< May 27	May 29 >

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the Israeli throne[edit]

The article claims there is a new pretender to the Israeli throne (namely the throne held by the descendants of king David). Admittedly Yosef Dayan is probably a proven descendant of the Royal family, but there are also hundreds of other jews with equal rights (just as well documented).

The main point is that this is really a hoax (or at least a bad joke), since Dayan doesn't claim the throne. I searched even his sympathisers sites, but found no mention of him actually claiming the throne (they only say he has the potential). It also doesn't make much sense since the Messiach is supposed to be the king. DGtal 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is bologna. No, it doesn't taste good, and no, there is absolutely no resemblance to the processed meat, but its (apparently)a lie. Wikipedia is not the place for lies... or bologna, for that matter. Delete! Billy²²⁷ 00:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. --Random ^{Say it here!} 00:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to know: at what point in the nation's <60 year history did they cede political power to a monarch? --Infrangible 03:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Israel being referred to is the historical one from ancient times, not the modern one. I'm guessing the theory is that this person can trace his descent back that far. Which, if so, and supported by reliable sources, would certainly be a reasonable claim for an article, but I'm doubtful that is actually the case. FrozenPurpleCube 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually believe his family is a descendant to the throne. There is actually a book by a Rabbi Avraham Dayan (19th century) that brings the whole list (that author was generation 84 to David, son after son). This is not something very rare. The Schneersohn family (Chabad and Kapust) is just one famous example. Again, this is not the reason I claimed this page should be removed. DGtal 06:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a lot of people can probably trace their claim that far, but if there's no reliable sources to back up the importance of the claim, it's just not going to merit an article. But if folks do pay attention to it, well, that'd be something like say the various women who claimed to be Princess Anastasia of Russia. FrozenPurpleCube 02:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is going to need a lot more sourcing before it's acceptable. (I doubt this could be done.) JJL 16:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough (or any) reliable sources and cannot see how there ever will be for this article. Davewild 18:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and POV. Besides, how many descendants would there be of an individual like a 37 BC king, after 100 generations? No indication they all met in a "loya jirga" or some such and agreed this or that individual would be crowned the day the monarchy was restored in Israel. No sources to suggest there is an accepted presumptive king, but apparently many Men Who Would Be King. Edison 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete claims of pretenders who have been unknown and not shouting out their claims for over 1900 years are not encyclopedic. <ego trip>Maybe I have a claim to the Aztec throne? King Carlos. :-)</ego trip> Carlossuarez46 20:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lack of reliable sources hurting this article's survival. --Oscarthecat 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I followed links to Exilarchs and so to an external encyclopaedia article. However that said nothing of anything more recent than c.1400 CE. If DGtal has sources he should write them up and edit the article accordingly. Peterkingiron 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you the book's name, but it won't help much since it's "just" a rabbi's geneology, not an attempt in creating a succesion line. I don't even know if this Dayan is related to the Dayan in question (though it is likely).

תהלים עם פירוש שיר חדש / פעולת... כמוהר"ר אברהם בכמוהר"ר ישעיה דיין

ירושלים : מכון הכתב, תשמ"ה (Jerusalem, Machon Haktav, 1984)

DGtal 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 21:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this violation of WP:NONSENSE, as well as of WP:NOR; WP:COI; WP:RS. What a joke! A parody about List of messiah claimants! IZAK 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: See related CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 1#Category:Pretenders to the throne of Israel.
NOTE: See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yosef Dayan
Keep. I noticed the expandable navigation template on the right side of the article. Apparently somebody is working on a series of articles about former monarchies, and the Kingdom of Israel is indeed a former monarchy. I think the mention of Yosef Dayan is merely incidental to the point of this new stub which should be expaneded to cover the known succession of the defunct throne. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Elipongo: the Kingdom of Israel CEASED about 2,800 years ago, and it became null and void after its Ten Lost Tribes were lost for evermore. In any case, the Jewish Messiah (who will be the next "Jewish King" -- there is no such notion as an "Israeli king") will be descended from the Kingdom of Judah, which also ceased about 2,500 years ago. So this person who is working on this, should leave out the subject of Israel, eithe a a defunct ancient Kindom or as the State of Israel. By the way, how about a List of succession to the Egyptian throne with some latter-day Pharaoh aspirants included! IZAK 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct in your dates, Izak. However my point is that the assertions above that this article is a joke/hoax are baseless and are NOT grounds for deletion. As far as I can tell this article meets notability criteria (I'm sure I could find several sources with little effort. Have a good Shabbat! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first off the title of the article is wrong, it should be "Israelite" if we are speaking of historical Israel. Second, as has been noted, a king 3000 years ago would leave a *lot* of modern descendants. -N 00:23, 2 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 speedy delete, nonsense copy of Lovely (micronation). Krimpet (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro's[edit]

verbatim copy of Lovely (micronation), only the article name changed Chris 23:54, 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 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn bagnall[edit]

Non notable author and gardening expert. More than half the article is about the book rather than the subject. With the external links, the Scribe publications link is dead, the CSIRO profile has been lifted directly into the article, the ABC link is an advice column rather than information on the subject and the Aussies living simply is a link to a forum. Discounting the copyright violation from the CSIRO the article is unsourced. Mattinbgn/^talk 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. A Google News Archive search shows that there has been some independent coverage of her book see [1]. If kept, it shuld be moved to Lyn Bagnall.Capitalistroadster 02:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While the person is certainly well-known, I'm not sure they actually cross the independent sources threshold. Much of the article is copyvio or fairly close to it. Orderinchaos 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure that she has the name recognition required under WP:NOTE. ABC website has three transcripts of interviews, so I would suggest that this doesn't yet meet the criteria. No independent secondary sources on biographical details available. Sorry, but doesn't meet notability guidelines yet. The book probably is notable but searches on Google don't necessarily demonstrate that yet. Assize 11:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, as per User:Assize above me. Borderline, but I don't think she makes the grade yet. Lankiveil 07:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and cleanup. There has been independent coverage of her book, and at least 3 of the external links provided support her notability. --Evb-wiki 15:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One book and accompanying marketing isnt enough. John Vandenberg 06:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just. The book just fails WP:BK and the author fails WP:BIO for authors. Not enough published information about the author and some of the reviews are publisher's PR. The clincher for me is the contributions of the original WP editor [2]. Looks like a single-purpose account created to put this article on wikipedia. Not good enough.

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Jack Dial[edit]

Non notable. Article was created by its subject and speedied. It was then recreated, and then prod'ed, which was removed by another editor. Requests for proof of notability have gone unanswered. Spike Wilbury 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt no proof seen. Also, WP:COI, look at the creator. --Whs itc hy 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article definitly appears to be WP:COI. The bio part read like a book, with information that I do not belive could be referenced. --Random ^{Say it here!} 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletissimo Although it may not have violated copyright, this is spam in my view, as the article was written with the aim of publicising the person on his own website. Trashy vanity piece. This guy has posted a biography on bnainoachnews.com, and wikinoah.org, and has done a C&P here, but nothing to indicate he's all that notable: 33 unique Ghits: all but one hit rubbish, the last one's a trivial; all the external links appear to be trivial mentions of his council memberships, so there would be some difficulty sourcing the totality of his biography in accordance with WP:A. Furthermore, this is part of a walled garden being planted by the subject to further his personal aims, and the organisational goals of United Noachide Council, Inc., an entity whose notability does not appear to be all that solid: 16 unique Ghits. Ohconfucius 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Eusebeus 09:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Billy Jack is mentioned in High Council of B'nei Noah as on of the first members. The article is certainbly in need of massive editing, but it would leave readers in more confusion about the B'nei Noah movement if there are no pages about its first council's founding fathers. It is difficult to tell whether this discussion is getting the attention it needs from people who are well-versed in the Noahide siubject matter.Kaz 10:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, any editor should be able to assess whether the article asserts and proves notability per the guidelines in WP:BIO. If the article does not, it should be deleted. --Spike Wilbury 13:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Y not? 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Y not? 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is WP:NN, as well as violation of WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#MYSPACE. IZAK 05:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, WP:COI and completely lacking context. --Evb-wiki 15:15, 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 Article was speedy deleted by Night Gyr. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol (adult film actress)[edit]

Non-notable per WP:Bio on porn stars. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article admits she is known only for starring in two videos. I feel dirty for reading that article. --Haemo 22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete - Non-notable adult actress. The article states that she is "perhaps" only known for starring in two volumes of adult films. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to speedy delete because this article mentions names of alleged parents and other relations of the subject. As long as there are no sources at all, names of people should be deleted, especially if brought in contact with content as questionable as this. This could be a retaliation, a hoax, or a prank ... it could be true, too. Unless that is proven, however, no names should be mentioned in a context like that. doxTxob \ ^talk 01:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't think that its meant as an attack, but User:LuckyCharm24 is listed as Carol's niece. This little tid-bit was listed after a nn bio article was speedy deleted and User:LuckyCharm24 userfied the content. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, - Definitely what I would call a violation of WP:BIO. Like Haemo, I felt just "sick" while reading it. --Random ^{Say it here!} 01:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLP , WP:BIO , WP:N , and WP:A. People "feeling dirty" or "feeling sick" after reading an article is not relevant to a deletion debate, since Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn porncruft. --Fire Star 火星 21:54, 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 as WP:CSD#G12. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul collier[edit]

Non notable academic. Only source is staff bio on university website Mattinbgn/^talk 22:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should have checked this before. This is a copyright violation from his staff bio listed directly on the article! Speedy delete CSD#G12. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I am slow of the mark this morning, this is also an autobiography. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD#G12, er, too late. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:17, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Goncalves[edit]

A non notable actor/performer. This has previously been deleted (not through AfD) and I don't think the subject has become any more notable in the meantime. The article is original research and I suspect partly a vanity project Mattinbgn/^talk 22:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom - WP:BIO applies. Being a student at WAAPA is no different to being a uni student. Orderinchaos 01:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per Orderinchaos, WP:BIO applies. And while WAAPA may be a notable institution, the notability does not cascade down to unaccomplished individuals. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know how accomplished Julian is and I'm sure he can act better than me. However, no reliable secondary sources so notability is not established. Better sources needed. Assize 11:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He plans to eventually move overseas and try establish himself as a performer when he does, people will write about him and there will be references to support an article.Ga rr ie 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. When he's established, let's see a proper article about him. --Oscarthecat 12:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:Bio. While this young performer may have a brilliant career ahead, there is jsut not enough yet to warrant an article. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible vanity article for a non-notable person. Lankiveil 07:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 2 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 Speedy deleted as spam. The reasons given to justify the article's existence are nice marketing material, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia.. Spike Wilbury 15:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Club[edit]

Contested speedy delete Anthony Appleyard 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per criterion A7. --Haemo 22:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to research "A7." I was not very successful. Did find this comment: "CSD A7's wording is way, way too broad. The criterion is used by admins to delete anything arguably non-notable, and even notable things. Hence, a deletion of the criterion is necessary." Am I on the correct page? Thanks.Student7 23:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CSD i.e. Criteria for speedy deletion. cab 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously needs improvement. I do not see that it meets any of your criteria for "speedy deletion" which is blatant advertising, nonsense, etc. This club has more voluntary members than most of the towns in rural areas have people. Maybe more than some YMCAs and Gold's gyms. Student7 02:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability and no independent, reliable sources cited, just own website. cab 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be more references. The club has been featured as "unique" and newsworthy in many articles in the local (Gannett-owned) paper (human interest, not PR club stuff). Unfortunately, I am not in a position to retrieve those articles right now.Student7 02:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Redelete, actually. As it is right now, it is clearly (still) a prime candidate for speedy deletion. (Not-for-profits advertise, too, afterall.) What makes this random Florida fitness club "notable" for inclusion in an encyclopaedia? Student7 wrote a great narrative, but that doesn't change the fact that the subject just doesn't appear to be encyclopaedic material. In response to the "justification for retention" below, I should add that one argument that could be used for the inclusion of Gold's, the YMCA, and so forth are that they are historically notable (and quite sizeable, if that matters). I'm not sure if Bally and 24 Hour Fitness have the same claim to historical significance, although both are sizeable public companies (i.e. 3 million members or so each, compared to 2,500 for "Our Club"). Really, truly, speedy delete. :( Justen 02:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for retention[edit]

It is unique for a) being a coop gymnasium, b) at $30/month being affordable, and c) being self-supporting, not begging for donations like the YMCA, or whatever, d) paying normal regular real estate taxes (!) , (perhaps as non-profit not paying corporate taxes though) e) offering most classes free including dozens of aerobics, and water classes weekly and f) for constructing and owning it's own multi-million dollar building. It could be a model for all future coop gyms in the country. Instead we have Ys begging for corporate suppport and not paying taxes, county supported gyms, etc. All essentially non-viable institutions subsidized either for the "benefit" of "the poor," or actually, "the middle class," such as the old Ys now refurbished for downtown businessmen.

It is a not-for-profit group like the YMCA which has a page, is not a for-profit like Gold's Gym, which has a page. It often has a waiting list (capped at 2,500 members). It doesn't need members particularly.

I am not a founder nor director of the club, nor have I even been nor ever expect to be; just an ordinary member. I am not trying to "get" members. With a cap, the last thing we need is more people signing up and not being able to join! But I do have a POV, clearly. I've been trying to avoid putting too much of myself into the article. Even so, one editor thought it was an ad!!! Student7 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but can you verify the information present in the article against a third-party reliable source? CloudNine 10:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unremarkable and as spam. I applaud Student 7's intentions, but this isn't the place. DGG 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an advert for a run of the mill gym club. So there's a waiting list!? Whether it is cheap or affordable, or run for a profit or not is irrelevant in the eyes of wikipedia, it's just not notable. Ohconfucius 02:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written like an advertisement. Apart from this, I can't find any major achievements or incidents that are widely reported about this particular health club, and that makes it not notable and shouldn't be here.--Kylohk 11:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As spam, tagged as such. Whs itc hy 14:39, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Hawk[edit]

No notability. Being 'in a commercial' is not enough. ssepp^(talk) 18:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note I added this to the bottom of the deletion list initially. After realizing this is wrong, I have moved it to the top. I am sorry for any inconvenience. ssepp^(talk) 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as uncivilly as possible. Wikipedia is not a marketing department. DarkAudit 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable idea from a commercial. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable gimmick from a single ad campaign. --Haemo 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - very non notable , as per above.
Delete Article is non-notable, and borders on advertising. --Nehrams2020 06:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I have to wonder what DarkAudit's "as uncivilly as possible" means. Article may have been contributed in good faith by somebody who likes hawks, or sierra mist, or just liked the commercial. Whatever...this hawk does not need an encyclopedia article.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it looks like spam, and tastes like spam, then it's probably spam. The PR flacks and viral marketers have been assaulting Wikipedia with increasing frequency, showing no remorse for their actions. At some point good faith needs to be set aside when dealing with those who would try to bend Wikipedia to their own ends as an advertising tool. DarkAudit 13:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 2 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul W. Bryant Museum[edit]

The article is not properly referenced. Also I would say it is violation of WP:NPOV and possibly WP:COI. --Random ^{Say it here!} 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to delete this page as a cleanup and referencing is all that is needed. I have already begun the work but someone had previously removed the AFD tag. I am asking an admin to re-add the template without dumping the changes I have made. I'm not sure it can be easily done without wrecking this page. The WP:COI is a problem but in itself not a reason to delete. POV is being removed. JodyB_talk 23:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with JodyB. — Athaenara ✉ 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless independent sources are provided. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain about the general notability of university museums. DGG 23:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In general I would follow DGG's opinion on the subject matter. If the museum in fact has an original painting in their exhibition that was used to create a postage stamp, for me enough notability would be established in this case to argue in favor of keeping the article. Maybe an image (of the stamp, the painting or both) can be added to illustrate the connection. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why should we hold university museums to a different standard? If we can supply multiple, non-trivial sources which are verifiable shouldn't that be enough? JodyB_talk 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the tuscaloosa news article, there's Huntsville Times coverage & it is referred to by journalists outside of Alabama [3] (though many are pay-per-read or subscriber only). --Karnesky 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of Alabama. Corvus cornix 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Tuscaloosa News article and the others provided by Karnesky. There's too much subject-specific content here to merge to another article. --Oakshade 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per jody b and other keeps above. All seem to cover most important aspects of afd. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with JodyB. Acalamari 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep couldn't agree more with JodyB on this one. Remember folks, AfD is not the first step. The museum is notable, and if properly sourced, meets all requirements for inclusion. - auburnpilot talk 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Jody. And to re-iterate what AuburnPilot said, AfD should not be the first step. If a stubby article needs some tagging, cleanup, or POV revision, then fix it or tag it. When its such an obvious keep, then nom for AfD is a waste of time. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let me temper my comments by making note that the article has been extensively reworked since the AfD nom. If I had seen it then, I probably would have nominated it for AfD myself...—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. It was a mess and was a POV nightmare. It was so bad I almost picked up the phone and called the museum ans asked what they thought they were doing! Anyway, we've made some progress on the article and I sure appreciate everyone's work. JodyB_talk 23:05, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Violence[edit]

Unsourced original research-ish essay with 0 incoming mainspace links. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a definite essay, perhaps a soapbox entry too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This could be userfied, but I suspect that's not helpful given the SPA creator.... Delete as WP:OR. -- MarcoTolo 01:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and POV. Ohconfucius 02:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete OR, NPOV, orphaned, and just plain useless. Plus, aren't the items in it covered already elswhere? Whs itc hy 14:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. JJL 16:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original Research. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 2 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 speedy keep, notability clearly established through a multitude of secondary sources. Krimpet (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7-Zip[edit]

This program is non-notable. A Google search reveals only download sites and the development page. The article was proposed for deletion, but the template was removed without explanation or substantial change. James 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Google search says almost 3 million entries for 7-Zip. Mentioned in 339 books. [4] -- Frap 21:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per criteria 2, the 'bullshit!1!' criteria. Results 1 - 10 of about 2,580,000 for 7-zip. (0.06 seconds) --ST47Talk 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - how did this even get here? Entro-P 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable --Darksun 21:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed - This client is extremely useful --Uberushaximus 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be downloadable from thousands of websites, and the article has secondary sources to technically establish notability. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no consistency here - MagicISO, with more than a million hits on Google, thousands of download sites, a large number of review sites, is not notable, but this is? It doesn't make any sense. James 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several comments on the user's talk page indicate that he is part of a group of people spamming "MagicISO" all over the site. "MagicISO" fails applicable guidelines, and this user doesn't seem to like that, meaning that this nomination was made in bad faith. 164.11.204.56 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MagicISO was not deleted based on notability. It was deleted once as it read like an ad and then agin as it was recreated less than a day later. Please see WP:SPAM and the notability guideline Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had nothing to do with the spam and this is unrelated. I'm just attempting to arrive at some consistency here.James 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see this essay, often referenced in deletion debates. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As this was nominated for WP:POINT. 7-zip has multiple independent review, is notable because it is the reference implementation of the 7z compression format, and is bundled in multiple software collections (and p7zip is in multiple *nix distros). --Karnesky 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as bad-faith nom. DarkAudit 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snowball keep per above. I have no reason to doubt notability here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD is not being handled according to WP:NPA or WP:AGF. This is not appropriate. I do not wish to get involved in the debate, but it goes too far to claim the editor nominated this for deletion on "bad faith." In addition, leaving abusive comments on the user's talk page is way, way over the line. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given all of the recent PRODs that James made to different programs today & his comments about the deletion of MagicISO, I don't see how anyone can think that he wasn't violating WP:POINT. --Karnesky 23:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that, which is why I ~~struck~~ my comments. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. Btw, how are all those prods going to be handled? Just curious. Stellatomailing 23:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can remove a prod. if they think the article meets the guideline.DGG 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should treat the PRODs as if they were legitimate. Some of the PRODs have already been removed. I removed those from the programs that I knew were notable and non-spammy (mostly Linux apps). People familiar with the genre of cd/dvd burning/image software (particularly with proprietary/commercial apps on windows) should probably review James's edit history. --Karnesky 23:57, 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. Peacent 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Dineen-Porter[edit]

Reason 64dom 00:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails to meet Wikipedia's notibility criteria for articles about people.

David Dineen-Porter is not the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Each of the sources cited in the article is either self-promotion, unpublished, or of trivial significance to the subject.

No other criteria from Wikipedia's notibility criteria are satisfactorily met.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Canuckle 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One or two of the sources appear to be journalistic, others appear to be basically direct links to the things discussed, rather than third party synthesis. But i guess people are on wikipedia with a lot less. How do people decide anyway? Is there any third party synthesis on Rosie Perez? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.66.235 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no reliable sources, possible vanity page or even joke page. The article lists his "death" as taking place in "2056" in the "Aphasias Temprali Sector." Get rid of it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep there seems to be at least one good source (the first); the others are blogs, which may be the appropriate source for this sort of subject. DGG 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References includes blogs, but there are two independent reliable sources in Eye Weekly with is a Toronto alternative paper, and the Globe an Mail which is a Canadian national paper. -- Whpq 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would point out that the Globe and Mail link does not actually go to an article, but rather to a summary of an article called "Musicians get wired with old gadgets." It is impossible to tell if Dineen-Porter is even mentioned in the article, or, if he is, if it is only a passing mention. Thus there is actually only one RS for this entire article--we simply have no way of verifying the rest of it. I think we should bear that in mind, especially given the fact that, as I mentioned, there is a "death date" listed for 2056. It's quite possible that other parts of this article are fabricated or exaggerated as well--we simply cannot know what is true and what is not in this thing. Odd and wildly unencyclopedic passages like "It may also explain why he sometimes exhibits paranoid behaviour or appears to inadequately predict how severely his actions will affect his fellow comedians" (which probably violates BLP rules) and "David claims to suffer from every minor physical malady known to mankind, including allergies, lactose intolerance, chronic backache, temporomandibular joint disorder, and so on, but it is difficult to substantiate these claims" make me distrust this entire article. I don't think we can afford to keep it unless it can be sourced properly and its many claims substantiated.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I agree that the article is in sad shape and needs some serious editting, perhaps even to a stub level clean it up, but it isn't grounds for deletion. As for having sufficient references, having one where the individual is the focus of the article (accessible), and others quoted, and possibly checkable through offline means makes it a keep for me. -- ~~24.114.255.99 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)~~ Whpq 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (that was me, somehow I got signed out between the time I started editting and saved teh edit)[reply]

Having an article about you in a small newspaper does not make you notable. Actually it doesn't even come close. And the fact is that this is the only reliable source in the article--it is not sufficient to establish notability. If someone checks the Globe and Mail article offline and finds it discusses this guy than it is a reliable source, but right now it is nothing--we have no idea what the article says and the fact that it might talk about the guy is meaningless. I am not arguing for deletion because the article is a mess (though it is) but because it is not based on reliable sources and does not establish notability. Wikipedia guidelines say that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is no evidence that this is the case for Mr. Porter.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable per this cited reliable source, Eye Weekly, published by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. The article needs a lot of cleanup though. Plus it seems a bit POV. --Evb-wiki 04:26, 2 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 & cite. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions[edit]

The article Comparison of Windows and Linux is valid because they are 2 seperate types of software competing in the same market share and same time frame.But its pointless to compare a previous version of a piece of software with a modern one, because of the fact that time has past and there are newer standards which older software will naturally fail against.For example, it would be like comparing the game Pac Man to the modern Grand Theft Auto series of games.I am pretty certain that Pac Man had a much bigger impact on popular culture and had a lasting impression with its criticall sucess, but today, which one would you rather play? Rodrigue 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see how each version has progressed from the last one. Josh the Nerd 20:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Josh[reply]

It's intersting to see how each version has progressed??.The point of article of like this is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each product and see which one is the better choice.The article can't be validated just because its "interesting" to compare seperate versions, the fact is they are not competing products and they are in different eras of computing, meaning you can't compare them from a competitive view, so the article is pointless. Rodrigue 20:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Rodrigue, can you to say just why the article is being proposed for deletion in terms of the Wikipedia guidelines.DGG 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't seem to cite any sources. I doubt its original research, but it would be nice if it gave credit to wherever this information came from. I'd suggest merge with Microsoft Windows. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 02:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the fact is it doesn't cite any sources, and whether or not you think its original research, it might as well be because it violates Wikipedia:Citing sources.And the other problem with this article in terms of guidelines is Wikipedia:Notability, because the page does not have any significances in what it is covering.Can anyone give an example of any other wikipedia comparison article that is about non-competing products that are made by the same organization?Rodrigue 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would have to have a deletion discussion outcome for it to matter here. Unless we can find an applicable precedent (which I kinda doubt), maybe we should just decide right here if this sort of thing belongs in an encyclopedia? I don't think we would argue the merits of Microsoft Windows' notability, and this information seemed like a logical extension of that, which is why I propose we merge it. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Currently unsourced, yes, but that can almost certainly be fixed (there are numerous pages on Microsoft's web site comparing the features of different versions of their products). Doesn't seem to be original research (while it would necessarily be a synthesis of information from various places, it doesn't seem to advance any point, so shouldn't count as OR). Encyclopedic value is in allowing people to see at a glance what features any individual version had, thus evaluating the progression of the OS from one version to the next. JulesH 16:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say this article is about seeing the progress Microsoft Windows has made over the years, but that type of thing would be more useful at History of Microsoft Windows.An article like this is supposed to compare different things to see which is better.But it should already be assumed that the latest version of Windows is better.But I think this article is written more in the way to see the progress Windows has made over the years, so it should atleast be merged with History of Microsoft Windows, all the content fits there perfectly. Rodrigue 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Rodrigue 19:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't merge. While incomplete, it's potentially very useful for people doing historical research. As to the merge suggestion, Microsoft Windows is long enough as it is without adding some extremely lengthy tables. Someone would end up splitting it off into a separate article again anyhow. -/- Warren 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, neither that or this page is the recommended 32 kilobytes yet, and if nescesary a page can become pretty long, only after 100 kilobytes is it a problem, and merging the articles won't create a page anywhere near that size, and I could also suggest splitting up other sections, so your argument is completely defunct. Rodrigue 16:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to say it is a little hard to look through but it is very useful. I'm sure it can be fixed so that it can be read easier. It is very useful in the fact that you can compare editions side by side. --Chetblong 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does not matter how useful you think it is that you can easily see and compare the versions, because that has no encyclopedic value.It should just me merged with Microsoft Windows or History of Microsoft Windows because the table is useless as an article. Rodrigue 12:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cite The citations are a problem and need to be addressed, but does not appear to be original research and as it deals with the most common operating systems in the english speaking world there's no question of notability. The format avoids point-by-point value judgements regarding the subject so avoids POV issues. Not sure why this was nominated for AfD as it doesn't appear that even the small effort of putting a citation tag on the page was done before it arrived here, and citations appear to be the only noticeable problem. First try to fix an article. Bring to AfD only if there's good reason to believe an article CAN'T be fixed. -Markeer 21:25, 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 speedy deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Woodhall[edit]

This article is a complete load of bollocks and childish vanity. That's all there is to say. Deranged bulbasaur 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as total nonsense. DarkAudit 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not total nonsense, it's just not true. Hoaxes are excluded from the CSD. That said, I say it's snowing already. Deranged bulbasaur 20:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is beyond hoax. This is someone defecating onto a page and calling it an article. It doesn't sound remotely plausible, so I stand by my call of nonsense. DarkAudit 20:51, 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. No evidence of reliable sources about this guy was presented. W.marsh 21:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy Bolesław Lewandowski[edit]

Non-Notable Stellatomailing 20:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - per nom. We are not at the stage where all university professors get a Wikipedia article. Balcer 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG... Please read Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Did You read article anyway? Regards. pl:user:Grzegorz Dąbrowski 04:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your answer, Grzegorz. Talking about the professor test:

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

I do not see any independent source in the article asserting his expertise. That does not mean he is not an expert; but it is not in the article.

2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

Same as above.

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.

Same as above.

4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

The sheer number of publications (per article) is impressive, but not sourced. (broken link) No statements about the quality or impact of the said work from independent sources.

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

Not detailed.

6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

I see biographical entries in International Biographical Centre and American Biographical Institute, per the Wikipedia articles not very solid institutions. One patent (not sourced). No awards.

Please understand I do not have anything against keeping this article, but so far the article fails the professor test.

Stellatomailing 08:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - excellent resume, but what did this guy really do? Name just one original research done by him, which was reprinted in at least one notable scientific paper like "Nature", "Science", "Physical Review", "Annals of Physics and Chemistry", "Fusion Technology", "Acta Helvetica" or even Tuesday's issue of New York Times" when there is always a scientific section. List of institute publications he participated in in which he was also an Editor-in-Chief, school books, manuals, specifications, script reviews, international conference listings, etc, doesn't really matter since he has done that as a part of his regular job. Any lab assistant or technician also produces a lot of paper, but that doesn't make him notable, neither a pompous title does, doesn't it? greg park avenue 20:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pharamond 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Fails notability test as shown above. --Whs itc hy 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the CV layout is terrible, he seems to have some publications under his belt.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 38 books! That alone seems like enough for a clear pass of WP:PROF. But the article is very badly written. —David Eppstein 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject to re-write - there is enough here to suggest that JBL may well be worth an article if the necessary information were properly presented (by someone with the neccessary language skills) HeartofaDog 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Greg is right that the biographical sources listed do not count for anything. I am less than happy with this, mainly because I can not judge the notability of the publications; the books appear to be either textbooks or conference proceedings (I assume red. means editor) Piotrus, could you help with the titles of the books? Worldcat shows a number of them, but only as held in Nukat, the Polish Union Catalog--I could not find one in a US library. (there's a prolific writer on Politics by that name, & I think one or two others, who do have books in US libraries) I went to look for publications in international journals, so I can tell the standard--the best index for European publications is Scopus--but it lists only 2 other people by that name; the important one is a theoretical physicist & the other a chemist. However, he's in Management science, an applied science, and a subject where the work is very country-specific, so the book and journal result is not necessarily indicative. As far as I call tell, the list of Universities he is affiliated with, though respectable, does not include the top-flight Polish universities. Pietrus?? He did supervise 13 PhD dissertations, which is significant.--

Given the number of committees he is a member of, I suspect he is more of an academic administrator --at which he seems extremely adept--than a researcher. It is possible to have a very high number of insubstantial publications without any of them counting for much. I still think he qualifies--but if our local expert gives only a Week Keep, so do I. DGG 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; according to the article, his bio has been included in a number of biographical books, so notability has been determined by multiple independent groups. John Vandenberg 07:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The biographical books charge for including subjects. (please see #6 above).Stellatomailing 19:37, 3 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 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peanuts in popular culture[edit]

trivia fork, violates WP:NOT of indiscriminate trivial info. A rash of "in popular culture" articles have been deleted as of late (including Star Wars and the Alien movies), and this should not be there either. Please do not merge any info back into main article. Biggspowd 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, indiscriminate trivia. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another 'in pop culture' article. Peanuts "IS" popular culture. --Charlene 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like some of it is reasonably cited, and I think a merge back to the article would be acceptable for that; but 99% of this is indiscriminant trivia. --Haemo 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tried, most likely in vain, to expand the article a little. I don't think an "in popular culture" article is such a bad idea, especially if you are against the idea of merging into the main article. If possible, I would like to expand this article further, and get it to a status worthy of its own article. Josh 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I had not read the peanuts article, and did not realise the information was already there. I now think this article should be deleted, as the Peanuts article already covers everything here. Josh 12:07, 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. Sr 13 02:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign of The Young Republican[edit]

It's a completely nn student film. There aren't any reliable sources in the article. I tried PROD, but it was removed without comment by the article's creator. Deranged bulbasaur 19:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the editor of that page, and I apologize for deleting your message without replying, it was a mistake. Anyway, the reason this page shouldn’t be deleted is because Beachwood High School located is Beachwood, Ohio has not put out many short films but have the abilities to. Beachwood’s technology program is innovative, and like no other school systems, from one-to-one laptops, to the incredible amounts being spent for funding for the program. With all of these things on Beachwood’s side they still seemed unable to ever produce a seriously made short film. Finally their problems were solved when a student stepped up and made one. Teachers, and administrators of the school supervised the project, also many characters in the film were played by school administrators. The production, and scripts were read through and approved by administrators of the district. This article is pertinent because this is first thing to set the school district apart from others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maeisenberg (talk • contribs).

Delete, no notability demonstrated by citations from reliable and independent sources. Wikipedia is not for promoting your film or school or other project, no matter how inspiring the collaboration was to you personally. --Dhartung | Talk 20:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, but if you should allow a city it’s own page, then you should allow the city’s product it's own. If you really don’t believe an article is appropriate I will add my article as a sub-article to the Beachwood High School article. The reason you would delete this is absent, and wrong because you don’t understand the importance to the district. I can add a newspaper article about this short films from the city’s paper if necessary. --Maeisenberg 20:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Use as a short addition to the school's page, and do not redirect. First, this is about the film, not the program; the film doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. It sounds like this could be a nice short addition to the school article, though, talking about the program itself. (Do get some outside references to back it up, though.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted as per comments below. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Oppose Merge - a student project, with no reliable sources made for a class at school is not notable, nor should it be merged to the page of the school it is about. --Haemo 23:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and ~~Support Merge~~ - I can't see allowing every student film a wikientry. It's bad enough that so many 'professional' films already have wiki entries. However, merging this with a school article seems fine. It would make a decent paragraph within the school article. Jmcnamera 01:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote on Support Merge. It would be almost worse if every school's projects flooded their articles regardless of notability. Maybe I should put my 20 yr old shop class project onto my school's article. Jmcnamera 01:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and per non-notable school project. No to merge as it does not even come close to the level of notability of the school, and a merge would unjustifiably swamp the school article. Ohconfucius 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so 'merge' was probably the wrong way to put it in my earlier comment. Basically, what I was saying was that if the program has received coverage as being innovative or otherwise making it stand out from the tens of thousands of other student programs at high schools, then it should be part of the high school's article AS A SHORT MENTION, and only if there's WP:RS to work with. I had absolutely no intention of saying that this particular film should be dumped into the school article. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Oppose Merge per all above arguments. The idea of a short mention in the school's article is worthy of consideration, though. --JayJasper 18:37, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peerflix[edit]

Non-Notable company; very few links; most of the article is a "how to use the service"; The only link to an external source refers to a industry-related publication, a single mention when the company was created. Stellatomailing 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - There is a bunch of companies in Online trading community. Per the notability of this company, merging or deleting it outright sounds better. Stellatomailing 20:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a report about it (whether it was online or on TV, I don't recall). It is a struggling company, not nearly as large as traditional online rental services. Peerflix was described as unique because of its trading model, whether that makes it notable according to Wiki rules, I have no idea! Pendragon39 20:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - add core details of Peerflix to Online trading article. Pendragon39 21:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 16 employees. Not exactly IBM. The business model is different, but half the companies in existence have a unique buisness model. Herostratus 20:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the nature of online trading, their membership claims (200,000 ? in the US) are more significant than the number of employees. Having fewer employees simply means they have lower operating costs. The advantage of using Peerflix is one of cost (for trades in lieu of rentals) and convenience (for selling). Pendragon39 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would we be having this discussion if it were shown that Peerflix had a membership comparable to Netflix or Zip.ca in Canada? Pendragon39 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lots of Google News Archive results, and appears to be a "first" of its kind. John Vandenberg 07:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article created by a single purpose account User:Dvlevy who also created the now deleted article Daniele levy. The text of the article was userfied and then later deleted at this MfD [5]. User contributions are here [6] and this company summary [7] shows Daniele Levy as Vice President, Marketing for Peerflix. Incidentally, Venturebeat reported that Peerflix is laying off employees http://venturebeat.com/2007/01/07/web-20-bubble-bursting-peerflix-cuts-workforce-carnage-mounting-elsewhere/ so maybe this problem will go away on its own :) Paxse 18:16, 3 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. W.marsh 14:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bethesda, Ontario[edit]

This is a contested Prod. It is a disambiguation page that links to two articles that do not exist. Trumpetband 19:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When one of those articles is created, this will be needed. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, merge and redirect to Bethesda. Punkmorten 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and redirect as suggested by Punkmorten. Peterkingiron 20:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question This is probably a stupid question, but why and how would you merge a disambiguation page? Where would you merge it to? --Trumpetband 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To the main disambiguation page at Bethesda. Although my own !vote is Keep. Newyorkbrad 23:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - legitimate disambiguation and no possibility of causing any harm of any kind. Newyorkbrad 23:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as geographical place holder. -- MarcoTolo 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this is what dab pages do. John Vandenberg 07:48, 3 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 redirect. Editors may merge content as appropriate. W.marsh 16:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallsgrove[edit]

Nonnotable commercial and residential development (WP:N) and WP:V, as only source is not independent. Butseriouslyfolks 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Rockville, Maryland. Chris 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rockville, Maryland. Herostratus 20:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge to Rockville, Maryland. The current contents of the page are useful, esp. the history, however with only 300 news archive hits it's not quite notable. John Vandenberg 07:47, 3 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Summer Olympic Venues[edit]

orphaned since November, this seems like it is not worthy of an article of it's own Postcard Cathy 17:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content already available at 1996 Summer Olympics#Venues. CloudNine 18:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list is longer, so merge and redirect to 1996 Summer Olympics#Venues pending verifying. Punkmorten 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verfiy, then merge and redirect. Not notable enough for freestanding arrticle. Realkyhick 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Punkmorten. Tim^V.B._{{critic & speak}} 21:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - does not need separate article. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:18, 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, it should have been speedied. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shafi Muhammad[edit]

No evidence of notability or sourcing, unable to find any relevant ghits. Prod removed by page creator, with no edit summary. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 15:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe a speedy A7. Only one sentence with the AfD at the time of my !vote - and that's it. No notability, no sources, not even a plate of pancakes. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As well as a speedy A7, an A1 a well. hmwith talk 15:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Just saying 'renowned' just won't cut it with me. DarkAudit 15:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dust bunny 18:33, 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. Sr 13 07:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by longevity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Pointless and unmanageable listcruft. Whs itc hy 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated for the reasons above:

Delete all per nom (WP:LISTCRUFT). hmwith talk 16:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - to head off complaints about how soon after the last AFD this was, there is no policy or guideline that mandates a set timeframe between no consensus AFDs. The lists are IMHO pointless trivia and should be excised. Otto4711 16:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment Found all the "Longevity" pages, added as such. --Whs itc hy 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per April's discusion. This is useful almanac information information that does come up for discussion in other media. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least some of them. Useful almanac-style info. JJL 17:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - trivia is interesting for many people, articles (especially connected with the U.S.) are sometimes useful EPWA airport 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment Please look at WP:NOT#INFO number 9. Thank you. --Whsitchy 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOT#INFO number 9 is about articles, this is a LIST! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I thought that page was for wikipedia in general.--Whs itc hy 18:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Add on comment from WP:NOT#INFO, number 9:
    Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics
    --Whs itc hy 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the guide for lists: Wikipedia:List guideline the other references the use of lists within articles. This is the guide for standalone lists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all What makes it unmanageable? subtracting the death year from the birth year, or adding a new president every four or eight years? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that it's by DAY, not year. We also have existing lists for this. --Whs itc hy 18:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as listcruft. Dust bunny 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. This is trivial almanac-style information. WP is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:LISTCRUFT is a personal essay, not Wikipedia policy. And Wikipedia is a "reference source", it has always contained lists and tables, its also a gazeteer, that contains maps and other geographical information not found in my Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedias also contains lots of table and charts as sidebars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
Keep all unmanageable? Fooey. These folks don't change all that much. Also, this is important almanac type information. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to formulate a policy for this before we make a decision. Too many times List of world leaders who are not United States Presidents by xxx articles get deleted, but people will scream and holler if an article on US presidents is even touched. It reeks of WP:BIAS. (Edited) --Charlene 22:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Comment I agree with the WP:BIAS. Look at this AfD, notice the amount of keep here to the amount of keep there, yet it's for exact same method of sorting the people. --Whs itc hy 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The format applied in the list of German chancellors make it eminently manageable. This could be applied to the other pages --Rye1967 23:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - useful, handy, probably encyclopedic, not that hard to maintain, especially if someone designs a bot to update the living Presidents' lifespans. One reservation, though, is that this could spin out of control. "List of Finnish Agriculture Ministers by longevity"? "List of Namibian Technology Ministers by longevity"? There should be some limiting parameters. Biruitorul 23:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment concur that there's a need for a policy here. JJL 00:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are in accordance with wikipedia's policy on compilations. It's useful, almanac style information. It is in keeping with WP:LISTS. It is neither indiscriminate, nor of interest only to a very restricted number of people. Deletion of these lists would be an abuse of the listcruft poliy.--Dr who1975 01:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Why do I bother, this is major bias. Considering withdrawal per heavy bias. I invite people to read WP:NOT#INFO again though. --Whsitchy 01:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your comments about Bias philisophically abuses the fact that some articles get more attention than others. Might I remind you that wikipedia is not a democracy. It doesn't matter wether a bunch of people vote or not. It sounds to me like the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Noble Prize in Peace winners by longevity should also result in a keep for the same reasons. These arguments should be weighed on their own merits.--Dr who1975 01:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment may I remind you that wikipedia is not a collection of statistics. --Whsitchy 01:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'm not so sure that these lists are statustics, they don;t involve numerical representations about large groups of people (I think they're more like, y'know... lists) but sicne you brought the word into play. I think you'll find there are plenty of pages involving statistics on wikipedia... for instance United States Census, 2000.--Dr who1975 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment That's apples and oranges there. A census is much more important than how many days a president has lived. Whs itc hy 01:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I agree that the census is much more important(that does not make these lists unimportant). I was just trying to make a point about statistics (which I'm not sure the lists for discussion count as anyway).--Dr who1975 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe we need articles on any of these. Yes, they are interesting trivia, but they are not encyclopedic. I am more favourable towards those articles on heads-of-state (and the secretaries-general of the UN). However, List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity and List of oldest Surviving members of the House of Representatives and probably also List of United States Vice Presidents by longevity should be deleted regardless. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, except weak keep for Senators This is pure trivia. The longevity of a person in power is but a biological fact, and is not entirely relevant to what they did, or how they did their jobs, except when the holder has died in office, but these are exceptions which are usually dealt with in the individual subject article. There is no reason I can see except to fulfill the anal obsession of certain editors to sort everything by every imaginable criterion. The only clear exception I see is the case of monarchs, whose reign is invariably linked to their longevity. The dates of birth and death of each president, chancellor, prime minister is already included in the individual subject article for anyone who is interested to look it up there. I support the retention of the long-lived senators because seats tend to be stable in many cases, and it appears to be a lot more common for these politicians to expire at the same time as their terms. wiki is not a directory of every characteristic of people in power. Watch out, well be seeing articles on the longevity of the world's richest people next! Ohconfucius 03:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many cultures like to keep track of who their elder statesman is for a given period of time. That is what these lists track.--Dr who1975 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All These are useful, encyclopedic articles that provide information not available elsewhere in Wikipedia. The nomination describes the article as "unmanageable", which seems to fly in the face of the fact that updates are needed only every few years to most of these. Besides any AfD nomination that uses the term "cruft" in any of its forms is worthy of being retained by virtue of the use of the term and the fact that the nominator could not be bothered to even mention a Wikipedia that the article violates. If you don't like lists, just don't read the articles. Alansohn 03:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I don't see why all this information cannot be included on the central list of each, e.g. US Presidents List, the tables allow for users to sort by column, so if you wanted to know length, you could just click that, seems pointless to have multiple pages. Dylan fan 04:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not one of the columns. The box at the bottom of List of Presidents of the United States refers to this page for the info, and lists all the other sorts. Agreed, we could expand the table for the other categories, and we can consider this page again once we have done that. DGG 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this page has that taken care of DGG, and no, I did not edit it. --Whs itc hy 19:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the WP NOT page actually reads that WP is not mainly an almanac, but that it contains some content that is. I agree we need a policy. DGG 04:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, interesting. Neutrality^talk 06:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the articles on heads of states/prime ministers Delete the rest. This is useful information and should be retained by wikipedia. However can see the point about these lists being expanded to all sorts of posts/offices so agree we need a policy to limit them to the leaders of states and possibly the UN and EU. However if the information is included in sortable tables on the main lists then would support the deletion of these lists as they would then be duplicate information but only if in sortable tables. Davewild 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this page Here you go Dave Whs itc hy 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not include the currently living former presidents which is why either a seperate article or the main List of United States Presidents are the only places where everything currently on this page could be included which is why I stick to keeping at this time. Davewild 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also don't think these fall clearly under any deletion policy. I feel it serves wikipedia better to have them than to not have them. CitiCat 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep, and maybe merge. Extremely sexy 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more than a simple list, but an encyclopedic article. I think its a good thing to hold onto. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Google search turns up all kinds of reliable sources indicating notability of topics like these, including BBC News, Infoplease, ABC News, CBS News. Many reliable sources keep track of these things, there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't. DHowell 03:13, 2 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 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Stock Festival[edit]

Non-notable music festival. 34 ghits. Possible COI, see WP:COIN#Chicken Stock Festival. I removed a lot of the spam, but this still smells of myspacian vanispamcruftisement, especially when the festival is in its second year this year. MER-C 13:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, intended to promote the event. Hut 8.5 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lovely idea. Not notable enough for an article. Lacks sufficient independent coverage. Existing article is still promotional. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd agree that the tone of the page was promotional. This can, and will be changed. An oversight on my part. The page was not created with a view to self-promotion, nor was it intended to be so. The updates were not for personal, or commercial gain. The 'spam' was taken from another site that has information on the is particular event. I'd have to disagree about the 'non-notable' comment, as it is my belief that if a great many people dontate their time, efforts and skills to a project of worthy cause, then indeed it is notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie vaf (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC) — Charlie vaf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment by "non-notable" we mean that it does not pass the test of Wikipedia:Notability. Hut 8.5 19:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, and borders on linkspam for all the performer links. Charlie vaf's belief about his idea of notability is vapid at worst, and not applicable at best. Realkyhick 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Athaenara ✉ 23:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:41, 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 as a copyright violation of [8]. ♠P M C♠ 19:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of witches executed[edit]

I initially marked this for speedy deletion because it had no content save external links. It has since become an enormous unformatted list of non-notable people. I am concerned that the sources given in the article are POV and that this list may be pasted in from somewhere. In any case, I don't think this is an appropriate list given that most of the subjects are not notable and that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Deranged bulbasaur 12:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm sure that it's pasted: the article is expanded by 75,000 and 65,000 bytes respectively in just a few minutes; I seriously doubt that anyone could type that fast :-) Nyttend 13:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wow. First of all, this list is a formatting disaster. It is nothing more than one name listed after another the entire way down the page. No paragraphs, headings, bullets, or anything else. Seriously, how does the creator expect anybody to read this? Second, a title of "List of witches executed" indicates that all of the people on this list were indeed witches, which I'm pretty sure they were not. Neither of those are criteria for deletion, though. What makes this article worthy of deletion (and, possibly, worthy of speedy deletion) is that it is a clear-cut indiscriminate list of non-notable people whose only claim to fame is being executed for witchcraft. Well, Wikipedia is not a memorial, not an indiscriminate collection of information, and not a collection of loosely associated topics. On top of that, this entire list has been selectively copied and pasted from http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/burning.htm. (The creator separated the "witches" on the list at the URL by country of origin.) This article must now be burned at the stake. Burn, baby, burn! --Hnsampat 13:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as copyvio. tagged as such. --Whs itc hy 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It violates WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:MEMORIAL. hmwith talk 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Witches which is a better formatted version but should also be considered for deletions for many of the same reasons. Grievous Angel 16:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; looks like a copy and paste job. Dust bunny 18:36, 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. --Core desat 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C. R. Avery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:BAND. Main claim to notability (winning CBC's 2005 Poetry Face-Off) is not true—he was one of 13 finalists and did not even place as a runner-up ([9]). Nothing else in the bio makes notability and there are no sources or references for claims. Closenplay 11:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I add that the creator of this article, User:Cadler, is a single purpose account. A clarification on the CBC's 2005 Poetry Face-Off claim: it would seem that Avery was the winner of the Vancouver Face-Off - and was not national champion, as is more than implied. Victoriagirl 16:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Completely non-notable. Realkyhick 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE do not delete "CR AVERY". He is a brilliant, local, indipendent artist and should have a mention on this online database.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EvilPoison[edit]

Non-notable window manager. Catofax 08:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. YechielMan 12:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. hmwith talk 16:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- and I was the one that created the page - heh (after reading WP:Notability I agree) Entro-P 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If that fate is good enough for the original author, it's good enough for me. Kudos to Entro-P for his comments – pretty big of him/her. Realkyhick 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike Linux, this software hasn't been covered by any reliable sources, therefore it is not a notable system.--Kylohk 16:39, 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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Comeback Kid[edit]

School play productions by the Shatin Pui Ying College. No real notability, scoring 3, 7, and 7 Ghits respectively outside of wikipedia. Delete per WP:NFT Ohconfucius 07:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N. Also checked Chinese sources, GHits: 2, 5, 3 respectively when combined with the school's name cab 08:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; no reliable sources or assertion of notability. John Vandenberg 07:56, 3 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. --Core desat 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elleai D'Amore[edit]

This article is about a person who is described as a model/actress, and provides numerous sources. Unfortunately, not one of the sources is reliable; they're mostly blogs and forum posts. There is not one Google News reference to this person, nor one mention of her in Google Groups, and she doesn't even have an Internet Movie Database entry which one would expect a high-profile model/actress to have. Three people have contributed to this article, but all of them have no other edits other than those related to this person. I could be wrong, but I think that "Elleai D'Amore" may be a hoax, and if so this article ought to be deleted. --Metropolitan90 05:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this page! I love Elleai and she is a relative newcomer, you need to keep it so people will access condensed information about her! I have read through the information and looked at all the sources provided and all the information is correct. I am working on finding more pictures to add. Don't delete this page Wiki Editors! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samantha Harris 3 (talk • contribs).

— Samantha Harris 3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Horologium talk - contrib 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "[S]he is a relative newcomer" carries a tone of not having done enough to establish notability. The asserted portfolio in the intro suggests otherwise, though the portfolio is not backed up by sources. —C.Fred (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Googling for her, one of the hits was a story at zimbio.com noting that a number of fake profiles exist of her [10]. In light of that, I am very skeptical of all sources that are not major media...which leaves TV.com as the only source I'm familiar with. (I don't think she's a hoax, but I think some of the cited links could be.) A notable model would at least have a mention in People. Delete, failure to verify the asserted notability of the subject model with reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical of anything on zimbio. Closenplay 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no such thing as bad publicity, they say, but even her fans seem to doubt her existence.[11] I have to say that my Spidey-sense here leans less in the direction of massive self-promotion and more in the direction of viral marketing, perhaps some sort of ARG. There's absolutely nothing on Google News Archive, whenever her name appears on a news site it's in the comments (in posts about someone else entirely, like Mary-Kate Olsen -- e.g. "she wears the same hats as Elleai"), and aside from obviously affiliated blogs, she only appears in the comments of major blogs. In any case, what we have here is a failure to communicate existence let alone notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung (although I'm not sure which ARG you're referring to). Even assuming good faith, this does seem more like a viral marketing campaign. Wikipedia is not for marketing things or for gaining attention. --Charlene 10:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternate reality game, I assume. --Metropolitan90 13:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, alternate reality game. See Year Zero (alternate reality game) for a recent example.--Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Stinks of fake. If she's such a notable model, what agency does she work for? Even the TV.com entry is a user blog (and the only post by that user) which dissolves any credibility that reference might have had. Closenplay 11:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've found an article that comes the closest we've had to reliable. While the author drops the names of about eight labels/designers she modeled for, he doesn't name her agency—and implies that she was contracted directly and not through an agent/management firm! —C.Fred (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it one of the articles on articlebase.com? That site is all user-generated content (i.e. anyone can write anything they want). Totally unreliable. Closenplay 14:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the author of that article, "Dean Myers", wrote several articles about "Elleai" in the space of a week in April, but nothing before or since. He refers to "Cam Laken" who seems to have no existence outside of posts on "Elleai".--Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you noticed that too? ; ) Closenplay 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I found—Elleai D'amore Exposed as Fraud!—I guess that proves she doesn't exist. Closenplay 00:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. WP:ILIKEIT is no reason to keep an article. hmwith talk 16:05, 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 all. Sr 13 02:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Noble Prize in Peace winners by longevity[edit]

Brought here because of a contested prod (which was removed without reason). Listcruft, and pretty useless if you ask me Whs itc hy 05:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Also nominated are:[reply]

Added in other pages --Whs itc hy 06:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Worse than useless - it would have to be periodically updated. Clarityfiend 06:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting as trivia, but not encyclopedic. Hard to maintain accurately. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Comment Prod removal reason has been given on the Peace Prize's talk page.
Please leave my article alone . Thier are list of longevities for all categories in the nobel prize. This was the last Category to be completed in the nobel prize of longevities. --76.49.53.76 05:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not find this list any useless then the one about some silly Final Fantasy video game or for that matter some other "useless" material.--76.49.53.76 05:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
--Whs itc hy 06:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a bizarre categorization and certainly irrelevant in any encyclopedic sense. Other than the fact that science Nobels are generally given out for work done 10 or 20 years earlier, I don't see the point. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Previous AfD for some of these is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 07:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment Could any admins be on the look out for socks. I have suspect of them coming here.--Whs itc hy 07:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - completely pointless way of listing extremely notable people. - fchd 11:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "by longevity" lists - pointless and stupid way of listing people. "Because we can" is not a good reason for breaking out these goofball lists. Otto4711 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. In addition, the creator of the article may need a lesson in ownership of articles and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Hnsampat 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, and agree with the WP:OWN comment above. hmwith talk 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic. JJL 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment Please look at WP:NOT#INFO number 9. Thank you. --Whs itc hy 17:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We seem to have an epidemic of "...by longevity" lists recently. Let's see that their longevity is very limited, please. This particular group is truly bizzare (per Dhartung). Realkyhick 22:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no relevance to anything. DGtal 00:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, redundant and WP:NOT#INFO. Carlosguitar 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are in accordance with wikipedia's policy on compilations. It's useful, almanac style information. It is in keeping with WP:LISTS. It is neither indiscriminate, nor of interest only to a very restricted number of people. Deletion of these lists would be an abuse of the listcruft policy (which is actually just an essay... not a policy). Please note the keep and delete arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity 2nd nom... since wikipedia is not a democracy... these arguments should be weighed on their own merits.--Dr who1975 01:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is pure trivia. I suspect that any attempt to include laureates' ages in the list of Nobel Laureates would be swiftly be reversed. The longevity of a laureate is but a biological fact, and completely irrelevant to what they did, or how they did their jobs, as such has no value I can see except to fulfill the anal obsession of certain editors to sort everything by every imaginable criterion. The only exception I see is the case of monarchs, whose occupations/roles were invariably linked to their longevity. The dates of birth and death of each laureate is already included in the individual subject article for anyone who is interested to look it up there. wiki is not a directory of every characteristic of Nobel laureates. Ohconfucius 02:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the relationship of creativity to biological characteristic should not be assumed to be without interest. For example, the median age of biologists was 79 years, but of physicists 71. DGG 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be "Interesting", but would be original research to try and draw any correlation between creativity:longevity. Ohconfucius 02:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... that would be original research. It's a good thing the pages in question don't do that. Maybe DGG did on this page... but that's it.--Dr who1975 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's suppose a gerontologist wanted to write an article on the intellectual activities and contributions of great scientists after age 85. These lists would be a great place to start. Yes, there is effort involved in maintaining this page, but that's not a reason for deletion, especially as the maintenance could be turned over to a bot. Matchups 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but these lists don't help when looking at their age at their date of contribution, merely their age at death. A scientist could have made their great discovery at 25, but lived to 90. I simply don't see where this list helps. - fchd 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity 2nd nom we should only have these page for the leaders of states, however if someone wants to make a sortable table on the main list that is fine. Davewild 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The articles are nothing more than statistics (WP:NOT#INFO nr. 9) without encyclopedic context. If there had been published studies on the longevity of Noble Prize winners (and a wikipedia article about them) this might have had some value, but right now it is just information that is without encyclopedic use, and wikipedia is not a collection of everything that is true. Pax:Vobiscum 17:52, 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. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Camp (programmer)[edit]

Article fails to establish notability. Google returns about 40 000 hits, most of which seem to be about David Lee Camp or someone else. Chealer 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No true assertion of notability, and no sources proving any such notability. Tagged as speedy. DarkAudit 03:57, 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 speedy delete —METS501 (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel schafer[edit]

Hoax/Nonsense. Claims to be General Manager of Toronto Blue Jays, but the official site of Major League Baseball referencing the Blue Jays lists no such person in any position with them [12] (Alex Anthopoulos and Bart Given have that position), rest of article cannot be substantiated and is filled with names and events which fail any attempt at validation through google test Wingsandsword 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, tagged as such. --Whs itc hy 03:06, 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 Speedy delete'. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Ska[edit]

Non-notable music organization, ad, no third-party sources Corvus cornix 02:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11, tagged as such. --Whs itc hy 02:45, 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, only claim to notability appears hoaxy. Krimpet (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golf ball head man[edit]

This contested PROD is basically an advert for a Youtube video. No notability that I can see. Joyous! | Talk 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably a hoax. No Google response for the "Atlantic Canada Independent Film Awards," the website allegedly holding the nomination page doesn't seem to be up and running; I don't see any reliable sources handy. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. --Whs itc hy 03:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Alan Liefting 04:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tony Fox. Maxa megalon 2000 05:08, 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. --Core desat 04:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Emotions[edit]

orphaned for almost a year; only the director has an article about them. I suggest it is non notable Postcard Cathy 01:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, not notable. --Whs itc hy 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn short, doesn't appear to have any distribution, $40,000 budget. Corvus cornix 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article does not appear notable. The number of red links also says something about the notability of the article. --Random ^{Say it here!} 02:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite being listed for almost a year, no attempt has been made to demonstrate the notability of this film. AlphaEta 06:34, 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. --Core desat 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Green (Attorney)[edit]

I've tried to rescue this article, but I give up. The two references are to completely irrelevant aspects of Mr. Green's life. The one claim to notability, viz. the Mount Everest controversy, merits barely a mention in a web search and, by its nature, is not likely to have been publicized widely. YechielMan 01:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I don't think he meets WP:BIO. If kept, PLEASE change to Dave Green (American lawyer); attorney is just a fancy self-aggrandizing American word meaning "lawyer". --Charlene 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, attorney is a broader term than lawyer (and not all attorneys are lawyers). Green's work as a lawyer appears to be in the position of corporate attorney (i.e. legal work that goes beyond the courtroom). Small distinction.--Dhartung | Talk 04:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I smell WP:COI as well --Whs itc hy 01:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. Also there don't seem to be any sources really providing info on the subject. --Random ^{Say it here!} 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real notability asserted for his research. This is material that belongs as a source in Andrew Irvine (mountaineer) or Mallory and Irvine Research Expedition. --Dhartung | Talk 04:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the most important info is unsourced Postcard Cathy 23:55, 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 as blatant fanfiction without a sign of notability. ♠P M C♠ 19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Xenon[edit]

Hoax. Supposed sources cited don't reference subject. Subject does not appear on the official starwars.com database, subject is not present in official guidebooks cited, a google search for the name "Darth Xenon" lists mostly the Wikipedia entry, an entry at a Star Wars fanon wiki, and some roleplaying sites on livejournal. The creator of the article being User:Darth Xenon also raises suspicion that this is a vanity article. "Star Wars: Shadows" graphic novel listed as source does not appear on starwars.com or amazon.com. Also see Drath Xenon, apparently same article with an apparent typo in the name created by same editor. Unless some much more verifiable and substantial proof is found, this appears to be a hoax or fanon character created by the creator of the article. Wingsandsword 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As nominator, I wish to add additional evidence:

[13] Said fanon content wiki listing the character. Fanon characters are not notable nor really verifiable.

[14] A google search for "Star Wars: Shadows" the supposed graphic novel source, and "Darth Xenon" only references the Wikipedia article in question.

Delete both Darth and Drath (above in the log). Fan-based claims cannot be countenanced without hard evidence. YechielMan 01:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete both per nom --Whs itc hy 01:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Xenon, hoax with supposed references that do not substantiate the substance of the article, appears to be a fan-created character from an online roleplaying game. Wingsandsword 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and merged the two deletion discussions together. Directly above is the nomination reason given. The only differences between the two articles is that the correct "Darth" is formatted prettier, and I believe that this is one of the times when a combined nomination is better. -- saberwyn 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fanon is generally non-notable unless unrelated independent third parties are discussing it. I'm not even sure if this would make a Star Wars wiki (if there is one). --Charlene 01:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a Star Wars wiki: Wookieepedia [15] and you are correct, this wouldn't even meet criteria for inclusion in a dedicated Star Wars wiki.

Delete as lacking WP:RS - looks like fan-based stuff. (I could've sworn I'd seen this get deleted before.) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that I have just tagged Drath Xenon for speedy since it's otherwise the same. Almost looks like a RPG creation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent fan-fic; if not fan-fic, then there are similar articles linked at Darth#Sith_Lords. JJL 17:22, 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. --Core desat 04:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Clow[edit]

Notability is lacking. Establishing two hiking trails in Turkey doesn't do it for me. Clarityfiend 00:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, clearly nonnotable. Admin, please go through the author's contribs and clean out the one image and two incoming redirects. YechielMan 01:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Pioneers have a special place to me. But... article at the moment isn't sourced, and that's the big one. --Whs itc hy 03:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. --Random ^{Say it here!} 03:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, - possible vanity page. Alan Liefting 04:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional material. (Not quite bad enough for VSCA, though.) The article was created by Earthling plus (talk · contribs), whose only edits are to this article and the two trail articles, which I'm going to tag for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can dig out some sources for her (if she is a big figure in tourism, they could exist). I can't find anything, but they maybe in Turkish-language publications — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. This article should take a hike. Realkyhick 22:10, 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. --Core desat 04:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Deaths[edit]

Long, long list of when and how fictional characters died. Unsourced (WP:A), doesn't establish how this is notable per WP:FICTION, might also count as a list of indiscriminate information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Major listcruft. --Whs itc hy 02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content as appropriate into the existing series articles about this manga: Phantom Blood, Battle Tendency, Stardust Crusaders, Diamond is Unbreakable, Golden Wind, Stone Ocean, and Steel Ball Run. I don't personally see why each person's death needs to be explained in such detail, when just a list on each relevant article would do (unless if the character is of some importance)... but that's for another day. --Kyoko 03:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the list again and thinking about it, probably only notable characters' deaths need to be included in the articles, not the death of every single bystander. --Kyoko 04:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I just can't make up my mind today. --Kyoko 04:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list, more mangacruft. Realkyhick 22:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, - Per WP:NOT#INFO. Also when I first checked out the list, the shear size of it scared the heck out of me. --Random ^{Say it here!} 01:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, massive collection of completely unnotable items. Fails WP:NOT#INFO. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, horribly written list, incomprehensible to non-fans, and not a worthwhile subject either. Though it is slightly amusing, since it highlights just how absurd some of Araki's death scenes really are. (Personal favorite: "Unzipped to death.") --tjstrf talk 09:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, extreme QUALITY, unlikely to be fully improved+sourced anytime soon. Maybe some merging is possible? --Merovingian ※ Talk 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pro tip: QUALITY is the opposite of quality, in case anybody are confused.--129.241.215.6 20:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crufty, and is not a good enough subject for it's own list; useless. The Hippie^talk 02:39, 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 the delete. Krimpet (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of names that take the definite article[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft; violates WP:NOT. dcandeto 00:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definite delete. Per dcandeto. Clarityfiend 01:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem, aside from the obvious one, is that usage differs. Some textbooks use "Sudan" while others use "The Sudan" (based on the Arabic), and so forth. YechielMan 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just listcruft per dcandeto and unreliable per Yechiel but also potentially inflammatory: many Ukrainians consider the phrase "The Ukraine" as wrong and perhaps even borderline racist depending on who you ask. Having that in a list without comment as 'preferred usage' makes me wonder how many other of these entries would be considered wrong. --Charlene 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a bit strange, as Ukrainian has no definite article. That would also make transwikiing this article difficult. dcandeto 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Here's a good rundown of how that came about. Certainly since independence the official position of the Ukraine government has been to prefer no article in translation. But it was long common when it was just a "region". That's the crux of why it's sensitive.--Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether a name takes a definite article or not is purely speculative. Is it "The Dixie Chicks" or just "Dixie Chicks"? "The Mall at Hays" or just "Mall at Hays"? "The city of Whittemore or just "City of Whittemore"? Et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete going to get huge, unmanageable, and just all around pointless. --Whs itc hy 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a general list this is indiscriminate. Some bands (e.g. Nine Inch Nails) emphatically do not take the article, so distinguishing bands a more discriminate approach. This list seems like it could be useful if sourced, and no doubt other versions of the list are out there. But I'm not sure it needs an article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 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 snowball delete. Sr 13 01:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted High School Musical (album)[edit]

No official information on the album (or that it will even be an album); Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nowayout203 00:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - obliterate it. No references, no verifiability, no article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. Definitely WP:CRYSTALlized here. (If we get a WP:SNOW, would that make it a snowglobe?) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Who's going to be the snowman then?
Snow Delete per above above. --Whs itc hy 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per above --St.daniel ^Talk 00:43, 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 keep. --Core desat 04:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zacharie Jacob[edit]

Non-notable biography - does not assert notability and contains no references to support it. Ozgod 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this the same actor (aka Montfleury) despised by the hero in the play Cyrano de Bergerac? It's the right time period, c. 1640. If so, then definitely Keep and add to article. Strong keep. I've added the Cyrano connection to the article. Clarityfiend 01:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote for the moment. If the connection can be proven, I'd say it's a strong keep personally. see below --Whs itc hy 02:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep see [16] page two, bottom. --Whs itc hy 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although careful reading of Whstchy's source indicates that the play mocks Zacharie's son Antoine Jacob de Montfleury. I think both probably deserve articles. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll admit, I was confused over who was being mocked. --Whsitchy 05:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I believe it is Zacharie who is being mocked. In the body of the article, it says that Z. had a large stomach (and died partly because of it), and the sidenote about Cyrano refers to it as well. It is not stated whether Antoine was similarly rotund. Also, Z. was the actor, as is the character in the play. Cyrano derides the character's acting skills. Clarityfiend 05:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I changed my mind again. The article is pretty confusingly formatted, but it seems clear that both father and son were involved in the feud in different ways. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A tag asking for sources might have been more appropriate than an Afd even for a dude from like the olden days. Nick mallory 05:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory, although I'd think a tag would be more appropriate given that he's from the olden days. Someone doesn't stop being notable simply because the information on him is in older books not easily found in the average American public library. --Charlene 11:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My automatic assumption is that something that rated an article in the 1911 Britannica is 99% likely to remain notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd likely add 1% to that. --Charlene 03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Could use another source or two, but this seems obviously notable. Realkyhick 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Strange nomination. If the guy made enough of an impact that he is remembered three centuries later surely he merits coverage in the wikipedia, without regard to whether the article contains the magic phrase "...is notable because...". When I start an article shortly after going through ((afd)) hell, I sometimes try to find a way to insert that magic phrase. It always reads very artificially to me. It is a policy that bugs me.
- Disclaimer — Lack of an assertion of notability was one of the justifications nominator used when nominating an article I started for deletion. So I decided to take a look at the pattern of his nominations for ((afd)), and the opinions he expressed in other ((afd)) fora.
- FYI — Nominator is currently a candidate for administrator.
- Cheers! -- Geo Swan 14:08, 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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professor of Modern History, Glasgow[edit]

Doesn't seem like a notable position at all. No evidence of it meriting its own article Yonatan ^talk 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unlike the USA (where the term has been devalued so that every univerity lecturer is a professor), the title refers in Great Britain to the head of a university department or another senior and distingusihed academic. Glasgow is one of our older universities. I consider that the post is automatically notable. The fact that few of the holders have articles merely inducates that there is work to be done. Peterkingiron 00:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but no. If the list were for a dean or a similar position, I'd probably keep it. --Whsitchy 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This position would presumably be one level lower than a dean in the heirarchy: head of a department, but not of a faculty. I think that's enough. JulesH 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Professorships at the University of Glasgow. Recommend all positions on that list be merged as well. I don't see that the chair itself is worth having an article for. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm with Dhartung; the lists of professors who have occupied the chairs, and the sentences about their founding (which are the only content these articles have), are not so long that they couldn't all be merged into List of Professorships at the University of Glasgow. Deor 13:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there is no reason for this particular position to have a seperate article from the fairly short List of Professorships at the University of Glasgow. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But isn't that just a directory of lists like the one nominated here? JJL 16:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Make the list article into the compilation, with brief descriptions before each. Some positions may still merit separate articles. (Wow — professorships that go back to the 1600s!) Realkyhick 22:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really do not see what you are proposing for the merge--the main article is simply a list of the chairs, not the holders. There are 38 professorships listed, with an average of about 10 incumbants. Is it seriously proposed that the article will be better with the 38 sections? Or is it proposed that we should not have the information at all? Since all of these people are certainly notable, a category would do, except that 3/4 of the articles haven't been written. That suggests the third possibility--to do stub articles for every one of the 400 or so, with succession boxes and categories. And there's a fourth--to expand the list with basic biographic data for each of them,which is much faster then writing all those articles. Personally, i consider all 4 ways as satisfactory: separate pages for each chair, one gigantic page, separate articles for each professor, a list for each chair with sections for each professor. I think we should get a much more general consensus before deciding, since it will be a good deal of work either way, & will set precedents for a great many other pages. DGG 06:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as some one who voted Keep above, I fullky support DGG. Peterkingiron 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand so it isn't just a list. Lurker 15:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This is much more useful as an individual article, because merging would become unweildly with large numbers of entries for each individual holder of the position. If this were repeated for instance for articles like Professor of Divinity, Glasgow (which is a substantially older chair having been held by 27 people), the article would become huge. JulesH 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unwieldy to merge, as per User:DGG, and UK professors - at any rate, at the older universities - are pretty much notable by definition, unlike US ones, as per User:Peterkingiron. HeartofaDog 00:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable position; list of holders is useful for building the web. John Vandenberg 07:59, 3 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. --Core desat 04:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Achberger[edit]

nn pro wrestling fan. Claim to "fame" is that he holds up signs at selected WWE shows. This fails WP:BIO, as the only sources available are from WWE publications, which in turn as questionable as WP:RS. There is no need whatsoever for him to have an article here. He is not official WWE "talent" either, and even members of the creative team and other on-screen personalities have had articles deleted. Biggspowd 00:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike the other AFD for a wrestling related figure I was in, this seems to be fancruft. --Whs itc hy 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the WWE stuff doesn't really meet WP:RS, and I'm not sure that the rest of the article indicates notability. He's not an official part of the show, he's just a fan who gets some face time. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the articles creator I feel I must speak on this. First, Rick Achberger was a requested article here. Second, I'm not sure why you dont consider WWE a reliable source Biggspowd, but even so, that is not the only sources I have as you said, I have a online newspaper article from Lufkin Daily News (there is also a newspaper article in The Detroit News that metions him) and a commerical he did for the USA Network. Also, a google search of WWE Sign Guy comes back with 1,280,000 results. And what about his time on the game show Deal or No Deal? Rick qualifies for at least three of the criteria listed in WP:BIO: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.", "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition", and "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products" So as you can see, he is much more than "just a fan who gets fan who gets face time" as you said Tony Fox. How can one man who has been has had magazine articles, multiple newspaper articles, several TV spots, and widespread internet coverage be considered a "non-notable person"?? Stormin' Foreman 06:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should let you all know that the above user created the article. Also, with your google search, you need to put in it quotes, and when you do, it's just 650 hits. And every source is WWE-related, or through their PR department, and most of the sources are not reliable and are written in-universe. There isn't a need for this article, and just because someone put a "request" for it doesn't mean it belongs automatically. Biggspowd 15:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throw out of the ring, No deal. He's just an attention-seeking fan. Only way he would be notable is if he were another Steve Bartman. And AFAIK, there are no articles about individual Deal or No Deal contestants. Clarityfiend 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having your face on TV is not enough to make you notable. Also, the sources listed here are not "intellectually independent" nor are they "independent of the subject." They are wrestling magazines and therefore are quite involved with the subject and therefore are probably not reliable. --Hnsampat 14:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe you should view the article again and actually look at the sources this time, unless you're seriously suggesting that www.lufkindailynews.com is a wrestling magazine and/or owned by WWE. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get nasty. --Hnsampat 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lufkin Daily News is just a newspaper from a small town in Texas. I'm not sure if it can be a reliable source, and if so, he's still not close to notable. Biggspowd 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — over the top rope. Lufkin Daily News is only reliable source. If getting on radio or TV is grounds for notability, then I'm notable. Realkyhick 22:21, 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. --Core desat 04:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of top World Champions in WWE by combined length[edit]

nn listcruft for how long professional wrestlers held titles in a predetermined outcome. This info is very crufty, redundant, and is not needed here. There are already plenty of related pages (questionable in notability) that exist for this info. Prod was removed. Biggspowd 00:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Whs itc hy 00:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. Ohconfucius 10:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information is constantly changing, arbitrarily selected and genuinely disinteresting. McPhail 15:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. What in the Sam Hill is this, anyway? Realkyhick 22:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to suggest to merge the information to List of WWE Champions, but I'm not sure how important the number of days a person held a title is. That list already has the date that the person won the title, and the date that the following person won the title, so the time is already mentioned there. The question remains if the number of days is necessary. If so, then merge and delete this page. Pepsidrinka 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNENC clause 9. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Elrith 04:09, 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 Keep. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Time Is It? (Summertime!)[edit]

he original creator of this page suggested to me, after I redirected it for WP:CRYSTALyness, that I revert and nominate for AfD to gauge consensus (he believes that there may be sufficient notability, and I think he has a point, so I abstain) Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 01:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If it's a single, it's likely bound to chart -- and if it charts, that would make it notable. The song debuted but recently, and I can't find anything that says it's on the charts yet, but I'm leaning towards letting it stay on the grounds that it's been confirmed as a single. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High School Musical 2 (album), unless it IS confirmed as a single (as TPH said). G1ggy! 01:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is a confirmed single, according to the Disney press release. Nowayout203 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the press release:
On July 17, Walt Disney Records will release a commercial CD single of "What Time Is It."
--Whsitchy 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add on comment I don't see any WP:CRYSTAL at all here. It's been played already, how is that falling under that? --Whs itc hy 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per Whstchy. --Random ^{Say it here!} 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, though I think it sucks. Realkyhick 22:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with High School Musical 2 (album). Notable, yes, but is there enough info that this will ever be more than a stub page? -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's notable as a Disney release, and it's not yet been released. i.e. notability will rise. John Vandenberg 08:06, 3 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. --Core desat 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobbly Wobbly[edit]

Nonnotable dog toy. No sources or references other than that of the company that manufactures it. The article somewhat like an advert, and there seems to be little hope for the article to become more than that. ***Clamster 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete. Does not pass WP:N. Has no third-party attribution. I'm not finding any independent third parties discussing it. --Charlene 01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charlene. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, feed it to the dog, not notable. Realkyhick 22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable toy, with little chance for expansion. --Nehrams2020 06:49, 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. --Core desat 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private Carrera[edit]

Seems like a cheat sheet for the video game. 650l2520 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cheatsheet. G1 ggy! 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a how-to guide to unlock the character. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. DarkAudit 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all point above. Alan Liefting 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this info. can go on the game's page if it's needed (e.g., at least the existence of the character might be worth mentioning). JJL 16:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no cheat sheets, please. Realkyhick 22:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:TONE. Carlosguitar 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not GameFAQs. QuagmireDog 10:47, 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 No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^Assistance! 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy[edit]

I removed a ((prod)) from this article, because I'm not sure of notability (but think it is). I'm adding it here because I'd like to see a community perspective on it. Abstain G1 ggy! 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Why is this being listed? J. D. Redding 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Becuase G1ggy wanted community input on the book's notability. JoshuaZ 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Because it was tagged with a prod stating that it was not notable, and I'm not sure if that's true. I didn't want to just remove the tag and leave it (in case it should be deleted), so I removed the tag and brought it here. G1 ggy! 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who prodded the book. I'm unable to find a single review of the book or any other non-trivial reliable source and the book has only about 600 google hits even counting duplicates (see this search which doesn't even use the full title). JoshuaZ 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? This is well known recent biography of Tesla. The only other one would be Wizard. J. D. Redding 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have any sources that so that this is well known? I'd be happy to keep the book if we have non-trivial reliable sources that talk about the book, but so far the best I've found is a short paragraph description here. JoshuaZ 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think I get what you mean by "RS. Is that to discount the general public that have cited the work? I'll see some review in NYT or something ... but anyone that looks into Nikola Tesla will come up with all the book that are listed in the further reading, as cited below. There is not alot more biographies out there (I have looked). J. D. Redding 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a side note, it is cited in David S Alexander's paper titled, "Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications: Volume II". J. D. Redding 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - These are some libraries that have the book. http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/50931289 J. D. Redding 02:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Having the book and having it cited doesn't make it notable. I'm sure it is an interesting book, heck I'll probably read it when I get a chance. But if we don't have any reliable sources about the subject were a bit paralyzed. JoshuaZ 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #348,887 in Books" Bubba73 (talk), 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If I have input. But it is notable in regards to Nikola Tesla, listed in the Nikola Tesla#Further reading for some time. One of the few solid references for him. J. D. Redding 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (PS., I was going to do all the books there, if they are not shot down everytime.)[reply]
- comment If they have reliable sources that talk about the books so the books are notable so that we can actually write things that aren't original research then that's fine. I would suggest finding reliable sources such as book reviews before writing the articles or be ready to provide such sources. JoshuaZ 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Using primary material results in secondary material; this article is secondary material. This is not WP:OR (which is primary material alone without any sources). I'll also look around for some other secondary sources, though. J. D. Redding 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia policy requires articles to be tertiary, not secondary material. JulesH 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote I can see points for for and against, will wait out. --Whs itc hy 03:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from what I just read in this article, it seems ok, it has references to, if there are issues lets just clean it up, no reason to delete it (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 04:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep.There's only one independent review linked from the article, and it's brief, but quite strong: in Midwest Book Review, "mandatory reading for all students of Tesla". —David Eppstein 05:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll use that quote in the intro, if that is ok? J. D. Redding 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. —David Eppstein 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to keep now that I've found a second published review (Nexus magazine, as listed in the article). —David Eppstein 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it's borderline notable with two independent sources so let's give the benefit of doubt to keeping. Realkyhick 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, yes there are reviews. I've been unable to locate a copy of the issue of Nexus to view that, but if it's anything like the first review, I'd say the depth of coverage isn't enough to justify this article. I'm also concerned about whether or not Nexus should be considered a reliable source, as what I see about it suggests that it has a rather strong bias towards espousing fringe theories. Also, the book is a small press book (such books are rarely notable) from a press that seems best known for its coverage of psuedoscientific subjects. JulesH 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has been out 5 years and only has 2 reviews. No mention in any of the publications covered by Proquest. It appears to contain a fair amount of "free energy" pseudoscience, and is full of claims that Tesla did thus and such when the history of the matter shows failures to excite energy waves in the earth or the atmosphere. His actual contributions in normal alternating current motors and generators are given little coverage per the contents, in favor of claims that endless energy can be gotten without use of prime movers or fuel. Hoaxy. Edison 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any real reason why this should be deleted? A few years and some reviews is a good notable topic. There are others. BTW, the POV BS about his "actual contributions" neglects the information in various reliable sources. The history of the matter shows Wireless energy transfer (such as his experiments with the magnifying transmitter) was proven by Tesla. J. D. Redding 21:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Fails WP:BK quite solidly. The first review is very short and so does not count as "non-trivial". The Nexus review I cannot find, but without the other review there can be no claim of "multiple ... publications" on this book. No other assertion of notability exists. --EMS | Talk 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not match my understanding of "non-trivial" — it's intended, as I understand it, more to refer to situations such as a book title appearing as part of a longer list of titles but not discussed in any detail. E.g. WP:N gives as an example of "trivial coverage" a one-sentence mention of a band in a biography of someone else. —David Eppstein 03:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N has recently been changed from requiring "non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources" to "significant coverage in reliable sources". Significant seems to me to be a higher bar than non-trivial, although there is the implication that a single in-depth source would be adequate. But I'm still unsure that Nexus is a reliable source, being primarily a publisher of fringe theories. JulesH 10:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the article reads like a book review, rather than an encyclopaedia article. Is that what WP is for? Amazon.com has an open facility for readers to write book reviews. I would suggest that is where this belongs. I am not clear what WP policy is on this, but would have thought that a book would need to be very notable (or notorious e.g. controversial) to require a WP article. The article is presumably adequately sourced - it describes a book and the book is itself the source. The appropriate course is to ensure that the views expressed in the book are reflected in the WP biographical article on Tesla, and to cite the book as the source for that. However, I hope that the article's author can find ways to contribute substantive articles on the broader subject of the History of Science and Technology; I am sure there is more to be done on this. Peterkingiron 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are not clear on WP policy on articles about books, WP:BK would be a good place to start. —David Eppstein 15:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the policy on whether or not we should have an article about a book, not what the content of the article should be. I don't think there is such a policy, to be honest, although it would probably be somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Writing about fiction if it did exist. And, no, I don't think this article is appropriate as it stands: it spends too much time discussing the topic of the book, rather than the book itself. The article should focus on placing the book in context in the world by describing the critical reaction to it, IMO. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to have been enough reaction to it to produce such an article. JulesH 07:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; an article on the book is warranted, and the current content isn't worthless. The introduction could be cut down to avoid duplicating info already on related articles. John Vandenberg 08:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the book has an ISBN number ISBN-13: 978-1931882040 and therefore meets threshold standards. The content of the book may be WP:Fringe, but the book exists and if there are any problems with the article content itself (such as POV) then those should be fixed. The article editors should be asked for any factual material and the tone should be suitably fixed. Tagging for deletion should not be used for gathering feedback from others because one does not understand a subject. Use of prods to force article improvement is also in bad taste. Shyamal 07:26, 4 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.

GOD JESUS WILL NEVER SURRENDER TO WIKI FAGGOTS[edit]

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

The result was SMITE WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE. Krimpet (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conspiracy, God-Jesus robot is real...unlike god and jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.145 (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GOD-JESUS[edit]

This article should be deleted. It is about a non-notable toy, with very little information available anywhere, other than by buying it. It has basically no notability. If it WAS notable, an entry on a single Happy Meal toy would be considered notable, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zuxtron (talk • contribs).

Delete - non-notable toy; it's known mainly for being amusing to English speakers. --Haemo 02:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not only is it not notable, I belive it is violation WP:OR considering the fact that the external links provides no info on the subject.
--Random ^{Say it here!} 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete See above. Plus, engrish.com is not a good resource. --Whs itc hy 03:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, interesting bit of trivia however, Alan Liefting 04:23, 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 super delete. --Core desat 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super changeup[edit]

Not notable, there is no such pitch in mainstream baseball. At best the article should be merged into the main Changeup article. Zerbey 02:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like original research. "... it is taking hold in high school baseball." Really? Can this claim be sourced, and substantiated? Charlie 02:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be established that this term is actually in use, redirect to Eephus pitch. Otherwise, delete. Deor 12:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Eephus pitch is more like a curveball, not a changeup. Zerbey 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced. Recommend against a redirect to eephus pitch, as there is nothing referring to a 'super changeup' in that article. Based on the description of this pitch, the two are actually completely different. DarkAudit 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (no merge). hmwith talk 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, - Definite delete, and I don't feel it should be merged either. --Random ^{Say it here!} 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen people throw it before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.169.85 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. PeaceNT 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes[edit]

Not a list, rather a very poorly written WP:OR episode guide. No sources. Hús ö nd 02:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up, seems okay now. Nomination withdrawn.--Hús ö nd 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Definitely WP:OR, and also just plain ugly to read. --Random ^{Say it here!} 02:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a Question - why is this episode list, other than fixable formatting issues, significantly different from any other episode list on WIkipedia? We allow lists of episodes for TV series and "just plain ugly to read" is not a legitimate reason for deleting one. Personally I don't give a fig about the series but see no reason why its episode list should be treated differently from any other series. Otto4711 12:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please observe WP:CIVIL. Allowing mistakes to endure as a whole instead of focusing on their correction or removal is a bad, bad procedure.--Hús ö nd 14:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note that throwing around baseless accusation of incivility is itself uncivil. You have not clearly established that this list is a "mistake" or that it constitutes original research, nor have you explained why this list of episodes should be treated any differently from the very many articles in Category:Lists of television series episodes or why this list is not in line with WP:EPISODE, which suggests that lits like this be created rather than individual articles for each episode. Otto4711 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with your remark on incivility. Please feel free to reprehend me if I ever throw around any baseless accusations of incivility.--Hús ö nd 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. if there were sources or proof, I'd keep, but I can't. --Whsitchy 15:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What exacly are you suggesting needs to be proven? The series appears to exist. Otto4711 16:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not denying the series existing, I'm saying the episode list looks like OR... but then again, it's an TV episode, kinda hard to avoid that, vote retracted. Whs itc hy 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep needs work but in-line with other episode lists. JJL 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Could use some work, yeah, but I can't see any reason for this show to not have an episode list.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 13:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and wikify see above Whs itc hy 14:49, 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 all, except Shining Gundam --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GF13-0[edit]

(View AfD)

Let me start by saying that Gundam is important and we have many Gundam-related articles that meet our inclusion standards. These, however, do not. This batch of 18 mobile fighters is neither important nor notable. Sure, it is perfectly possible to find primary sources (i.e. the television series) that can be used to document these, but the search to find out-of-universe secondary sources appears to be futile.

In some of our previous discussions regarding other Gundam articles, there were proposals to mass-merge many articles together. If there is an encyclopedia article to be found here, it certainly won't be made by a mass cut-and-paste into a single article.

The following articles are nominated for deletion:

If anyone has a reason to move any of these into individual nominations, please say so. --- RockMFR 02:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: None of these articles assert notability. Even their importance is scarce, but importance and popularity are nothing to do with notability, they are irrelevant towards an article's existence. --Teggles 02:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have to agree. There is really no assertion of notability. I don't feel you need a redirect either, because this is not going to be a commonly if at all searched subject. --Random ^{Say it here!} 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but one As much as I like Gundam, that's too many. I vote keep the main character's (shining gundam). --Whs itc hy 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That particular article is now withdrawn. --- RockMFR 23:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above. Unsourced fancruft. MER-C 12:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rewrite: I would say to just merge into two seperate articles (Major and Minor Mobile suit pages) and trim down the articles to reduce plot summary due to the previous articles have too much plot detail and make the summary a lot less like a cheap copy from MAHQ.net, since character pages or plot material would be much more appropriate for minor plot details, then personally add sources from the episodes and other real world facts through other sources. -Adv193 00:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I think it would be a good idea to just merge these articles with their Gundam pilots from the Manga and Anime...The ones with insignificant pilots and importance, such as Tequila gundam or Toro gundam should be deleted or merged into an article called Minor Gundams from the G Gundam Series-ShadowStange11 18:13, 28 May 2007 (EST)
Comment: If you like to a see a merged article of minor mobile suits check out-List of minor mobile suits in Gundam Wing which has many of Gundam Wing's mobile suits together with sources and summaries that aren't too long with the Technical data in an infobox. -Adv193 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to a List article, which can be separated by series for convenience. The list can be in the form of a table where certain story-relevant information (e.g. faction, pilot's name, etc.) can be included. Mecha data should be off-loaded to some other website that can be linked as an external link from the List article. Existing articles should be redirected to the List article. --Polaron | Talk 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List article as per previous work on minor MS/characters. Jtrainor 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 04:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Shining Gundam and Master Gundam since they are the series' main protagonist and antagonist's units

Your argument is invalid. Their importance doesn't matter. Read WP:NOTABILITY. It clearly states that importance and popularity have nothing to do with notability; notability is when there are multiple reliable sources for the subject. --Teggles 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As with Adv193, I feel that the merging of the above articles into seperate list articles based on the significace each has within the overall plot of the series would be best. Azureman 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the minor characters into a single page. Major characters keep their pages. This seems in keeping with how other fictional character situations are handled. The characters from Brave New World ahve all been made redirects to the novel's article; they seem more notable than a long list of robots...—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:30, 3 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. --Core desat 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxx Blacc[edit]

Appears to be NN actor as per WP:PORNBIO. Originally prodded, but as it was contested I opened up this AFD instead. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Whs itc hy 03:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shouldn't have been protested (the prod)..none of the 5 valid criteria apply on him.--The Joke النكتة‎ 17:11, 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 withdrawn. Thanks to all for an engaging discussion about the National Register, which I enjoyed, and thanks particularly to Richard Arthur Norton for providing me with a New York Times article about the house. One final point, though--notability should never be the only question here. We need sources for an article. Chick Bowen 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry F. Miller House[edit]

This is a bit of a test case for notability, I think. This house has an individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places, along with about 80,000 others. After searching around for a while I have found nothing else about it, except that it continues to serve as the headquarters of Mr. Miller's architectural firm, and it is evidently not open to the public (it was very briefly when it was first built, according to our article). I would be delighted if someone could come up with more and this article would be kept. But as it is, with the NRHP listing as the only verifiable fact, I don't see it. Chick Bowen 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Generally NRHP structures are considered automatically notable, although I don't know of a specific rule to that effect. The National Register is a peer-reviewed process that requires extensive research, documentation, and argumentation at the state and federal levels. These are properties that are deemed notable for historical, cultural, or architectural reasons. Just because there is a limited amount of information doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article. According to the summary nomination[17] it was listed because of its architectural qualities, apparently as a key representative of the International Style. Offline sources certainly exist (such as the full NRHP nomination or local historical/architectural materials) and there were probably architecture magazine articles from the period as well, which are unsurprisingly not available on the internet. Caution is often warranted when subjects are historical (i.e. from before the present era). --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your last sentence, though I'm not sure about automatic inclusion; ultimately we don't have an article if we don't have sources (not hypothetical ones). I am trying to locate an article from the New York Times, "Architectural Trend Still Stirs Passions," published August 26, 2001, by Richard Weizel. I don't have access to the Times Archive at the moment (though I will later this week), but I'd appreciate assistance from anyone who does. Chick Bowen 05:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. If it's on the National Register of Historic Places (or similar bodies in other countries) then it's passed a far more stringent process of checking than a quick google by a few wikipedia editors so I would think by definition it's notable by our standards. It doesn't matter if there's 80,000 of them, wikipedia is not paper. Let's remember that the National Register of Historic Places is the United States government's official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects worthy of preservation. What more do you need? Nick mallory 05:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One reason this gives me pause is that my house is on the NHRP list. . . Chick Bowen 05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So don't write an article about your house then Chick. No-one's saying all 80,000 have to have articles, but if the US Government thinks Henry F. Miller House is notable enough to be protected then I think that should be good enough for Wikipedia. QWhy is your house on the list? Maybe your house is more interesting than you know! Nick mallory 05:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point is that the NHRP's standards for inclusion aren't uniform. My house, for example, is on the list because it's a structure within a historic district (different list, though, I guess). Anyway, I'm still hoping to render this whole discussion moot by finding some actual, usable sources. Chick Bowen 05:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you have a contributing property, and not the dreaded non-contributing counterpart, I still wouldn't consider an individual property within a district notable. The district should have an article, but individual properties would have to seek their own notability. (I also live in such a house.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation for this house should be available as a National Register nomination form. (As an example, see this nomination form for the Great Camps of the Adirondacks -- although that's a multiple property submission.) The documentation for this house isn't available online, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As far as the actual nomination process is concerned, these are the guidelines from the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office. The problem with the Henry F. Miller House article is not that it isn't notable, but that the article doesn't cite its sources. That can be fixed. With that in mind, my opinion is to keep this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. The processs to get on the NRHP is long and very research oriented. Far more than Wikipedias inclusion standards. We don't decide if something is notable, "the world" does. --Oakshade 17:27, 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 Speedy delete per A7. PeaceNT 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James J Lytle[edit]

Non notable, probably related to page creator. Stefan 03:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. Absolutely no assertion of notability. Tagged for speedy. Why wasn't that done before bringing it here? DarkAudit 03:52, 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. Peacent 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Burton[edit]

(added by User:Thexvb)

Delete. I feel it would be better to recategorize the Bob Burtons by putting Bob Burton, Jr. in place of this redirect page. He is much better known than any other Bob Burton, having held world records for several mechanical puzzles. Try typing Bob Burton into Google to see supporting evidence. -- Thexvb 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Use as disambig page. Alan Liefting 04:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per alan --Whs itc hy 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambig. Bob Burton, Jr. is the top Google result for bob.burton, but he is only one of the results on the first page. That's not overwhelming. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambig. There is also a Bob Burton that is an American journalist (see WEEK-TV). --Closeapple 22:01, 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. --Core desat 04:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern opposition to Reconstruction[edit]

This article, written by an IP editor, is essentially a POV essay. Despite its considerable length, it has no in-line references for the many controversial claims it makes, and according to Rjensen, who has actually read the works listed in the bibliography, the article contradicts everything those books and articles say. The article is also incomplete, for instance making but passing mention of the Scalawags, who comprised around a quarter of the Southern population, and dealing little with actual opposition, as opposed to Republican Party policy. Finally, the topic is well-covered at the main Reconstruction article. For these reasons, the article, at least in its current form, should be scrapped. Biruitorul 04:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded, poorly written and poorly sourced essay. Maybe a POV fork, but from my skimming it looks more like someone just wanted a place to publish their essay. --Allen 06:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not just "poorly sourced"; it does not have *any* sources save for the "References" at the end. This despite numerous ((cn)) tags standing in the article for quite a while.

Furthermore, the peculiar bracketed numbers in the article may indicate the article is a copy of some sort of term paper. The author being unknown, I'd suspect copyvio. Digwuren 07:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have made my objections clear on the discussion page of the article. Having read the Perman and Foner books listed in the references I can say that they in no way whatsoever support this article. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important and encyclopedic subject, even if it does need a re-write/fact-check. It merits being broken out from the main Reconstruction article for more attention. Delete or redirect this page, but merge any useful info. into Redemption (United States history). Thanks for bringing the fuller history of this page to my attention. Sounds like what's needed is integration of anything useful from this at Redemption (United States history)? The article being discussed here is lengthy and reasonably well-written and hence my sympathy is with keeping the info. if it isn't a copy-vio, but I am in no position to judge the material on its (factual) merits. Editors at the page on redemption need to hash this out. I'd suggest dumping the whole page into a Talk or other sub-page there and let them decide the factual matters by citing reference material. JJL 16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This "more attention" violates the important Wikipedia policy of WP:POVFORK.
- As for important -- yes, the subject is important. But this article is not usable for this purpose. Digwuren 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - See the discussion page of the article Redemption (United States history) (This is a spinoff from that article, not the Reconstruction article). The editor who created this page fully admits that this is a POV Fork. His statements,
    - “The new material is well written, it is wikified, and contains four new references. This material was reverted by User:Rjensen. I have restored the enlarged version. It may have a POV, but is improvable. If you want to attack it, start by discussing it here. -- Petri Krohn 10:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    - I changed my mind; I moved the new material to Southern opposition to Reconstruction. -- Petri Krohn 10:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)”
    - Once every challengable sentence is eliminated (and the originator has shown no sign of providing sources) there will be no article left to improve. Tom (North Shoreman) 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, major POV fork. Much of it is copied word for word from Redemption (United States history). Realkyhick 22:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allen. It does not discuss any actual Southerners--they seem to have no names and no states and no roles, no articles, no speeches. and of course no sources. it is not useful to readers.Rjensen 01:45, 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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens For Reform Party[edit]

Despite a couple of requests, no evidence has been provided that this is anything but an on-line discussion group. It appears that the creator of this party is trying to use Wikipedia to promote his creation. Ground Zero | t 04:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, no evidence party has ever had any candidates for any office. Davewild 07:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They endorsed a sitting mayor as one of their own. Whoop-de-freakin'-do. Not notable. Realkyhick 22:38, 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 speedy delete per A7. Sr 13 06:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greater Boston Food Bank[edit]

All in all, a fairly minor charity. The article is also pure advertising, and written by one Marketing310 (hmm...), who has no other contributions. Biruitorul 04:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11, tagged as such --Whs itc hy 05:51, 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. --Core desat 04:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Rona[edit]

A tragic case, no doubt. But what sets him apart from the countless other victims of WWII? Biruitorul 04:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic indeed, but point has been made. Sadly... --Whs itc hy 05:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is where I disagree with Wikipedia policy. I think such a person is notable and that Wikipedia is a fitting place for such a piece. I disagree with the idea that every cartoon character, NBA player and episode of Buffy is notable but this person, or a soldier who dies in battle for instance, is not. I realise I'm in the minority and that this article will probably be deleted but here I stand, I can do no other. Nick mallory 05:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, sadly, another unnotable victim of a horrible, deadly war which killed millions in just such unremarkable ways. I understand the urge to sentimentality, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above is no different to any of the other millions of people who died in WWII. Davewild 07:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I really don't see what's notable about Rona in the article; An online search reveals little other info about him: 71 Ghits, including copies of the exact same article in several places. Thus, this is speediable per G12 as a blatant copy of the source article, and this one here too. Ohconfucius 08:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I had this page watched to see if any claims of notability turned up. They didn't, so delete.--Jackyd101 09:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. The sentimentalist in me wants to keep the article--it's just one story out of many, but sometimes just reading one tragic story has a greater impact than just reading statistics about six million here, two million there, troop movements across the such-and-such and liberation by so-and-so in 1945. I'd almost like to keep it just as an example of what people went through, and let people read the story of this Victor Rona and then slowly imagine it happening six million times over. Then again, Wikipedia policy prevents that kind of thing and I'm not interested in blatantly breaking rules. K. Lásztocska 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very sad, but unfortunately there were many, many others in similar circumstances. Rona doesn't stand above the others. Realkyhick 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. He was robbed of the chance to become notable. Clarityfiend 03:39, 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 per consensus and author's request --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 06:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney K Moore[edit]

He does not appear to have actually achieved anything of significance. He has been a member of a lot of political parties, lived in a few places, and learned some languages, but he has not held an office or had a significant role in any major event. And it is written like a vanity article. Ground Zero | t 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless references are provided and it is toned into neutral prose. This in itself might reduce the article to nothing. I declined the speedy in case there was something notable in all the effusion. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I skimmed through the whole article and couldn't find a shred of notability. Clarityfiend 08:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whittle down all the bluster and it's just a vanity page. Nick mallory 09:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is a work in progress, it takes time and effort to amass references, interviews etc. It's hard especially on a person who deliberately avoids media attention. The few interviews of him, are en français and I am working to find some in English. I believe this article is being singled out for deletion because most of those who wish to delete it are English Canadians, who hold a bias against Quebecers, especially sovereigntists. JonathanBouthillier
- Comment: I nominated this article because I do not believe Mr. Moore to have accomplished enough to merit an article in Wikipedia, and only for that reason. I have indicated that in the nomination. None of the comments posted to date indicate any bias against Quebecers or sovereigntists. There is no basis whatsoever for that accusation. The record shows that I created the articles on two sovereigntist political parties (the Union Populaire and the Parti indépendantiste) when I was using the name User:Kevintoronto. Ground Zero | t 15:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. No sources to prove any notability whatsoever. DarkAudit 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even in the article, I don't see anything that would make this person meet WP:BIO. Also, I'm not an English Canadian, and don't understand how a Canadian can be English (unless you mean they emigrated from England), and I don't care enough about Quebec to have a bias against people from there. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, except for the rather bizarre twists and turns in his life. As one who lives in Birmingham, I can understand why he wouldn't stick around here too long. The nicest thing most folks here would say about him would likely be, "He's kindly odd." But I digress. Realkyhick 22:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable: 13 unique Ghits, none relevant. I could find nothing in New Scientist 2481. Possible hoax and definite issue with WP:A, as Gsearch would usually turn stuff up in all languages. If there are ANY sources at all, please post these for us to look at, there are sufficient number of French-speakers crawling wikipedia. Ohconfucius 03:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. GreenJoe 04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the neutrality requirements and came to the conclusion, that perhaps I am not the best person to write this article. After all, I am writting a real scholarly article on him and other notable polyglots for a reputable academic journal on linguistics. Clearly, putting this information on wikipedia is a complete waste of time. I'm not sure that Mr Moore would approve anyway. I have little time or patience to debate vague concepts of "notability" with people who couldn't tell someone the first thing about linguistics. I stand by my previous judgement that this article was selected for deletion due to a bias against sovereigntists by English Canadians. Too bad my own articles and research into individuals like Mr Moore aren't yet published. After this experience I plan on keeping scholarly academic information where it really belongs and it's not on wikipedia. Concordia University faculty admonish students to avoid wikipedia and to use academic journals, because Wikipedia is not that accurate. I was once opposed to this anti-wikipedia bias among faculty. But I am beginning to see that they might have been right. I am erasing this article, since I am the one who wrote it in the first place. JonathanBouthillier

Comment After you write the article, there will be at least one RS; since you will undoubtedly cite other references, they too will be usable. If you like wikis, there's Citizendium, which has a strong group of linguists. DGG 06:30, 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. Interesting fact, kiddies: this is an exact recreation of an article written in August 2006, by User:Ongsk, apparently about a friend of a friend. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ong Sai Keet[edit]

The article is unsourced and since it claims that Ong Sai Keet is the alias ("cover name") of the Prince of Malaysia (and grandson of the current King), it's essentially unverifiable. Google is unhelpful. Also, although children and grandchildren of monarchs are notable, Malaysia has an elected King, so this may change things. Note that I've done some minor editing of the article. This version is unedited. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is either a hoax, or inaccurate and misleading. The current king (Yang di-Pertuan Agong) of Malaysia, Mizan Zainal Abidin, doesn't have a grandson; his oldest child is only 10 years old. If the subject of this article is the grandson of a former king of Malaysia, it would certainly be helpful to indicate which one and who the subject's parents are. --Metropolitan90 06:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack page on the daughter of the Sultan of Perlis. Initial version of article claims this kid was born in 1993 with maternal descent from Sultan of Perlis Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin, but he has only one daughter Sharifah Fazira, who only got married in 2000 (see for example [18]). There is a real Ong Sai Keet, a 13-year old schoolboy mentioned trivially in this article [19]. Probably him or one of his mates putting up this load of utter WP:BOLLOCKS. cab 07:05, 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. --Core desat 04:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Abdul Karim Ayyoub[edit]

Person not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Balcer 06:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete God that page is a mess. Yahoo! search only turns up a few pages on him. Also [20] I smell copyvio. --Whs itc hy 06:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from notability issues this article is a conflict of interest, given that the creator was Dr Sameer Ayyoub (talk · contribs). Reads like a CV. Hut 8.5 11:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ SPEEDY DELETE - I never thought the day would come when we'd have to create a policy of "Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume." --Hnsampat 13:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. That day is here. DarkAudit 13:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stellatomailing 20:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The day has indeed arrived. I propose this shortcut: WP:NORESUMES.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Realkyhick (talk • contribs)
Delete Blatant self-promotion as described in WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. AlphaEta 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice CV. What's it doing here? --Ashenai 06:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only has this inappropriate article been created, but now it is being linked by its author to all sorts of places, for example October 10 and 1964. Balcer 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that. In fact, all of that user's contributions to Wikipedia seem to be geared towards self-promotion. I think we may need administrator action here to stop this. --Hnsampat 03:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a CV.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per credit to poorer countries scientists. Even Olympic Commitee recognized three Palestinian athletes in Athens, although they were well behind the Olympic minimum requirements. What about Puerto Ricans, who never made it to the dais, but still refuse to become the 51st USA state because of longing to have this one bronze medal? Gonna scratch them from the map too? greg park avenue 17:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, forgive my confusion, but how does removing somebody's resume from Wikipedia constitute global injustice? Who exactly are we "scratching from the map" here? --Hnsampat 21:43, 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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tombstone (computer game)[edit]

Fan made computer game modification that has never been released. There is no news on the site about his and it appears to be a completely non-notable and dead mod. Ben W Bell talk 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Whs itc hy 07:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No info or sources. Ab e g92contribs 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 08:20, 3 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 no consensus. W.marsh 22:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All time rugby results for Canada[edit]

A classic example of what Wikipedia is not. Unusual and notable results may deserve a mention on the Canada national rugby union team article but Wikipedia is not a repository to store every sporting result of a team, national or not. Nuttah68 08:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first thing Wikipedia is not is # 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I don't see under what criteria this has been listed for deletion. It's not an indiscriminate list for example. Perhaps the nominator could be more specific? Nick mallory 09:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Nuttah68 10:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. What's 'indiscriminate' about this list? It's criteria for inclusion are clear and objective and there's nothing the least bit 'confusing' about it. If this article can be improved by adding information boxes to it then add the information, rather than simply deleting it. Nick mallory 10:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's messy, but... I think something can be salvaged out of it, and it is notable since it's for the national team. But... it's listcruft to me, so Null vote Good for/against. --Whs itc hy 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nick, keep it. There is nothing indiscriminate about it, and it compliments the entry. Geez, if you deleted every page like this, well, you'd be staying up late night, because there is lots junk on wikipedia. What is "listcruft"? 216.254.208.116 20:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)— 216.254.208.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..[reply]
Nor is it confusing or messy. Its a list, pure and simple. Perhaps you can explain to me what is wrong with simple lists? How does it effect the neatness of another seperate entry, or how is it not neat? 216.254.208.116 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC) — 216.254.208.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..[reply]
Delete - please see #9 on WP:NOT#INFO. Also, the fact that "there is lots of junk on Wikipedia" is not a reason to avoid deleting them; on the contrary, it's exactly why "junk" ought to be deleted i.e. to clean up Wikipedia. --Hnsampat 02:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It is the top level of Canadian rugby after all (for what that's worth) and I don't see that it violates WP:NOT#INFO. Clarityfiend 03:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I expect that a large percentage of these matches are notable in there own right, making this a list of notable international matches. Hardly indiscriminate. John Vandenberg 08:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of notable events does not become notable in and of itself. But the question here is not about notability but rather the fact that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be mere lists of statistics.--Hnsampat 13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hang a minute, there are no statistics on this article. The results at the end of each entry are part of a summary. The purpose of the list is to list international games. That is an appropriate reason for a list. Let me ask you this ... how would you present this information in order to make it appropriate for Wikipedia? John Vandenberg 16:18, 3 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 redirect as suggested below. I looked at the sources and they seem to be written about her father. At any rate what we usually do with people who got the news coverage they did because of their family is to redirect to that family. W.marsh 14:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Mladić[edit]

Ana's sole claim to notability is being a daughter of an (in)famous persion. Apart from being unsourced, the article contains some basic biographical data, and the rest is devoted to her suicide, and speculations about reasons thereof. The relevant policies is WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence and does not expire, and (while WP:BLP is not applicable) WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy is an interesting reading. Duja► 08:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The life and death of Ana Mladić is significant in the history of the Balkan wars and continues to be so in the context of the search for her father, a wanted Serbian war criminal. This is hardly a purely private matter and has been covered extensively in the European press and continues to be of interest. See this BBC story from March 2006 [21] or this [22] from the Times from February 28, 2006. Nick mallory 09:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I purposefully didn't urge for deletion in the nomination, but merge seems like more reasonable option. (I didn't even have particular doubt that the article is factual). However, those stories are about Ratko Mladić, as are [23] or [24] (which is an excerpt from a essayish book by Slavenka Drakulić). But do we have one of (quote from WP:N, emphasis mine):
- The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
- Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
- Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
- The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
Duja► 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject, BBC & Times as sources, seems to meet WP:N. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, she doesn't meet WP:BIO with these references. Please read the sources, and see my comment below. Peacent 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets multiple notability requirements.AlphaEta 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones? They're quoted right above. The person wasn't the subject of published secondary sources—it was her father. If she hadn't commited suicide, the world would certainly not even noticed her existence. And I don't think a suicide is exactly a criterion for inclusion or WP:N. Duja► 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious, too. Could you please specify which requirements are met here? Peacent 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
interesting precedent of something where the notability depends only on the references, without any intrinsic notability whatsoever. I take it that the consensus is to observe the rule literally that any person at all who is the subject of stories in two different news sources will be N, common sense or no common sense. DGG 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's where I disagree on the consensus issue; we also had precedents on the other side, where (IMHO) common sense prevailed. I recall a good argument on (IIRC) some DRV of Gregory Kohs, where one participant mentioned "Queen Mary II enters the Port of Sydney" and "Queen Mary II exits the Port of Sydney" as clear counterexamples of well-referenced and well-covered topics not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I don't buy the "there are two reliable sources" argument for inclusion of pretty much anything (oh, and we have a lots of wikidrama last days on a similar topic). Duja► 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If she hadn't commited suicide, the world would certainly not even noticed her existence. And I don't think a suicide is exactly a criterion for inclusion or WP:N"? It's not only the event in itself whose legitimacy as a criterion for inclusion should be considered, it is the implications of the event. There are numerous characters who have left only a tangential mark on history but are nevertheless of significance / interest. Rightly or wrongly the suicide of Ana Mladic has been identified as having contributed to mass slaughter and genocide. Is it unreasonable to have access to information on the subject? I found the article useful. I am puzzled by the current witch-hunting of articles that whatever their deficiencies are still helpful sources of information. Most Wikipedia guidelines allow for pragmatic flexibility in their application but this seems to escape the notice of fundamentalist administrators. --Opbeith 14:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is notable person and the fact that she attempted to commit suicide is significant. Did her father sexually molest her? Did he abuse the family verbally or physically? There must be underlying cause of her grief - would you agree? Bosniak 04:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I wouldn't, for any speculations would violate WP:OR. Committing suicide cannot make a person notable, btw Peacent 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information and Redirect to Ratko Mladić#Family. I have read the article and the two references, and as far as I can tell, the only two things about her which worth mentioning are the facts that she was the daughter of Ratko Mladić and that she committed suicide. The whole Times source only touches a visit to her grave, not to say that the BBC source actually has only one or two sentences that mention her grave, obviously a trivial source. I honestly don't see how she meets the notability guideline. Peacent 15:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; her suicide appears to have been a notable event that made a lot of people pay attention. Whether or not she meets BIO is wikilaywering. John Vandenberg 08:42, 3 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. --Core desat 04:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spidertron[edit]

A microbudget film that doesn't exist yet. Unverifiable, notability issues, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Weregerbil 09:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is in reference to an actual body of work. It's production work is extensively documented here (http://www.spidertron.com/). While a finished work does not yet exist, many clips of a rough cut are readily available. Further, the article posted states in the first sentence that film is "currently being produced", and not a finished product. Reader interest exists due mostly to community involvement with the project. The article is not intended as advertising or promotional material. Jamesracer 09:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)moved here from article talk page Herostratus[reply]
Delete No attribution to intellectually independent third party reliable sources. From Google searches may be unattributable. Wikipedia is not for drumming up interest: it's for things that have already gotten interest from third parties. Fails the WP:ATT and WP:N policies. --Charlene 10:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue isn't primarily with WP:CRYSTAL but rather with notability. I have friends who have made movies on their own, but none of those are notable enough to be on Wikipedia, because they have not been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. This article has only one source, which is the website for the film in question. The website for the film is inherently an unreliable source, as it will be heavily biased in favor of the film and will tend to assert much more notability than the film has. Just the fact that the film is "microbudget" and not being filmed by an established production company is evidence enough that this is non-notable for Wikipedia inclusion purposes. --Hnsampat 15:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Recreate if it's a big success. JJL 16:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry, no third-party sources. Ab e g92contribs 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability. Hut 8.5 18:26, 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. --Core desat 04:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letter of general Alesandro Luzan to Benito Mussolini[edit]

No sources despite the fact that the page existed for over a year. Just plain propaganda. The Spanish Inquisitor 09:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most ghits for Alesandro Luzan point to versions of this article, and I can't find a reference to him in any context other than this alleged letter. Did he actually exist at all? BTLizard 09:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and possibly speedy as possible attack article. I'd like to assume good faith, but given the explosive content of this supposed letter plus the fact that it doesn't seem to be referred to by anyone outside of Wikipedia (which seems vanishingly unlikely at best given the letter's content - if it really existed it would be known worldwide by thousands of historians) except Stormfront makes me wonder if this is something modern that's been created solely to discredit Croats. The fact that the only site outside of Wikipedia and mirrors to discuss it is Stormfront is also troubling. --Charlene 10:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only source is Stormfront? Wow, that's a new low. Ab e g92contribs 17:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not oppose this article's recreation if reliable sources can be found. I just can't find any, and I really have no idea where to look beyond what I've already done. Is anybody in a library right now? Is this letter published in a physical text anywhere? ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 19:24, 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. Article is in nearly an unusable state and quite possibly is a copyvio. If anyone can attest that it's not a copyright violation and wants the content to work on improving the article with published sources, I will make it available to you. W.marsh 17:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vio Romano[edit]

Appears to defy notability and verifiability. NMChico24 10:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was an Italian sculptor, and apparently well-known in Venice: I've found references to his work at the Ca Pesaro Museum in Venice[25] and the North Carolina state capitol[26], but I'm guessing most of his work was done in the 50s in Italy so there might not be many online references. And this article... Is there a Wikiproject for modern Italian art? --Charlene 10:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brings up a mass of Google hits, though almost all in Italian which I do not read that well. Article needs a lot of work, that's true, but this appears to be a notable sculptor and perhaps the article should be given a chance in the hope that someone more knowledgable can lick it into shape. Weak keep. Emeraude
Delete as unnotable. The online references to his work mentioned above refer to a temporary collective exhibition at Ca' Pesaro and to a copy he made. Stammer 11:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:45, 3 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. DES ^(talk) 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Harper Kucinich[edit]

In her own right, non-notable having done nothing special beyond marrying a politician, who may, but more likely may not, become President of the US. At best, worth a mention in his article but until she becomes first lady not worthy of her own. Emeraude 10:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think if this article is cleaned up and links to Myspace are removed from the notes it could be suitable. The Sunshine Man 11:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Would keep if it can be established that her non-profit work is independently notable. Wl219 11:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just as "notability is not inherited," one can't "marry into" notability, either. --Hnsampat 13:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The 2008 election cycle is now beginning, and she is a spousal participant and no less important than was Laura Bush in 2000 and 2004. If Dennis Kucinich is eliminated, then I agree that this article should go too.
Keep If verifiable information can be garnered from "multiple, non trivial sources" the the media has bestowed "notability". Notability should never be subjective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, especially with Times Online article. Ab e g92contribs 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N, in the US in this media age, potential first ladies tend to be newsworthy and get non-trivial media coverage. A major party candidate's wife seems here seems no different. Carlossuarez46 22:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being married to a US presidential candidate is plenty notable, especially given the unusual nature of this couple. FC 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dissenting comment - Bear in mind that there are currently 8 candidates running for the Democratic nomination and 10 running for the Republican nomination, not to mention a whole bunch of third-party candidates. If Elizabeth Kucinich is notable solely for being the wife of someone seeking his party's nomination for President, does that mean that Jackie Tancredo, Lynne Hunter, Margaret Gilmore, etc., are all notable enough to have their own articles? I don't think so. Now, if Elizabeth Kucinich has done enough to be notable in her own right, that's different. However, if the consensus here is that being the wife of a presidential candidate is enough to make one notable, then I must strongly disagree with the consensus. --Hnsampat 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment - Regarding the four sources given in this article, two are clearly unreliable sources (Elizabeth Kucinich's MySpace page and the page on her on Dennis Kucinich's official website). The other two both tend to be biased because of localism. (One is a Cincinnati newspaper describing how Cincinnati's congressman—Dennis Kucinich—met his current wife. The other is the Times, describing how a "local Essex girl" now has a remote chance of becoming the First Lady of the United States.) Certainly, both newspapers are generally considered reliable sources, but I'm not sure if they are detached from the subject enough to be considered "independent" for notability purposes. --Hnsampat 17:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I think the "localism" argument is applying too high a bar for WP:RS. If you look at the reliable sources section of WP:BLP, nothing in that policy restricts the use of otherwise reliable sources for being too local. Nor does Wikipedia:Independent sources say anything about local sources being less independent than any other kind of source. Wl219 05:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response - I know, and I don't mean to suggest that the newspapers here are not reliable sources per se. I'm just saying that the fact that Elizabeth Kucinich is mentioned there is not necessarily enough to make her notable for Wikipedia purposes. Local sources have a tendency to make local individuals or local events seem more notable than they actually are. In making this argument, I am saying that Elizabeth Kucinich being mentioned in these sources is NOT necessarily evidence of her notability. The primary argument, however, remains that being the wife of someone seeking his party's nomination is not sufficient to confer notability on her; she must be notable in her own right. --Hnsampat 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Further to my nomination, she has nothing notable in her own right. If being the wife of a possible (though odds against) presidential candidate is important, and that is the only thing out of the ordinary for her, she is worth a mention in his article. IF he gets elected, she will probably deserve an article. Until then, she has done nothing of notability except get married. Emeraude 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Hnsampat.--JayJasper 13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dennis Kucinich. John Vandenberg 08:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Its a weak keep at this instant in time. As the election cycle progresses, this page will either become more and more an obvious keep or an obvious delete. Right now, its too hard to say. In a year, it will be obvious. Why bother deleting now, it makes no sense. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom: non-notable (just being married to someone who has a WP article is not sufficient grounds to assert notability), no special achievement to mention. Turgidson 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep. Earlier proposal to merge with her husband's article failed. Should be treated like any other article on a minor current celebrity who we have verifiable information on. -- Infrogmation 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please there are multiple nontrivial sources for this yuckfoo 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep She may be the next first lady of the US and does gets media attention. dr. yesterday 06:18, 4 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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Talson[edit]

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show. Has done nothing to distinguish herself since the show ended, and is just another inexperienced and struggling model in a very crowded and competitive field. Mikeblas 12:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, early loser in competition. Ab e g92contribs 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, eight position is not notable. No evidence of other notability. John Vandenberg 08:56, 3 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. Peacent 15:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sisi Wang[edit]

Losing contestant on a reality television show. This contestant did not distinguish herself in the competition, and since the end of the competition has not attained notability, either. She was just another face in a crowded and over-competitive field, but has since left her agency and is apparently no loger working as a model. Mikeblas 12:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is ample precedent to remove articles on losing reality show contestants. The other material is immaterial. YechielMan 12:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Just not that notable. Ab e g92contribs 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another failed non-notable contestant bites the dust. Time please! Her 15 minutes are up. Ohconfucius 03:40, 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. Sr 13 02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant First Class Paul Curry[edit]

Probable hoax article, comletely unverified, speed delete tag was removed Davewild 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a hoax and is completely unreferenced. Can't find much information on the guy, and if it is true it would seem like a very difficult article to reference. -- Mikeblas 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, very probably a hoax. The creator has also inserted nonsense into several other articles [27]. Hut 8.5 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Agree that it is probably a WP:HOAX, it also has no search results besides Wikipedia. hmwith talk 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suspected hoax. Check to make sure author hasn't seeded the hoax elsewhere like he did with Delta Force. DarkAudit 16:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, no cources. JJL 16:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Hoax. Only two Medals of Honor were ever awarded in actions in Iraq, Paul Curry is not one of them. It is actually illegal for a person to claim to have received it when he did not. --† Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 16:47, 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 Speedy keep. PeaceNT 15:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL says that if it has not happened, we can't have an article on it. Future Rules 12:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although these events haven't happened, it's pretty sure that they will. Catastrophic events could happen, I suppose, to prevent things such as the Faroese parliamentary elections or the launch of the space shuttle Atlantis, only a complete breakdown of the Solar System itself could prevent the total solar eclipse on 7 February. These events aren't so uncertain as they seem. Nyttend 13:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As per WP:CRYSTAL - Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Next year clearly fufills this. Davewild 13:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ SNOWBALL keep - WP:CRYSTAL is a policy to prevent people from speculating about future events, but does not prevent us from writing about events that we know are going to occur. Looking over the article, there are some items there that may individually violate WP:CRYSTAL but the article as a whole doesn't stand a chance of being deleted. --Hnsampat 13:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Sun could explode tomorrow and we would all die and then the elections so on would have no-one on them.'''[[User:Lizzie Harrison|Lizzie[[User talk:Lizzie_Harrison|Harrison]]''']] 14:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Yes, but barring that, the year 2008 is expected to come. (It would, in fact, come anyway, as time does not stop if the Sun explodes. There'd just be nobody here to keep track of time. But, then again, if the Sun explodes, then there would be no more Wikipedia, so violating WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't be much of a problem anyway.) WP:CRYSTAL allows us to create articles for expected events. It just does not allow us to speculate. That's why, for example, we can't have an article on a fifth Jaws movie; it hasn't been planned and one could only guess as to when it would be made or what it would be about. --Hnsampat 15:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. That's not exactly what WP:CRYSTAL says. Hut 8.5 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep can keeps be snowed too? --Whsitchy 15:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, they can, and this one ought to be. --Hnsampat 15:32, 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 Nom withdrawn. PeaceNT 04:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Horn Academy building[edit]

Non-notable historic building; its creation by the same editor as Roland Simmons makes me wonder if it's slightly advertising his business Nyttend 13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the link I added from the Wyoming SHPO (along with the text) explains why the building is notable. I don't think it's notable that Roland Simmons is renting out the building, but the high school itself is significant for its role in the development of education in the Bighorn Basin. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's different. I'd like to withdraw this nomination — could an administrator please remove it? Nyttend 01:59, 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. --Core desat 04:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New American (people)[edit]

Probable neologism, no verifiable sources, google search reveals no uses of the 'New American' in this context Davewild 13:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOR semper fictilis 15:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As near as I can tell, this article consists of 100% pure original research. Delete accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources, appears to be original research. Couldn't find anything about it on Google. --Nehrams2020 06:52, 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. Sr 13 02:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Alan Miller[edit]

Nice young man, but this article is a violation of: WP:NN; WP:NOT#WEBSPACE; WP:COI (formerly WP:VANITY). The "Sources" in the article are misleading and do not establish notability. All young rabbis today are busy with getting their PR on the web and they usually work hard to get mentioned in the media somehow, but that does not make them notable as rabbis nor as public personalities. There are thousands of minor rabbis that have done more, but they are no more deserving of articles either. IZAK 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 14:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Shuki 15:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete although those are reliable sources, I don't believe that every single person ever mentioned in them deserves an article in an encyclopedia. As said in the nomination, definitely not notable enough. hmwith talk 15:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not really important mentions. Ab e g92contribs 17:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I agree with Abeg92 that the problem here is marginal mentions and hence insufficient sources demonstrating notability. With the possible exception of the New York Times article, the independent sources listed so far don't really make him a substantial focus. For example, the Wall Street Journal source is a letter to the editor -- marginal as a reliable source -- and it mentions him only because he happens to be the current Rabbi of a synagogue which had previously switched from Orthodox to Conservative (which was itself incidental to the letter-writers opinion on the subject of Mechitza). It's just not about him as all and says nothing of substance. Likewise sources such as the Katrina project aren't independent. Similarly, I don't believe being the rabbi or minister of a congregation hosting a local politician creates notability since such events are incidental to clergy and happen all the time. So I don't really see enough sources here which are clearly (a) reliable, (b) independent, (c) cover him in a substantial way and say enough about him to support a biography under WP:BLP. If there were additional sources addressing these issues my view would change. The article appears to be a good-faith biography effort, just an insufficiently sourced one, so I don't see any issue of WP:NOT. --Shirahadasha 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete isn't notable in any way. Jon513 11:42, 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. Sr 13 02:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O'town[edit]

This article has a lot of copied text from P$C, there doesn't seem to be such a town called "O'Town" in England, and the external links only seem to be random blog profiles around MySpace and Hi5. Couldn't find a proper Speedy Delete template, so I assume this is a normal nomination. ~IS7 15:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copy-and-paste hoax. DarkAudit 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. Ab e g92contribs 17:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,, you could probably tag this under G1. Seems like an open/shut hoax to me. 68.186.51.190 17:19, 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 Speedy Delete - CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringment of http://www.newroads.org/index.php. Adambro 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Roads School[edit]

Article is copied word for word from their website. 99DBSIMLR 15:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only see one paragraph that is a definite copyvio. But they still don't seem to be notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio. This is the 'About Us' page off their site. DarkAudit 16:05, 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 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barracuda (Fergie song)[edit]

No significance claimed, and its status and nature is very unclear. Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like a cover of a Stevie Nicks song to me --Whsitchy 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're probably thinking of the Heart song. --Evb-wiki 16:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete it's a recreate of a non-notable song. The original was created by a now-indefinitely blocked user who created loads of articles about non-notable songs. This song is no more notable now than when it was first deleted. Acalamari 01:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable; information could be moved to Fergie (singer) and Shrek the Third articles. Closenplay 20:17, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greenhouse Conspiracy[edit]

A reference to a small non-notable show on British TV in the '90s, relies on a single blog-entry + the show itself. Kim D. Petersen 16:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ as per nom :-) --Kim D. Petersen 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge to equinox. The reason for changing my vote is that this just might be the first film of this kind per JQ (see lower). --Kim D. Petersen 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 16:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable old TV show; ancient (1990) and no longer relevant to its scientific topic or policy implications. Raymond Arritt 17:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No third party sources at all, no real info to put here. Oren0 20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Equinox (television) I can't exactly follow the notability criteria that justify an entry on every episode of South Park but exclude documentaries on important issues, but I'll accept that they apply here, and propose a merge, on the assumption that the series as a whole is as notable as a cartoon episode. Anyway although the entry a bit stubby, I'd note some points of significance about this program.

As far as I can tell, it's the earliest occurrence of the claim that global warming theory is a deliberate fraud

WRT obsolescence, a comparison with The Great Global Warming Swindle is interesting - neither the participants nor the claims have changed much in fifteen years.

It's one of a number of instances of Equinox programs making similar claims in controversial areas of science. JQ 21:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Equinox (television) I note that this AfD was only created in response to the Exposed: The Climate of Fear AfD looking like not gaining consensus. It's disappointing to see an apparent effort against NPOV by attempting to delete as many articles as possible from one side of the climate change debate (possibly to pretend that the debate doesn't exist). In the case of this article, I believe that its current length is such that it would be more appropriate to upmerge rather than maintain a stand-alone article, but if it gets enough attention and grows enough because of this AfD then I'd support its retention as an article in its own right. --Athol Mullen 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, merge would be a reasonable alternative to delete. A coherent overview is better than a bunch of stubby articles on every episode. Raymond Arritt 00:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. The individual episode is not notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; won awards[28] and it is cited by academic papers. It would be worth mentioning on Equinox, or possibly merging to that article, but it is not suitable for deletion. John Vandenberg 12:34, 3 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 Redirected per WP:BOLD by User:Ohconfucius . —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Maughan[edit]

Misspelled title - there's nothing here to merge that isn't better covered in the article W. Somerset Maugham BPMullins | Talk 17:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to W. Somerset Maugham per nom. It may be a pretty common misspelling; thus valuable as a search term. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 19:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. 23skidoo 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Peterkingiron 20:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Redirected as plausible typo/spelling error per WP:BOLD and per above. Ohconfucius 03:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay by me. I thought of the redirect, but the misspelling seemed implausible to me. I was probably wrong on reflection. Close this one, please. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:53, 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 per consensus of established editors. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. No reliable published sources have been provided. --Core desat 04:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stick game[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This page was a redirect to Hand game. Now it is an article about a game made up a couple of years ago. Sounds fun and all, but likely a game made up by a group of friends and as of yet non-notable. No leagues or anything like that from what I can tell. Reminds me a little of the debate over Intense frisbee from a few years ago. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page:

Gaff,

The stick game league is indeed a real league and game that is run out of a fitness gym in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. I created the page simply to inform people of the game and to promote it as a great game to play. I do not think it should get deleted because it is an informative page. The Stick Game league is trying to go mainstream and is in the proccess of trying to gain sponsers. I worked hard on creating this page and it would be a great disappointment if it were deleted

Thank you

Daga237 18:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I sympathize with the creator's intentions, but Wikipedia is not for things made up in the gym one day. Such a game would better be "promoted" on a private website; probably that of the gym itself would be most appropriate. If the game gains popularity and eventually fulfills the notability guidelines, then this page could be recreated. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 19:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just NFT, more an hoax with all this Marat stuff. -- RHaworth 21:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its not a hoax. it is a name given to something in the sport. from my understanding, the creator of a sport may name certain aspects of the sport whatever he chooses. One of the founders of Stick game believes he is a direct descendent of Jean Paul Marat so we decided to name something in his honor. Sounds crazy i know but its true. Plus, who is this hurting by keeping the page on here? Its informing people of a sport and helping the already informed make it more widely played for the benefit of the game. To delete this would be a giant blow to Shrewsbury Health and Athletic complex as well as the creators and already supporters of stick game.Daga237 03:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDONTKNOWIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.13.238 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 May 2007
Delete. It may be real, but it has no reliable sources. Unfortunately, the only arguments you give to keep it, Daga237, seem to be ones covered in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, namely: "I like it", "It's useful / interesting", "It doesn't do any harm", and "Fame in x" (where x here is Shrewsbury). Please read these guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability, which are the other issues that push the delete comments. Confusing Manifestation 04:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was bored one night just browsing through wikipedia and I came across this little page. I feel that it would be against the civil liberties of the creators. I am from west of Boston as well and if more information were given, I would try to get my kids involved in such a game or even myself (depending on the level of play). Theres no real reason to get rid of this article and it would be completely unfair to the creators and participents of this sport if you were to do so. -Sweetness— 76.19.215.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Stick game should be kept on Wiki. Wiki is all-knowing and removing the Stick Game page would thus deny the Wiki of its right to know all. Free the Wiki. Go Tribe! -Tito— 141.154.70.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I am an employee of the Webster Recreational Fitness Center where stick game has become very prominent during our Winter Stick Game Jamborees, which we hosted every Sunday night starting December 17, 2006 until March 11, 2007. After rigorous tryouts we finally chose the four best players to represent the Webster Recreational Fitness Center who challenged the Uxbridge Healthty Lifestyles Complex and Quinebaug Strength and Fitness Center. The jamborees were a major success drawing enormous crowds every week and became so popular that nearby Nichols College in Dudley, Massachusetts adopted stick game as an intramural sport. It would be an unspeakable shame to crush recognition for an upcoming sport with such a bright future. -Laurel F. — 65.78.13.238 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment to Sweetness, Tito, Daga237, and Laurel F: Unfortunately, as fun as your sport sounds, it is not yet verifiable from third party sources that it even exists. This is a big sticking point on wikipedia. Since you are all newcomers, it may not have occurred to you that we recieve thousands of new articles every day. Even though wikipedia is sometimes mocked in the media, there actually are standards here and a lot of editors working hard on a volunteer basis to maintain the project.—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the editors: we have documented video from a year or 2 ago of a pickup game of stick. If that doesnt satisfy your disbelief that it doesnt exist then i dont know what to tell you because, as it is in its early stages, there are not many other "verifiable" sources i can provide you with. But, just because i have a small amount or verifiable sources doent mean it is not a real thing. Daga237 21:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. one of your "hard working" editors above used an arguement that wikipedia has deemed "avoidable" so his status as a credible editor has been lost in my eyes.Daga237 21:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There is a saying around here that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your sport may grow into the next big thing, at which point Wikipedia will absolutely have room for an article about it. However, even you recognize a struggle to prove it exists, much less that it is in any way notable. It may surprise you, but there are guidlines about these things already in Wikipedia. By your own statements just given, however, this article is not a keeper. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source-[29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daga237 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 31 May 2007
- Comment. Unfortunately, this source qualifies as a primary source. Whenever possible, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources. YouTube is also not necessarily reliable (anyone can pretty much upload anything), and this video, while it may establish the primary existence of the sport, does nothing to address the concerns raised about the sport's notability qualifications for a Wikipedia article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:06, 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 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Coletti[edit]

Non-notable subject - no google hits support this article. There has been no response to a request for references, nor any attempt to address the issue in any way. This article appears to a disquised spam article promoting http://www.yourfaithtoday.com/ . Evb-wiki 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Whs itc hy 18:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. DarkAudit 18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable bio. Spam sentence has already been removed, so speedy not applicable. AKRadecki 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still looks like spam to me. DarkAudit 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's possibly true, but it's also a bio that asserts notability, so is disqualified from CSD AKRadecki 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only so far as a bio speedy is concerned. Notability and spam are completely separate speedy categories. DarkAudit 20:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - yeah. Of course, I had orig. tagged speedy as nonsense. Running for Pres. 2012? sure. --Evb-wiki 20:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone's favorite youth minister; nonnotable. NawlinWiki 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can chime in (not sure that this is the right place for it). Chris Coletti and his work are rapidly gaining followers and fans among LCMS church and the national LCMS office in St. Louis. He has proven himself for many years to be among the most innovative and unrelenting LCMS workers of our time,^{Citation needed.} there is no doubt about that. If the mention of the website is the problem, I would suggest taking that portion off. But without a doubt the entire entry shouldn't be removed. His contribution within LCMS circles and his growing fame among Christianity warrants the mention on him. Thanks for your time.

I just noticed one thing in the discussion...........he does plan on running for President in 2012.^{Citation needed.} He understands that it's too late for the 2008 campaign, but sees the 2012 as a realistic opportunity to have his ideas reach a larger audience.....I think he understands that he wouldn't win the election, but hopes to pull in 2 - 4% of the vote and thus get the discuss of the issues going in a direction he feels they should go. So that part is legitimate.

- The added links do not support the factual claims made in the article nor do they establish the subjects notability. --Evb-wiki 03:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see how anyone could make a usable stub of the material here, and I would have said speedy as spam--there isn't even any basic biography. If he becomes more notable and people actually publish something informative, then we might be able to have an article. DGG 07:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has actually become more spammy during the course of the discussion. DarkAudit 16:15, 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. Sr 13 01:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abtissue pathology[edit]

Implausible and unverifiable entity, impresses as a transparent hoax. Delete. JFW | T@lk 18:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverfiable, per nom. A thorough search of ghits turned up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. One source did use the term, but gave no indication as to what it is. Someguy1221 20:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. -- MarcoTolo 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of Wikipedia mirrors in google, but zero articles in google scholar. Worth noting that Marek's disease virus has seamingly been modified as part of the hoax (the only other page edited by the editor who created this article) and the information was merged into Marek's disease. JulesH 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. --JayJasper 18:17, 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 --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The J curve as applied to medicine.[edit]

Vague rant about epidemiology. Interesting in principle, but not in this form or under this title. Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The fact that the relationship between a disease and a symptom takes a J-curve does not need a whole article. Someguy1221 20:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a separate section into J curve. Herostratus 21:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to J curve; I've copied the content there. John Vandenberg 12:44, 3 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. --Core desat 04:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4th Christina Milian album[edit]

How can there be an article about an album when the title isn't known yet? The reference doesnt mention anything about it. There was an article Christina Milian's 4th album, but that redirects to Christina Milian. It would definitely be keep if there was a known title, but as is stands Delete 99DBSIMLR 19:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable as nonexistent. --Evb-wiki 15:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No references, either. Closenplay 19:25, 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, content is in J curve --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The J Curve as applied to a country's trade balance[edit]

Unsourced and speculative piece of nonencyclopedic content. Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This information is largely in J curve. I am now spastically searching for an article, or piece of an article, that actually talks about the J curve itself. Someguy1221 07:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace the text of J Curve with the text of this article - this is the better article, but J Curve is the better article name. However, the J Curve#Country Status model section, perhaps that should be retained. Herostratus 20:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge and redirect. John Vandenberg 12:46, 3 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. --Core desat 04:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Mary Pauline Collins[edit]

Biography of retired doctor. Doesn't assert notability. Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'distinguished', but no mention of how, when, or where. DarkAudit 20:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No direct assertion of notability. Unable to locate relevant links on Google or via PubMed to support conditions of WP:N. -- MarcoTolo 01:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently no published papers after 1950 (at present the effective starting date of PubMed). This does not index the medical news and administration sections of the UK medical journals, so if her career was notable for such a reason it won't have been picked up here, but in the absence of references there's nothing more to do. DGG 07:21, 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 redirect. Editors may merge content as appropriate. W.marsh 16:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallsgrove[edit]

Nonnotable commercial and residential development (WP:N) and WP:V, as only source is not independent. Butseriouslyfolks 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Rockville, Maryland. Chris 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rockville, Maryland. Herostratus 20:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge to Rockville, Maryland. The current contents of the page are useful, esp. the history, however with only 300 news archive hits it's not quite notable. John Vandenberg 07:47, 3 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. --Core desat 04:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary (Game)[edit]

No claim to notability, didn't find any sources mentioning it. Recury 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, and possibly WP:SPAM. No Ghits whatsoever. Ohconfucius 04:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The game's web page (linked in the article) is blank. "Marcus Ltd", the supposed developer, appears to be a small computer shop (see their Kelly Directory entry here). Nothing to see here. JulesH 17:57, 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. W.marsh 13:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Surgery[edit]

Neologism, page created to support Canadian Network for International Surgery. Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main article needs some work, but the organization is probably notable. Can't see why anyone thought it would help to have this page as well. DGG 07:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "International Surgery" is the name of a journal.[30] John Vandenberg 12:51, 3 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 17:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Prankard[edit]

Contested speedy with the reason 'not sufficient for speedy deletion'. Biog of 19th century missionary. The article offers no claim to notability and no sources. No independent sources appear to be available. Nuttah68 20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to James Gilmour, whom she married almost immediately after landing in China. Her ministry in Beijing can be adequately included in the section on marriage, as can her background, but this will probably only expand that article by a few sentences. Unless some one can show more notability (other than as his wife), I regret that this article. Should not be allowed to survive. The title should in any event be Emily Gilmour and the phrase 'Emily Prankard Gilmour' should not appear. The names of English married women only take this form if the husband adopts his wife's surname as a handle on his own. Peterkingiron 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: Merge and Redirect to James Gilmour Brian0324 13:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Gilmour per Peterkingiron. I've merged the content. John Vandenberg 13:00, 3 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 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looner[edit]

Non-notable band, speedied once. Signed by new Ziggy Marley label, but that's it. Anon editor tried to imply notability because label's first release won a Grammy. No sources other than official site, MySpace and dead link to label's site. Realkyhick 20:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I was the one who removed the speedy, I do have some qualms about the notability of the article. --TeaDrinker 02:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - This is a band with two notable entertainers whose records receive frequent airplay on both satellite radio networks, XM & Sirius as well as touring w/ acts such as Damian Marley, Cold War Kids, Oslo and Ziggy Marley. They've performed at major venues across the US, including Red Rocks, The Greek Theater and Wolftrap. They've been featured on NPR and are on a major label - Tuff Gong Worldwide / Ryko / WEA.76.173.232.207 02:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source or Delete. Wikipedia is not myspace. I dislike the smoke and mirrors act the author has been using, and would probably vote delete for that reason alone. Deception is much frowned upon as a way to get one's article listed in wikipedia. I have deleted band publicity in the body of the article masquerading as a review - see talk page. I have added one source/review by some college website, but this remains insufficient. The band may indeed be notable, but please substantiate why/how the band passes WP:MUSIC, with reliable sources. Ohconfucius 04:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete -We've added some proper source materials and will add more. This band is indeed notable. We're just learning the protocol here for listing properly, sources, etc. How do I source the band's extensive touring? Schedules, pollstar? please help.76.173.232.207 08:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, you have already spoken above. Sr 13 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: First of all, your case would be held greatly if you registered as a user instead of editing using an anonymous IP address. As for citing tour schedules, find a page on the Internet that lists it, copy and paste the URL, then put it between single brackets, like this: [http://www.tourschedules.com/looner.htm]. But do remember that the band Looner does not inherit its notability from the record label, the individual members (if it were a new band formed by someone like Paul McCartney, for example, that would be different), or its association with Ziggy Marley. We need some sort of verificaiton that independent press sources have commented on the band in some way, or that it has charted a song. You need to supply proof. And be advised that any hint of deception on your part will get this article removed faster than Chuck Barris on The Gong Show. Realkyhick 08:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The search engine results for the band yield only the official site of the band and the myspace entry. There aren't any mentions of awards won by the band either, nor are there any charted hits. The only thing was a performance 3 years ago. Hence it doesn't satisfy WP:N or WP:BAND.--Kylohk 19:23, 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 all. Sr 13 23:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of trends in music (1980-1989)[edit]

Nomination also includes

Completely unsourced list of indiscrimate information that is clearly original research. Part of a whole collection that needs to be looked at as a group. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "US 70 to present" as there has not been enough distance for an objective look at the material, resulting in POV-pushing and original research. Indifferent on the others, but would be inclined to keep if the material could be sourced. -- saberwyn 22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 70's and 80's. Weak Delete on the rest; they are not filled with fancruft mash-notes, but they are not sourced, and it's unlikely that they will be. If someone starts adding sources, I'll shift to Weak Keep on the older ones. Horologium talk - contrib 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with these articles is that they are too ambitious in their scope, and consequently have little information in them. Instead of concentrating on a geographical region or a general genre, they attempt to cover all regions and all styles of music, and as a result have no focus and appear to be a random cobbling together of factoids, unsourced ones at that. I'd prefer to see smaller, more focused articles, which are easier to source and maintain, and are more likely to draw people who are knowledgeable about that particular subject. Huge and diffuse categories tend to produce huge, diffuse headaches when they grow out of control, like the newer articles in this series have demonstrated. Horologium talk - contrib 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Horologium has hit upon much of what I felt, looking over these articles. Look, you might be able to have some articles on the musical trends with articles organized around chronology, or you can do it based upon geography, but realistically, you can't include both in the same article without it becoming either too long or too thin. My own thinking is that these articles are not so much about trends as they are about events. Maybe some type of retroactive music almanac can be created, listing significant events, but I don't know. I would guess that articles based upon geography would likely be more interesting reads, but that becomes increasingly problematic with the increasing interconnectiveness of the world. (I'm sure that there are iPods in Addis Ababa playing many of the same songs as are playing on iPods in Kansas City.)

I'm slightly—only slightly—disinclined to endorse deletion across the board for one reason: The articles dealing with older periods should, I believe, be salvagable. Why? Because unlike the articles on music of the nineties and music of the aughts, we do now have the advantage of perspective on the sixties and perhaps the seventies. So I'm going to wait until I read more comments before I decide how to vote.

Regardless of the outcome, I do want to demand the following of whomever will either save or resurrect these articles: Write them in prose. These articles have been called out on the carpet ostensibly because of their lack of sourcing and their POV style. These indictments are true, but the same can be said of many other articles that embarrass us less. Why? Because it is obvious to anyone with average intelligence how they were written: Thoughtlessly, one line at a time, by one editor per line. They simply do not read like articles. I do endorse having someone keep all the old copies and then taking a great deal of time, offline, working to create some well-flowing, well-organized articles on these topics. Such articles would have a better chance of surviving scrutiny. Unschool 04:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I had hoped that some of these would be better than the now-deleted 2000s or the 1990s articles. There have been things written about trends in the development of music and the evolution of new styles. Unfortunately, these articles don't have anything to do with that. Each of them is an unsourced, uncited list of arbitrarily selected historical one-liners. This is a timeline, not an article on trends, and even then its lack of sourcing and arbitary selection would seem to make it unworkable at best and novel synthesis at worst. Serpent's Choice 02:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, indiscriminate OR lists, as the nom indicates. This isn't the correct way to approach this topic, as I stated on the DRV for the 2000s list. --Core desat 06:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so one of the main problems listed with these articles is that the title, "timeline of music trends", doesn't correctly cover the info in the articles. Well then maybe instead of deleting them, the articles' titles should be changed to "-s in music" (which is a redirect to all of them), since this is more inclusive.--Azer Red Si? 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we end up with then is a properly named collection of unsourced drivel. The biggest problem is not the name, it's the content. If it were only the name that were the issue, then anyone could have renamed it, under WP:BOLD. Here, however, we have a problem with name, scope, and content. As I pointed out earlier, I am not strongly opposed to the pre-1970 articles, although they have the same structural issues as the newer ones. But unless somebody starts sourcing them, they should go away. Nobody has speedied them, which gives editors time to address the issues raised in the AfD. Another issue is the lack of discussion; only one of the talk pages has more than one comment, and it is in the most recent of the group, which is the least salvageable. People are just adding stuff to the pages without explanation or discussion. Even the edit summaries are weak; most of the summaries with content refer to disambigs or grammar changes, not added content. Horologium talk - contrib 20:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Serpent's Choice. No clear standards are being used to determine what is in and what is out of these articles. Virtually anything that was recorded or released in a given year could be included as starting or participating in a trend. --Metropolitan90 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I'm convinced. Unschool 02:21, 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 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defining the diseases[edit]

Reads more like a lecture on epidemiology. While fascinating, this material is already well covered in more aptly titled articles. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find sources, and very few ghits for "Defining the diseases." Possibly one person writing about his own little theory. Someguy1221 23:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic (lack of context, tone) and possible WP:OR issues. -- MarcoTolo 01:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. --JayJasper 18:25, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disseminated disease[edit]

Vague enumeration, almost a dicdef, of medical entities to which this term could refer. Generally unhelpful, unsourced and unverfiable. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a legitimate entry, though I suspect it will always be a stub. As written, however, the article is vague, without significant context and with little content. Delete. -- MarcoTolo 01:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vague. Herostratus 20:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, suitable topic. John Vandenberg 13:17, 3 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. Arguments for deletion appear to be stronger than those for keeping. --Core desat 04:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in medicine[edit]

Medicine is full of unsolved problems. Some are major, e.g. how to cure cancer, and some are minor, such as the optimum treatment (phenol or not) for recurrent ingrown toenails. This list does not define where minor problems stop and major ones start. This would be arbitrary. Furthermore, some problems are regarded as solved by some and unsolved by others, opening this up to POV bias. A previous AFD (Aug 06) was contentious, but I feel this list should go. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & to badly misquote the former US defense secretary: "there are unsolved problems we don't even know are problems that need to be solved." Carlossuarez46 22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as any condition that still exists could be considered an "unsolved problem in medicine" by the loosest of terms. Someguy1221 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are seven other articles of the same sort; some with less content that the medicine one (e.g. biology); are we absolutely confident that the article could not be improved to the standard of, say, Unsolved problems in physics? Unless we are, this shouldn't be deleted. Also, it seems to me the reason given for deletion is rather weak: practically every article on Wikipedia has to contend with the problem of what is major (i.e. worth of being in an encyclopaedia article) and what isn't, the fact that an arbitary line has to be drawn somewhere doesn't mean the page should be deleted. Most articles are "open... to POV bias" as well; but then that's why we have WP:NPOV. -- Simxp 01:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In both mathematics and physics, all "unsolved problems" can be in some way traced back to the inability of existing theories to explain phenomena, or provide a feasible mechanism to accomplish something, as well as some undeniably famous conjectures or observances for which there is no explanation or proof. These two I will consider good examples of "unsolved problems" pages. For medical problems, however, I personally don't see a way to compile a list that would be anything but completely arbitrary. If someone can give some good criteria, please do. This page could also be considered largely redundant to the biology analog, which is going through its own issues. And so, beyond matters of OR or POV, if this is not but an arbitrary list, then it fails WP:NOT, for Wikipedia is not an arbitrary collection of information. Someguy1221 03:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Ezratrumpet 03:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, though it might be possible to compile an objective article on the basis of other authoritative lists. I know its not enough of a reason, but articles like this are useful for beginners or browsing. DGG 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is similar to the list of unsolved problems in biology (currently being nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination)) in that it lacks precise criteria for what belongs on the list and what not. I expect from everybody who votes to keep this list a proposal for such criteria. Cacycle 12:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --David Iberri (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As many have noted, a set of criteria for this type of article is very difficult to establish. Yes, there are lots of unsolved questions in medicine - and there are many partially-solved ones, too. And some significant and valid disagreement in the literature about what falls in which category. "Unsolved problems in <insert basic science of your choice>" entries at least have a chance of being reasonable articles. Some of these articles ("..in physics") are moderately straightforward, while others ("...in biology") are much harder: the "...in medicine" entry is much more difficult to even define properly as is likely to degenerate into a series of POV wars due to its very nature while failing to be comprehensive enough to be worthwhile. -- MarcoTolo 00:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This is a good start for a legitimate topic. Perhaps the title should be Major problems in medicine instead of "unsolved" problems, but other than this this IMO is an article in need of attention ad not deletion. --EMS | Talk 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article as it stands is an unstructured series of poorly phrased series of perceived disgruntlements with modern conventional medicine. Many of entries are more speculative rather than indicating true areas needing, and undergoing, serious research. The article on problems in physics is a fine article and very much as a science TV program, or science text book might structure the recognisied task-list. As it stands, the current Unsolved_problems_in_medicine contents need be dumped. A restart, along the lines of the physics example, might avoid problems as set out in above comments. Perhaps structure under specialities or systemic systems, hence under cardiology one might have "the optimum point of intervening with statins", or "how much of cardioprotective effect of statins is from the absolute lowering of cholesterol levels and how much from their possible anti-inflammatory effects on endothelium". Likewise under oncology, not will there be one cure for all cancers, but perhaps "what role might generalised gene therapy have over conventional chemotherapy drugs" or "how much of genetic susceptability to diseases can or should be screened for" (as very sad if our ability predict disease exceeds our ability to treat). David Ruben ^Talk 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost all problems in medicine are partly solved, some to greater or lesser degrees. Whether something is unsolved enough to belong on this list is inherently POV. ike9898 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Medicine is a good area for a list like this, although, of course, it is a moving target. First, issues like frequency and human harm impacted by a problem can be used to determine notability. Second, medicine is a relatively well organized profession with a well known series of journals for the profession as a whole and for individual specialties, that make identifying the authority of an reference easier. Medicine also has a Nobel prize to provide exemplars of previously notable unsolved problems that have since been solved. As I've noted in chemistry and biology, almost all problems are partially solved -- so what? Fermat's Theorem was partially solved for hundreds of years (as we knew it was true in a large class of cases) but it was still a great unsolved problem in mathematics. Human medicine is also a more discrete field than say biology or chemistry -- there are a smaller number of potential issues of note, there are also a great number of completely solved problems and boundaries between medicine and non-medicine are particularly clear. I'll restate here that the real question is what are the major issues facing contemporary medical researchers right now. The fact that some problems are more notable than others is an issue with every class of wikipedia article from biography, to books, to ideas, to organizations -- the fact that judgment is required does not mean that distinctions can't be made indeed the examples given of notable and non-notable topics (hangnails v. cancer) show how intuitively clear many case can be. Ohwilleke 21:50, 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. Sr 13 22:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Jones (Actor)[edit]

Non notable biog. A large number of grandiose claims, none of which are notable. M Just importantly, unsourced and unverifiable. Nuttah68 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eleven-year-olds with no verifiable film credits are definitely nn. Clarityfiend 03:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article and per Clarityfiend. Fails WP:BIO bigtime, and fails WP:A. Ohconfucius 04:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable. --Evb-wiki 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Internet actor, singer, and upcoming author? Isn't everyone? Very much not notable and suspiciously uncited. A few google searches later, I've come up with nothing. The kid may be notable in the future, but not now. María (habla conmigo) 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As search for claims the article brings forward only point to the article in question. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 10:23, 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 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weatherspoon[edit]

This is an odd one. There are cited, though very hard to track down, sources. It appears legitimate at first glance. However, the author has apparently been playing silly buggers here and there; leaving aside where he claims to be an obviously nonexistent academic, he has told us a pope resigned for cheese. Other than this, pretty much all his edits were to change one participant in the Babington Plot to link in to this article.

The article has some suspicious details; a "Viscount of Killiecrankie" is the most dubious, a title which never existed as far as I can tell. It might be legitimate, but it all seems just a little spurious and suspicious given the context... Shimgray | talk | 23:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embellishing this, there was an earlier version. It had four cited footnotes; the current footnote 1 was "Stewart (2002), passim.", the current footnote 2 was "Dobson (1998) 27-9, 317", and the others didn't directly correspond. So it certainly looks like some sources were made up somewhere... Shimgray | talk | 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a WP:HOAX. I don't see how "Roger de Viyarspuin" could have affected the Battle of Falkirk (1298) as claimed. The mention of the hedgehog also undermines its credibility. Clarityfiend 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the successive name changes are a little too cute. None of them are in DNB. Neither is any lordship of Kiliecrankie, (a true place & the site of a famous battle.)DGG 07:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as a disambiguation page for the many notable people named Weatherspoon (multiple basketball players come to mind). Then, it would be no different than any other dab. -- Kicking222 16:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the sources cited sound credible, Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series vol 35 does not contain an article by the title used in the first and third source (although it does contain other articles by the same author cited as having written the source). JulesH 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have searched databases (particularly the RHS bibliography, and none of the article cited appear to exist. This appears to be a hoax and should be deleted. Furthermore administrative action should be taken against the creator to prevent repetition. There is an article by Meekings C.A.F.: Roger of Whitchester. Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series vol 35, 100-128. This must be the basis of the hoax reference. If the article is to survive, it should be retitled Weatherspoon Family. Peterkingiron 14:34, 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.