything. The items in the list are thematically linked in that they are not "all songs that start with A" or something like that - the theme that links them are the names in the titles - linking "Take a Letter Maria" with "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria" is the food of popular culture research - a well-established academic field in fact - and this list and other simlar ones on Wikipedia elevate us from a bunch of kids having fun, as some see us (would that I were still a kid) to a proper research tool. No one has given any good reason for deletion - these songs have a relationship to one another that scholars of popular culture find worthy of writing articles and books about. Britannica doesn't touch it - we do. Tvoz |talk 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no thematic relationship between "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria," a song from a Broadway musical based on a true story sung by a group of nuns in a convent dealing with an unruly novice, and "Take a Letter, Maria," a pop song sung by a man telling his secretary to take his dictation of a letter to the wife who is divorcing him. The claim that these two songs, written decades apart, sharing nothing of theme, genre or style beyond the presence of the word "Maria" in the title, is ludicrous. If the song were "Take a Letter, Conchita" or "Take a Letter, Evita" or (changing just one letter) "Take a Letter, Marina," what do the songs then have in common? And assuming for a second that the two songs do have something in common thematically because they have the same name in the title, the list is not "List of songs with the name Maria in the title." There is no thematic relationship between "Take a Letter, Maria" for the list of M names and for instance "Maynard's Tool" or "Hello Mabel" or "The Day I Met Marie" or "Live from Matt Malloy's Pub" or any of the other dozens or hundreds of M songs from the list. Otto4711 23:59, 25 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 to an appropriate article. Foreign relations of Liechtenstein seems popular and already to cover the topic, so I'm just going to redirect there. As an aside, it is not helpful for someone to say "yeah, redirect to some article on Wikipedia". -Splash - tk 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein[edit]

2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This refers to an incident that received substantial coverage abroad because various media picked up on an "odd news"-style agency report during a slow news day. It received no coverage in Switzerland and Liechtenstein that I am aware of, though. That's because the Swiss Army is a militia comparable to the U.S. National Guard, its part-time soldiers have no handheld GPS, and consequently they stumble over some border very frequently (although admittedly usually not in company strength), and nobody cares about it or writes it up. Essentially, this merits a brief mention in Military of Switzerland (which urgently needs a rewrite, I notice), but not an article: we are an encyclopedia, not Wikinews. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, imagine a certain celebrity steps out of her car with no underwear on, is photographed doing so, and this is noted in "Odd Enough" columns around the world. Should we write an article on the Paris Hilton Indecent Exposure Incident (22 May 2007)? No. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; we don't write an article on every singular incident that newspapers cover. We write articles on notable subjects. The military of Switzerland and the foreign relations of Liechtenstein are such subjects, where this incident may be covered, but the incident in and of itself is not. Sandstein 05:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And that certainly sounds notable enough for a piece of an existing article. And this is why I don't oppose merging the content in full, but what I'm actually left wondering over is all the delete delete delete votes. Someguy1221 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably because one of seven paragraphs in foreign relations of Liechtenstein is already devoted to coverage of the incident. There's not much more to merge; any more would give this incident undue weight in the context of the article's subject. Sandstein 06:31, 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 speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#A7. Trying to remember why this was on my watchlist, and why I didn't nominate it for deletion before. – Riana ⁂ 11:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Press Play[edit]

Just Press Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability. As the article states, 'Just Press Play' is just a school band with no significance outside St. Joseph's College, Gregory Terrace. I can't believe that this article has survived for two and a half months already. Rob Lindsey 06:48, 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. Sr13 00:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The i20 countdown[edit]

The i20 countdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable radio show on a non notable community radio station. A PROD was contested by an anon editor with no reason supplied. Mattinbgn/ talk 07:09, 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. Moreschi Talk 11:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viona Ielegems[edit]

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

A photographer of pale-faced girls in forests. In contrast to modern photography Ielegems deviates from strict realism in art, the article tells us: this may come as a considerable surprise to many modern fashion photographers, let alone photographers in other genres. No claim is made for book publication. However, claims are made for exhibitions. Despite numerous polite appeals on the article's talk page, virtually all the evidence for these exhibitions come via Ielegems's own website. I shall Assume Good Something-or-other and shall take all of these as truthful. One was held at Antwerp and is shown here; it seems to have lasted from February till March of some illegible year. Another, in Luxembourg, lasted a single evening (shown here). A third, in Beijing, also lasted a single evening (here) and seems to have been as much a party as an exhibition. The sole independent source (here) is for the Luxembourg exhibition and puts our photographer within "a continuously changing group exhibition that runs for nine weeks during the Summer season. A great number of domestic and international artists from all disciplines will be presenting their work". There are two other apparently independent sources cited: this interview on what appears to be the private site of one Simona Vinati, and some article in Dark-Spy-Magazine, which I suppose refers to "Europas größtes Schwarz-Bizarres Musikmagazin!!" (not a magazine of photography). So, there's been just one exhibition of any possible note (though no claim is made that it attracted any critical attention that got into print), an article in an obscure magazine, and a privately-published interview. This is very thin stuff indeed, for an article to which there are links from Goth subculture, Neo-romanticism, and Neo-Victorian. Some claims (the contrast to modern photography) aren't credible, some (the exhibitions) aren't verifiable and perhaps aren't notable, the remainder isn't even slightly noteworthy. -- Hoary 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Africa[edit]

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

This is, to quote verbatim from WP policy, a "biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to". "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". Groupthink 07:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I missed that he's nlp; but it's still controversial and potentially libelous material. Groupthink 07:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under U.S. law, the estates of dead people cannot sue for libel. Only living people can do that. *** Crotalus *** 08:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point. The Philadelphia Police Department can sue for libel. Groupthink 08:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps Philadelphia can be sued. --Dhartung | Talk 08:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which only goes to prove my point. It is not my obligation to research every unsourced claim made in an article. If one is going to claim that Philly PD killed 20 people, one needs to back that claim up with citations like the ones above. Such citations were not provided, ergo the material was controversial and potentially libelous. Of course I didn't know much about the case. If everyone knew everything about everything, there wouldn't be a need for Wikipedia. The onus to provide evidence, however, is on the page creator, not me. Groupthink 08:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request. Groupthink 07:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify: are you arguing that controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, especially if potentially libelous, is by itself not grounds for deletion if the biographee in question happens to be deceased?!? And are you also arguing that since the Philly PD aren't the subject of the page, it's OK that they're potentially libeled? Groupthink 08:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should generally be removed from any article where it is found, but especially from biographies of living persons. Its existence, however, is not a ground for deletion. There is no reason that we can't have a balanced stub on any notable individual. Please familiarize yourself with the deletion policy, particularly alternatives to deletion for problematic articles. The article as I see it now is trivially verifiable, although some of the wording might be improved.--Dhartung | Talk 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite familiar with deletion alternatives, but thank you for the suggestion. Your implication that I did not consider how this could be edited/fixed is wrong. Here is how the article would read if all of the unsourced and off-base material were removed:

John Africa (born Vincent Leaphart) was the founder of MOVE.
References
* Craig R. McCoy, "Who was John Africa?", Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine Jan 12, 1986

If the consensus is to keep that stub rather than delete, then fine, I'll make that edit right now. Groupthink 08:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope in good faith that you would act to improve the article instead of trying to make a point. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what point you think I'm trying to make here, other than the point that this article cannot be improved because it does not meet inclusion standards. Groupthink 09:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
510 Google News Archive results for "john.africa move philadelphia". That's quite a few for someone who you seem certain "does not meet inclusion standards". --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, talk about disingenuous. I said the article, not the person, doesn't merit inclusion. I've been proven wrong (although please do remember that it's the quality, not the quantity of Google hits that count). Groupthink 10:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to establish notability. In it's current form, it does not meet WP standards. Groupthink 08:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been rewritten to a point where it merits inclusion. I withdraw my AfD nomination, but since the article is now primarily about MOVE, I am going to request that it be merged with MOVE. Groupthink 10:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn my nom. Please argue against my proposed merger on Talk:John_Africa. Thanks. Groupthink 11:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep by means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Africa[edit]

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

This is, to quote verbatim from WP policy, a "biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to". "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". Groupthink 07:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike with John Africa, WP:BLP directly applies. This person is living, and this article is low-quality... but you know what? In a gesture of good-will, I withdraw my AfD nom in the hopes that this material can be merged to MOVE, where it belongs. Groupthink 10:55, 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. Krimpet (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bread and guns[edit]

Bread and guns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity article, something someboday made up at school one day 2005 07:38, 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. Sr13 01:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)[edit]

2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First, the date wrote as in article is not true, AFC not officially released the schedule as what wrote in 2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification #Asia (AFC). Second, with the schedule not yet released, also the format is undecided, this consider crystal ball which Wikipedia not permitted. Aleenf1 08:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The draw for the initial groups actually takes place later this year, but it's so poorly written I can't see a problem deleting now and starting from scratch. EliminatorJR Talk 19:41, 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 speedy keep. I'm not going to assume bad faith, but consensus and policy are clear. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania[edit]

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

Not notable conference, The only hits its gets on Google news are blogs and it has not secondary sources. DXRAW 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be fun. Nick mallory 08:31, 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. Clear precedent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs over fifteen minutes in length (second nomination). Krimpet (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs over ten minutes in length[edit]

List of songs over ten minutes in length (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unmaintainable list, fails WP:NOT. The list of songs over 15 minutes in length was deleted in November 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs over fifteen minutes in length (second nomination)), but this is even worse. Prolog 09:10, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary. Herostratus 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of two-letter English words[edit]

List of two-letter English words was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-14. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of two-letter English words.


List of two-letter English words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate listcruft. For some reason this survived while list of one-letter English words and list of three-letter English words were deleted. There is no assertion of why two-letter words are notable among other words and the list is as indiscriminiate as List of x-letter names or List of x-letter countries. Though I am aware of the "other crap was deleted" fallacy I fail to see the point of this. If this is useful to scrabble players then those interested in that should remember that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also, as noted by the closer of the last AfD useful is not an argument tied to policy in anyway. Not keeping indiscriminate information with no assertion of notability is policy. MartinDK 09:44, 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 Withdrawn --NMChico24 23:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Henkel[edit]

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

Sketchy notability. As usual, prod removed by page author without edit summary. NMChico24 09:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's re-edited now. Nick mallory 11:44, 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. Sr13 00:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Jets[edit]

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

The company [30] website states "Imperial Jets does not own, manage or operate aircraft. As an air charter broker, Imperial Jets acts as an agent for our clients seeking charter air transportation and assists them in finding the best operators for aircraft." As an air broker, it is not a notable entity Russavia 09:52, 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 Withdrawn by nom per cleanup. --NMChico24 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smithy (The Bill)[edit]

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

Pretty much speaks for itself. This is a non-notable mess that has no hope of being cleaned up. NMChico24 09:56, 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. MaxSem 08:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Visevic[edit]

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

Football player not yet with professional contract. PROD contested by the creating editor for the following reason detailed in the edit summary "This article should not be deleted as Daniel Visevic has an involvement with Melbourne Victory Football Club, and is notable because of this." While the article makes an unreferenced claim that the subject is training with Melbourne Victory, he has yet to sign with them regardless of rumours. Mattinbgn/ talk 10:17, 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 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No More Legions in Our Region[edit]

No More Legions in Our Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be either a crystal-balling or a hoax. No sources have been cited, and there is nothing on the BBC website about this. It also seems to be unverifiable too, per the lack of sources. SunStar Net talk 10:14, 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 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total Gamer[edit]

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

An unreferenced article on a non-notable magazine. A contested PROD, no reason given. Mattinbgn/ talk 10:21, 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 Speedy deleted by User:Doc glasgow. Non-admin closure of orphaned AfD Hut 8.5 13:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irving mushman mayerson[edit]

Irving mushman mayerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about an individual dog - and not notable enough to be in Wikipedia, in my opinion. greenrd 11:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP. As correctly observed by Biggspowd, the notion that we should keep something because it was rejected from a 'main' article is indeed bunk. I would suggest that if a cleaned-up article were still unacceptable, that a better case for deletion would then be made. -Splash - tk 22:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man in popular culture[edit]

Pac-Man in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another trivia article that is almost all mentions and spoofs of Pac-Man. Any relevant information (from this article) should be inserted in the Pac-Man article. This isn't encyclopedic content, it's just a cluttered trivia list with very little notable things. Yes Pac-Man has been spoofed and mentioned alot: but so what? Just about everything popular (and in some cases: not popular) is in pop culture. That doesn't mean we need an article here about it. One example from the article: In an episode of the TV comedy series Friends the character Chandler Bing is given a Ms. Pac-Man machine, and is seen playing it several times. That might be interesting to some, but overall: it's just not that notable. RobJ1981 11:09, 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 deleted by User:^demon per CSD A7. YechielMan 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Purple Man[edit]

I originally put this up for Speedy but the tags were removed by someone other than the original author. A NN street artist fails WP:BIO Fredrick day 11:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this article should be kept or at least merged with another article about street performers Plus, the links that the user provided show that the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.211.181 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 may 2007.

what links? the article contains a single link to his own site - which consists of a single page with his email address and contact details. As a street performer, he is entirely Non-notable. --Fredrick day 11:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I meant the links on the talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.211.181 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 may 2007.

the first is an article about football which is discussing how people are getting ready for a match and he is mentioned in passing (because he plans to watch it from a bed of nails) - he is not the subject of the article so that fails WP:RS, the second is about his border troubles and again is not about his career as a street performer. He is not notable as a street performer and therefore fails WP:BIO. --Fredrick day 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he was not notable neither of these links would have been avaliable. Anywho, I have a couple of friends who visited England and said they saw him in York. They were therefore interested in reading the article. Case Closed.

The debate is cleary over. You can let it go now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.211.181 (talk • contribs)

em no it runs for five days or may be be closed earlier if the consenus of multiple editors is clearly showing it should be saved or deleted before that time is up.--Fredrick day 12:14, 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 DELETED. -Docg 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shilpa Shetty rant incident[edit]

Shilpa Shetty rant incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is unverifiable, and appears to be a breach of WP:BLP. No sources have been cited for this "incident". There are no ghits for this 'incident' either. SunStar Net talk 11:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me. Thought I was logged in but I wasn't. BTLizard 13:03, 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. W.marsh 13:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Guyon[edit]

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

Doesn't establish real notability per WP:BIO. Neither being a mason nor being the ancestor of people would quite qualify. Crystallina 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Still no demonstration of notability (Sorry, Canuckle, if I misread your tone!) This is presumably the City of Quebec link and it adds nothing to the question of notability: it just repeats what we already know and is being challenged as adequate - JG emigrated from France, got a land grant, worked as a mason and had descendants - end of.
The street was named after the park, not after JG, and I disagree in any case that having a park named after you (in Quebec or anywhere else) is automatically enough to demonstrate noteworthiness - often it simply refers to early land owners, which is what seems to be the case here. We're back to the question whether being an early colonist and havgin lots of descendants is in itself notable. If it's not, then I still don't agree that there's a case for keeping this article, because no-one has been able to demonstrate that JG did anything else. HeartofaDog 23:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that naming of a street or park in a provincial capital, one of the oldest cities in Canada, does not automatically demonstrate noteworthiness. But it does suggest that officials in that part of the world may think the subject noteworthy. French-Canadian wikipedians must consider him noteworthy as he's on their to-do list for biographies: [33] After the new seigneur, Guyon leads the lists of settlers who arrived in 1634, just three years after the British returned Quebec to the French in a treaty. That voyage increased the fragile population of Quebec from 100 people to 134, which is why the size of his family is so valuable and notable. Sure he's "just" a mason, but the other key settlers are carpenters (such as Marin Boucher and tile makers, the type of people you need to "build" a colony, particularly into virgin territory which is where his land was. He could read and write, too, which sounds mundane but which meant he could serve as a notary, an important role in a new colony. To provide more sources for the article, I've now added links to the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canadian Embassy in France and the population study by the Universite de Montreal. (And Inside Entertainment too (eww!) as "close friends" of Madonna say she's thrilled to be related to Camilla Parker-Bowles). Canuckle 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Did the people of Quebec regard Duyon as a notable pioneer? I've been trying to access the Library and Archives Canada site during this discussion. It finally appears to be fully functioning again. Its Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online offers access to the officialy commissioned biographies. It was established as:

      "a Canadian equivalent of Great Britain's prestigious Dictionary of national biography. The original plan was for a dictionary of some 15 or 20 volumes that would provide critical biographies of the important figures in Canada's history from the 16th century to the middle of the 20th century."

Guyon has an entry in the first volume, given he lived prior to 1700. I've linked this bio to his article. In its bio of Guyon's seigneure, it describes Guyon and this group of pioneers as "all of whom were the forefathers of important families in the French-Canadian nation". Not news to us but more authoritative recognition from an encyclopedia-like source of his notability as a pioneer.

    1. Did he have a role in the colony other than clean land and be a mason? He was one of the founding members of the Compagnie des Habitants which gained a royal charter for a fur-trade monopoly for North America (except for Acadia). This was open in theory to all inhabitants but only the wealthiest leading families could participate.
    2. Beyond the celebrity news, is there notability for the genealogy? Guyon and his wife were identified in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Science as introducing the gene forFriedreich's ataxia into the French-Canadian population. Canuckle 22:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks. I've held off major improvements because why waste further effort on something still listed as up for deletion. I did create Robert Giffard de Moncel, his neighbour who is easily more notable. I hope this content is more inline with what is expected. If people agree, please comment on the Talk:Jean Guyon page rather than in the delete conversation. Open to all feedback. Canuckle 21:43, 25 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 (I'm not the deleting admin). Sr13 03:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Romero[edit]

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

Apparent hoax article. Can't find this guy on the roster of any level of Real Madrid's program. Metros 12:41, 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 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Parkhouse[edit]

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

Musician who doesn't meet the criteria from WP:Band. The article mentions many bands of which he has been a member, and although some have articles and could be considered notable, an individual in a notable band does not necessarily make the person notable. It seems that this artist has no notable work outside of his bands and thus is not notable. Finally, the only source in the article is an attempted link to his new band's myspace. Phydend 05:03, 13 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, W.marsh 13:08, 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. Herostratus 00:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Youth Theatre[edit]

Valley Youth Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local theatre with 1 or 2 notable alumni. Delete. fethers 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

"valley youth theatre" phoenix

Yields 17,400 hits. On what do you base your claim of lack of notability? Alumni Max Crumm and Jordin Sparks alone should qualify this theatre as notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zzglenm (talk • contribs).

Max Crumm and Jordin Sparks are notable. The theatre's not. Famous alumni does not confer global notability to a location. fethers 21:25, 18 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, W.marsh 13:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've prodded what looked nn and left those that mentioned they were national companies or the first of their kind. That said, "these things exist so mine should too" isn't a valid argument on AfD. fethers 03:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there mention of being "national" or "first of their kind" as criteria for notability? I couldn't find it on the Wikipedia:Notability page. Zzglenm 04:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base your claim that precedent is not a valid argument? Nothing like that appears on the AfD page. Precedent is a powerful argument. Please let's apply the rules consistently and fairly. Zzglenm 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have now marked for deletion only a small sampling of one search that I did. Interestingly, you marked the ones that have the highest relevance ranking because I took my sample from the first page or two of results, so you've left many, many other, less relevant sites untouched. Arbitrary application of the rules cannot be in the best interests of Wikipedia. Zzglenm 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my job to go through every article and nominate them for deletion or not. I'm not getting paid to do this, I just like to help out from time to time. Why so touchy about it? Saying that they're THE national company (such as Scottish Youth Theatre) is a claim to notability, and is easily referenced. Saying they're the first of their kind is a claim to notability, and easily referenced. I prodded the ones that were just stubs. There's a saying around here: sofixit. If you think there's other things that should be deleted, nominate them. If you think they're notable, supply some references to shore up the article. You don't like it? So fix it! fethers 03:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think that Valley Youth Theatre has some firsts, including a national first. I will check with the folks at the theatre and report back to this discussion after the holiday weekend. Incidently, I would think that Valley Youth Theatre alumna Jordin Sparks' win at American Idol should give the theatre just a tad more notability (her WP page makes reference to the Valley Youth Theatre WP page). Zzglenm 04:32, 24 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 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem's fifth studio album[edit]

Eminem's fifth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's one thing to have articles on future releases (many, including me, object to that), but an article on something that doesn't even have name? It can't be notable — it's a thing of rumour and speculation. Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Evilclown93 14:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. The article says that it is "according to rumors", and an encyclopedia is not a repository of rumours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules]]Inx272

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

The result was speedy delete as spam. --Seed 2.0 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cadma[edit]

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

Repeatedly deleted per A7/G11, repeatedly recreated for no stated reason. No assertion of notability, no references, questionable amount of personal information. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:30, 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. W.marsh 13:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 17, 2006 Nanjing UFO Incident[edit]

August 17, 2006 Nanjing UFO Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Event does not seem to be a notable UFO sighting, having an article perhaps only to buttress the single image shown. ScienceApologist 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair there is a short video on youtube/google video of this 'ufo' [37]. The links to it were removed from the article. I don't believe it's really an alien ship for a moment, but that's not really the point regarding notability. Nick mallory 14:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bearman[edit]

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

The article was deleted for speedy deletion per non-notability, but doesn't qualify, since there is an assertion of notability. I'm moving this to AFD instead. This is a procedural move, so I have no opinion. AecisBrievenbus 13:46, 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 all. W.marsh 13:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA)[edit]

McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These corporate vanity articles and images were added by single purpose accounts, one of which (RLM2007) also attempted to redirect existing articles to their articles. There is a related report on the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles:
  • McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA) - (((db-spam)) tag removed)
  • Token Test for Children - 2nd Edition (TTFC-2) - (((db-spam)) tag removed)
  • Five Factor Personallity Inventory - Children - (A misspelled redirect to deleted article)
  • FFPI-C - (A redirect to deleted article)
  • Five Factor Personality Inventory - Children - (deleted)
Images:
  • Image:Personality.jpg
  • Image:MISA2.jpg
  • Image:TOKEN-16.JPG
  • Image:MISA-16.JPG
  • Image:FFPI-C.JPG
COI SPAs:
Single purpose accounts in order of appearance on this AfD discussion page


Addendum. Pro-ed is a highly reputable publisher of psychology and other tests, and so I do not believe self-publishing comes into this. --Slp1 20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as an SLP myself I will have to disagree with this poster and his/her clinical opinion. The Token Test (original version) might be considered the grandfather of all listening comprehension tests (it is very old, for sure) but the TTFC-2 has only just been published (2007) and is in few clinics or offices as yet. It certainly does not hold the same stature as the S-B or the WISC. More importantly for WP purposes there are no third party reliable sources about it yet. I expect there will be, but there isn't yet. Slp1 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You come jumping in, a brand-new participant on Wikipedia, voting to 'Keep' in a debate where a Conflict of Interest is suspected, and you think we're not running an honest debate? The votes of editors who don't have a track record here are often disregarded by the administrator who closes a deletion debate.
Everyone's arguments will be listened to, whether they are new or old. The article at present is quite lacking in independent third-party evaluations of the test, so it threatens to not pass Wikipedia's standard of notability. If the test is well-documented in the literature, you and the other new editors are welcome to add reliable sources to the article. They will be weighed when deciding whether to keep the article. As noted earlier in this debate, most of the books in the reference list actually *pre-date* the test under discussion, so they don't help to prove this particular test is notable. EdJohnston 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be WP:CIVIL. You are welcome to review our policy on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. EdJohnston 19:24, 22 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 - Non notable. Aquarius &#149; talk 06:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Mardi[edit]

Terry Mardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Non-notable, WP:V problems. External link citing "Official Website" can't be reliable, considering the guy was born in 1869. Cool Bluetalk to me 14:20, 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. Sr13 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of Chucky[edit]

Revenge of Chucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Can't find any confirmation; Article is loaded with speculative, unsourced data mcr616 Speak! 14:43, 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 speedy delete as a copyright violation of copyrighted ("© Pali Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved") non-GFDL content. This was a straight copy and paste of a web page from votesizing.org that lays out the "Guiding Principles" of a proposed political party. It wasn't an encyclopaedia article about that party. It was just an attempt to abuse Wikipedia as a free wiki hosting service for a straight copy of copyrighted literature written by the proponents of that party. Uncle G 10:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Empowerment Party[edit]

Democratic Empowerment Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was proposed for speedy deletion, but the creator added the hangon tag. I googled the article name, and I got a decent number of results, but they were more blog-type sites. I felt that a discussion pertaining to the deletion of the article would be more appropriate. Evilclown93 14:47, 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 keep. Sr13 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Hawkins[edit]

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

The article fails to cite sources, the guy fails WP:BIO. He's non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 15:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sources:


Subject was one of the co-founders of the Green Party in the United States, has mounted well publicied campaigns for state office, and is one of the leader of the GP in NY.

More to the point, GreenJoe has a history of marking dozens of GP politicians for deletion. Keep T L Miles 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. PeaceNT 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Jow Pai[edit]

Fu Jow Pai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was originally deleted as a copyvio; however, one later revision did constitute original content. DRV found an assertion of notability, as well as several possible sources. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:40, 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. PeaceNT 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box Hill Chess Club[edit]

Box Hill Chess Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

They fail WP:ORG and the article fails to cite sources. They are not notable. Delete GreenJoe 15:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there are no reliable sources for that claim, and according to their website, they have 160 members. I'm sorry, but even if they are the largest, at that size, it's not significant. In any case, accusing someone of a history of bad faith nominations is ill-advised, unless you can argue some particular bad faith here. Which I simply don't see. FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad; I was a bit hasty. A quick Google search fails to find anything but Wikipedia mirrors as far as the "largest" claim goes. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, which admittedly, isn't the whole article, none of those are actually about the club itself. Some of the examples are just calendar events (and thus not actual coverage of anything any more than my local swim club's meets being in the paper), others are just trivial mentions in articles that are primarily about another subject, rather than the club itself. In effect, it's like having a profile of a major celebrity to justify his elementary school having an article. FrozenPurpleCube 02:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this is an important article. What about this subject is important and how can it be expanded beyond the trivial? FrozenPurpleCube 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Above comment is from creator of article, who has also created a series of articles on "eisteddfod"s without bothering to explain what an eisteddfod is. I marked those articles for speedy deletion. JuJube 18:36, 23 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 `'mikka 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Andy[edit]

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

Nonnotable "experimental rock artist" with a bunch of mp3 CDs for sale Mukadderat 16:38, 11 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, W.marsh 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth mysteries[edit]

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

"Earth mysteries" isn't a subject, it's one of dozens of terms used in crank pseudoscience to describe anything they think is odd. The subject is covered by other articles. SchmuckyTheCat 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The right way to direct people to more coverage is delete then redirect. SchmuckyTheCat 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, "earth mysteries" is being used not as a subject in itself, but as an umbrella term for a bunch of concepts, we already have that list, and this term should redirect to it. SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Earth mysteries covers some of the same topics as the List of pseudosciences, but in no way does it apply to all of them. The way the article is written "Earth mysteries" is, in fact, the subject of the article. It's a short article, and it's very clearly not redundant with the list of psuedosciences. Look, people who follow Earth mysteries are completely wrong. But Wikipedia has lots of articles about people, groups and movements that are completely wrong. My point is that "earth mysteries" is a belief that some people (sadly) ascribe to, and as such, it would be derelict for us to delete it. --JayHenry 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prehaps this should be a category rather than an article Think outside the box 11:56, 14 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, W.marsh 15:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you'd suddenly wish you'd disabled "receive email" in your preferences... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to deal with POV is to balance an entry, not delete it. perfectblue 20:09, 22 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 to Craigslist - this is an incident not a biography -Docg 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nichole Marie Blackwell[edit]

Nichole Marie Blackwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Rightly) contested speedy. While this does have multiple sources (I'd heard of her here, 6000 miles away), so technically does pass WP:BIO, I really don't see the need to have an article on her. Not only does she fail the ten days rule, let alone the ten year rule, but nobody is going to search on her name for this story. There have already been multiple similar stories since this one, and at most, this warrants a single paragraph in Craigslist — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:15, 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 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ryan[edit]

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

A senior minister of some church who has apparently self-published a two books. This does not appear particularly notable. Judged by the tone of the article, it is written by people of his church in conflict of interest. >Radiant< 10:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the guy. The convention on Wikipedia is to use the name the subject is most widely known as for the title (e.g., "Sting" instead of "Gordon Sumner"), whether or not it's their legal or birth name. If he's only called "Skip" in certain situations or by certain people, then no, that wouldn't be the one to go with. Maybe Joseph F. Ryan or Joseph Ryan (Minister). It's not big deal currently because this is the only Joseph Ryan article. However, if you hit the "what links here" button, you'll find there's a Joseph Ryan in the 1934 longshore strike, one in the 1904 Olympics, another who's an Irish-American mobster, and a Winnipeg Blue Bomber. Bobanny 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like we need a DAB page. However, the fact that we need an article on some of those Joseph Ryans doesn't imply that we need an article on this particular one. >Radiant< 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's a little off topic. But since no one who has an interest in the article is around, what else do we have to talk about? Seriously though, I did a little work on it, and I'm considering changing my vote. His notability seems more dubious than it did at first glance. Bobanny 10:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has a couple of published books and multiple newspaper articles so I don't think it has a notability problem, but still it needs some work I would think. Billymumphry 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to delete. Looking a little closer, the subject doesn't resonate outside a very localized church circle. He has 2 books, that technically aren't self-published, but if you google the titles, all they produce are websites trying to sell them. No reviews or indication that they provoked any interest beyond his own small flock, of which he is no longer the shepherd. He was the minister of a church with money, and that's why he was published. Newspaper articles? He wrote an editorial years ago in a Dallas paper. The same paper announced his retirement. Not much else. His controversial stepping down has been pretty much kept under wraps except for an announcement on the church website admitting that he's a drug addicted deviant, just another wayward sheep needing restoration by the church (which no doubt consists of purchasing non-notable books from Crossway publishing). No one outside the congregation seem to care or have noticed, or else are too nervous about incurring the wrath of the church by saying anything publicly (at least that's the impression given on the talk page). Besides that, he met with Bono, as have a kazillion other people. Looking at the article's history, Bono's "people" stepped in disallowing a photo of the rev and superstar from appearing on Wikipedia, which doesn't bode well in establishing notability. Bobanny 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was list as CSD g4. Non-admin close. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My proposal of speedy deletion for this page was based on an incorrect premise. Article was not recreated as Ozgod stipulated (content was: '((db-repost))Joseph Ryan (born 1970) is a photographer best known for his work with the Grateful Dead (1992-2001) and the reuniting of [[B...'). Speedy deletion should have been proposed per CSD a7, as this content is not the same as the content of the article nominated in the AfD process (content was: '((db-bio))Joseph Ryan, Born in February 1991, (Day unknown) is the founder of Shakirism. He worships Shakira. So far, he is the only known worshippe...'). My apologies for any confusion this has caused. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ryan[edit]

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

Article was recreated and fails to meet WP:Notability Ozgod 16:25, 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 of the debate was Keep. PeaceNT 02:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amaranth Games[edit]

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

Non-notable game with no reliable, non-trivial sources to support notability. Original research. Non-verifiable plot details. Andre (talk) 17:13, 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. W.marsh 13:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gate 88[edit]

Gate 88 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game with no reliable, non-trivial sources to support notability. Andre (talk) 17:17, 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. Herostratus 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Provan[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a student who made a video which some people thought was funny and so he got some media mentions in a "famous for fifteen minutes" style exposure. I do not think this makes James Provan notable. Sam Blacketer 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: has previously been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Provan (student). Sam Blacketer 17:28, 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 REDIRECT to Order of the Arrow. There's little support for retaining the standalone article, and it's now been culled to contain so little substance it is an obvious candidate for a redirect as largely implied by Gadget850. -Splash - tk 23:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abooikpaagun Lodge[edit]

I'm concerned that this unreferenced article doesn't meet WP:ORG as while articles like Scouting in Arkansas is a possibly reasonable article (if poorly done), the various districts within it are not. What next? Individual scout troops? FrozenPurpleCube 17:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't recommend that anything be lodged other than the name, as there's nothing sourced there. Perhaps a delete followed by a redirect? FrozenPurpleCube 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least 80% of the article duplicates material found in Order of the Arrow, so there really isn't much to move. The article is currently tagged for a merge and a delete. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a large national organization, and I don't see anything that's important about this lodge in particular. What's worth keeping about this page, and what's sourceable to someone *besides* this lodge? FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 24 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 this version as an advertisement. If someone wants to create this article using published sources, not advertising copy, feel free. W.marsh 12:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cordarounds[edit]

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

"Cordarounds" is apparently a product name of a specific company. The article is writte like an ad. No independent sources are cited. Google gives some hits, but basically company pages, ad pages and blogs. Therefore the subject fails WP:CORP. I propose to delete the article as non-notable. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 17:26, 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. W.marsh 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Vicary[edit]

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

Appears non-notable with no independent third-party sources reporting on him - he's simply the pastor of a church in Perth, Western Australia. Orderinchaos 17:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually an entire article on Potter's House Christian Fellowship Australia - we're not debating the notability of the church, but of the leader (i.e. one man) of one particular congregation. Orderinchaos 00:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I said. I don't think this article should be kept. JRG 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry - blame assignment related stress. :) Orderinchaos 14:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I completely understand :-) JRG 08:29, 25 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 14:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V sinizter[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. No independent references. -- RHaworth 17:43, 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. Herostratus 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Famine (book)[edit]

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

The Article fails to meet any of the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books). It could also be judged to be advertising and promoting non-notable material. Which in itself would be viewed as and covered by Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement--Domer48 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I dont think that having short summary on a commercial website fulfills WP:BOOK. WP:BOOK states that the book must be subject to "multiple, non-trivial published works" - its doesnt, OR "won a major literary award" - its hasnt, OR "made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture" it isnt, OR "subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities" - not to my knowledge OR finally "book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources" - altough the authors are know they do not fall into this category. Therefore I am leaning towards delete until there is more references added that go beyond either a summary in a commercial website or we find an indepth analysis of its contents in a maintstream reliable source.--Vintagekits 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Article creator here, [53] says that the book in itself is not notable, "Far from it".Regards--Domer48 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was unable to locate any mention in the two links provided, and those on the article page one being a commercial site would not constitute notability, i.e. “multiple non-trivial published works”. Again, the creator of the article has quite succinctly stated that the book its self is not notable, “the definitive, or best book on the Famine. Far from it, actually.” ,[57]--Domer48 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, ditto - thise links dont say anything about the book!--Vintagekits 20:18, 26 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 03:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smash (song)[edit]

Smash (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable song. Cool Bluetalk to me 18:00, 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 (note that I am not the deleting admin). Sr13 04:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 09[edit]

FIFA 09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Complete Crystal-ballery - FIFA 08 isn't even out for several months yet. Prod template removed by anon IP without edit summary fchd 18:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was once content here... so not really a speedy. Of course I'm just delaying the inevitable deletion that will happen when this AfD closes tomorrow...--Isotope23 20:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a speedy, my reason for speedy was (in bold) - It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3). // laughing man 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as original nominator, I didn't think it was (or indeed is) a Speedy, I coulndn't justify anything of those reasons. - fchd 21:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
or please wait another 24 hours, and then delete the article. Why delay the inevitable and waste our time discussing it further. // laughing man 02:54, 25 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. Sr13 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killer application[edit]

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

No references and I couldn't find any good ones. Although I know the meme exists, it simply doesn't merit an article of its own. —AldeBaer 18:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Notable per the Blue Ribbon Award. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Clark School[edit]

Stanley Clark School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert notability of this school. No secondary sources are given. It therefore fails WP:ORG. Notability warning was added last September; no major changes since then. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Being a Blue Ribbon School (along with the other 500,000) does not grant notability. Delete as Non-Notable. --TREYWiki 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Please don't quote misleading figures. In 1996 there were 3,000 schools and since then around 300 per year have been added. Blue Ribbon schools are about the top 5% of schools. TerriersFan 00:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Sorry to bother you with the facts, but the total number of schools in the United States is significantly fewer than 500,000, let alone the number of schools granted the nation's highest honor for a school. Your (mis)understanding of the numbers is off by a whopping two orders of magnitude from reality. A vote in an AfD -- to delete or keep -- should be based on Wikipedia policy, as well as a basic understanding of the facts. Alansohn 02:40, 25 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. I'm not terribly persuaded by the keep arguments; they seem to be a bit blinded by the Oxbridge Effect. The universities are notable, not necessarily a ski trip their students jaunt off on. But the debate doesn't delete it, and I can't reach that conclusion on some basis from the article itself. (Disclosure, not that it matters: I have jaunted off on this trip myself twice). -Splash - tk 23:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Trip[edit]

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

This does not appear to be notable. 34 unique Ghits, most of which are blogs from students who participated in it. Ohconfucius 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

addendum: as indicated below, the article did survive an AfD in April 2006. However, I believe the keep rationale was suspect, hinging on "has been going for 85 years supporting the ski competition between Oxford and Cambridge Universities which historically has been important particularly for the development of the sport in the UK", a claim not substantiated by any sources anywhere. Given that the jolly is attractively priced, hardly surprising that it enrols some 1500 students each year, but still hardly worth a wikipedia entry as it appears the intention is to promote this social club viz: "Today things have changed with the trip aiming to provide cheap skiing and promotion to newcomers to the sport", or to document the things a bunch of Oxbridge students do. There have been no earth-shattering improvements to the stub since the last discussion. Unlike the Boat Race, not all matches between the two arch-rivals merits an entry in wikipedia - this one has had little or no media coverage from what I could find. Ohconfucius 02:00, 15 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, W.marsh 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those who wish to keep an article lacking in sources are responsible for providing them. the_undertow talk 22:20, 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. A new page could be created and this merged there as an editorial decision. W.marsh 13:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rizzo on the Radio[edit]

Rizzo on the Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy with a lively discussion on the article's talk page. Notable? Or not? You make the call! Herostratus 04:09, 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 Deleted per CSD G7. Log PeaceNT 13:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Summers (media/wrestling personality)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mike Summers (media/wrestling personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was created by the subject and while claims have been made to the contrary on the talk page, conflict of interest remains a serious issue, particularly in the controversy section. COI not withstanding notability and sourcing are also a problem. Currently all info is sourced from the subjects own webpage, the webpage of his former employer a wrestling promotion and a profile on Online World of Wrestling, a website on which the profiles are largely user submited. If other source are provided during this AfD I would be happy to change my vote but currently it stands as Delete Daniel J. Leivick 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protest the so-called "nomination" for Articles of deletion. I have every right to have a page here just as much as everyone else. This was in response to a couple of profiles that had my name on them. People wanted to know more about me, so my page was put up... only to have it continuously "nominated" for deletion. Mr. Leivick has voted it to be "deleted" which I also protest. I will NOT be responsible for other individuals who bash this site if it comes to that. Online World Of Wrestling and Obsessed With Wrestling are not even bothering to protest because of past dealings with Wikipedia. DO NOT DELETE!!! Summers95926 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, you don't have "every right to have a page here as much as everyone else." Because everyone else does not have their own page here. You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, especially sections 2 and 3, and Wikipedia is not a personal webspace. Self-published articles are often scrutinized to a greater degree. You may also want to sample WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. -Not taking a stand yet on the AfD until I've had time to read through it. LaughingVulcan 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Fine. But when I become well-known, you'll practically be begging to have my page put back up. I promise you that! -- "The Standard" Mike Summers
Response When you meet the notability guidelines for people, an article about you may (or will) be put back up. (Assuming that the AfD consensus here becomes Delete.) LaughingVulcan 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (Missed sig...)[reply]
Just to clarify no one will have to beg, subjects cannot control their own pages. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Mr. Summers - he has every right to have a page. I VOTE KEEP THE PAGE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.249.247 (talk • contribs)

Note: Anonymous author then blanked nominator's user and talk pages. -- Gogo Dodo 18:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; appears to have no notability content and appears to be a vanity page. LaughingVulcan 03:55, 22 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 09:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorboth[edit]

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

Probable hoax, I doubt the references given really say anything about this character. Virtually the only Google hits are to video game and modern fantasy related sites. I'm listing here rather than proposing for deletion on the off chance someone turns anything real up about this. Cúchullain t/c 19:11, 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 and redirect -Docg 23:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schlafly[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Andrew Schlafly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article Andrew Schlafly was nominated for deletion a little less than a month ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly. I have been trying to find sources for the article, and encouraging others to do likewise all this time. Nothing has come up, I was going to wait till a whole month had passed but have been encouraged to go ahead and put this in now.

One of the fundamental criteria for articles at wikipedia is verifiability. This is a core principle. Another core principle is Neutral point of view. If these two criteria can not be met then no amount of "notability" or "really wanting an article about something/someone" matters. I intend to show that this article can not meet the criteria for verifiability and can not meet a neutral point of view. These are the primary issues. I am not questioning his notability, his "worthiness" of an article, but rather the fact that no matter how much some of us would like a well researched article about this person it is impossible to build one meeting core wikipedia guidelines.

Article fails verifiability:

Below are all the sources that have been found the whole time we have been working on this article, and a month after a call was put out to find the best sources we can. These are not sources that can construct an article.

These articles focus totally on Conservapedia and offer only passing mention of Andrew Schlafly

Nunan, Tim (2007-03-08). Conservapedia Demystified. Nassau Weekly. Retrieved on 2007-04-23. [61]
Cotey, John (2007-04-03). Online Conservapedia pitched as conservative alternative to Wikipedia. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved on 2007-04-21. [62]
Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes. Metro (2007-03-19). Retrieved on 2007-04-23.[63]

These are primary sources

Eagle Forum University, Instructor ID. www.eagleforum.org. Retrieved on 22 April 2007.[64]
PoliticalMoneyline. cspan.politicalmoneyline.com. Retrieved on 22 April 2007.[65]

Sources that are referenced to address claims in the article but do not mention Schlafly

FDA Press Release [66]
HPV FAQ from the CDC [67]
Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G (2004). "Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries". Lancet 363 (9414): 1007-16. PMID 15051280.
Abortion and Breast cancer from National Cancer Institute [68]

Secondary sources that mention Schlafly not related to conservapedia

The Discernment Ministries: British-Israelism. Watch Unto Prayer. Retrieved on 22 April 2007. [69]
This source mentions Andrew Schlafly only once and only includes birth date and birth location, not really a great WP:ATT source either.
Catherine Kosarek, Medical Student, Marries Andrew L. Schlafly, Engineer - New York Times. www.nytimes.com. Retrieved on 22 April 2007.[70]
A Wedding announcement, thats it.
MSN Video of discussion on HPV Vaccine.[71]
Features Schlafly but tells us nothing about him other than he dislikes the HPV vaccine
Study of abortion-cancer link 'meaningless': Expert says surveyed group didn't include those typically hurt, WorldNetDaily May 4th 2007 [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55532]
Probably fails WP:ATT offers very little information about Schlafly.

This is it, there are no non-trivial secondary sources that we can use to build this article. Therefore, it fails WP:Verifiability.

Article can not be written with a NPOV

A review of the article history will show that it has been difficult to keep out inadequately sourced criticism. This is particularly worrisome for a WP:BLP article. The other angle though is most of the criticism is valid. There are things to say about this man that are not the most flattering. But there are no sources for it. There are no sources for the things that we can say good about him. The only thing we can put in this article are basic skeleton facts. Born, raised, married, children, ect. This is not an interesting article, and more importantly it is not an article that reflects a neutral tone when weighed against the extensive criticism that has been leveled against him and his actions.

This at first might seem like a contradiction, how can someone have extensive criticism and not have sources per verifiability? The problem is that the criticism is located in sources that fail WP:ATT.

Summary

Based on the above reasons and evidence I urge this community to reevaluate its previous decision to keep this article. Anything that needs to be said about Andrew Schlafly can be said in the conservapedia article since all the sources relate to that anyway.

Tmtoulouse 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - There are no new arguments being brought out from the last debate. Aquarius &#149; talk 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current international tensions with Iran[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Current international tensions with Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a hodgepodge of info already covered under other pages, specifically Iran's nuclear program, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, 2007 Arab world-US coalition against Iran, and others. Title also makes no sense. What will the page be called in a year when the conflict is over? It may be well-sourced but all of this is already covered on other pages. Perspicacite 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Interiot said on the last AFD: "When the article was created, the events already were tied together by Foreign relations of Iran. It's not clear why we need an article that focuses only on the tensions, and doesn't include the aspects of Iran's foreign policy that other countries can agree with. And there's no clear reason that we need the summary of current events to be separated from the summary of historical events (especially when foreign relations of Iran has long addressed both). --Interiot 07:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)" Perspicacite 18:28, 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. Orderinchaos 09:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greythorn Primary School[edit]

Greythorn Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable primary school. The article provides little context other than its location. Mattinbgn/ talk 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster 02:58, 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 keep.. Trebor 11:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balji Nath Pandit[edit]

Balji Nath Pandit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is still just a stub and no evidence of notability for the subject is given. There is no evidence that the works attributed to the author are notable. Buddhipriya 21:14, 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 Nomination withdrawn/speedy keep. Non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Pope (Die Hard)[edit]

Greg Pope (Die Hard) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability outside of the film. Delete and redirect —Gaff ταλκ 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I will retract my nom. Can we speedy keep? Looks like there are articles for all the others. Oddly, however, the characters from Brave New World have all been moved from their respective articles into the novels page. Where can I find out the criteria governing these sorts of pages for fictional characters? —Gaff ταλκ 22:04, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Schriner[edit]

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

A write-in candidate for president, who has absolutely no chance of winning at all. The reason i haven't speedied this is because he does appear to have a tiny bit of publicity in small newspapers, but that is hardly notable i think. 11kowrom 22:03, 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 Speedy deleted - BLP violation or attack page. Newyorkbrad 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faheem Muhammed[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Depending on how you want to look at it this is (a) a bio of a totally non-notable petty criminal; (b) a violation of WP:BLP (if the culprit's not been caught, presumably innocent until proven guilty applies to this guy) or (c) an unsourced attack page with some dubious allegations to boot (for one thing, what does the fact of being Muslim or African-American have to do with it; for another, what would a muslim be doing in the liquor store in the first place...) Since the speedy's contested & any prod will no doubt be deleted, bringing it here to go through the motions — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A1 and A3. —Kyриx 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic criminal jurisprudence[edit]

Islamic criminal jurisprudence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The entire text of this article is a restatement of the title. There are also no sources. It also is not notable enough to merit separation from the article on Fiqh. Perspicacite 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 13:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gameboy light[edit]

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

The page Game Boy line already covers this all. C. Foultz 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was - Speedy delete (same as K-Dimez, and Young G)) - Nabla 22:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth (rapper)[edit]

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

The original version of the page was a copy and paste of the T.I. article, with "The Truth" substituted when needed. Most of that text has since been removed, but subject still does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC. No refs. I have tried to speedy several times, but the tags were repeatedly removed first by the original author, then by an anonymous IP. Bongwarrior 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: T.I. has been cloned again, this time as Yung G. Sohelpme 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again as K-Dimez. I'll go ahead and speedy delete this one too. - Nabla 22:50, 22 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 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Simpson (politician)[edit]

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

This article is about a local politician does not establish the notability of the person. There is only one citation referenced in the article and that is a university newspaper. Much of the text in the article is taken from the politician's campaign website. Please see the Politicians sub-section of WP:BIO.

I have attempted to help the creator of the article establish the subjects notability as well as to confirm permission was given to use copywriter text from the campaign website. See User talk:Hobartcanuck#Tom Simpson (politician). Patleahy 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All material that originated from any campaign page has been delteted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.1.3 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 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 13:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wrote the Bible[edit]

Who Wrote the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Isn't an important TV programme, article is a NPOV trawl through the Bible, from the POV of a believer, all of which is covered in more detail on the individual book articles. It also claims to be an up to date look at Bible scholarship, despite the fact the programme is now 12 years old. Gareth E Kegg 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up my own note above, sorry! LaughingVulcan 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Ancient Mysteries link to the article, and the program to the Ancient Mysteries page. I may have been mistaken before, as most of the links in the AM article seem to redirect to the generic subject of the program, not a link to the program of the AM series itself.LaughingVulcan 03:10, 22 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 wasWithdrawn by nominator'. As I said in the nomination, this was procedural and I see a pretty good reason to keep and source, so I'm withdrawing. Redirects, renames, etc can go on the talkpage.--Isotope23 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Gay Left"[edit]

"Gay Left" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I found this tagged as a speedy. I think there is an assertion of notability in this article, the problem simply is that it isn't sourced. Speedy isn't the way to go here, so I'm listing it here. No real opinion, this is a procedural nomination. Isotope23 15:38, 25 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.
More