< May 25	May 27 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of advocacy groups[edit]

A few reasons to delete this list:

By its nature this list is highly open-ended and incomplete, and if properly populated would likely contain thousands of organzations worldwide. If a group of articles required a more narrowly targeted resource list of certain types of advocacy groups, that could be created.
There is an existing category Advocacy groups with subcategories for cataloguing Wikipedia articles of this nature.
The list is not linked to any current articles (except Advocacy)

Given the existing category groups, and the lack of "added value" in the list, this list would be a duplication of effort even without the incompleteness and maintainance issues. - David Oberst 23:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. David Oberst 23:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too arbitrary and unmanageable, and especially lacks any added value.01:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - any advocacy group is a ridiculous requirement. Might as well make a "list of companies that sell products relating to wood". --02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - especially as it's already a category. That works better for this kind of nebulous area. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Case for notability not convincing. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameTZ[edit]

Blatant advertising. The website is not significant enough to warrant its own article. G.hilmarsson 08:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.hilmarsson (talk • contribs) 2007/02/01 08:18:32

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gametz community is not insignificant. It has been integral in the trading community since it's inception over 10 years ago and has laid clear the groundwork for some higher profile trading community websites and community websites in general. The active user base is somewhere around 3,000 users. How is interest determined? If a website is perdominately featured in mutiple issues of a high readership magazine like gamepro, does that not illustrate a very real interest? AtaruMoroboshi 13:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic, pretty much all of the pages in the Community Websites category should be deleted. All of these are sites of thousands of users. So, by your logic, a site with a few thousand users is advertising, but CNN and Netflix is worthy simply due to a larger user base? How are pages for those sites any less guilty of being advertising? More on point, I notice a page for Gamefly, a commercial game rental site. This page has been written to document the site's history and community, not primarily as advertising. Dstumme 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a web directory. Furthermore, there is not enough interest in this site to warrant this article. Sites such as CNN or eBay are legitimate considerations given their significance. GameTZ, on the other hand, is simply a small online trading community. For these same reasons, we have to delete articles regarding unknown actors, musicians and so forth who generally lack the sufficient interest to otherwise be relevant to an encyclopedia. Please take the time to review Wiki policy. G.hilmarsson 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
(on a side note, I'm having trouble editing Wikipedia lately, so my signature often does not display. I also had difficulty completing the AfD process correctly. I need to check my browser settings to see if anything is interfering)
Keep as GameTZ has been featured in syndicated TV news spots (I think on CBS, but I could be wrong...it's been a few years since I saw the spot), has been covered in newspaper newspaper articles, and featured in magazine articles as well. It's the grand-daddy of all the various trading sites, and has outlasted almost all of them. Comparing GameTZ to Netflix, ebay, and similar sites is like comparing horses to tomatoes: they aren't even the same thing, so any comparison is invalid. When compared to other game/movie/music/book trading sites, GameTZ is one of the largest (if not the largest) out there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after 10 minutes of searching I found the USA Today article, which is only a trivial mention. Accordingly, fails WP:N for lack of multiple non-trivial third party sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addhoc (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - We are in the process of gathering other references. The GamePro magazine reference was recently added. I can also add a link to the video clip of the nationally syndicated news story that was done about game trading sites that heavily referenced GameTZ, but I wasn't sure how to cite that. The story ran on multiple stations across the country a couple of years back. There have been mentions in other gaming magazines occasionally over the years as well, but I'd need to do some more digging to find them. In the mean time, I'd like to see the article hang around while sources are added. Dstumme 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've made all the references look pretty. If anyone can find any other references, please either post them here, on the talk page, or let me know and I'll add them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough notoriety. 72.150.232.174 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Notoriety" is not a criteria for inclusion, nor is lack of it a criteria of exclusion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 19:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notwithstanding the various comments made above (some biased and some not) the obvious fact remains that this article is in essence an advertisement for a commercial concern, and, as such, has no place in wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are only two online written references which are not from gametz.com - Two articles which briefly mention that the site exists and one usenet posting. IMHO, this is pushing the bounds of notability beyong their limit. I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise but as it stands I'll go for delete. -- Qarnos 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The notability requirements do not require that any of the references be online references. With being mentioned twice in a popular gaming magazine, and having a TV spot (a recording of that spot is linked in the reference, BTW), the notability requirements are clearly fulfilled even without the other references you mention in your comment. Keep in mind that TV spot was aired on stations all across the United States. I actually saw it on my local news, though I didn't think to record it at the time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of the notability requirements... but limited coverage on the web is a big red flag. Also, not everything which appears on TV should have an encyclopedia article - otherwise we could have an article on every minor news story (hey, it was on TV, right?). -- Qarnos 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not saying that every news story on TV deserves an article. The news story being used as a reference certainly doesn't deserve an article itself. However, the news story is perfectly acceptable as a reference used to meet the notability requirements for this article. The notability requirements say nothing about references needing to be notable enough to warrant an article themselves, only that such coverage is good enough to establish notability for the subject of that coverage. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I forgot to mention that the magazine coverage and the TV spot alone make the article meet the primary notability criterion: "...it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - non-trivial being the key word. The USA Today article gives the site one sentence. -- Qarnos 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll hasten to add that gamestz was not the subject of the USA today article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qarnos (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - I'm referring to the GamePro and TV coverage. The USA Today coverage is incidental to those. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrens Chat[edit]

Non-notable chat channel in World of Warcraft, unsourced, etc. I've thought of merging or redirecting to a variety of places, but it really doesn't belong anywhere. --- RockMFR 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability for an encylopedic resource.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this article is notable enough stand alone. It could possibly be merged into the "Virtual community" section of World of Warcraft, where other memes are discussed. AlphaEta 02:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not backed up by reliable sources. --Haemo 02:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a ... chat channel? In one game? Sorry, that misses 'encyclopedic' by a lot. Delete as non-notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a concept, though this did warrant a t-shirt, the best place for it would be wowwiki. Wait [1] already exists. FrozenPurpleCube 04:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having played WoW, I'd say the silly activities in that chat channel haven't been made notable in the wide world. It's just an in-thing.--Kylohk 14:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barrens Delete - It was spammy in WoW, and it's still spammy here. --Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 15:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although Barrens Chat is quite popular and not simply a 'Chat Channel' it doesn't warrant an entry on its own in Wikipedia. A section under WoW maybe. Include a link to wowwiki article about Barrens Chat.

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negative and positive rights[edit]

This looks very much like a personal essay. "Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction" - really? Which ones? And is this generally considered a significant debate? Very few citations for the length and level of detail. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this is definitely something that ought to be in wikipedia. Very fundamental philosophical idea that would be in a real encyclopedia with much of the same disucssion. Could probably use some development, but a topic like that is very notable and verifiable and will probably get updated frequently. Barsportsunlimited 14:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see anything wrong with this article. 5 reliable secondary sources, at least one of which is substantially more in-depth than the article. And the subject is one even I've heard of, despite the fact that I've only read very shallowly in the field of rights and philosophy, so I'd say it's likely to be pretty important. JulesH 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article might be improvable, but it's by no means utterly atrocious; the subject matter itself is notable enough. It even formed the basis for a three part BBC Television documentary I watched a couple of months back, and I don't even have a TV... --Aim Here 19:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, undercited by 2007 standards but fairly well-written summary of the subject matter. There might be a few idiosyncratic claims slipped in there but a judicious review by an expert should be able to fiddle those out. --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the article seems to have never wholly recovered from a merger of negative rights and positive rights. See the respective talk pages. --Dhartung | Talk 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there's some evidence that the references don't relate to the subject (making it OR). Seems like a reasonable article to me. JJL 21:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aim here & JJL. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly could be better written, but this a half-decent article on an important concept in political philosophy.-- danntm ^T _C 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will try to have a second look at this when I have time; it wants tightening, but it is certainly a valid topic in jurisprudence. FWIW, the assertion that "Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction. . . " is certainly valid, at the beginning of an article or paragraph, when it is followed up by examples, as here. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is referred to by so many other articles that it would be quite disruptive to delete this article. --Rebroad 09:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 13:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Cohan[edit]

Lonely page, creator also linnked to the book form several other articles, article appears to exist mainly to promote this book. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per ((db-advert)) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe made from single use account for advertising. Might want to look at the "brothers" article he mentioned too. Wikidan829 17:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11, tagged as such. --Whs itc hy 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Note, Lazard Frères is clearly notable, if that's what Wikidan829 meant by the "brothers" article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sorry folks, but notability is asserted, so can't speedy; I've removed the tag. Regardless of the source, if he is a published author, and independent media sources report on it, as is asserted, then speedy can't be used. Same with the brother's article. Please evaluate them on the basis of what the articles actually say...do the published works, and the media coverage of them, meet our notability standards? That's the test that needs to be applied here. So, from Wikipedia:Notability (people), "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". This person has, and it's documented in the article. Published authors are legitimate subjects for articles here. AKRadecki 23:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Per nom. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep won awards in the past, is an author and worked at Wall Street. Although, this article really needs some attention thought and especially expansion if info can be found.--JForget 00:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless the awards are notable. It isn't mentioned in the article what they were. Being a Notable author & woking on wall street is N,as is working there is a very important capacity. But there has to be more than said here. (an article asserting awards in any good faith way takes it out of the speedy category.) DGG 00:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entry needs to be expanded and cleaned up quite a bit, but it seems that the subject matter's publication record meets multiple notability requirements. It would be nice to know what award he won. AlphaEta 01:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Following my "keep" comment above, I went and listened to the two National Public Radio interviews, and would suggest that others evaluating this AfD do so as well...in my opinion, they easily confer the notability that we require. Publisher's Weekly also reviewed the book (it wasn't a stellar review, but that's not what we require), and I've added a link for that as well. I have yet to find the awards he's won, but have seen several references to these, evidently they were for his earlier investigative reporting. AKRadecki 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems like with the reviews of his book he may just about meet WP:BIO for authors. Davewild 07:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but keep an eye on the article for any potential conflict of interest style editing. Yamaguchi先生 07:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand – I'd like to see more references, but it meets WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. Sr 13 01:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HA! HA![edit]

Sourced from Fark, Fark and, er... Fark. I removed some spam, not much left. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zOMG, this phenomenon received its unbelievable popularity during the weekend of July 15 - July 17, 2005, when some Fark members posted HA! HA! guy photoshops. Delete. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of importance. Wikidan829 17:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, although its referenced its not meeting WP:NN. — The Sunshine Man 19:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sure if you let this run the five days, someone can find real sources. Although it's notability is unproven, it obviously is notable. If it can't be proven, delete, but I believe it can. WilyD 19:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clearly proven, but it's not clearly notable. --Charlene 23:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how it can be "obviously notable." Phony Saint 19:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, forgotten farkism, lacks sources. HA! HA!--Dhartung | Talk 19:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless good reliable sources can be found. I am somewhat pessimistic that they will be. daveh4h 20:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 21:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible to BJAODN the page? --Whs itc hy 22:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Internet memes are rarely notable; who outside of FARK and various forums is discussing this meme? I don't mean propagating it, discussing it? There are reliable, independent third parties such as newspapers and magazines discussing trends such as lolcats and 'all your base'. I don't see this for Ha! Ha!. It's not even funny enough to bother BJAODNing, not solely since it's two years old. --Charlene 23:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:49, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augustin Banyaga[edit]

Appears to fail the professor test. No actual claim to notability included in the article, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Wikidan829 17:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Perhaps the page's creator could add what was so significant about this professor's contributions. Someguy1221 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per changes to the page. Someguy1221 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails to assert what important contributions or advancements the subject has made in their field to establish their notability. --Ozgod 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 22:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable mathematician, he has made significant contributions to symplectic topology. Banyaga has 58 articles listed on MathSciNet -- that in itself is quite significant -- of which 2 are published books (not something trivial in this subject). Furthermore, MathSciNet lists him with 126 citations from 93 distinct authors. Sounds quite notable to me, I do not understand the above claims that Banyaga "fails notability". Are these claims based on any serious considerations, such as a study of the relevant literature? I kind of doubt it. Turgidson 03:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The man is clearly a notable topologist - plenty of references on MathSciNet and Google Scholar, well-known (within the field) book and an Erdős number of 3. Bigdaddy1981 03:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seems notable enough to me given the info provided by Turgidson and Bigdaddy1981. He seems "more notable than the average college instructor/professor" and thus I think he passes the professor test. Article should, however, include more information about his notability--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 06:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the sentence, "He has made significant contributions in symplectic topology, especially on the structure of groups of diffeomorphisms preserving a symplectic form (symplectomorphisms)" clearly outlines what his significance is in the field. I'll admit that I don't know what that means! :) But the editor has intended it to show the importance of the professor (tenured at important university), and I would need an expert (David?) to point out why these advances are not significant before I would trust myself to offer a delete. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about symplectic topology, sorry. —David Eppstein 07:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stare at this this until you understand what it means, and stop wasting our time. Stammer 07:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He certainly looks notable to me. Two books and a lot of papers as a Professor at a notable research university is most likely to mean notable, so improve, not delete, is the way to go. --Bduke 08:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though no explicit descriptions of this man's work is in the article, one can peruse Google Scholar a bit to tell notability. Having, for example, over 100 citations to a single paper on symplectic topology is indeed significant, as this is an area of pure mathematics, which in general does not rack up nearly as much citations as more applied subjects. However, one doesn't usually say "his papers on such and such are widely cited", but something like "he has made important contributions in such-and-such". So that latter statement is indeed a claim of notability, which was included in the nominated version. The nominated version mentions a book, which is indeed widely cited, although I must admit to being somewhat puzzled at the papers selection. I would think [2] (with 101 citations on Google Scholar) would be at least as significant as those listed. Amusingly enough, this paper is extensively reviewed on MathSciNet by David Epstein. Shame on you, David, for pretending to have no expertise here! Oh, and thanks to Turgidson for cleaning up the article greatly. --C S (Talk) 12:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the kind words, C S -- I tried my best to improve the stub I found a while ago, but the article clearly still could use improvements. As for the choice of articles, I don't know why the first two from PAMS were chosen (maybe because they contain some of the work mentioned in the WP article?), but earlier today I added 3 more articles published by Banyaga that look substantial, including the one in CMH you also mention, plus articles in Inventiones and JDG, all top-notch journals, of course. Turgidson 12:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: Well-known differetial geometer André Lichnerowicz once wrote an article titled Remarques sur deux théorèmes de Banyaga, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A-B 287 (1978), no. 16, A1121--A1124 MR 0520419, in which he said: "A. Banyaga [Comment. Math. Helv. (1978)] has recently given a remarkable study of the connected component Symp₀(W,F) of the group of the symplectomorphisms with compact supports of a symplectic manifold (W,F). We give some propositions, useful for mathematical physics, which are direct consequences of the results of Banayaga". I hope this nails the "notability" question, once and for all. Turgidson 14:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now passes notability test. Gandalf61 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IAS fellowship, now included. Even failed careers (and this is not one) would be notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets WP:PROF as a notable mathematician. Yamaguchi先生 07:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Kraus[edit]

This is almost certainly an autobiography, the author is a single-purpose account and "Kraus" vs. x in the username would be a plausible alias. The subject is probably notable, although there are remakably few Google hits and I've not heard of him (I listen to almost nothing but classical music). The sources all seem to fail independence, since they sre his profile pages on his employers' websites. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that this is obviously an autobiography. Clearly, this guy has sung at the Lyric Opera of Chicago and has translated a bunch of operettas (which translations he is trying to sell on his website). I went through all the cites carefully and made detailed comments about them on the talk page, as well as adding more "Cite Needed" tags to the article. If he really did found a professional operetta company, he ought to come up with a reliable cite for it. He is a newbie to WP, and apparently very knowledgeable about operetta, so I think he could become a very valuable Wikipedian. So, I am trying to encourage him to come up with verifiable, reliable references. He responded somewhat to my first comments to him, so I am hopeful that we can come to a WP:CONSENSUS with him about the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not having won any awards (not that I saw in the article), he has founded a group and been a director of such and has had (what appears to be) an extensive career in opera. --Ozgod 19:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Light Opera Works is well-known in Chicago and is one of the few professional venues in the U.S. that concentrates entirely on "light opera", i.e. Gilbert & Sullivan, stage musicals, etc. Google News Archive shows numerous sources (most behind paywalls, unfortunately) from Chicago-area newspapers. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For some unexplained reason, the page was blanked just before the AfD. I'm not sure what page to restore, but the real versions are still in the edit history. DGG 00:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He didn't just "sing" at the Lyric Opera of Chicago-- he has sung there for the past 16 seasons. Besides translating some operettas, he has produced them. A notable career, and there are some 3rd party reviews to point it out. More would make a better article, but even at present it's enough for N. DGG 00:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Organization Of Lockpickers[edit]

This should be speedy deleted as A7, but Phaedriel who had previously deleted under that criteria, undeleted herself for some reason, so I'm posting here. It's just a non-notable small lockpicking group. Only source is their website. Absolutely zero information about the group, other than it exists: the remainder of the article is about lockpicking on TV and on "legal concerns in the netherlands". This clearly should go. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~. No assertion of notability. HeirloomGardener 04:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have now edited the article to include an assertion of notability. JulesH
  - Changed to Keep. Organiziation does appear to be notable, particularly for lock bumping. HeirloomGardener 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- these people brought the practice of lock bumping to the public attention, which was a fairly important breakthrough in lockpicking technique. See [3] for more info. JulesH 12:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep --I disclose that I am primary author of the article/entry TOOOL. If my style of creating the article and placing the information is not up to scratch then please help by suggesting/contributing. It would be a shame to let a decent article/stub get deleted just because it was not developed to better/higher standards immediately. There are a number of news/media coverage both on print and TV but I am still trying to get my hands on the exact reference data. -Deepraj | Talk 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kilt variants[edit]

Looks like a personal essay masquerading as an article. Or possibly another attempt to advance the usual agenda. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stab with my Sgian Dubh all covered in Kilt. This is effectively a POV fork of silliness.--Doc^g 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kilt, if there's any information here that's worth it over there (and that's sourced properly) and redirect. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything in the article worth merging to Kilt...gracious. --InkSplotch 05:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: -2 pts from Guy for making me look up the word "Neologism", but it did lead me to WP:NEO which he might enjoy for beating out the word "unbifurcated". --InkSplotch 05:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure I understand what the POV or agenda is, but I agree that the article seems to be a confusing and unnecessary fork of the kilt article. The title is at odds with the actual content.--Kubigula (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork in traditional Scots style per The Doc. tomasz. 11:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Asserts notability through diffs provided. Sr 13 03:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray McGovern[edit]

First Deletion Reason: Subject is non-notable, with few sources other than to WP:FRINGE web sites like Prisonplanet.com, Truthdig.com and Information Clearinghouse (which has already been deleted as non-notable). Merge into the questionably notable Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added some material to the article including at least five articles by McGovern in such sources as the Boston Globe and the Christian Science Monitor that pre-date his founding of VIPS. There is a lot more I could add at this point but I will wait -- I think enough material proving his notability is here; the problem is that the article is still a mess. Radio interviews from Alex Jones can go as well as other blog citations; he is plenty visible if we just stick to mainstream newspaper and magazine sources. So the article is still in process but please do not vote "delete" or "merge" when what you really think is that the article needs to be improved. And for those stating that McGovern is only notable through VIPS, please note that this google search -- which only returns "Ray McGovern" and "CIA" but excludes all mention of "VIPS" or "sanity" -- still nets 166,000 hits. I think those who voted for deletion and merging should reconsider. csloat 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.--MONGO 20:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notable subject, former CIA analyst from 1963-1990, widely cited in multiple media outlets as a commentator on multiple topics. Probably nominated in error by someone who didn't know who he is. A simple google search shows many sources far more reliable than "prisonplanet" including Democracy Now, CNN, the Nation, PBS, ABC, CBS, Raw Story, etc. Looking through print media sources on LexisNexis I get over 100 hits just from major papers going back 11 years (see Washington Post August 25 1996, for example). csloat 21:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a notable interviewee trotted out every time CNN, the New York Times, etc. needs someone to interview about the CIA. I'm finding about 15 articles on CNN alone, many of which are linked to long on-air interviews. I think he passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 23:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whoppingly talked about by, and in, reliable sources. --Haemo 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. No question about this. McGovern is a very well known figure, quoted often in news stories and a regular pundit/expert on television (when he confronted Rumsfeld at a speech it was a pretty big national story, but he was well known before that). McGovern is a darling of the anti-war left, perhaps in a sense their favorite expert on intelligence issues. Should not be merged with Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group which, incidentally, is also quite notable. McGovern's on the steering committee for VIPS and 7 of the 8 committee members have their own articles. He is probably the most prominent member of the group so there's no question he should have his own article. Should never have been nominated for deletion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article needs a lot of work. Currently, it does not demonstrate any notability, has too many uncited claims, and what cites it does have are mostly non-RS fringe websites. McGovern's clash with Rumsfeld in May 2006, which seems to be his main claim to notability, had only one cite — and it was a YouTube video! (I just added http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/04/cnna.mcgovern/.) At present, the article a poor excuse for an encyclopedia entry; I'll look at it again in 2 or 3 days before I vote here. CWC 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn't demonstrate any notability? You don't think a high ranking CIA officer who regularly prepared the Presidential Daily Briefs and who was awarded the Intelligence Commendation Medal by a president is notable? Add to that the fact that he afterward became a well-known critic of U.S. foreign policy and co-founded a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which has regularly been quoted in mainstream news stories and I think his notability is pretty well established. If he had never confronted Rumsfeld and caught press attention from that he would still warrant an article (the article was actually created a year before that happened). I agree the article could use some work, but that's not the issue here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, communication problem. See Wikipedia:Notability, which sets out the basic criteria for deciding whether Wikipedia should have an article about someone or something. I was using "notable" as jargon to mean "Notable by Wikipedia standards", not in the ordinary sense of the word. Furthermore, "demonstrate notability" means that articles should make it clear that the subject meets the notability criteria. In this case, the article should mention that McGovern has been interviewed by CNN, got lots of mainstream media attention from the Rumsfeld speech incident, and so on. Would someone please edit the article accordingly? Thanks, CWC 09:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No communication problem, I understood exactly what you mean (folks who comment on AfD's usually have some knowledge of basic wikipedia policies) and am quite familiar with Wikipedia:Notability which says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I agreed the article should be edited, but my point was that McGovern is clearly notable and that this is already demonstrated in the article (and again in the comments above) even though it needs a good amount of work (just because an article is of fairly low quality does not mean we delete it if the subject is in fact notable). I don't know if you read the article closely but it already makes reference to the fact that McGovern has appeared on MSNBC and the Charlie Rose show (debating the former director of the CIA) and has been covered in the Washington Post. He has clearly "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus is notable by wikipedia standards.

As to Tom Harrison's comment below, much of the page is about McGovern's activism and I agree it is a bit too boosterish, but obviously a lot of the content should be about his political activism because that's primarily what he does these days (though his time in the CIA is detailed at the outset--and again I think that alone makes him notable, not to mention what he did afterward). It's easy enough to edit this article so we get rid of the "platform for his activism" aspects and instead make it a simple description of his activism, or at least the key components of it. In sum I don't think the flaws in the article justify a deletion or a merge, just a revision.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to his organization, per Mongo above. Page is largely a platform for his activism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. This article is written from a pro-McGovern POV, and like Tom harrison says above, it is largely a platform for his activism. Most of the sources aren't reliable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry to keep harping on this, but McGovern himself is notable aside from his involvement with VIPS which is why I think a merge makes no sense. Among the sources cited in the article are MSNBC and the Washington Post which are clearly reliable and it's very, very easy to find more so I don't see how "most of the sources aren't reliable" provides any evidence that there should be a merge. I agree there are POV issues with the article, but why don't we just work on them? I just came across this AfD randomly, but I'm quite frankly flabbergasted that people think a former top CIA analyst (who prepared briefings for the president) and has now become one of the more well known critics of U.S. foreign policy/intelligence practices in the country should not have an article about him. When you debate James Woolsey on the Charlie Rose show, there's obviously something notable about you--much more so than thousands of people who have articles on Wikipedia which never get challenged (minor musicians, for example). Just because some think McGovern's politics are a bit kooky does not mean he does not deserve an article. I also question the previous "merge" suggestion from Pablo considering he says on his user page that the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity article "needs to be deleted" and has already unsuccessfully listed it for AfD (a lot of people want to get rid of that for some reason). If that's how he feels then why would he want this article merged into that one?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the arguments being made for deletion seem bogus. The claim that the article is POV or that it is poorly sourced or poorly written belongs on the article's talk page, not here. AfD is not the forum to solve such problems. The claim that McGovern is only notable through VIPS and there should be a merge is also totally bogus; as I pointed out above, we find him cited and being written about in mainstream media sources going back at least 11 years. I urge those voting merge or delete to focus their energy on improving the article rather than simply deleting it. csloat 19:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we had an article for every marginal critic of the Administration, we'd be flooded, and could just rename this place GeorgeBushIsHitleripedia. MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL... cute, but the fact is, McGovern has been notable as far back as the Clinton administration, so your argument that he is "marginal" just doesn't hold. Your comment, though, does underline the essentially POV nature of this AfD, which is problematic according to Wikipedia rules. csloat 23:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. worst case would be a merge to the non-notable organization he's a affiliated with per MONGO. --Tbeatty 04:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two reasons: First, McGovern is in the news, and because so, Wikipedia should have an article telling who he is, what he thinks, what he has done. This informative and helps people understand who they may read about. Second, there is nothing wrong with including a person who is becoming better known. He is the co-founder of an organization which is commenting on current affairs. He has both an interesting historical perspective (Vietnam) as well as a point of view on current events. It is important to know a variety of views on current affairs. --Forsdick 03:04, 28 May 2007 (EST)— Forsdick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Two edits so far, this being the send one...first one is a username request to change name to "Harry Forsdick"...hehehe so funny.--MONGO 07:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know this editor but he appears to be a real person. His user page provides a link to his web site. The user appears to be a gentleman in his 50s or 60s whose name is Harry Forsdick and who worked on ARPANet. In other words he probably is not a vandal user or sockpuppet but rather a newly registered user who voted on this AfD for whatever reason. Without evidence to the contrary his vote should be legitimate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense...votes from "new" users who show up just to vote on an Afd...yeah, sure.--MONGO 11:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of a "new" user who was an an anonymous ISP user before that? I don't know, maybe it's not a legitimate user, but I guess I don't see how we can assume that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty notable, and supported by reliable sources in my opinion. Ab e g92contribs 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep. Per Csloat. Obviously a notable subject, evidneced by him being widely cited in multiple media outlets as a commentator on multiple related topics. A simple google search shows many sources that are reliable despite the editor who nominated this suggesting othewise, by mentioning "prisonplanet." For example see:Democracy Now, CNN, the Nation, PBS, ABC, CBS, Raw Story, etc. The print media sources on LexisNexis gets 100's of hits from major papers, as well.Giovanni33 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per csloat above. 68.91.252.148 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)— 68.91.252.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy keep. csloat's diffs bascially explain why. Plus questionable sources isn't a reason to delete an article.--Wizardman 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However the article does need editing, and other important facts are left out. I wanted to know what role he played during Watergate, and I think he was involved, but it is not mentioned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.204.162 (talk • contribs)

Keep as per csloat and others above. Clearly notable, but article clearly needs to be improved.Simon12 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, marginaly notewothy individual. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep: Per several admonishments above. This vexing attempt, like so many similar AfDs (creating a landslide of virtual book burning on certain topics), presents a clear example of why the AfD process flaws need to be fixed. Ombudsman 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:RHaworth. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Advancement of Youth[edit]

The organization is non notable. The 'Society' does not show up on Google and does not seem to have actually done anything. As per WP:Corp, an organization is notable if it "has been the subject of secondary sources," which this has clearly not. Re231 22:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. Their site has... *drumroll* less than 3000 hits on it (according to the counter on it) --Whs itc hy 22:58, 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 Speedy deleted by User:RHaworth

Shaun webb[edit]

Appears not to meet WP:BIO. FisherQueen (Talk) 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see no evidence of notability. --Fredrick day 22:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as ((db-bio)). tagged as such. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Tag was repeatably removed by page author, but it's a clear-cut case. Cheers, Afluent Rider 22:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete page was blanked except for tags. Retagged G7.--Whs itc hy 22:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT (yet unrelated) COMMENT somehow two AfD's got merged here, someone please fix (I'm lost as to how).--Whs itc hy 22:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per ((db-bio)). --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:51, 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 to Wack Pack as a plausible misspelling. Sr 13 03:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Whack Pack[edit]

It seems to be about somebody's university club, and all of the references scattered throughout the article are links to either facebook or the front pages of big news websites --awh (Talk) 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, the sources in the article don't appear to lead to any information about this group, and my google search revealed nothing that would even remotely qualify as evidence of notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, not notable, part of the article is a memorial.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but redirect to The Wack Pack as a plausible misspelling. Krimpet (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Krimpet. The subjects of the current article seem non-notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rewrite. - Mailer Diablo 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish neutrality during World War II[edit]

Article was described as "[remaining] massively subjective and non-encyclopaedic" by a user identified as the sock-puppet of an editor permanently banned for POV attacks on Irish editors. Without any further discussion on the talk page, the user posted to WP:AN/I that the article was "massively POV, written in the first person and an advocacy piece originally created by a student from his/her own thesis. I fixed as much as I could but it remains subject to revert warring." No edit warring has ever taken place on the article.

A discussion ensued as to whether or not the complaining user was the sock puppet. User:Dynaflow remarked that his/her edits were none the less valid, pointing specifically to an edit in the lede. User:Crotalus_horridus stated, "I've had that article bookmarked for a while and have considered nominating it for deletion. The primary article author says on the talk page that it originated as a college essay, and it doesn't even come close to meeting the requirements of WP:NPOV." User:Kurykh said, "It either needs stubbing down or outright deletion and starting from scratch." User:The way, the truth, and the light then removed the article content and redirect the page to Irish neutrality.

At this point I noticed the discussion on AN/I. (No warning of this discussion was placed on the article itself.) I questioned the wisdom of the decision and pointed to Contributing to Wikipedia which explicitly allows for undergraduate college essays so long as they are marked as requiring a clean-up in tone. User:The way, the truth, and the light suggested to merge the article into Irish neutrality. I replied that the relevant section in that article already contains the same information but in a more summarative manner. User:The way, the truth, and the light then suggested that the only alternative was to put it for AfD. sony-youth^pléigh 21:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That the article started life as a college essay is irrelevant, this is actually encouraged by WP. No question about the NPOV of content has ever been raised. Where questions of NPOV have been raised it has only been in regard to tone, not fact. This is easily fixed and in fact was happening through the natural WP editing process. Merging with Irish Neutrality would be difficult and unbeneficial. Likewise, merging with History of the Republic of Ireland or The Emergency. The subject is note-worthy enough to merit treatment as an article in its own right. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I didn't know that college essays were fair game, actually, and for that reason alone I'm not going with delete. The article definitely has some POV issues which could be cleaned up, but I'll leave that to the experts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, serious POV issues but thats a case to fix it rather than delete it!--Vintagekits 22:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's an orgy of POV. If it stays I'll have to gut it. The Emergency is surely the same article under a different name?(Sarah777 22:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete or redirect - this could almost be called a POV fork of Irish neutrality. This is admittedly not written as an encyclopedia article and there's little good information in it not at Irish neutrality#World War II. In response to the previous poster, The Emergency is actually biased the other way if anything, and is a further reason this article is unnecessary. The way, the truth, and the light 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rewrite I know it may be an unorthodox option, but if we just simply rewrite this, the current format will essentially be preserved and avenues of further POV~~-pushing~~ are still left wide open. Best to just restart from scratch to create an unbiased, policy-compliant article. —Kurykh 22:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the POV pushing? Until this AfD, the article went through 20 edits by 11 editors, none of which had been reverted. That the tone is not NPOV, I accept - the lede especially, as noted on the talk page, needs serious re-doing - but how is POV being pushed, if nobody is reverting anybody else's edits? --sony-youth^pléigh 23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck that out. Thanks for correcting me. —Kurykh 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is horribly POV and inaccurate in many of its assertions, but these have never been reasons to delete and shouldn't be here. Irregardless of how it came to be made or ended up looking like this, Irish neutrality in World War II is unquestionably an encyclopaedic topic (and is different in many respects to the concept of "Irish neutrality", some of which should be merged here). Article should certainly be extensively rewritten though.--Jackyd101 22:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a valid encyclopedic entry. Needs work, some good reference material. Djegan 22:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Delete or rewrite (or change to a redirect to Irish neutrality, which is a comprehensive and NPOV article that covers the WWII period in detail. This article is a fork and a very POV one at that. --Red King 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On reading further, I realise that the strong POV comes from the sources (which are all British). It is essential that they be balanced: if that is not possible then it has to be deleted. --Red King 10:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with The Emergency. --Red King 10:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well referenced article on an encyclopedic topic. Does need work, though. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sony-youth. It needs work, as others have said above, but its problems do not justify deletion. ---Cathal 23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Irish neutrality - The article in its current form is an abject POV disaster, and the topic is covered in depth at Irish neutrality. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete or merge into Irish neutrality --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think the POV issues are unfixable, whatever its origin this is not a school essay at the present time, but about half-way to a good WP article. I wish some of the college essays transferred into WP were half as good, or had anywhere near the amount of work added to this one. DGG 00:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC),[reply]
Delete redundant with the WWII section of Irish neutrality]. Some info can be moved to the new entry. AlphaEta 02:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move extra content from Irish neutrality here. The biggest war of the century (if not all history to that point), I'd say any country as close as Ireland was to it, should have some coverage. Given the length of the content at Irish neutrality, I suggest trimming it down and giving it extensive coverage on its own page. If this page isn't up to snuff it can be improved. As a subject though, I have no objection to it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable and encyclopedic topic deserving article. If it needs cleanup and checking for POV that is not justification for deletion. Davewild 07:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An area of history which is currently receiving increased attention; see, eg.: [4] and [5]. Ideally the article could also include references to the issues of Irish servicemen serving in the allied forces and Remembrance Day parades in Dublin.--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs a re-write but it needs to be here. Scolaire 10:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albeit guarding against overlap with The Emergency. McPhail 13:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Vintagekits. (I actually enjoyed writing that phrase for the first time and enjoyed even more the lyrical language of the essay.) Since the main editor of the article is a fine and competent editor and seems to be well aware of any deficiencies, perhaps unusually he could be given a period of 7 days grace to improve the article in the ways suggested by deletionists if the consensus is for deletion? W. Frank ✉ 15:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The topic is notable and the neutrality of this article appears achievable. — RJH (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: OK - I've withdrawn my delete and improved the article. It wasn't as bad as I feared when one removes the presumption that there was something to apologise for or question the "rightness" of Irish neutrality. Actually it was a good read. (Sarah777 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep regardless of history of article it passes notability threshold, SqueakBox 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously what countries in and near the war zone during WW2 is notable. Carlossuarez46 23:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty notable topic, why purge!! Gold♣heart 23:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important topic in its own right. Merging with Irish neutrality or The Emergency, while keeping enough detail, would overwhelm those two articles. It needs work (and I'm surprised David Gray doesn't get a mention), but nothing that can't be addressed by editing what's there. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In order to become an acceptable article, the essay deserves editorial attention in proportion to its subject's monumental importance to post-independence Irish history, but why shoo that attention away with a deletion? Efforts should be made, though, to harmonize the article with the one on The Emergency, up to preparations for a merge at some point in the future. --Dynaflow babble 08:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure whether there are similar articles for other countries, but it seems like a notable topic. It's an important part of the history of the ROI, and it seems to have good sources for an NPOV rewrite. Nyttend 13:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this may need some work, Ireland's neutrality was the cornerstone of foreign policy during 1939-1945 when it was necessary to maintain a neutral stance so that none of the belligerents might any justification to invade the country or be annoyed about anything that Ireland did during this time. A must have article in its own right and far too long to be included in the general article The Emergency ww2censor 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is too long to merge into any other article. Reduce the WWII section in Irish neutrality to a summary and put a Template:Main article link from that article to this one. --Richard 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McIntosh Walp, Jr.[edit]

Delete both articles:

Robert McIntosh Walp, Jr. — Article claims that he was the youngest crewman aboard the submarine that first broke the surface of the Arctic Circle (although a previous version of the page said that he was "one of the youngest"). A Google search for "Robert McIntosh Walp" results in 0 pages. "Robert Walp"+submarine does not come up with anything relevant. Assuming that this claim is true, however, does not mean that he's notable by the criteria of WP:BIO; after all, somebody has to be the youngest in any group of people, and it's not like he set a record.
Robert M. Walp — This article is about a son of the above Walp, and does not seem to meet WP:BIO either. Contested prods on both articles. ... discospinster _talk 21:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sink them both for nn. Let Jr. be the youngest crewman blah blah blah whose article is deleted. Clarityfiend 03:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOT a memorial, and neither of them seem to meet WP:BIO that I can see. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete claiming notability for earning medals awarded pretty much for just showing up? Unacceptable. DarkAudit 09:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Don't Delete, Contact Me if More Info Neededclaiming notability was for BREAKING the arctic circle at 17 years old on the first mission in US history and first submarine to complete this mission. period. not notable enough? if you believe i'm "CLAIMING" it then please request your own copy of the records, or ask me to scan what you want to see. If you feel that my addition of myself, for my own achievements does not meet criteria, then please feel free to delete, as I really only posted this for the notability of my grandfather during his time and service to this country. medals were not earned for "just showing up" medals were earned for medals earned, and thats only a small portion of the article itself, the MAIN POINT being his age at the time of the mission. THIS ARTICLE was posted not as a MEMORIAL, but rather a notable accomplishment in US NAVAL HISTORY, see USS SKATE (SSN-578, and his age at the time of this mission. ALL CONTENT SUBMITTED IS VERIFIABLE. --Robwalp 04:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to all you professional WP users and watchers if I didnt submit, or edit to your liking, but this is NOT A MEMORIAL, this information is based on US military records. I have requested that my article on MYSELF be removed completely from the record as I feel that It has put in to question the credibility of my original submission of Robert McIntosh Walp, Jr. --Robwalp 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Re-edited again, removing all of my personal and family information, leaving only notable information, primarily age at time of mission, i have also requested that my personal article Robert M. Walp be removed from the record completely.--Robwalp 04:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There really isn't anything here that puts him above and beyond a good number of sailors. without sources to cite otherwise, the sub was notable, and he just happened to be assigned to it. My comment about 'just showing up' in reference to the service medals was not a crack. It was to point out that many servicemen received campaign medals merely for being in the designated area during the designated time. It had nothing to do with individual or unit accomplishment. And there are still no sources cited that show he truly meets notability guidelines. DarkAudit 04:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response What puts him above and beyond was his ability to move up the chain in the Navy as quick as he did, and be afforded the opportunity to be on this historic mission. I would venture to say that he was the youngest sailor on that sub (the first submarine ever to venture under and break through the north pole), however I do not have physical documentation listing the other sailors DOB's on that vessel at the time of the mission. As far as google is concerned, we all know the US DOD doesnt list many if ANY records regarding service histories. I do know, from my mother, that he told her there were no crewman younger than he was, and that he was always called 'baby boy' while on board the USS Skate. So I would leave it as "one of the youngest" just to be as accurate as possible with the information I have. Please feel free to email me for any requests for physical proof, as my claims are not verifiable via the Internet. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this matter. Robwalp 23:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to Response It appears that you're citing just his service record. That's not enough to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. And unless you can cite a source that shows that he was specifically chosen for assignment to the Skate for the express purpose of being the youngest crewperson aboard for this one deployment, then you can really only owe it to chance that he was there at the time. When I had the chance to pick sea assignments, all I had to go on was the type of ship and where they were homeported. I just picked from a list based on my standing in the class I was in. DarkAudit 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - R2R 2 With all due respect Sir, I am citing both his service record and his spoken word, and since he died prior to my meeting him in person, I can not personally notarize a statement. For the record, I put in my time in the United States military myself, and am fully aware of policy and procedure regarding assignments and choice of assignment (or lack thereof). And I know for a fact, that he only accepted (SS) submarine service, because of the increase in 'hazard pay' ($75 more per month) to provide better for his family, and was only asked to join this vessel as a direct result of his dilligent hard work, and conduct during BT 'basic training'. I will have my mother, who the statements referenced above were made to, provide the WP community a statement in writing, with his direct quotes to her, with a notary seal if necessary to compel you to understand. Thank you kindly Sir, personally, for your time served to this nation, and I can only hope you can empathize with my position with regards to this matter. I would also like to add, for WP Community record, that I can understand not every US service member can have an entry on here,however, with that said, with all the information I have provided the community, I can not see any reason to doubt the notability of his entry, other than, perhaps, personal bias, due to your entry not meeting the WP:BIO standards. Please reference your first entry to this forum "claiming notability for earning medals awarded pretty much for just showing up? Unacceptable." You were, unfortunately, ill informed of the complete story prior to your statement made above, as I was not claiming notability for service medals earned but for my claim of notability, with regards to his age, at the time of the mission, which by all accounts as verifiable by myself, he was in fact, "the youngest." I have already conceded my entry, as well as the 'correction of the record' with regards to the exact phrasing "ONE OF THE YOUNGEST/THE YOUNGEST." What more would you like me to say? Robwalp 02:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And LONG before Wikipedia existed, there was a book called the Britanica, one of America's oldest updated Encyclo, and when those entries were submitted, there was no "google," or "internet" to verify sources, all they had were paper proof, and paper statements. Which I have already offered to supply enough times, that I'm frankly, sick of typing the same statement over and over I WILL PROVIDE PHYSICAL DOCUMENTS AT MY OWN EXPENSE AND TIME to any member of this community who requests them. Period.
Delete - nothing in the article indicates significant notability. His service record, while admirable, does not really distinguish him, and being the youngest on the sub for the particular historic mission is an interesting bit of trivia, but doesn't meet the notabilty threshold, especially with the lack of reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Previous Delete - it has nothing to do with his overall service record, and its more than an interesting "bit of trivia" there were no other sailors, with the records I have that were even close to being under 21. The lead ship on that mission was headed by all the higher ups in the US Navy and USMC at that time, and the fact that this "young kid" was on the sub, risking his life, to be on this journey, is in fact notable. "especially with lack of reliable sources."... I HAVE all of the sources needed, and if its anybody's question, I will repeeat for the 1000th time, I WILL SCAN any documents, or you can request them yourself from the department of defense. His service number and information are referenced in the original entry. NO you will not find any "sources" online, as DOD DOES NOT list service recocrds as public information. I HAVE all documents necessary to confirm ALL claims made herein. Just ask what you want to see. Thank you again, for the opportunity to clarify this matter. Respectfully, Robwalp 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The original claim of being the youngest is a claim of notability although debatable. Changing to being one of the youngest dilutes the claim as it not singularly unique. And based on earlier statements that there is no documentation of the other dates of birth for the sub's crew on the mission, then I fail to see the point of any of the proffered document scans. They may establish the date of birth of Robert Walsh Jr., but that is all. -- Whpq 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:Comment Understood, however, enlistment age at the time (50's, 60's) was 16 years old. So it is impossible for anyone to have been younger than himself at the time on board this vessel. Should the WP community care to request documentatino from the US DOD to verify age of all sailors aboard that vessel at the time of the mission, that would be up to you. Thank you again Whpq for your insight and commentary. Robwalp 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are there any books, newspapers, or other print media – not the DOD documents mentioned earlier, but third-party, published sources – that discuss this man at all? I've looked in two university libraries, Questia, Amazon.com, and The New York Times archive back to 1941, and I find nothing. I'm unable to see why the article belongs in the encyclopedia. KrakatoaKatie 12:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Gemayel[edit]

Bit of a strange one this. I created the article to attempt to resolve a long and acrimonious conflict over her listing on a list of notable people. Recently an editor queried her notability with a speedy tag. Since that was not appropriate, I offered to make a procedural listing on his behalf, so the community can decide. I'm neutral Rockpocket 21:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only because I can't think of any reason why it should be deleted. Granted, she's not Lady Diana, but she's not completely non-notable. —LestatdeLioncour t 22:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BIO with ease Johnbod 23:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just a first lady but also a noted force in Lebanese politics. Notable per WP:BIO. --Charlene 23:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wife of a former president, main reason being for the keep, in addition to the fact Lebanon has been making headlines for quite some time.--JForget 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article will open the door for self-promoting articles and "beefing up" biographies of people that have little to no significance to Lebanon politics or otherwise. If it is to be kept, then it should not go beyond "Joyce Jemayel is a first lady,wife of President Amin Gemayel, and mother of assassinated minister Pierre Gemayel". --Afif Abdul Wahab
Keep enough sources to assert the notability of the subject are provided, thus meeting the criteria of WP:BIO. This discussion is not about if this "will open the door for self-promoting articles", it is about whether the subject of the article is notable, and she is pretty notable. —Anas ^talk? 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently every US first lady is "notable", every Queen consort of the UK seems to be, even the wives of US vice presidents for the last 70 years or so are "notable" and have articles, and why is Lebanon treated differently? WP:BIAS. Time to combat it. Carlossuarez46 23:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With respect, it don't think it is a case of geo-political systemic bias, since the person who queried the notability is himself Lebanese. Rockpocket 23:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the commenters above, it would be nice if this could be expanded even further but the subject is valid and holds encyclopedic merit. Yamaguchi先生 07:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Simmons[edit]

Short article about a non-notable man — we definitely don't need to have articles on every mayor in every small town Nyttend 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable person. As the town of Cowley is only 560 people being mayor is not notable. Also the company he founded does not establish notability. Fails WP:BIO. Davewild 20:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable since he's only a mayor of a small town. WP:BIO. *Cremepuff 222* "As cool as grapes..." 21:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, Doing a Google Search with the person + the company, didn't revealed a single hit.--JForget 23:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cowley, Wyoming. pop. 560. DGG 00:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Owner of a lighting company, and by the way, mayor of a postage-stamp sized town. Not even an attempt to show any notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Folk Stories[edit]

The article seems unnecessary Katharineamy 20:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Latin American folklore, a very short stub which should be able to be expanded to a reasonable article and has more room for expansion than this one. Davewild 20:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Dave. Chris 09:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge, and even that article needs considerable expansion to be included in WP Salaskan 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echo (clothing)[edit]

Not notable as per WP:ORG. —Visor (talk · contribs) 20:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Davewild 20:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (But I thought it was ECCO at first, which would have been bizarre.) --Masamage ♫ 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORP Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 will make the content available to anyone who wants to work on adding some sources. W.marsh 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty idea[edit]

Unsourced, seems like original research. Notability of the concept is debatable. This was tagged for speedy, but it is not nonsense -- I haevb no trouble understandign what it meansd. i just don't think it is very important or encyclopedic. DES ^(talk) 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per my nom. 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Appears to be original research - no references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozgod (talk • contribs)
Weak keep as this is a real term in metaphysics and philosophy at various levels. The idea of the idea, the need for an idea that isn't yet defined, or the imposition of a form where there was none. Sometimes empty notion. Used by Hegel, Nietzsche, shows up in the work of Rudolf Hermann Lotze and Max Stirner per our articles on them (text apparently was in the 1911 Britannica.) It may correspond with a distinction Hegel made between the German words ideale and ideelle.--Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If truw, the article should use ((1911)) or one of its varients to indicate the source. DES ^(talk) 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per WP:OR. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A well sourced article could be written about it, but this is pure OR. Someguy1221 00:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel honored by an assumption of some guys that the empty idea is my invention. Unfortunately it existed in epistemology long time before I had been born so I can't take the credit for inventing it as my OR. I'm surprised that gentlemen voting for deletion as my OR never heard about an empty idea. However, if it isn't OR, then the reason for deleting it should be different then OR shouldn't it.

It reminds me deleting other pages where consensus of editors (9 to 1, none of them a gravity physicist) accused me of inventing Einstein's theory of gravitation as my OR and deleted the whole series of pages as a result (on the basis that I was their author). It proves that non physicists prefer the Newtonian physics over Einsteinian. It might be seen as kind of touchy as far as the exact sciences are concerned. It might not cause any problems since no one in his right mind would go to Wikipedia for information on gravitation anyway but if such cultural ignorance of editors is spread also over humanistic subjects as epistemology it might become a problem also for Wikipedia. Jim 11:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- comment It wasn't that I thought you had invented the concept, but that this particular definition of the concept looked like OR, or at least was uncited. (actually, many people do go to wikipedia for info on gravitation and the like, when the wish info on about the Scientific American level or a bit lower.) We also get lots of crackpost promoting their own private versions of physics, in fact I think that WP:NOR was originally created specifically to deal with crackpot physics. DES ^(talk) 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Cleese[edit]

This is a part of a rubbish dump. It has received some publicity in New Zealand recently, although the article fails to explain why. The section of Palmerston North#Dump dealing with the dispute between John Cleese and the city is a better explanation, and sufficient coverage. We don't need an article as well. Article was prodded but the prod was removed without the article being improved. gadfium 18:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with the redirect votes below.-gadfium 01:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palmerston North#Dump. I'm tempted to insult some municipalities now, in case they start naming things after me. --Aim Here 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but redirect as above, unless sufficient reliable non-local sources are cited to indicate that this has independant notability. DES ^(talk) 19:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Has gained news coverage here (NZ), but not notable enough for its own article. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Like wise, not notable enough for it's own article. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 01:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I have fixed the redirect. The section is "Dump" not "dump". --Bduke 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. While it has attached some coverage, it is not of sufficient duration to warrant a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Kahuroa 07:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Unitarian Univeralist Winter Institute Miami[edit]

Once a year Unitarian Universalists in the Southeastern United States get together in Miami. Does anyone care? Independent reliable sources don't seem to ([6] [7] [8]) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable UU cruft Bigdaddy1981 03:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 13:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bored of Studies[edit]

Procedural nomination. Restored deleted uncontested prod. Prod rationale was non-notable Internet forum and website, fails WP:WEB --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, unless sufficient independant reliable sources are added to the article to clearly establish notability. DES ^(talk) 19:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added citations seem to establish notability to me. Change to keep. DES ^(talk) 23:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 21:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not visibly notable. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral - Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVAus (which dealt with another reasonably well-patronised but ultimately non-notable forum) Orderinchaos 11:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Per changes I have modified my vote - still not entirely convinced the TVAus situation was any different, but this one does now meet notability criteria Orderinchaos 22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleaned up and added references. Notable website and resource, enough in my opinion to fulfil WP:WEB. Recurring dreams 12:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was the one who originally prodded the article, but it seems that vast improvements have been made in the past day or so. My apologies to the editors of that article for not doing a more thorough search. --- RockMFR 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Awesomeness. I will try to find a couple more sources. Recurring dreams 01:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References added in past day have cleared up any notability issues. Rafy 04:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, seems notable, if only because of the controversy. Lankiveil 12:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep notable per WP:WEB ExtraDry 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reliable secondary source appears to be the Sydney Morning Herald. Of the four pages, three only mention the website in one line. The fourth page mentions the website in one paragraph, with the article being on the Higher School Certificate, rather than the website. The source of UAC is a two line warning to students about the website. Doesn't seem notable to me. Assize 11:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are also sources from the Daily Telegraph (and along with the smh, that makes both the large circulation newspapers in Sydney). The website is also the sole subject of two of the sources, with more than simply a line of content. Recurring dreams 12:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I will rely on your research into the Daily Telegraph. Unfortunately, my search of the Telegraph and Google News websites reveal no references to the subject of the article. In respect of the SMH, could you point to the article in which the subject is the sole subject of the article. I must admit, I have reread the four articles that I found and couldn't find it, so there is probably a fifth out there. Assize 12:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should also say that I didn't mean to imply that the Tele wasn't a reliable source either. Assize 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Have added weblinks in the main article to the SMH articles cited. I still think there is not sufficient depth of coverage to warrant inclusion. Assize 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. The two articles that profile the website are from the Daily Telegraph. The SMH articles mention them within more general material. Unfortunately there are no weblinks of the Tele articles. Recurring dreams 07:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 90,000 and 7 million hits per month is pretty notable in its own right. Also supported by sources. And I know this is unverifiable but I've been a student in NSW and used this website, it may not be reviewed in every online newspaper but it's definitely well known amongst students and teachers in the state, while I'm not saying this should be the cause for decision it's just something editors outside of Australia should keep in mind. Guycalledryan 07:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RockMFR and Guycalledryan. Article has been well-established with sources and should pass WP:N. JRG 01:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wilken Diagnostic[edit]

Non-notable (11 ghits) and hopelessly simplistic (why does a sermon have to mention Jesus at all?) method of evaluating a sermon. -- RHaworth 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe BJAODN Do I need to explain?? YechielMan 21:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN per above. Definitely a laughably lame idea at work here.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No valid reasons given for keeping these. Neil (►) 11:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of webcasters in Alabama, List of webcasters in Arizona, List of webcasters in Colorado, List of webcasters in New Mexico, List of webcasters in New York, List of webcasters in Pennsylvania, List of webcasters in Washington, DC, List of webcasters in Canada, List of webcasters in United States[edit]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of webcasters in California. Listcruft. Corvus cornix 17:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - merely being a list is not a criterion for deletion. Beyond that, external links should probably be purged, but maybe not. That's an editing concern, not an AfD concern. WilyD 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of webcasters in California? Corvus cornix 19:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read Wikipedia is not an Internet guide? Corvus cornix 19:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I've read them both. WilyD 20:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as just lists (I didn't check all of them, in fairness). JJL 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since lists of TV stations are common on WP and webcasts rapidly increase their importance, I don't think this can be attributed as listcruft. If this is the only reason, they should be kept. Malc82 22:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:NOT#DIR. Borderline A3. Changed vote, see below --Whsitchy 22:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What exactly are you referring to. It's not loosely associated, obviously not Point 2 and also not a TV Guide. Malc82 23:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer look at WP:NOT#DIR again, #3, "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business." What I mean by A3 is WP:CSD#A3. Sorry if I wasn't clear.--Whsitchy 23:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It is not a TV guide by WP:NOT#DIR. It lists stations, not schedules and I think you are misinterpreting the guideline. I will give you some credit for A3 (except for the Canada article, which is of higher standard). Malc82 23:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I know it's not TV guide. It's a radio guide. --Whs itc hy 00:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Only in case you really didn't understand what I was arguing: this guideline refers to TV/Radio guides that list schedules, not to lists of the stations themselves. Malc82 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Sort of useless to have it a separate page when we could... Move links to the specific pages for that radio station (if said page exists). Would be more manageable that way to me. --Whs itc hy 23:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of internet stations and/or List of radio stations in Alabama, etc. These mostly seem to be lists of local radio stations which also stream on the internet; those which are not local radio stations should be on List of internet stations. There is no reason for these separate lists. DHowell 04:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Anas ^talk? 17:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The After Effect[edit]

Non-notable rock band. Does not meet any criteria of WP:BAND, though the author, who is a member of the band, provided this to assert his band's notability. Anas ^talk? 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Guinnog 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been deleted once today already, and the user has been reported to the admin noticeboard for spamming. Delete without review. LuciferMorgan 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self promotion; being mentioned in a zine does not equal notability. --Bongwarrior 17:52, 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 to Savings and Loan crisis. Ginkgo100^talk 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S_and_L_Crisis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/S and L Crisis

Article is simply a link to an NY Times article Beeawwb 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per C3. Tagged as such. DarkAudit 17:03, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Religious Unitarian Universalists[edit]

A long article detailing the extensive committee structure of a non-notable Unitarian Universalist Association youth group. The article is sourced entirely to the group's website. My own look for sources showed the following: They seem to create a lot of Unitarian Universalist websites that show up in a Google search ([9]) , but I couldn't find any independent, reliable sources among them. Similarly, Google News and Google Books don't yield non-trivial mentions of this specific organization. I cannot imagine a merge of any of the text to Unitarian Universalist Association, or into its notable indirect predecessor (Liberal Religious Youth) as the material is far too detailed. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination also includes the article about this group's conferences: Unitarian Universalist Youth Conferences. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:RS, WP:OR, and notability concerns. /Blaxthos 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be original research - no reliable sources. Non-notable group as well. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable UU cruft Bigdaddy1981 03:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because these articles have not yet attracted a large number of interested editors, doesn’t mean they are of unimportance. And on the issue of independent, reliable sources, I would not expect the mainstream to report on something that doesn’t affect or come into contact with it for that mater. Also the reason there are a lot of in house web sites from this community and its wider community the Unitarian Universalist Community, is because this group and it’s sub-groups and events are of apportions to the youth and former youth who are or who were involved with it.--Devin Murphy 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Church sources can be used for matters of church doctine, issues within the church, etc. But a claim that a church group is notable requires independent sources -- sources outside the church. If it hasn't gotten the attention of external media or scholars, it isn't notable enough to be in the encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the option of allowing recreation of page when and if the independent sources required to establish notability can be found. John Carter 13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless notability can be and is established. Brief mention may be made in Unitarian Universalism or Unitarian Universalist Association, with expansion into stub/full article as reliable, independent sources are found. "Important" and "notable" are not synonymous in Wikipedia terminology. Aleta 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 Doors Down's 4th studio album[edit]

No name, no release date, no information. Prod removed without comment. Resolute 16:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL /Blaxthos 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Blaxthos Nswinton\^talk 17:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Until more info is available, it can just be added to the band article with proper attribution. LuciferMorgan 18:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL and barely any context. *Cremepuff 222* "As cool as grapes..." 21:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too early for this article.--JForget 00:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may be just a touch early. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per nom. --Masamage ♫ 00:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As an aside, "delete and merge" is not a valid vote (you cannot do both, due to GFDL). But this is keep following the cleanup. Neil (►) 11:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First time buyer[edit]

Contested prod. This article is a mess of weasel words ("Many industry experts"), original research ("In the UK home ownership is seen as both desirable and essential, as a natural step in the life cycle") and unsourced statements, and discusses a concept which obviously exists in every country in the world solely as it relates to the UK. Deleting the OR would leave a single one-line dicdef which would be so tautological as to be pointless ("A first time buyer is someone buying something for the first time"). — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I seem to spend half my life carting to the recycle bin newspapers containing all the material needed to reference this so-called "original research" and "weasel words" (if anyone had been quoted, that would have been advertising I suppose). Clearly needs referencing and expanding, and perhaps globalising, but no need to delete. Johnbod 16:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think this is a case of WP:FIXIT and not for deletion.--Vintagekits 16:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Just because the context of articles are a mess, doesn't mean they should be deleted, on wikipedia we can always improve things. Alphablast 16:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup + add sources. It is such a common term that it clearly deserves an article and sources should be able to be found. Davewild 16:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to imply that "first time buyers" applies exclusively to UK (and/or exclusively to homeowners). Weasle/attribution problems push my vote over to delete. /Blaxthos 17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the UK the term is normally used referring exclusively to homeowners, so that is not a criticism but rather the point of the article. Whether there are similar conditions, or use of a comparable term, in other countries, I don't know. Johnbod 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There isn't enough substance here to warrant an article. --Metropolitan90 17:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has just been fully referenced (not by me). Johnbod 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep cited sourcs establish notability, although in wish this could be merged into an appropraite larger article. BTW the term is also used in the US, so that should be mentioned. 19:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep needs to be expanded. JJL 21:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand to give world wide view. Regan123 10:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand it. Holla4Allah 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Holla4Allah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..

Merge usable content to Residential property market in the United Kingdom. Per nom essentially a dicdef with OR and "wessel words.--Dakota 17:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you say that when they have all now been referenced (since the nom) to the relevant weasels! Johnbod 20:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent expansions and references. The weasels are gone now, but nobody said anything about otters, so I guess that means I can stay... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Dakota suggests, perhaps what little information there is of substance here could be merged into a more suitable article, but otherwise the best solution would be have something like List of terms relating to the British property market, in which "First Time Buyer" would hae a sentence or two devoted to it at best. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we already have UK mortgage terminology. Delete and Merge there. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WarioWare:_Moved![edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/WarioWare: Moved!

Unsourced speculation, if there's any basis for this it should go on the WarioWare:_Smooth_Moves page Beeawwb 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL, speculation, attribution, OR... take your pick. /Blaxthos 17:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just speculation, but inaccurate speculation. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WarioWare: Smooth Moves if speculation is correct. G1 ggy! 04:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure speculation about a game that isn't announced yet without reliable sources. Violates WP:CRYSTAL.--Kylohk 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied upon author's request. Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Bottaro[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability:

Marginal figure
Sloppy research with unreferenced assumptions. - Mafia Expert 14:59, 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 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newvolution[edit]

Fails WP:BAND on two counts:

Only links are to band Web site and Myspace page.
Four hits on Yahoo and Google. Blueboy 96 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Band has only issued a self-released single. No evidence of passing WP:BAND. Caknuck 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BAND and WP:ATT /Blaxthos 17:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Blaxthos Nswinton\^talk 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LuciferMorgan 18:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 21:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'll leave a redirect to Donegal North East (Dáil Éireann constituency). Neil (►) 11:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Gael Donegal North East[edit]

Article for local branch of Irish political party. Or possible merge in line with this. Vintagekits 14:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donegal North East (Dáil Éireann constituency) (per previous precedent) or Joe McHugh. Local constituency offices are not notable enough for inclusion. Caknuck 15:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the same reasons as noted by Caknuck. AlphaEta 15:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per Vintagekits. As a general observation, individual constituency branches of Irish political parties don't have articles, and general information would be dealt with in the consituency and party articles. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 00:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, party political broadcast Snappy56 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1. PeaceNT 17:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Calvin[edit]

A nonsensical article made by someone who also vandalized Yone Minagawa by changing her birth date. Georgia guy 14:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. DarkAudit 14:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. Caknuck 15:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsense article--$UIT 16:21, 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 02:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cigar Herf[edit]

?ing notability. Is it a hoax? Postcard Cathy 14:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete If this is legitimate, which I can't really tell, it looks like a combination of a definition and an advertisement. Both of which are non-notable and violate the concept of "what Wikipedia is not." The definition may possibly be moved to Wiktionary, but it most likely is unworthy of publication there as well. AlphaEta 15:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neo & OR /Blaxthos 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete weird OR; possible hoax Bigdaddy1981 00:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for herf+cigar shows that the term is in use among . . . well, cigar herfers. But it seems to me to fall under WP:NEO: "Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Deor 16:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a protologism. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete The term 'herf' is very widely used among the cigar crowd. Many often seek the true origin of this term, and will hopefully add to this page as they see fit. Others will simply use it as a reference for the true meaning, which is provided by the page. srow3

If people want to find the meaning of a term, they'd do better to look in a dictionary, rather than an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. >Radiant< 09:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New Satan Sam[edit]

Non-notable game with no reliable, non-trivial sources to support notability. Andre (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a third party review. Both the review and the user reviews at the download site indicate that the game is high quality, which matters only in that a high quality game is more likely to have staying power and thus long-term notability. The article is well done too. Herostratus 20:27, 24 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 13:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clearly a keep very well written & well linked. No reason to get rid of this. Barsportsunlimited 14:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No sources to demonstrate notability, online 'review' is an abysmal 2 paragraph blog entry which says "this exists". I'm not sure what the Daily Click site is there for, it neither establishes notability or gives any details for a citation in the article. searching on google with the criteria " "The New Satan Sam" Review" yields nothing but download sites that I can see. QuagmireDog 14:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep After looking again, I'd missed the 'media' section, instead looking at the external-link/cites and the external links at the end of the article. Game Hippo is a download/funnel site, and I'd suggest removing it from the article altogether. The Gamespy article featuring the game is a hell of a lot stronger, that's just what's needed, but ideally there'd be more. Then there's the mentions on teletext etc. which I'll assume good faith about. The text is neither neutral or formal enough, but it can be editted. With some proper referencing and a quick nip and tuck, this could be a nice little start-class article. QuagmireDog 15:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per Barsportsunlimited. Notability is there, just could be written better to me.--Whs itc hy 03:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil (►) 11:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Hunter[edit]

The newbie article creator gave a valid reason to contest speedy deletion, but I'm not convinced that the article is up to standard yet. The reference provided is insufficient, and the notability is unclear. You may wish to read the article writer's comment at Talk:Pro-Hunter. If the article is deleted, please also delete the associated image and redirects. YechielMan 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC) YechielMan 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that in most watch circles in england, this watch is known about. Search for "pro-hunter submariner" in google and you will find the watch is subject to several forum discussions, and it seems that people either Love it or Hate it. I also read that this watch was part of a charity auction lot (watch + plus a weekend shooting holiday) hosted by "Absolute Return for Kids" and sold for a six figure amount. Audit123
- Comment. Forums are not reliable sources. Also, if the watch was the subject of an auction, then that might mean that the auction is notable -- it doesn't necessarily mean the watch is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Watch. Herostratus 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Watch. Herostratus 11:58, 29 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 13:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sources to prove notability beyond just being a modified Rolex. DarkAudit 15:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V, no reliable sources. /Blaxthos 17:26, 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 to Rimonabant. Neil (►) 11:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zimulti[edit]

Delete – this article is about a non-notable future name of an existing drug. An attempt to redirect to Rimonabant was reverted without explanation by the original editor, who may have a conflict of interest. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rimonabant. That's what Acomplia does, and even if the drug is never approved under this name, redirects are cheap. Deor 15:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rimonabant (without prejudice to reverting to present revision once the trade name has been approved). Caknuck 15:22, 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. >Radiant< 09:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Freff Cochran[edit]

Notability in question. Article was tagged for notability for several months, so I'm bringing it here for consensus per Notability project. NMChico24 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I originally tagged the article for notability almost 10 months ago when it looked like this: [10]. It's come a long way since then, but it's still woefully lacking in sources. I am, however, perfectly willing to change my opinion to "keep" if some good reliable sources can be found before this AfD expires. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:43, 20 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 12:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing problems, verifiablity problems. /Blaxthos 17:27, 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 02:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britsound[edit]

Notability - this is not a "movement" that exists.

The opening sentence, which says it all really, reads: "Britsound is the name given to label British music acts originating from the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)." No, it's not. It's a name invented by a single US-based DJ, which is not used by anyone except him to describe a movement. As for the tautology of "British music acts originating from the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)"... Malcolm Starkey 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, questionable notability (at best). Caknuck 15:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V, seems more like a neo to me. /Blaxthos 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This term is not in common use, and no evidence has been provided that it reflects the perceptions of musicians or fans in the UK or abroad. --Metropolitan90 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- if it were a phrase used only by Americans to refer to British musicians, it still might be notable as such. I don't think this one is, but one need not belong to a group to give it a name. --Dhartung | Talk 20:35, 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 merge/redirect to Big_Brother_Australia#Friday_Night_Live. I will just redirect the article, leaving the history behind it, so anything especially relevant can be merged in by those who know more about the topic. I also redirected its 2007 offshoot. Neil (►) 11:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night Live (Big Brother Australia)[edit]

The article is not needed, information in it is already at or can be added to Big Brother Australia#Friday Night Live. J Di 11:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 12:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its an appropriately spawned subpage that is sufficiently notable. The spinoff Friday Night Games shouldnt need to link deep into the Big Brother Australia in order to understand the history of this show. John Vandenberg 13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it runs as an independant show (from Big Brother) and it has been on the air for well over a year on a national TV network, then I don't see how it would fail notability requirements. /Blaxthos 17:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not doubting the show's notability, but it is only aired as a part of a Big Brother Australia series and I don't think a separate article is needed. Information that is being added to it either can be added to the show's section in the series' article, or doesn't have a place on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Fancruft). J Di 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article, per Big Brother (UK)#Big_Brother's_Big_Mouth . The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main Big Brother article. It's part of a series. Capitalistroadster 02:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in, as it's not really an independent programme. Lankiveil 03:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect - there's not much that could be written encyclopaedically about this show that isn't primary sourced. Orderinchaos 11:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -- per the reasonable comments of Orderinchaos. - Longhair\^talk 12:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per OIC. --VS ^talk 12:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep. Television nearly at its worst but has instant name recognition and no doubt tons has been written on it about its lack of merits. Is a separate show with separate hosts, so fits in with page structure at WP:TV. Assize 10:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable secondary references can be provided. While there would be no problems providing reliable secondary references at Big Brother Australia, there would be for this which most people just see as being "Big Brothers Friday night episode".Garrie 23:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question does this AfD not include Friday Night Live 2007 (Big Brother Australia) which is an even cruftier version?Ga rr ie 23:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - extra article is not needed. JRG 01:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Apostolache[edit]

Delete. I get 57 ghits for this guy. Appears to be some sort of estate agent. Not a very notable one, however. BTLizard 10:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No assertion of notability. Likely violation of WP:AUTO, as the (spa) author is Bogdan1976. (Perhaps a userfy is in order here, but this has no place in namespace.) Caknuck 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a resume. --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion. /Blaxthos 17:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity by NN person Bigdaddy1981 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has been deleted by admin. Non-admin closure. Deor 16:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egption people[edit]

Duplication of article Ancient Egypt that appears copied from another (rather poor) source. Gimme danger 09:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find this article fascinating! Did you notice how there's a word search at the bottom? However, it looks redundant with Ancient Egypt, is mispelled, and may even be a copyvio for all we know, so I say delete. Charlie 10:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have been cobbled together from a number of sources and shrieks copyvio. I particularly like the instruction - about halfway through - to "open the page with Word 97 or higher, edit if necessary and print". BTLizard 10:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cobbled together mess as described. Here's an example of a copied-and-pasted source, but I don't have the patience to track down the source of every section. I think it's speediable as a multiple copyvio. Deor 15:26, 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. Sr 13 06:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian-American Youth Organization[edit]

Contested prod following deletion, with advertising and likely lack of notability as the original rationale. Procedural nomination. Neutral. Michaelas¹⁰ 09:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing anything that confers notability. Happy to change my mind should sources be found. J Milburn 09:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, csd a7, article doesn't assert notability. I can't find anything else that would be notable about them in the 16 google hits so anything further that was written would likely be unverifiable. - Bobet 11:10, 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 nom withdrawn. Sr 13 01:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC)[edit]

Definite WP:CRYSTAL violation. We should wait until the appropriate time comes. Please also see the AfD of a very similar article. Sr 13 08:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an event that is certain to take place and has information on the format of qualification. It is very different to the other article deleted in that the other article had no substantial information on the qualification system that would take place in that area. Davewild 08:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a very notable event guaranteed to happen (short of some kind of apocalyptic event) about which there is information available. J Milburn 09:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the qualification process will begin shortly- justifying its current creation. Thunderwing 09:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Qualification begins in August. The event is notable and the article is timely. BTLizard 09:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing about crystal ballism here. To me, the facts are what we know right now, and it's not predicting the outcome. The article is early to me in its creation, but knowing the football fans here on Wikipedia, it'll be created sooner or later.--Whsitchy 17:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are AfD argument bound by WP:CRYSTAL? </random> --Whs itc hy 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The "appropriate time" is now. There are enough known facts for this to have been an acceptable article for a considerable length of time already. What do you expect us to do, wait until the tournament has actually started before writing about it? Please read WP:CRYSTAL - it explains the limits of it as a reason for deletion, noting in point 1 of that section the sort of future events which are allowed by WP policy. This article is clearly in that latter category - verifiable, notable, almost certain to take place, and well documented. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 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 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skip intro[edit]

Non-notable website. Claims that it appears on other websites, but the coverage is trivial - just a brief mention that it exists and that it is a parody of flash intros. No Alexa rank. Previously speedily deleted as Skipintro. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 07:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Mentioned, even praised, in some reliable sources, but all of them are barely a sentence long. To the extent that this may in fact be notable, there isn't actually much to say about it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for such a term is rather difficult, and I am seeing nothing suggesting it should be kept. Happy to change my mind. J Milburn 09:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and unverifiable. Precedent suggests it should be speedily deleted. CloudNine 09:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just isn't notable (or verifiable). /Blaxthos 17:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Smythe[edit]

Delete for lack of notability. Doczilla 07:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only hint of notability is drumming on "The Letter" and that's not enough. Give him a ticket for an aeroplane outa here. Clarityfiend 08:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although he definately deserves a mention on the band page, and pages about any albums he played on, he does not seem notable enough for his own article. J Milburn 09:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN musician. Bigdaddy1981 01:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasdelete due to lack of criteria, this becomes OR. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of holy grails[edit]

Almost completely unsourced original research. No usable definition of 'holy grail' CIreland 07:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless, undefined, largely unsourced OR. Doczilla 07:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useless list - just a listing of some discoveries that weren't made yet. Strong delete. - Mike Rosoft 07:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My holy grail is a wikipedia without OR articles like this. Clarityfiend 08:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I disagree that this is a useless list, I can actually see it being quite a good list. However, in its current state, it is original research, and there is no valid definition of a holy grail. J Milburn 09:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely arbitrary content. BTLizard 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful content. Sourcing is in progress but article needs more time! CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I find this list interesting, but my concern is how can you verify it as opposed to this being original research? --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Great idea, and some of the items are very logical, but could be killed under WP:NOT#DIR as well.Weak move Per Atropos. --Whs itc hy 17:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of these items are not even physically or mathematically possible. Someguy1221 17:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and an arbitrary list. Interesting to think about, though. JJL 21:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of discoveries considered holy grails and source within some arbitrary time limit; failing that: delete. This could be a very informative list, so deleting it outright isn't a very good idea. Atropos 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move and worth saving somewhere, though I have no immediate suggestions. DGG 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without a clear definition of "holy grail" this can be nothing but an arbitrary list. Many of the current entries are disputable for a variety of reasons. (I doubt, for example, that many working archaeologists consider the discovery of Atlantis to be a holy grail in their profession.) Deor 13:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the idea has potential but it overlaps too much with List of unsolved problems. I suggest then that this article is deleted but any useful content from it merged into the subarticles of List of unsolved problems. Though some of the 'holy grails' listed are not 'problems' as such but are for example 'discoveries', so would need putting elsewhere, perhaps in some other existing list. Ben Finn 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bfinn, preserving the allusion for literary and cultural merit. Ezratrumpet 03:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in some form or another (Merge or Move); the list is useful if somewhat poorly defined, and ought to be weeded out before being tossed. Noaqiyeum 04:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. Merge with list of unresolved problems as above. Lawyer2b 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^[11]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kigo (Fandom)[edit]

I would speedy this, but it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria. It's a completely nn fan pairing in the series Kim Possible. Deranged bulbasaur 06:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources in the article, but none of them appear to be reliable sources as they all come from websites with user submitted content and one first-party interview with trivial mention. Deranged bulbasaur 07:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, all right! Please give me some credit. I've just created the article and was about to ask some Wikipedians opinions about it. I know I couldn't put actual reliable sources, but I did the best I could, and I think I stated enough sources to prove everything that's stated in the article. Please don't come and suggest it deletion just like that. I'm trying to create something here. --Alexlayer 07:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think an article's existence is dubious and want to judge wikipedians' opinions on it, you should create it in userspace first and copy it over if it's accepted. I don't mean anything personal against you; I'm just trying to keep the encyclopedia tidy. Deranged bulbasaur 07:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I haven't meet the best reliable sources that could be expected, but what criteria is the article not matching? I've researched as much as I though I should, even asked around, but haven't found any rule against this kind of article. Just tell me which criteria I should meet and I'll try to improve it. --Alexlayer 07:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's original research as it stands, since the material admittedly doesn't come from reliable sources. Since the article says nothing about the impact of this topic, there's also nothing demonstrating notability. Deranged bulbasaur 07:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to support as much as sources as possible to the point that I think it avoids being Original Research. I know I haven't managed to meet reliable sources, but considering the topic of the article, I don't think that finding something like that is even possible. Still, I believe that the stated sourced are able to prove everything that's said in the article.
- About the notability, I think that if the sources can prove something, it is the fact that the topic is known and talked about, even if it match lesser levels of notability.
- I'm trying to improve the article here. Please help me to find a way. --Alexlayer 07:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, this is original research. Such a pairing is not notable due to the complete lack of information on it from reliable sources. Sourcing things from forums is problematic for the reason that, if you give me ten minutes, I could have posted far more 'sources' all over the web claiming the exact opposite. Also, sourcing the episodes themselves in this manner is original research. J Milburn 09:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your point I know I haven't managed to meet reliable sources, but considering the topic of the article, I don't think that finding something like that is even possible. Is even further reason for deletion. If reliable sources do not exist, we cannot write anything about it. J Milburn 09:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have deleted this subject twice before; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim shego and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kigo (Kim Possible). There is still no evidence that show that this subtext is being discussed in reliable sources. (Compare, for example, the subtext of a Xena-Gabrielle relationship in Xena: Warrior Princess, which was discussed in mainstream media.) The closest thing to a reliable source in this article is a forum post by one of the show's writers, Nicole Dubuc, which is mistakenly attributed to Nicole Sullivan, the voice actress for Shego -- and Dubuc's post mentions the word "Kigo" but does not endorse the idea behind it. --Metropolitan90 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fan speculation and in-universe, not terribly encyclopedic OR. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an unmaintainable list -- Samir 06:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous People Who's Zodiac is Taurus[edit]

Unmaintainable list. A person's zodiac sign has no relevance to their notability and is rarely even documented in a biographical article. CIreland 06:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Not only is someone's zodiac sign completely trivial and non-notable information, there are absolutely no criteria for who counts as being "famous." This has to go. --Hnsampat 06:49, 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.

Kobiela, Wisconsin[edit]

The result of this discussion was snow delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. >Radiant< 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Jermaine Harris[edit]

Nonnotable poet; Amazon ranking of his book is below 1 million; no independent sources. NawlinWiki 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a good guy, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia -- yet at least. Lautréamont, for one, didn't get famous until over fifty years after he bought the farm, and there's longstanding precedent for long waits to attain poetic fame. Also, as for the specifics of the article, selling 6,000 copies of your book in six months does not make your book a "bestseller," and "garner[ing] high praise from readers and reviewers the world over" smells strongly of WP:WEASEL. --Dynaflow babble 08:45, 25 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, Sr 13 06:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Creator/editor Thompsond appears to be a single-purpose account. The article does not assert the subject's notability or cite sources. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 06:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established by the sources given. They are all self-referential. DarkAudit 15:52, 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 Keep. Sources added. PeaceNT 15:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalita (band)[edit]

Band appears to be of fringe notability The Evil Spartan 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The article fails to establish that this band is notable per WP:BAND. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I have added detail and references to help support the notability of the band. Dannytrain 08:54, 24 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, Sr 13 06:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is enough there, just, as far as I can see. J Milburn 09:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, just about scrapes through notability. The Rambling Man 10:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above users; notability is asserted by means of references added by User:Dannytrain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references to the competition entry and placement in a national compertition "The Road to V" is enough, as the band is due to appear on channel four and this will generate significant intrest and hits on reference. User:Adrianfrost. 00:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colassoraptor[edit]

Unless this is a misspelling, I can find no evidence that this article describes an actual dinosaur. JavaTenor 05:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam. The one sentence in the article even calls it a Cloassoraptor. Borderline patent nonsense. Only hit on google is this page. Similar spellings turn up no results. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I googled every spelling I could think of, and I'm presuming this is a hoax unless someone finds evidence. Someguy1221 06:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not seeing anything on Google either. J Milburn 09:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely needs sources. JJL 21:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax Bigdaddy1981 03:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sources, fails WP:V; sounds like a hoax. *** Crotalus *** 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not suitable for a merge, only one argument to 'keep'. Neil (►) 11:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conc jumping[edit]

This was recently in a no consensus AFD group nom here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straferunning. I am nominating this again as the grouping of articles was not optimal. No reliable sources were given then and the article seems to be entirely original research. This is game guide material or possibly unverifiable/OR. Googling only brings up various forums and fanvideos. Delete due to lack of reliable third-party sources Wickethewok 03:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm a gamer myself, but this is way too pointless. --Whs itc hy 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge this and rampjump into the same AfD --Whs itc hy 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a need or reason to do that. The articles' merits are separate - perhaps there are sources for one and not the other. The previous AFD's decision was to renominate separately, so thats why they are nominated this way. Wickethewok 08:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs to cite sources but there are certainly multiple examples of conc jumping in independant media. I know for a fact that it has been mentioned directly in PC Gamer UK but do not have the issue on hand to cite. Its removal from TF2 has also been referenced in several developer interviews http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/11420 http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200703/N07.0327.1745.51023.htm?Page=2. -- 89.243.141.171 10:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Informer article barely mentions it. Could quote what the video says about it? (Its taking forever to download). Also, note that "conc jumping" is already mentioned in the TF2 article. Wickethewok 18:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The video shows the developers discussing in depth why conc jumping is being removed from the game mechanics in TF2 as well as several segments demonstrating various forms of conc jumping including: accessing out of bounds map area in 2fort and a custom practise map which requires multiple jumps in order to scale a sheer wall. Conc jumping is specific to Team Fortress Classic and thus should not be merged with the TF2 article. Conc jumping requires the use of timed grenades which can also be triggered while held and thus completely distinct from rocket jumping. It also preserves the original momentum of the player which makes it more akin to bunny hopping or surfing than rocket/grenade jumping. It is considered such a major element in competitive play that it rendered the Scout class obsolete (one of the main reasons given for its removal). Conc jumping is also included in Fortress Forever (http://www.fortress-forever.com/) and GabeN TF2, a build of TF2 based on the code that was leaked along with Half Life 2 http://www.sentinel3.com/gaben/index.php?title=Team_Fortress_2_(GabeN). --89.242.150.190 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I still don't think it needs a separate article. Why can't it be merged into the TF articles? If its so important, it should be mentioned there anyway and creating a separate article for it would just be redundant. Wickethewok 20:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why can't it be merged into the TF articles?" note the plural. You've got a mechanic that's important and affects multiple games. Is there a specific reason to merge it to one article? Its hardly a stub. You've got primary sources (from the developers), secondary sources (guides to conc jumping and maps) and tertiary sources (definitions in several gaming glossaries/dictionaries). Its not proposing a new method or theory i.e. "original research". Its not a vanity page. Its not a guide to a specific game. The article itself is not poorly written or fancruft. As noted, there are already several articles on specific gaming mechanics such as rocketjumping and bunnyhopping. Why delete it when you can define and expand on it in one place? --89.242.145.251 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article has no cites and I think some of it at least is OR. The stuff you've shown I don't think is enough for a separate article. If this information is actually important, it needs to be in the games' articles, so you're really not "expanding it one place". Anyways, thats what I have to say. Opinions from anyone else besides me? Wickethewok 09:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The anon voting above has only edited this page. --Whs itc hy 18:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a dynamic IP and have contributed to wp in the past. Thankyou for checking. --89.242.150.190 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into rocket jumping. As I noted in the previous AFD, this is just a specific case of the general "explosive jumping" principle. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramp jump[edit]

This was recently in a no consensus AFD group nom here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straferunning. I am nominating this again as the grouping of articles was not optimal. No reliable sources were given then and the article seems to be entirely original research. This is game guide material at best and unverifiable/OR at worst. Delete due to lack of reliable third-party sources. Wickethewok 03:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only isn't the article sourced, it cannot be sourced by the nature of its subject. YechielMan 21:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really an encyclopedic topic, plus no reliable sources. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as spam. Spike Wilbury 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wambo[edit]

Non-notable chat client; even its own home page (http://www.wambo.com/) doesn't mention it. —Bkell (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Reads like an advertisement. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 03:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Reading like an advert does not constitute speedy deletion. Sr 13 06:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment- Sorry I didn't expand my reason more. Had I found the article first, I'd have tagged it as ((db-spam)) as its an ad for P2P software masquerading as an article on an IM client, where chatting is merely a feature of the P2P software. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Got it. Thanks for clarifying. Sr 13 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above and probable copyvio. --Whs itc hy 05:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, reads like an advert. Sr 13 06:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems non-notable to have an article. Carlosguitar 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil (►) 11:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schwarz[edit]

Not notable and lacking reliable sources. My perusal of Google search and news results didnt turn up any notable achievements by this person. John Vandenberg 03:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question He is called a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional, and I find from the Q&A on that : Q3: How does Microsoft select its MVPs? A3: Over 100 million people participate in technical communities but there are only about 3,500 MVPs worldwide (a year). I sugest that's quite a large group and not sufficiently selective. Are there better objective criteria? DGG 01:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He was interviewed on a website and coauthored some books. If notable, then on the low side of notability. nadav (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete All the references do not amount to anything. Sounds like self-promotion. Stellatomailing 22:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 18:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venners Nærhet[edit]

Song was an entry in a competition, but that seems insufficient to claim notability. HeirloomGardener 03:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be more precise, the article says that it was "the Norwegian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest 1989". Yes, that makes a difference, although it may not be obvious to an American. Pharamond 07:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An entry in Eurovision is inherently notable. (and I'm an American :)) DarkAudit 13:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (full disclosure, I wrote the article). To enter Eurovision, the song needed to win the Melodi Grand Prix, which is a nation-wide competition in a comparatively large country (Norway). Having done that, it was then performed publicly at the largest competitive music festival in the world. That would seem to make it notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I understand that this isn't just any music competition, but is rather like the "olympics for music". I will withdraw my nomination for AfD. HeirloomGardener 15:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Shojaee[edit]

No notable news, only PR, and 145 google hits. John Vandenberg 03:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I feel it comes close to being G11 though. --Whs itc hy 05:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Brianga 06:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable CEO. It's concerning that an article for the CEO exists but none exists for the company. --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LuciferMorgan 17:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Mailer Diablo 02:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. >Radiant< 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Tree Full of Secrets[edit]

Not notable collection of bootleg recordings with no acceptable independent sources. Unverifiable. See [[12]] for a similar case. The Parsnip! 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Whs tc hy 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to List of Pink Floyd ROIOs. I nominated this article for merge a little while back and only got one vote to keep. If this gets deleted, I'll give it a small section there, since this is a pretty big bootleg. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 21:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since List of Pink Floyd ROIOs got deleted. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 01:24, 29 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, Sr 13 03:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm just not convinced. PF are without doubt notable, but of course that's not really the point. Scream Thy Last Scream and Vegetable Man are certainly notable (see Nick Kent: The Dark Stuff) and I would contend that I'm A King Bee and Lucy Leave are notable PF recordings by virtue of their extremely early date. I can't comment on the post-Syd recordings because I never took much interest in the band after he was gone but I'm sure others can comment. The position I'll take is that what we have here amounts to an extremely long stub; with a slew of annotation it could be the basis for a group of interesting and informative articles. BTLizard 10:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not to sound offensive here, but I'm getting that you want it delete by your comment, could you clear this up please? --Whs itc hy 04:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the case for deletion has yet to be established. Some of the Syd-era recordings in the set certainly are notable; what we need is comment on the later material so that we can come to a view on the overall notability of the set. As present my view is that we should keep the article. BTLizard 09:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you helps clear it up--Whs itc hy 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a well known ROIO, although i would say its a bit too long - Ummagumma23 21:45 28 May 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. >Radiant< 09:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Characters in the Wild West C.O.W.-Boys of Moo Mesa[edit]

fancruft fork about bit/minor characters of short-lived, barely notable cartoon series Biggspowd 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biggspowd, from other comments you've made, you obviously don't like this series, but rather than a total deletion, how about condensing it down to characters which made at least two appearances and the villains section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.16.37 (talk • contribs) Note: this user claimed to be Gabeb83.

-The above comment WAS indeed mine, I didn't realize I wasn't logged-in until after I'd already posted it. Gabeb83

Comment I don't appreciate being insulted in that last message. The fact that I put it for AFD has nothing to do with my like or dislike, it is just not notable enough for WP, plain and simple. Biggspowd 16:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repsponse No insult intended. I just got the impression from the "barely notable cartoon series" bit that you didn't particularly like this show. Sorry. Gabeb83

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 03:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft Bigdaddy1981 04:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor characters with no secondary coverage. Wickethewok 04:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 41 minor characters from a low notability cartoon series that only ran for 26 episodes is excessive. Characters that appeared in more than one episode could be mentioned in the main article.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor characters lists are not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 23:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. >Radiant< 09:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam & Mihoko[edit]

This article is unsourced, and I can find no verification anywhere for any of the claims made therein. (If anyone is more successful, of course, please add some sources!) JavaTenor 20:47, 21 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, Sr 13 03:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without sources, fails WP:V. HeirloomGardener 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable band. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 03:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless the discography and Top 10 hit can be verified. JJL 21:18, 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 snowball delete. Sr 13 01:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He who stays occupied sees more"[edit]

Appears to be original research FisherQueen (Talk) 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Definitely WP:OR. Sr 13 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Article is written by the individual who coined the phrase. Quatloo 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, which CSD would the article fall in? Sr 13 04:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Number 1, "Patent Nonsense." Quatloo 17:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is made up of multiple comprehensible English sentances gramatically structured. For a CSD:A1 to apply, the article must be uncomprehensible nonsense, not the subject. -- saberwyn 21:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No evidence anyone else ever used the phrase, either. Someguy1221 05:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. "He who accomplishes more, stays longer." Clarityfiend 08:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research of dubious quality. BTLizard 10:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Josh 10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. JJL 21:20, 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 02:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divadog[edit]

A confused, unencyclopedic article about a term that is not in use. Fails WP:N. The bulk of the article concerns the career of its creator, Denise Kimball. The creation of User:Lemonpoppy, a single purpose user. Victoriagirl 02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a Neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 03:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strong COI, non-notable person and brand - ~~obscure neologism~~ Bigdaddy1981 04:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my nomination. Victoriagirl 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note that User:Lemonpoppy has made a series of edits in the interests of addressing the neologism issue. If I understand the recent talk page post correctly, the article is now about Divadog as a brand. Unfortunately, at this stage neither Divadog not its creator Denise Kimball appear to meet WP:N guidelines. Victoriagirl 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan McAlynn[edit]

Autobiography, orphan, and no notable publications. John Vandenberg 02:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom. Barsportsunlimited 14:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot tell what counts as notability for people in this field. The publications are presentations at Microsoft Management Summits, and I don't know how important that is. DGG 01:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. Stellatomailing 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article seems to be putting forward the "blogger" explanation as what he's notable for (it's the first of the nouns it uses to describe him) but lists no secondary source for the notability of his blogs. The only thing that lends an appearance of notability to this is a link to press quotes, but they're all from the same online news site (techtarget.com) whose notability I'm not convinced of. When I try a Google news search I see no real press, only the same web sites. —David Eppstein 17:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philips Device Manager[edit]

Article is about the firmware updater for a few Philips MP3 players and is completely unnotable -memodude 03:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Someguy1221 03:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, almost no content. HeirloomGardener 03:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unremarkable software package, article has no sources and no assertion of notability. *** Crotalus *** 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Kyoko 06:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DiPinto[edit]

No citations. No claim of notability. Google search finds nothing notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Work permit (talk • contribs) 19:33, May 25, 2007

Delete. Non-notable, spam. HeirloomGardener 03:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is its own best advocate for deletion. I have nothing to add. :) YechielMan 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied. Johnleemk | Talk 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HASSE[edit]

Non-notable association. Google is difficult, as "Hasse" is a fairly common Germanic surname, but I can't dig up any third party references for either HASSE or "Houston Association for Space and Science Education" that are not completely trivial. Lankiveil 02:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to have traces of advertising. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any secondary sources in Google news, or to determine from the article or from the association's web site how notable it really is. Google finds nothing linking to thehasse.org (the association's web site). The web site itself says very little about who they are, how they are funded, or what they do other than run a web site linking to a bunch of other sites. For all I can tell from all of this evidence, some random person could have set this up yesterday with no intention other than making money from ad revenue. Likely it is more legitimate than that, but in the absence of convincing evidence saying so I think we have to delete. —David Eppstein 06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Tagged as such. DarkAudit 13:09, 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 keep. It would be nice if the sources produced below were to wander their way into the article. Neil (►) 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry C. Dethloff[edit]

Non notable academic. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). A lot of academics write books, but this one doesn't seem to be a significant expert or well known. waffle iron ^talk 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --T_{Talk to me} 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Dethloff does not qualify, why does this one?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_Elia_Cant%C3%BA

Billy Hathorn 02:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He qualifies as an author then if not as an academic.. "An academic who has published a book or books of general interest, a widely used textbook, or non-academic articles in periodicals with significant readership is likely to be notable as an author (see WP:BIO), regardless of their academic achievements. Similarly, an academic involved in significant current events is likely to be notable as a person under the general WP:BIO guidelines."

Keep per Billy Hathorn. The article isn't well written but the subject is at least as notable as the bulk of academics on wikipedia Bigdaddy1981 03:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did searches for this academic's book titles. Essentially, nobody on the Internet talks about any of his books. His impact seems to have been negligible. Quatloo 04:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt that he's a darling of the blogosphere, but I found plenty of reviews of his work on JSTOR: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (to list a few) Zagalejo 18:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure whether he qualifies as an academic or as a writer; his subject area is restricted to Texas history and the titles sound popular. I'll look at the reviews.

I note that the sources for the books are given as amazon and alibris, and so on--which are well know at AfD for not being reliable for notability,m because they will list anything. Everything else listed is from his university. (The reviews Zagalejo found will be better sources). I hope that Billy's sources for topics I am less able to judge are better than that--this is the first time he's ventured on territory I do know. This confirms my previous feeling that the sources used in the series of Texas and Louisiana notables are altogether inadequate, without a serious effort at finding reliable secondary sources. Fortunately for this particular article, the subject's notability is well established by the basic facts of his life. DGG 01:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though I share DGG's concerns regarding the sources for Billy Hathorn's articles here in general, I also agree with DGG that in this particular case, the subject does appear to be legitimately notable per the reviews found by Zagalejo. Mwelch 06:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Rouffaer[edit]

nn model, being in diva search is not legitimate source of notability. Other contestants have been deleted in past: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Wrestling career was brief at best, for an independent org. Biggspowd 01:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable model, who's main claim to fame is losing a beauty contest run by a professional wrestling organisation (!), and playing gridiron in her underwear. Lankiveil 02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Govvy 15:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good for people who want to know the whereabouts and career notes of a former WWE Diva search contestant and contributor to the modeling industry; article has merit for expansion 69.176.131.64
Delete, per nom. Nikki311 23:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. Sr 13 02:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Körner[edit]

I had tagged this autobiography for speedy deletion as an A7. The speedy was changed to a ((prod)) which was contested by the article creator/subject. Subject claims to have been a member of a rowing club which won a local dragon boat rowing competition 8 years ago. When he removed the prod template he also claimed to have been part of a silver-medal winning team at an ~~unspecified international~~ regatta. Please note that the references only verify that the club itself exists. I still feel this is speediable under A7. I made some attempts to verify information but was unsuccessful. JayHenry 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see in the infobox that the regatta is the "Leitmeritz regatta". I can find no information about this regatta. --JayHenry 00:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7. Obvious conflict of interest as the author is the subject. Article fails to assert notability, and is in fact an autobiography. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 01:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable and an autobiography. Total conflict of interest here. Acalamari 01:52, 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 speedy delete per G4. Sr 13 02:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Shahin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Adding this for AfD for the fact Kemal Shahin is now a forgotten contestant of the Big Brother show and for the fact he has done nothing to support the fact he is notable other than being a TV contestant. Another reason for AfD is the promise of redirect which never happened at all. Dr Tobias Funke 00:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Previously deleted via Afd. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 01:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete since it was deleted as a result of a previous AfD. This person is not notable. Acalamari 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G4 applies here. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 02:08, 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 02:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah C. Blue[edit]

Non-notable, middle-ranking university administrator and professor, unsourced. Nearly-identical article ‎Debbie Blue was speedied A7. Clicketyclack 00:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources provided, and I'm not convinced of her notability. Lankiveil 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. No web hits, and no sources given.---=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 02:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think she meets the notability threshold, no sources cited. Possible self-promotion issues, too, check out Special:Contributions/Okbu, Special:Contributions/Tiddled, and Mark Brister, another administrator at OBU. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it may be continuing the systematic bias from academia into Wikipedia, but generally, professors of teaching aren't notable because they don't generate verifiable sources such as publications which create notability beyond their local community. We're even harder on college administrators, so her position in that role is even less likely to be notable. Possible copyright violations from [18], and shows errors in the article -- joined faculty in 1980, not named professor at that date. etc. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, the bio on the OBU website gives sufficient notability, and that bio should be considered reliable unless shown otherwise. John Vandenberg 03:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references as indicated above are added to verify notability. JJL 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 22:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is not notable as an academic--a professor of mathematics without a research doctorate. Is she notable as an academic administrator? She is Dean & Senior VP of the college at a extremely small college (enrollment 345). Since the class ratio is 15:1, that=23 faculty in all--the university page lists 10 administrators. The Senior VP for academic affairs (usually=provost) at a major university would almost always be notable--usually be a very important academic with a distinguished record. Not DCB. Personally, I';d be willing to count the president of any college as notable, but I doubt many would agree. DGG 02:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per commenters above, no non-trivial sources to speak of, the article is failing WP:BLP at present. Yamaguchi先生 07:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per commenters above. Stellatomailing 17:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/keep (close, since the "speedy delete as spam (not food)" arguments, article has been rewritten and it looks like it addresses the concerns raised). Neil (►) 11:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Tony's Kebabs[edit]

Borderline spam, unsourced. Clicketyclack 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: not Spam (food) that is, but rather Wikipedia:Spam. Profuse thanks to User:Flowerpotman for pointing out the apparently undue harshness of the comparison.) Clicketyclack 00:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. No independent sources provided for assertions. The text currently reads very close to the official website. With twenty-three locations, no great claim of notability is made. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's blatant advertising. WP:CSD#G11 applies here. Acalamari 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. It's WP:SPAM. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 23 locations is pretty notable for a company that only operates in Australia. The article definitely needs cleanup to get rid of the spammy tone though. Lankiveil 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Lankiveil 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written, it's pretty spammy. Find some independent sources, and I might be convinced that this can be an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Australian fast food franchise. Needs sourcing and a cleanup. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Akhilleus, and provide sources to prove notability. Assize 04:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and request those nominating delete to revisit article please - have since cleaned up article and introduced IMHO 2 alternative references which clearly establish notability.--VS ^talk 07:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:You're right, notability appears now to be established, and the article is a lot better now with the advert copy removed. Sources are still needed for the long list of awards, but that's grounds for more cleanup, not deletion: tagging that section now. If there are no further objections, I'll withdraw the nomination. Thanks, Clicketyclack 10:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, notability has been asserted, but reliable sources for the assertions havent been provided. Google News Archives returns 14 results, but some of these are multiple articles about the same event on the same day from the same newspaper. John Vandenberg 13:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability is clearly established by now. By the way, even if it were Spam (food), I'd still vote keep -- I happen to like Spam, tendjewberrymud. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:09, 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 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Stalcup[edit]

This article fails the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Elembis (talk · contribs) 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not too sure of it's notability, nothing I could find asserts why this person is not just "the average philosipher".---=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything why this person would be a notable philosopher. --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His so-called academic articles are all of them on Helium. DGG 02:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom withdrawn. PeaceNT 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Carrico[edit]

~~Failed election candidate with no independent notability. Also unsourced so fails WP:V. Delete recommendation. Bridgeplayer 21:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, no independent sources. Wikipedia is not an election guide.--Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - there are two problems with this article:

the man's name is actually Charles "Bill" Carrico, so you have to look for him under Charles (and misspellings of Carrico) to find sources on him
the article's out of date: it turns out that though he failed to be elected to the U.S. Congress, he's still a Delegate of the Virginia House of Delegates since 2001, and is running for re-election. See http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=Delegate+Charles+Carrico

The article certainly needs updating and sources (and possibly renaming), but is worth keeping. Clicketyclack 23:15, 25 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, Sr 13 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO, as he is a state legislator. the Virginia House of Delegates is the lower house of the Virginia state legislature: WP:BIO specifically says that individuals elected to a state or provincial legislature are notable. --Charlene 07:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change !vote to keep based on new information provided since my !vote.--Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - nomination withdrawn in the light of the new information. Bridgeplayer 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Jean Marshall[edit]

No assertion of notability, unverified, unsourced, 3 line stub article for an actress whose role seems to be a redlink. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some poking around suggests that she was one of the three leads for the show, which ran for two full seasons, based on the official website. I'm seeing a surprisingly limited Google haul for her, though, which somewhat surprises me considering the show's still got a fair amount of popularity, has released a number of CDs and is broadcast in several countries. I'm going to have to go weak keep, though, based on being a key member of the cast. It desperately needs sourcing, however, and a rewrite. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:03, 22 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, Sr 13 03:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 05:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, for lead in The Saddle Club and albums such as Secrets & Dreams. John Vandenberg 05:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Co-star for three series of a popular television show that has been sold internationally is surely notable. The article needs cleanup and sourcing, not deleting. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the entertainer criteria for notability easily (cult following, just ask any child who watches ABC (Australia that is)) and she has lead role in a TV series shown around the world. Assize 07:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMeets WP:BIO. Clearly notable Australian actor, has a cult following, star of a popular television show. --Charlene 07:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saddle Club had an inexplicably huge following in its demographic (having had to endure several eps of it in the course of my past employment, I fail to see why), and the three lead actors in the show were very prominent, and even had personal lines of merchandising in two separate national markets. Also was part of the group which released a charting album and several charting singles in Australia, one of which is among the longest entries ever recorded in Australia's official chart (see WP:MUSIC as to why this qualifies). Clearly passes WP:BIO (says through gritted teeth) Orderinchaos 11:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mr. Hawkins[edit]

Non notable DJ. Declined speedy on the grounds of the TV appearances conveying notability, but I can find absolutely no sources. Prod removed by an IP without explanation. J Milburn 08:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable DJ. No evidence of significant body of work. --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to back up claims of notability. Wikidan829 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. tomasz. 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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