< May 4 May 6 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted. –Pomte 05:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Davies[edit]

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

nonsense Mseliw 23:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. MarkTylers 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by me. J Milburn 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Brunk[edit]

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

notability? Mseliw 23:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Samir as WP:CSD#A7. --ais523 15:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Kim_Backstrom[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a blog SDS 22:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Hispanic culture[edit]

Hispanic culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article consists of: A copy pasted quote from a book. A copy pasted section from Hispanics_in_the_United_States#Usage_of_the_term_Hispanic_in_the_United_States.

It says nothing about the Hispanic culture, it's just copy paste. What we have in that article, is already found in the article Hispanics in the United States, Hispanic, and others.

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Championship Wrestling[edit]

British Championship Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable independent wrestling company. No evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney303 23:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sr13 (T|C) 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John David Ebert[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet the criteria of notability under WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Subject appears to have written two books, neither of which seems to satisfy the requirements to warrant a Wikipedia article on the subject. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most valuable comic books[edit]

List of most valuable comic books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article contains no citations; author has refused to provide them. As it stands, this appears to be nothing but original reasearch. Delete unless this information can be verified. Heimstern Läufer 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have no problem with whether or not you can get sources. That's irrelevant to my concerns, which is that this article appears to be a price guide, and as such, isn't quite encyclopedic on its face. If there is anything encyclopedic that can be gotten out of it though, try comic book collecting as a place to put it. FrozenPurpleCube 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan wargo[edit]

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

Idiot LSU student who threatened to kill Hillary Clinton and is now under indictment. Cites one news article, so not speediable, but he's no more notable than hundreds of people who've committed similar crimes. NawlinWiki 01:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leprachaun Vs. Chucky[edit]

Leprachaun Vs. Chucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is about a movie that doesn't exist, hasn't been confirmed to be in production and isn't even rumored to be in production. The page doesn't cite any sources for it's information, but I found out that the movie's purported story board was copied and pasted from this message board. It's in the "creative corner" section, where fan fiction is posted. Furthermore, the movie's poster is obviously fake, with "leprechaun" misspelled as "leprachaun". When I pointed this fact out to the article's creator, he quickly changed the movie's name to Leprachaun vs. Chucky (as if that makes the poster any less fake). Hence, I move for deletion of this article on the grounds that it is evidently fake with fan fiction as it's plot and because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, where speculation about movies that might someday happen has no place. Atlan 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOPH[edit]

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

Non-notable Warcraft mod/expansion/derivative (the article doesn't even really define what it is). No reliable sources furnished, and the article skews toward advertising in tone. Prod contested by the main contributor, so I'm sending it here. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "mere'?
"Notability guidelines do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc.'
Ehem... looks like you're bordering on that line. Slugonice 15:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 11:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven V. Walls[edit]

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

No hits at all on this person on Yahoo or Google--likely a hoax article. Blueboy96 01:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 03:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Town[edit]

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

Likely a hoax. No sources. Much of the content is copied from The Futureheads. Paul Erik 01:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 03:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karamzai[edit]

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

Subject appears to be not sufficiently notable. Article is completely unsourced and has no incoming links. Less than 50 non-wiki Google hits after eliminating false positives (about 100 total Google hits). Unfortunately, the article also provides very little context and is borderline unreadable as it stands now. Seed 2.0 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC) -- Seed 2.0 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nonhuman, Animated Disney Characters[edit]

List of Nonhuman, Animated Disney Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate huge list; Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. —tregoweth (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator per rewrite of article. John254 13:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People First (now at People-first language)[edit]

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

This article concerns an apparently non-notable term, cites only a single, polemical source, is written in the style of an unencyclopedic POV essay, and might constitute original research. John254 01:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I think it might be possible to start a worthwhile article on People First language, but this isn't it. — Demong talk 02:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Dalejenkins
Keep -- I believe the idea is linguistically and politically flawed (see [1]), but this certainly is a notable term which a multitude of sources can be found for courtesy of Google (43,000+ results). "People first" is also a common name of organizations for disabled people, or people with disabilities if you prefer. The article could use some neutral rewording, but other than that I find no real fault with it. However, it should be moved to People First language, as "people first" is also a political slogan in other contexts, with People First becoming a disambiguation page. kate theobaldy 09:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised and moved the article as per my statement above, I hope that's OK with you guys. kate theobaldy 11:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new version. The term seems to be notable (it is referred to in numerous academic publications). The other reasons given for deletion were perfectly valid for the first version of the article, but do no longer apply to the completely rewritten text by kate theobaldy. Regards, High on a tree 12:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo patents[edit]

List of Nintendo patents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate huge list; no need to duplicate the Patent Office database here. —tregoweth (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result was Keep. Caknuck 04:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Pye[edit]

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

Nominated for speedy deletion under A7 (non-notable biographies) by Diemunkiesdie but I consider that the article does assert notability of a kind. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 10:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 10:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sten Hostfalt[edit]

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

Edit history suggests that this page is autobiographical. Also lacks published sources that would assert notability. Rainwarrior 16:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all and thank you for your input. Helps to have experienced wikipeople involved. At this point, the article is supported by a good amount of credible and closely related sources. And the article is clearly and specifically referring to these and to what has been officially publicized. thanks --Sonusrex 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The links to several webpage CD reviews of the 29 Pieces for Microtonal Guitar do assert some notability. There is, however, still a clear conflict of interest, but at present the article seems limited to verifiable claims at least. - Rainwarrior 15:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point of view. Thank you. However, Guitar Player is the world's leading guitar magazine. An editor's pick there means major recognition. Regardless of how many sentences written about it. And of course the New York Jazz / improvised scene is in itself highly esteemed, NYC being the world's capital of Jazz. Anybody with a documented creative activity there will by default be making a significant contribution to the art form. Being part of the current developments on the NYC music scene for over a decade means being in the major league of that activity. All music guide will have several reasons for not including a bio. Many prominent musicians does not appear biographically there. However their activity is always recorded there. Rather, their respective associations (to other musicians) indicate their importance. --Sonusrex 05:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to André the Giant. WjBscribe 12:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andre The Giant (DVD)[edit]

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

nn DVD, just a compilation of matches with Andre. WP is not a directory or indiscriminate source of info. See similar reasoning on WWE DVDs in the afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake "The Snake" Roberts: Pick Your Poison Biggspowd 16:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Gray (technology journalist)[edit]

Tim Gray (technology journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Author almost certainly has a WP:COI, and in any case he doesn't seem to be notable. A Google search was inconclusive. YechielMan 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 00:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Stretch[edit]

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

A university-sponsored summer school program that doesn't appear to have received attention outside its group of participants and the faculty who take part in it. It doesn't seem to meet any notability guidelines or precedents. Joyous! | Talk 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NSD Student 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Samir 17:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanna Sherry[edit]

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

Non-notable Ghost Yacht 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is it too much asked that the nominator at least states why he thinks it's NN? Malc82 18:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I have to put forward a case for why I think this person isn't notable, rather than somebody having to put a case for why she is notable, as if people are notable unless proven otherwise? Bizarre! Ghost Yacht 11:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 (T|C) 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mennonite Church in Vietnam[edit]

Mennonite Church in Vietnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The unsourced statements in this article cannot be allowed to stand, per WP:BLP. I'm in the mood to just blow it up and start from scratch, but perhaps some of you can find a more moderate solution. YechielMan 23:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's an important subject and could be made much better with some small changes and references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.185.240.120 (talk • contribs).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potterrow[edit]

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

A student union building. At present this article consists entirely of OR, WP:NFT, general nonsense, etc. A quick google seems to turns up mainly listings pages and people's photos. I'm not convinced there are enough non-trivial independent reliable sources to make this building any more notable than any other night-spot. (A redirect to here might be a solution.) -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 03:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Eade[edit]

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

Person claiming to be the subject has been attempting to blank or otherwise clear most facts from the page. Claim of inacuracy have been made, though the references look good, and nothing is particularly negative to make this a major BLP issue. This is mostly a procedural nomination. The main reason I would see for deletion, beyond the subject's wishes, would be notability. The article claims a "British National record". The sourcing backs up the feat, but says nothing of it being a record. So the record itself is not confirmed. And the record would be the only reason I can see for notability in the first place. So, with the one claim to notability unsourced, I myself am a weak Delete on the thing. While the desires of the subject are not enough to remove a article on a truely notable person, in a, at best, marginal case like this I would lean towards getting rid of it. TexasAndroid 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP File Server[edit]

HTTP File Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is to put in the reference, and translate & add a key sentence where the article discusses the importance of the software. Ditto for the others. When you have done that, it will meet the standard requirements for Notability.
Weak keep, in the hope that you'll do this. DGG 22:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's what i needed to know. Can references be not an URL/link (being them printed), but just report the name of the magazine and other coordinates?--Rejetto 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And yes, references can be to sources not on the internet. Printed references often have more weight than internet references due to the transient nature of web links. 212.181.133.116 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 11:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Condé[edit]

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

Unsourced autobiography which doesn't make a case for meeting WP:BIO (under "creative professionals"). Contested prod. MER-C 02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on his userpage indicating that his name implies a close connection with the artist, leading some editors to assume he is the artist... I thought that was hedging it enough.Madmedea 16:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameArena[edit]

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

(({text))} the mutilating of this thread was in responce to a thread on the concerned website after the article went up for deletion its quality greatly improved (eg all insulting content removed) and i think it no longer needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.171.52 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 April 2007 GMT


Agreed, it no longer needs to be removed. Quality has been increased greatly and what was mucking around has now been weeded out.

+1 for leaving it

Still though, It is a vanity article and has little notability and should be removed. Nightwolf 07:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


+1 for leaving it. it's not offensive, it is informative (even if it isn;t "encyclopedian"). and it's a good thing for the community. what it comes down to is: why delete it? [-Varni]

yeah, leave it, the stupid stuff is gone, and it's informative. [-dman]

Vote to keep. Things have settled down and mature minded individuals from the site in question will continue to monitor the article for vandalism. - laz

Keep As Laz said, things should have settled down by now.203.214.92.220 08:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced a fair few areas of this article. Please take a look. SMC 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Selket Talk 14:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margarethe Zinndorf[edit]

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

record superceded R Young {yakłtalk} 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More detail: this case is/was a 'placeholder' as the 'world's oldest person.' However, we now have evidence that Ms. Elizabeth Kensley of the UK was the actual titleholder (being 109) and thus this page is no longer relevant and will be 'orphaned.'R Young {yakłtalk} 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, this was not a 'SPAM' or 'JUNK' article...but it was a 'placeholder' article. Now that we have an older person to replace Mrs. Zinndorf, I'm not sure if we still need her article. The same goes for Kiet Portier-Tan which could also be deleted. I'm all for keeping historical placeholders, but these were only recognized for about 2-5 years. Regards 68.211.77.10 00:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well: both Portier-tan and Zinndorf were still their country's recordholders at the time, which is notable nevertheless. Extremely sexy 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This case is actualy very simple. I edited the article as Guinness never awarded her the oldest person in the world title. Just the people who didn't know of the Guinness 1965 edition book presumed she was oldest.

Comment. The records-collection process can be dicey. In 1988, Guinness had awarded the "oldest living person" title to Orpha Nusbaum, 112..only to have several older claimants emerge. To be more correct, Margarethe Zinndorf was listed in the 2005 Guinness Book, and so was recognized by Guinness then. It was a case of the 'left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing'. People working at Guinness in 2005 weren't the same people from 40 years earlier, and the pre-internet age means that much early information remains unincorporated into the system. It may be that additional early cases will emerge (for example, does anyone have a 1964 Guinness Book?).R Young {yakłtalk} 05:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since she is still the verified 2nd oldest person in the world list, her status on deletion should be parallel to all other second-oldest-person-in-the-world article biographies that did not become the oldest person in the world. If you want to see a list of second oldest persons in the world, you can consult with the updating http://www.nealirc.org/Gerontology/Since1955.html for other people parallel to Margarethe Zinndorf. Neal 05:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't agree with that. Note that the 1960's records were sort of a 'shoestring' effort, whereas today we have very large datasets. Second-oldest today means a lot more. to be the second-fastest of 100 participants in a race means more than being the second-fastest of five participants--and what if you only had two entries? Would finishing second and last then mean as much as finishing second of 100?R Young {yakłtalk} 05:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As per my own comment and also Neal's. Extremely sexy 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as notable for oldest person in her country at the time. Notability of old people is not just contingent on their being the oldest in the world. Maybe she can be a place-holder for her country, with the rest to be filled in as and when per Eventualism. Jdcooper 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 11:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Parker (broadcaster)[edit]

Murray Parker (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A weatherman in a city with 600,000 people. I think Al Roker may be the only notable weatherman. Also, this TV station has articles for about a million local personalities. General comments on notability of local television reporters is welcome because I may be AFDing more. Calliopejen1 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you're talking about Calliopejen1. Murray has been with the station for several decades and is currently the station's weathercaster on the 6 p.m. news, and is strongly associated with the station because of all the years he spent as station announcer and weathercaster. If you don't live in Winnipeg you have no clue as to who is important and who is not. Is your main complaint the length of the list of 'Former CBWT personalities'? If so, then maybe the list can be moved to its own page, but please leave the biography pages alone! --Jimj wpg 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that everyone in Winnipeg knows who he is, I'm just unsure that local TV personalities like weathermen deserve encyclopedia articles. In the city I'm from, everyone knows who the local weatherman is, but she doesn't have her own page (and I don't think she should either.) My main complaint isn't the length of the list at all--it's about the notability of the individuals on it. I just wanted to generate discussion about more general issues because if this one goes I would be nominating others too. Calliopejen1 17:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has not only done the weather for several years, and was station announcer, but also was co-host of Reach for the Top. He hasn't written any books (yet). I don't know if that's the criteria you use for keeping or deleting an article. What you're doing is not any different than article vandalism. Here's a few videos that Jason and myself put on YouTube featuring Murray:
--Jimj wpg 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There does not appear to be any disagreement about Parker's longevity and experience, Jimj wpg. The question is instead whether or not his longevity and experience makes him notable. --Maxamegalon2000 05:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think being a national broadcaster on some scale (Montreal 1976) surely makes this article worthwhile to keep. Because Winnipeg is a major North American city, and other major cities have articles on their local TV personalities from past and present, I don't want to see Winnipeg TV being ignored on Wikipedia. --PsychoJason 05:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Hungary. MER-C 05:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungery[edit]

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

Not an encyclopedic entry.

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Stein[edit]

Robert B. Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Google search says that this article is probably a hoax. Looking at the author's userpage, it looks like it might be an autobiography under a different name. The irony of it isn't lost on me either :-) -- ugen64 04:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD A7. kingboyk 08:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normanby & Marton junior football team[edit]

Normanby & Marton junior football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. King of the North East 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 14:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zongshen 200 GS[edit]

Zongshen 200 GS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mouldy article from the list of suspected COIs. Non-notable motorbike, fails WP:CORP. Nothing on Google - 4 non-wiki ghits - nor in the Google news archive. MER-C 05:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuka Foxxer[edit]

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

Mouldy article from the list of suspected COIs. Non-notable fictional character, fails WP:FICT. 4 non-wiki ghits. Also WP:NFT and WP:COI applies, as the creator of the article also made up this character. MER-C 05:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U2's 16th album[edit]

U2's 16th album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is very unencyclopedic because it contains nothing but hearsay and rumors about the upcoming album, and features very little "confirmed" information. Crashintome4196 05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Very very weak keep witha big cull of fluff. I agree with Crashintome4196's sentiment but reluctantly suggest keep. I'd much prefer an encyclopedia to report on things that have actually happened, but someone else will no doubt re-create it and it serves as a good place to dumb all the speculative fluff that gets dumped into the high quality U2 article. But, yes - unsourced gossip should be strictly culled from this article. Merbabu 07:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - the article's name is a problem. 16th album? Who names an article like that? And it's arguably not their 16th anyway - certainly not the 16th studio album which is what counts.Merbabu 07:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I've changed my mind. Now slightly on the side of delete. I suggest when a name is confirmed would be a good date to re-create an article. What do people think? And how do we stop it being recreated? Merbabu 02:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - good points - a few more convincing comments, and I could change to 'delete'. Merbabu 07:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name is a concern, and implies that we could create U2's 17th album. I understand that editors are taking the position that there is definitely going to be a 16th album, but is there any guarantee? the_undertow talk 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the difference here is that we know for a fact that U2 are spending a lot of time in the studio, preparing possible material for a new album, whereas we have absolutely no indication that there will be another album after this one. MelicansMatkin 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm not a fan of leaving X because Y stayed. Besides, wouldn't you agree that the Harry Potter article is well-sourced? the_undertow talk 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Harry Potter page is now, but at the time that it was requested for deletion, it wasn't. MelicansMatkin 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we discussing Harry Potter? Precedence is almost always the silliest of justifications for anything on wikipedia.Merbabu 04:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is well referenced in terms of quantity, but not quality. it is largely based on gossipy fansites. I've made the comment on the article talk page that references to such sites should be removed. How exactly is it informative? There is barely anything concrete or encyclopedic there. Merbabu 00:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to wait until the album is released, we just need to wait until we have a decent amount of varified information. And also an album title would be nice too. –Crashintome4196 04:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was close per request of nominator. Sr13 (T|C) 05:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Bradley[edit]

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

The subject of the article has not asserted why it is notable (CSD A7) ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Field Naturalists' Society[edit]

Scarborough Field Naturalists' Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mouldy article from the list of suspected COIs. Vanispamcruftisement with questionable notability. Fails to make a case that the subject passes WP:CORP. MER-C 05:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 while it may have been a contested prod theres been no discussion about keeping the article Gnangarra 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SYGY[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement - it turns out that the author was a designer of this internet game. No case is made that the subject passes WP:WEB. Contested prod. MER-C 05:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD G11. kingboyk 08:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remora USB Quick Launch[edit]

Remora USB Quick Launch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spammy and unsourced "article" on non-notable software. No evidence of notability, in the article itself nor Google News archive. MER-C 05:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Kusma as a copyvio. kingboyk 08:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protus taniform[edit]

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

I can't figure out what this extremely poorly formatted "article" is about. Either way, there is a conflict of interest here. Neither the author nor the book appears to pass the relevant notability guidelines. Contested prod. MER-C 05:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a smoke bomb[edit]

How to make a smoke bomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how to manual. Anyway, the little information contained within is pretty much a verbatim copy of a part of Smoke bomb. Why this page was created in the first place is a mystery, since original editor (User:Peace keeper II) began the direct quote with the phrase "How to make a smoke bomb Straight from wikipedia". Rather pointless. vLaDsINgEr 05:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Sam Blacketer (author request). MER-C 11:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kid USA[edit]

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

Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result was Keep and Rename to MythBusters episode guide. Caknuck 03:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythbusters episode guide[edit]

Mythbusters episode guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Duplicated information from individual season episodes. (not to mention that the title is MythBusters) I think aggregations and episode guides may have their place at Wikipedia, but not in this context. kelvSYC 06:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's notable enoguh, just change the title to "MythBusters episode guide". Dalejenkins 09:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedily deleted by Adambro. MER-C 11:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie D. Lishus[edit]

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

Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple non trivial reliable independent sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 06:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by The Rambling Man. MER-C 11:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kahlua[edit]

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

Non notable wrestler. No evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 06:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Steel359. MER-C 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Johnson (Talent Manager)[edit]

Bruce Johnson (Talent Manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, but more importantly reads like an advertisement. Guroadrunner 06:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Floating pleasure palace[edit]

Floating pleasure palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources or anything to assert notability. Contains various claims that are completely unverifiable not to mention libel if tied to the examples of existing ships that are given.MartinDK 06:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan L. Murray[edit]

Jonathan L. Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a single word of what is in this article is verifiable. No reliable sources or anything to assert notability. Fails WP:BIO and most likely a hoax. MartinDK 07:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand sports[edit]

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

Trivia dressed up a serious article, with no independent reliable sources cited. Sealand is in fact a small platform off the coast of the UK, and whilst it's no doubt appropriate to have an article on Sealand itself, this is mere fluff. kingboyk 08:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete arguments are more diverse and convincing; additionally, many of the keep arguments appear to be skewed by canvassing. Krimpet (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms of micronations[edit]

Coats of arms of micronations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The coats of arms of various made up countries. Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. No sources provided. kingboyk 08:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further statement: Most if not of all these "nations" have no international recognition as countries or states, and few sources which cover them as anything other than curiosities. Whilst I have no objection whatsoever to articles about the more notable "micronations", what I do object to is the attempt to legitimitise these micronations. They are not countries, and shouldn't be covered as such. A small handful of the "usual suspects" who always pop up on micronation debates seem intent on legitimising these curiosities in the face of what the reliable sources say.

There are also copyright issues in this page, as some of the images are copyrighted, and some are tagged PD but probably wrongly. As essentially a gallery page I believe it is not possible to provide an acceptable fair use rationale. --kingboyk 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related announcement: Skeleton page for guidelines/policy in this area: Wikipedia:Micronations. --kingboyk 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 17:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sith Apprentice[edit]

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

YouTube movie, not notable, no references (bar 1 or 2 "external links") Dalejenkins 08:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was already redirected by nominator. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia (song)[edit]

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

I don't see the point of this article. The story behind the song is already covered in the article about the album it's on. Other than that, nothing notable is said about the song, it's not even a single. kate theobaldy 09:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a silly reason to want to keep an article... Do you have any arguments other than that? kate theobaldy 11:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I'm not quite sure it's a good idea to create redirect pages for any song on any album. Creating this one would also justify redirects from Man Of A Thousand Faces (song), One Fine Day (Marillion song), 80 Days (song), Memory Of Water (song)... (you get the idea). Still, I'll be fine with a redirect, so I'm going to create one because there seems to be an overwhelming consensus. (I don't know if I'm formally allowed to do this, if not, please undo this). kate theobaldy 08:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The procedure regarding this kind of thing is normally that if someone ends up creating an article on any of those other songs you've named, they can be redirected/AfD'd as appropriate, the logic being that clearly someone's searched for the song in question, so we can point them to the album where the song appears. Only very rarely does every song on an album end up with an article (and even then it's normally an album like "Dark Side of the Moon"), so there's no particular need to worry at the moment about what might happen down the line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. It doesn't necessitate the creation of those redirects, but they should be created if someone decides go create an article there, because it might mean ths song is nearly notable enough for one. --Phoenix (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Grand unification theory (and salt). Krimpet (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unification theory (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Pseudoscience (looks reasonable at first - but read the later parts!); no references; probably contains Original Research. Note: A page having the same title as this one was previously nominated for deletion; the result of that previous discussion was delete. greenrd 09:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Err, no. The point of the notification is that it is quite clearly under the purview of the project, and thus many of the people watching the project's pages will be interested in the AfD. This includes both skeptics and supporters of things like these; it also includes both those who believe it is notable and those who believe it is not. My comment that it is stereotypical pseudoscience says nothing about the notability or verifiability, and thus nothing about whether the article should actually be deleted. This also isn't the right place to discuss this issue. --Philosophus T 04:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to readers: Lengthy discussion of the merits of the article have been moved to the talk page. --Philosophus T 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General system theory is not pseudo science, and physicists are not the only scientists looking for answers. It deserves a place in wikipedia in the 2 common names we use: General System theories and Unification theories. If some people dont like General system theories is perfectly ok. Others dont like string theory for lack of proves but none would erase those articles. Please be serious about it. Give it a chance... I suggest to erase the oparts i did with low quality and let system scientists during the next year to improve it and complete it, ill take care of that (sortry i ddint do that the first time forgot about it, but it lasted a year, and so i thnk people are interested). This time promise to do my home work, just give me a couple of weeks ok? i work hard during the week and have also to learn the drill of this system. sorry for the errors, think on the essence.
The search of truth is a common quest and certainly doesnt not belong to physicists in this case till the right equations and logic thoughts are fully proved, in any theory from string theory to general system unification ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.41.234.125 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I think redirecting Unification Theory to the cites you mention is somewhat misleading (and degrading to real science). "Unification Theory" was a pseudoscienctific application of General Systems Theory that I remember made the rounds a few decades back. It was seperate and distinct from unified field theory, which is of course real science.--Work permit 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think it's degrading if all content within this article is deleted. No merging. Someguy1221 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had a vague memory that Bertalanffy had some sort of "unification" theory that was an extension of his system theory, and was supposed to cover all science. quick google search didn't find anything notable, so I withdraw my concern.--Work permit 01:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, i was looking at you guys, you seem all physicists, i woudl suggest an improvement for wikipedia: that when something is deleted, it should be deleted and judged by people of the sciences involved. In this case by philosophers (you philosophus consider yourself in your web a defender of Einstein not a philospher), biologists and system theorists. Otherwise i feel like in the initial redirection to Grand Unification Theory a certain arrogance which tends to go with ignorance on the subject you are judging (-: 'the more ignorant the western man is about Asian cultures, the most he despises the chinese man' Andre Guide 0-: i got the letters though from the people i asked to (isss president, troncale and sancho)giving me permission to load wikipedia with articles of their webs so now i can use all their copyrighted material of all the webs mentioned (emails provided if required)... im gonna put it all there this night. Tomorrow it will die away, a perfect mandala, like those beautiful wheels of sand of the navajo reserves that soon disappear. But because for us, system scientists, time is cyclical and quantic, not lineal and continuous, Leibniz not Newton is the master... and each collective mind has its own rhythms, this i can say: GST will beat Grand Unification, life will win over abstraction. Now i will pour the sounds that the wind will erase...

It is at least close to Patent nonsense. Bubba73 (talk), 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't been deleted, they have been moved to the talk page, since that is the proper place for further discussion, especially on the merits of the topic rather than the notability and verifiability of the topic. The theory could be the best ever made, but that is completely irrelevant to the nomination. --Philosophus T 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1 - Maybe im just an old fashioned european scientist but here we do not insult with all those crackpot kind of words, we debate with arguments and that is what i did on those pages. And nobody counter-argument any of them. So If you dont leave here my comments or counter-argument them but put THEM in some hidden room, obviously you are leaving only the people against the article and this is not even a trial, BUT A prejudgment at best where the defender is put in other corner room to shut him up instead of being answered in a cilvized way.
2 -i didnt wrote the previosu one, pj, i only added some final coments, thats why they look different pj, the guy who wrote that one, focused on the Generatrix equation, E<=>T, the best expression to date of the 'fundamtnal feed-back dynamic cycle, the unit of the fractal universe (which can be perceived as a fixed particle obviously by errors of human perception).
i thought to be easier to focus on the network systems, which are better known, but they are all parts of GST, as networks of En and info are merely complex systems made by the iteration of that fractal unit.
3. In my poor english notability means that is notable, that has merit. And i am the one to explain why, not only because i wrote this version, but also because i form part of a european collective a la partaki (a french collective name used by 35 mathematicfians who developped fractal/chaos theory in the post-war)... trying to explain the fundamental topics of our science. We purchased long ago www.unificationtheory.com which layed dormant but in the past 5 years there have been huge advances on the formalism of the Unification Equation made by european scientists, and so we thought now that there is such formalism to place the stuff in the english-speaking world web. We are doing it in www.unification.com, starting this year and since there were no entries and there are still not entries on the 2 terms we use for that: 'General Systems' or 'Unification Theory' (only a historic introduction without 'meat', that is real theory) i thought icould try to fill up that gap... Respect to verifability, i put links to webs, books and articles in previous pages and quotes from bertalanffy, etc.(isss, www.unificationtheory, sancho's stuff, the guy who advanced the best formalism for this science, and was in the process as per that hidden talk page of putting more, just got the ok from hammond, last isss president, sancho and troncale, the best in the field... to use material from all their webs.... And i dont care if that is recent work. Any encyclopedia has recent work, addendas in the brtannica, year by year, daily news here... im not a wikipedian and im not english speaking and so im sure i made mistakes but i dont see any interest in collaborate anymore, because you are not being fair. I only see the obvious desire to connect this name with grand unification theories. As i said (in the hidden talk page), both terms are difrerent, as i qoted, bertalanffy coined this one. As i insinuated accuracy is at least the minumum a encylipedia should have. Anyway is difficult to enjoy working in this kind of agresive millieu. Im not gonna requote and counter-argument your pseudo-science bullshit comments. All the arguments are in that talk page. I take notice though of the valid comments, and there are some. So hopefully someone will repost in the future with better english, better quotes, less discoursive style and more to the point,a small treatise on the Unification Theory of General Systems . That was fair advice. The notability/verifability thing has no been fair. You cant expect to google troncale, for example and get the same kind of hits than for a scientist with hundred of years of tradition. The last generation of GST masters (not the previous one, i see you have bertalanffy, capra, and many american guys here, but those are old-dated they hvent formalized, they are the philosophers, all sciences start as a philosophy, then you need the newton with the formalis, then the formalism unfolds itself, etc.), is being born as most relevant scientists of the XX C. i must say - here in eurpe...because unlike Feynmann they do ask why and they doubt. We use far less wordws like 'true science', we are not 'believers' we are inquirers (-;, But we dont speak english, what can i say, maybe that is the reason, all european languages have the subjunctive probability verb, and the I is hidden, the collective is prefered. As chomsky says, the genetic language precedes the culture which precdes the science... Fundamentalism on truths is a no-no. cest la vie, au revoir, auf widerssen hasta la vista ciao svoboda
'The rapture of life, that is what is all truly about'
Campbell, the power of the myth.
A few comments that I hope will be helpful for you: it would be much easier for us if you used ~~~~ to sign your comments. Additionally, : indents paragraphs (so :: indents twice, and so on) and * at the beginning of a paragraph or line makes a bullet point, so that you can format your comments. It would be much easier for us if you would write shorter comments, since many of us are overworked here and don't have time to read lengthy comments with the care that should be given to them. While there are those of us who would enjoy debating the merits of the theory with you, there are quite simply too many theories to do this. New theories like this are added to Wikipedia every day, and in most cases, the supporters want a debate. This tends to make us rather cynical as well, since most of the supporters tend to devolve into ranting and insulting (most of the content of my user page consists of insults that were thrown at me) rather than discussing what should be discussed here: the compliance with the policies of Wikipedia. You should read these, especially WP:NOR, WP:V, and the guidelines WP:RS and WP:N - we have very specific definitions of words like "notability", and somewhat unique views on what should be included. As I mentioned, the merits of a theory play no part in whether it should be included per policy - look at Time Cube, for example, which is about as absurd as a theory can get (Archimedes Plutonium is another good example). New, as of yet unknown, research belongs in journals, not Wikipedia. We only include things which have been published widely and are relatively well known, so that everything we say can be verified. We make no judgements on the validity of theories; that is for other people. By the way, I apologize about the crackpot-like insults - I would never actually say that sort of thing as myself, but here I've changed my language and attitude in order to remain hidden (there are those of us who have received death threats and other harassment), and sometimes I get carried away. But as I said, you seem to be looking for a debate about merit, and we don't do that sort of thing here, which is why your comments have been moved; the assumption is that most of us are not capable of debating merit. --Philosophus T 08:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about removing your comments - I had meant to copy them and move the long response, but ended up accidentally moving yours as well. --Philosophus T 08:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LAST COMMENT/QUESTION uhm philosophus thanks for your letter. i start to agree more with you guys. truth is i havent done my homework to conform to wikipedia style and its, i guess, needed burocratic elements and i should have, plus i work on memory so i cant remember exactly the books of the quotes... i need to do reserarch... (im also overloaded with work) i thought others would do it as a work in progress, but there are few gst experts worldwide so i guess few wikipedians could collaborate on this... hopefully when we recruit in tokyo people with english as first language for this divulgation project (www.unificationtheory) i will try again. and buff if you even receive death threats, thats really intense! no wonder the cut-throat style:-o. so the question is if we repost this in the future in a much better version? is that possible? is a 3rd reposition allowed a debate or is automatically eliminated?(the first article though was different and most of it, not mine, (pj, i explained differences in talk) so might it be a 2nd reposition... My aim is present the GST formalism mixing troncale's, sancho's and isss material, within all the policies of wikipedia including formatting, but i have no time now to become a better wikipedian. Respect to novelty,those guys have 20 years since their first copyrights but our science i think unjustly is not yet standard and fully accepted so in a way is relatively new - as it could be considered genetics 40 years after mendel whenit wa discovered And since we start with paradimgs that are different to classic science (as per talk: cyclical, quantic time, duality, linguistic method, non-non-euclidean geometry, paradoxical logic, organicism, etc.) we expect as per the debates in the 49 cancun congress to remain what you might call a 'fringe science' (not seudo=science) for a decade. I doubt then that gst will look more notable. But if youlook the references at isss the main insitution of our science, those people are the most notable of our science today, troncale leads the gst conferences, sancho has given the most brilliant ones the last 3 years, the president of the institution gives the ok. Now GST (unificatin theory) is different from 'systems theory', the american version, whih is praactical, computer models of economics and cybernetics. GSt is more 'philosophical', more like the origianl intention of Bertalanffy (the quote that originated the name is in talk: 'a unification theory of all sciences'), and so typically more interesting to the idealist german school of science to which all germans belong since Hegel (including Einstein, self-confessed socialist:-):-( ;-O A comment on that would be appreciated.Since if it is impossible or against your policies we wont do that hard work. Otherwise you will get an article similar to the ones you have for relativity or any other standard scientific theory sometime in summer. And sorry for the length, this promise is my last comment, dont want you to keep further busy with this theme. I think the issue is: should gst unification in its most advanced version be here? or not?It is not though a time cube bullshit, that was funny (-: I see general system sciences like physics in the XVII c. a very promising, starting science... now in its formalist phase... which i think is different from pseudo-science (a guy who comes out with a 'world on a turtle' or a time in a cube... cyclical time is as old as human thought itself, the year cycle of the sun, the minute cycle of the clock, the month cycle of the moon. the cesium cycle we use for the second... i havent seen cubic trajectories in time of lately (-: The closest thing might be cubism with his attempt to express the 4th dimension of time, through multiple perspectives... maybe he is fan of picasso (-;

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

The result was Keep per consensus and article's improvement. Sources added by User:Serpent's Choice. diff. PeaceNT 14:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Theatre Source[edit]

This organization is not notable. The article appears to have been created for the sole purpose of free advertising a small unknown theater company. It is a vanity article.KindSould 09:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an "illegal" theatre company, an underground non-union, amateur operation which is conducting business under the "cover" of a cafe. This organization is a fire trap, which is in violation of NYC's Building Department and Fire Codes. Google hits mean nothing. The organization is neither notable, nor is it a legitimate professional theater. KindSould 10:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At 55 seats, it is hardly a theatre at all. KindSould 10:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like I said it needs to be referenced according to WP:N and WP:RS. Otherwise it should be deleted. My problem here is your tone of language and the fact that you are accusing an established editor of creating a vanity article. Such accusations are uncivil unless you have any proof. Also, calling it a fire trap and "non-union" needs to sourced as well in accordance with WP:RS as it is by itself no reason for deletion. Google hits are not entirely irrelevant. Finally, small theaters are not always non-notable. This all boils down to whether reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage can be found. Personal opinions and acccusations that you have not provided any sources for yourself are not reasons for deletion. MartinDK 10:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appologize for my misuse of the term vanity article. I did not fully understand the meaning of the term. I was not trying to imply that the article was created by the owners of the theater. Merely, that the article appeared to be a form of advertising for the organization. I, too, have been to this theater, and I do not share your enthusiasm for it. The production I saw was an entirely non-union cast. Frankly, I was stunned to find a Wikipedia article on it. Plain and simply, it is not a professional theater. If Wikipedia is to keep such articles, then every community theater in the country warrants its own article. They, too, will have numerous Google hits. That's the nature of producing and advertising plays. It does not make the theater notable within the industry. KindSould 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the actors and staff I saw at MTS were very professional. It may not be a Broadway but it is a professional theater. A lot of the people that I saw at MTS I have actually seen in other productions, Shows like Law and Order and even films. There actually was an Off-Off Broadway section/project of the Wikipedia that MTS belongs to. If anything the Off-Off Broadway page is one huge ad. Miskatonic 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reliable sources for what? The fact that it is not-notable? I think you've got that backwards. It is not my responsibility to show that it is not notable. The article should demonstrate why it is notable. There are well over 100 Off-Off Broadway Theatres in NYC, why is this venue notable? Why should there be an article on this theatre as opposed to the others? Has it won any awards? Have any of the plays it originally produced been published? How many of its productions moved up the ladder to Off Broadway Theatres? These are legitimate criteria for notability of an Off-Off Broadway theatre. Is it even a member of the Alliance of Resident Theatres of New York? That might give it some legitimacy.
There also seems to be some confusion about Equity Showcases here. A showcase contract is awarded to a Non-Union theatre so that union actors can appear on a one production basis, under very tight restrictions. (Including no pay, other than transportation reimbursement.) It's a waiver of sorts. Showcases are mixed casts of Union & Non-Union Actors. An occassional Union Showcase does not make the theatre professional. Most legit Off-Off Broadway theatres run full Equity small theatre contract runs in addition to occassional showcases. This theatre appears to be running a majority of non-union productions, with an occassional showcase. The fact that has been mentioned in the NY Times only once, proves that it is not notable. The Times, as a matter of policy, does not review amateur productions. Please, note that my use of the would "amateur" is not meant to be derogatory. This the legitimate theatre term for non-union productions. When a company, such as this, applies for rights to a play - it goes through amateur leasing. I see nothing notable about this venue. If this article is kept then all Off-Off Broadway theatres should be entitled to an article on Wikipedia. Likewise, all community theatres should recieve their own articles. (as long as they have enough google hits, right?) KindSould 00:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When you make claims like the theatre being a "fire trap" then you need to provide reliable sources. Also, like I said, that is in no way a reason for deletion nor is the fact that this is a small theatre. The only criteria that applies here is that it must have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by a reliable source. Please read WP:N. Notability requirements are not as strict as you think they are, there is no requirement that a theatre must have a certain number of seats etc. As for the other theatres they too could have articles here if they meet WP:N og in other words if they have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. If not, then they don't belong here. It's really not that complicated and arguments like "if x stays then y and z must exist too so we better delete x" or "this place is a fire trap and non-union" are not relevant here. As for Google hits no they don't assert notability but when I get 11000 hits that do not appear to be simply links to blogs etc. then I am not simply going to say that no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources exists. MartinDK 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have further updated the article to include additional sources, including an award-winning ten-minute play debuted at the Source as well as the premiere of the first play by a national best-selling author. There has actually been quite a bit of coverage of this venue and its productions. On the other hand, there is no coverage in reliable sources that supports claims that this is "illegal", a "fire trap", or "in violation of [the] ... Fire Code", all of which would require appropriate sources to be considered here. Serpent's Choice 05:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 04:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLUDD[edit]

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

Notability issues have been raised for this page, which is about a character in Super Mario Sunshine. Orphic 09:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 (T|C) 06:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Boyle (actor)[edit]

Liam Boyle (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy Delete This is a non-notable actor with no verifiable secondary sources Tasktoday 09:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as original author blanked the page and redirected it. --NMChico24 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Socialist Republics[edit]

List of Socialist Republics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, pov, original research. Prod removed by author with no edit summary. NMChico24 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Selket Talk 14:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Drummond[edit]

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

Delete This actress is non-notable and there are no reliable sources to verify the information in the article Happylabel 10:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged secret agents[edit]

List of alleged secret agents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:BLP minefield. Might as well be 'list of traitors and spies' almost nothing referenced. May even be speedy-deletable under WP:BLP. -Docg 10:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why go the the bother. All of these will have their own article which will be cited. Why not simply have a category to navigate them (which we already will have). The article on secret agents can link to the category that enables people to find it. But if someone is willing to do as you suggest I've no objections. My one difficulty is that people will say 'hey that's a good idea, keep and do that' - but no-one will. --Docg 10:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought I do agree with you on that and changed my !vote MartinDK 10:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7 and speedy close as a speedy delete nom doesn't belong here. Sr13 (T|C) 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Griffiths[edit]

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

Speedy Delete Non-verifiable information require this non-notable person to be deleted Soulsarea 10:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLP issues appear to have been resolved by the inclusion of sources. No consensus to merge, and no other side issues have consensus support. On a side-note, WP:CLS has some info about advantages and dis-ads of categories, lists, etc. --Chaser - T 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged contactees[edit]

List of alleged contactees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We already have a category Category:Contactees. That's as it should be, because what goes in the category is decided by each article so categorrised. A list like this is a problem as it is unreferenced and thus a potential WP:BLP nightmare. Best to delete this and leave the category. -Docg 10:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" is a word most usually forced by skeptics, we can rename it List of contactees if you so desire but I bet you that there will be a dispute over it by skeptics who believe that the name would imply that contactees were real. - perfectblue 14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is unneccessary. The same information can be obtained by the Category:Contactees. And your article doesn't have any citation to defend inclusion, whereas people are added to the category by categorising the articles themselves, which doubtless are cited.--Docg 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for a list, lacking citations is a taggable offence, not grounds for Afd. If it concerns you so much you may go to the individual articles and tag and simply cut and past the citations over. - perfectblue 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the citation is in their own articles, i just go back and list them here for easier access (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, BLP prohibits that. All negative assertions about a living person, which this is, need referenced in the article itself. Otherwise it would be too easy to add someone to the list without any citations and it not to be spotted. Still, I'm not hearing how this helps us when we have a category?--Docg 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"BLP prohibits that. All negative assertions about a living person", being a contactee is not a "negative assertions" for most contactees, your statement is bias. Allegedly being in touch with aliens isn't like allegedly being ritually abused, its like allegedly kissing a supermodel for most of these people. - perfectblue 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you've said that. Now tell me how?--Docg 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it provides a quick access for those looking for a list of alleged contactees, especially for those new to wikipedia, those not familiar with contactees, those who just want to expand their own data bank on contactees, etc... it is just a great method of listing contactees for the general public to view and have quick and useful access to (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for which we have already got: Category:Contactees.--Docg 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what if they do not get listed in that category? They maybe listed here, its a great place also for others to view who may not consider first looking for the Category:Contactees, how will they know to look at this category if they are unfamiliar with wikipedia? how will they know to search for a list of contactees if they dont even know the names and know nothing about categories? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. If the find any article in the category, then they'll see the category. Much more likely to find that than type the name of the list into 'search'. Category is also much more likely to be kept up to date.--Docg 16:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference addition completed, also note that some may not know to look first at the Contactee category, this article provides a place for everyone (even those new to wikipedia) a place to find a list of Contactees plus references (which is not possible via category only) especially if they do not know of any alleged contactees and are looking for an article to look at or through to get some idea (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I couldn't agree more. We really need to keep this list for people whom say that they were contacted, and to keep out the people who are the subject of allegations from other people which would be much more likely to violate Bio regs - perfectblue 07:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE I know it is irregular to close my on nomination. But I think I've got a consensus here and many of the entries breech BLP. I could clean-out the offending ones and wait for this to conclude, but WP:SNOW is saying otherwise -Docg 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged e-mail spammers[edit]

List of alleged e-mail spammers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another WP:BLP disaster. Some are referenced - some of the references are not really reliable sources and much is unreferenced. We have a perfectly good categor Category:E-mail spammers and we can have a few cited examples on an article about e-mail spam (which no doubt we have). But this is just list cruft. Lists of people who are alleged? Let's not. -Docg 10:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's even in the article title. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 11:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7 by Jimfbleak. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annaliesa[edit]

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

Prod was removed without discussion or any attempt to rectify problem. Article has no assertion of notability and is most likely from a single-purpose account. The Rambling Man 10:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and clean up (left some ideas at the article talk page). Orderinchaos 11:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoConnect[edit]

GoConnect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Gcnacc01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = article creator

Looks like this is an Australian ISP. Was nominated for speedy but I have refused on grounds of notability claims on the stock exchanges of two countries. Author has claimed on the talk page to have the necessary non-trivial mentions in independent sources but they have not yet been added to the article. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 10:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added ((primarysources)) to the article, which normally will attract better references. I hope some of the more enthusiastic "keep"ers will find and add them. — Athaenara 02:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for looking that up. Could you elaborate on why ASX 100 would be a good way to determine CORP notability in Australia? If it is being traded by the Australian public, even only 15 people per month, why is it not worthy of note for the benefit of those few that come looking ? John Vandenberg 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consensus at WP:CORP about whether inclusion on a market board makes a company notable, and it is probably comparable to being in the White Pages. Companies list on the board because they want to raise public money, not because they are notable(although personally, I think that ASX100 companies should be notable as by definition they are the top 100 companies in Australia by market value). Putting this aside, there are no secondary sources provided, so therefore it isn't notable, and in any event, the article doesn't demonstrate why the company is any more notable than the thousands of other companies around, so in my humble view, the article should be deleted. Assize 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might also add that the Google News items that I looked at it all appear to be rehashing of press releases or stock exchange announcements by the company and wouldn't therefore be allowable as secondary sources.Assize 07:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged UFO-related government personnel[edit]

List of alleged UFO-related government personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete utter uncited listcruft. Maybe a category instead, but probably not even that. -Docg 11:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the accusations involved in regards to some of them (Truman and Eisenhower, to name two) far exceed that.
  • these official dealt directly with what they claimed to be UFO-related phenomena, not some random light or planet vacation, it is explained in their articles (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which particular aspect of the list GUIDELINE (not a policy, incidentally) are you arguing this list violates, Pj? -Eep² 20:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Consensus is that no article should continue with this name - but the material may be useful. A "list of unfulfilled predictions by Christians" is as POV as "list of promises broken by Bush" - it self-selects only negative instances. I am leaving the history undeleted and redirecting this to Famous predictions - to allow people to merge it. Debate should continue on the talk page to generate a consensus either to complete the merge OR to recreate the article with a new name, or to merge it somewhere else (e.g. 'Christian prophecy' or 'historical predictions by Christians' etc.)-Docg 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians[edit]

Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is so blatantly POV that the whole article needs to go. StAnselm 11:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would we allow a page on "unfulfilled historical predictions by women"? "unfulfilled historical predictions by black people"? No, this categorisation demonstrates a bias against Christianity. StAnselm 12:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is actually "an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it [...] constitute[s] original research".Stammer 10:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What position is it attempting to synthesise (see WP:SYN)? All I see is a list of predictions, duly sourced. The only possible synthesis that I could see is that all Christian predictions turn out to be untrue, a claim the article does not make. It's similar to the nominators original reason for deletion; would we delete List of war crimes because it doesn't include every war crime ever, and is therefore biased against the countries that it does mention?EliminatorJR Talk 13:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the original intention of the article was to function as a list, I would make it absolutely essential that the predictions mentioned are explained in more detail on linked articles. See the criteria I come up with below. --One Salient Oversight 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Does the prediction or prophecy occur within the historical Christian church?
  2. Is the prediction or prophecy based upon alleged supernatural revelation?
  3. Is the prediction or prophecy not directly found in the Bible but sourced from a notable individual or group within the historical Christian church?
  4. Did the prediction or prophecy fail to take place?
  5. Is the prediction or prophecy explained in more detail on another page in Wikipedia?
--One Salient Oversight 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 17:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mideast (United States)[edit]

Mideast (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be original research- the first line even says that it "is a new, yet still widely unknown geographical term." A quick Google search doesn't provide any reliable sources that support the existence of this region, or even provide a definition. Also, the only pages that link to the article are the Mideast disambig page, and Steel Valley (Ohio-Pennsylvania), which was created by the same user that created this page. Confiteordeo 12:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The linked paper doesn't talk about the region described by the article in question- it uses the term "Mideastern United States" to refer to New York City, Connecticut, and Delaware. To me, that seems to reinforce the OR claim about the article's content. Confiteordeo 22:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- It's obvious that this article is about "the geography of the Mideast United states," but how does that prove that this term isn't original research? If it isn't used anywhere else, there are no references that support it, and there's no common definition of what makes up the "region," that's exactly what it is, and it should not be on Wikipedia. Confiteordeo 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most of these articles were utterly lacking in sources. In the few cases where they were provided, it was to the groups own websites etc. As such it appears more sensible to make fresh mentions of notable sections in relevant articles (especially as there are two possible targets- the schools they relate to and Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps) rather than merge content that can easily be recreated. If any of these articles did in fact contain content that cannot be readily reproduced (though that did not appear to be the case), I will undelete it on request to merge to the appropriate article. WjBscribe 09:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CA-782nd AFJROTC[edit]

CA-782nd AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These articles relate to individual sections of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, which, in itself meets WP:ORG notability criteria. The individual branches clearly do not as they lack reliable secondary sources establishing their notability. I think therefore their articles should be deleted and/or information merged into the articles of the high school's which they relate to. Some discussion has already taken place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FL-802nd AFJROTC Madmedea 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fl-802 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flour Bluff NJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MA-20001st AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NC-20051 AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NC-939th AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NC-943rd AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Northmont NJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NY-962nd AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
OH-031st AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
OH-081st AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
OH-091st AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
OH-771st AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pearl River Central NJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

N.B. - It may help to read the section of the WP:ORG policy that refers to chapters/branches of non-commercial organisations: WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations before commenting as this sets down some very clear guidlines. Madmedea 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only Northmont and Pearl River seem to make a statement about national ranking. DGG 20:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flour Bluff was ranked 1st nationally 11 out of the past 12 years also.--Joebengo 07:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Forrest Gump. WjBscribe 00:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Curran[edit]

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

This article is pure plot summary and offers nothing that isn't already in the Forrest Gump article. I had previously suggested that this article be merged into Forrest Gump, but the fact is that any relevant information is already there in that article. Hnsampat 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic comic book characters[edit]

List of Catholic comic book characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Even for a list of fictional things, this is weak. Catholicism is hardly mentioned (if at all) on these character's pages; why do we need them on a list? There are no sources aside from an external link to a fansite. Nydas(Talk) 15:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? --Remi 20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IINFO states That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. What's next? Hindu superheroes, or Agnostic fairy-tale characters? Cool Bluetalk to me 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Economics is important in real life. Does that mean we can have articles about the economies of fictional countries?--Nydas(Talk) 21:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me :)! Remember: WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 17:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beale[edit]

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

This article was deleted through an AfD that closed two days early. DRV found that this was significantly unfair to the article's proponent, and so ordered a relisting. The DRV contains the arguments of the article's author in favor of the content's retention. Please allow this listing to remain for the full five days until 10 May 2007. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment well this debate was published in Prospect there are also publications in the HBR, Sunday Times, The Times, co-authored books, patent etc.. The article has improved today (6 May) and cites better, and even the old article was independently rated Start Class which is in the top 25% of rated bios. Chiinners has explained his position on the article's talk page and may well feel somewhat bitten. I'm sure I'd vote Keep on an article like this about someone else, though as the subject I have a COI NBeale 21:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. Being rated "start class" tells us nothing about the notability, verifiability or importance of the article and its subject, and these are the subjects of discussion here. A "start class" article is merely one which meets certain basic criteria for content and layout, and it means it's a bit better than a stub. Details at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment. Apart from the statistical sleight-of-hand in the claim that this means it is "in the top 25% of rated bios", this is completely irrelevant. Snalwibma 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad someone said something about this. The only other option for rating an article lower than "Start" is "stub", and this article is too long and too wikified to be a stub. Start is almost the bottom rung on the assessment scale, so I do not see the fast that it has been rated so low a persuasive argument to "keep". I do think asking the user who rated the article to participate in this conversation could be helpful. [just noticed that user voted delete in both AfDs]'-Andrew c 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The combination of the subjects technical publications (which have now been verified), and having read the "Debrett's People of Today" entry (a rival to Who's Who (UK)), notability and verifiability are no longer a problem. John Vandenberg 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the standard, the site lists only the editors of the subgroups, not all the members. Still looking. DGG 03:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the effort you have put into this. I've posted the refs for this in the article's talk page - I should be able to scan the relevant sections of the documents and post them on the web if that would be helpful. NBeale 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Factual correctionFor listing of 3rd-party sources see the article's talk page. NBeale 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Debretts has answered the question "Did NBeal's work have an impact"; the impact is already able to be seen through the veil of the promotional phraseology currently on the article. The talk page has much more material to demonstrate this, and Google Scholar demonstrate the technical contributions Beale to society. So far, I've been researching and fact checking; I will get on with revising the article if time is given for me to do so (the five days is nearly up). John Vandenberg 01:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Debrett's People of Today: It contains biographical details of approximately 28,000 people from the entire spectrum of British society. The key being 28,000.
If the publications you list are relevant then perhaps they should be discussed within the entry ... here are the ones you listed from Google ... good luck.
Doc.1: “This paper explains the importance of standard fibre-optic LANs, and gives an overview of the state of development of the main emerging fibre-optic LAN standards.”
Doc 2: This paper describes a notation for the formal specification of software packages. The main influences are the guarded commands of Dijkstra and the Algebraic Semantics of Guttag.
Doc 3: A data transmission system comprising a plurality of reconfiguring devices, each device having a plurality of input and output data links, a selected number of the devices being connected to a ring whereby for each reconfiguring device, data is received on one data input link and transferred to one data output link such that data may be passed between all the reconfiguring devices along the ring, each said configuring device including means for detecting the presence of a fault in the ring, said means in different devices cooperating to attempt to cause data to be transmitted around a sub-ring when a fault is detected, the sub-ring being constituted at least partially by one or more of the previously unused data links to enable a number of the devices to continue to communicate; and means for merging for detecting that a new reconfiguring device is connected to at least one pair of previously unused data input and output links and for reconfiguring the ring to include the new device. One sentence … wow!
Publications in specialty journals, even with sentences as impressive as that one, do not denote notability. No doubt he is very smart … but his sphere of influence is not significant enough. --Random Replicator 02:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the question Some key facts about impact are on the Articles Talk Page. BTW a patent has to be written like that, and FWIW it is cited by 46 others: the average is about 10 and the median I think 1. NBeale 06:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional research has lead me to abstain: I have attempted to search of precedence for “notability” in the field of consulting (one of the categories shared by this entry) by visiting other Wikipedia articles on the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Consultants It was discouraging. The majority of the biographies had not a thread of notability (in my opinion) and contributed absolutely nothing to the advancement of knowledge and understanding. No doubt none of the entries, including this would ever be considered for Britannica or for that matter even Encarta On-line. However, this is Wikipedia, where the significance of the information does not have to be balanced against the cost of publication. There does seem to be an element of self-promotion by his adamant defense of this entry, which albeit strange, is not relevant to the decision making process. Notable people can self-promote and in fact usually do so. I retract my objection on the grounds that I am unqualified to pass judgment on what are the minimum standards for notability in an encyclopedia of this type. My apologies for wasting your time; I am obviously too much of a newbie to engage in this level of decision making. --Random Replicator 01:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In other words, we have only his (and your) word for it, and you are arguing that he is notable precisely because it is impossible to establish notability from verifiable sources! I also note that the nominator at the top of this page makes much the same point as you - that any notability depends largely on name-dropping. Snalwibma 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q Why are HBR, Amazon.com, The Sunday Times, Debretts, Google Patents, Google Scholar, the National Library of China, Prospect etc.. not verifiable sources? NBeale 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A - oh, they are, but that's not what Laura is saying - she is arguing precisely that the less verifiable it is the more important it is. My comment was a response to what struck me as laughable nonsense. I just loved the blatant name-dropping, and the implication that certain people move in such exalted circles that we mere mortals should know our places and accept any old drivel that is dished out on the basis of an appeal to authority! Snalwibma 13:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry Snalwibma, not at all what I meant to imply. All I was saying was that the people mentioned are notable authorities, and in their opinion Nicholas is notable, although you may not find much on the web to prove it. I admit it saddens me that you consider my view to be "laughable nonsense". It was intended to be a helpful contribution. Laura H S 13:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must thank you, Laura H S, for your comment earlier above with this, "Had he been less discreet", as the irony of that will not be lost on the rest of us who have had to wade through Beale's not inconsiderable contributions. The problem really is that there does seem to be an almost religious fervour on his part to keep his article in Wikipedia and that is worrying as it feels like Astroturfing. Ttiotsw 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Cybernauts Awake though is ultimately self-published (The publisher Church House Publishing being in-house) and represents what the CoE view is. I question if it has been that critically reviewed but in the end who asserts the moral rights as the author to the work is the committee and not Beale. The quotes seem trivially pithy and the allusion to fame again seems to be through association. The "God and science" in Prospect 30 seem to be repackaging of the Beale/Howson emails (http://www.starcourse.org/discussion/mainemails.html) and the Times bit (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article573566.ece) is "Adapted from Constructive Engagement — Directors and Investors in Action, by Nicholas Beale" i.e. a friendly plug. The Harvard Business Review Article article (reprint) is 2 pages and it's description is "When a crisis forces outside directors to navigate major changes, investors and directors must adopt new roles. The case of Royal Dutch/Shell provides useful lessons." which our readers will remember from The Times article and Constructive Engagement...etc etc etc. The rest is co-author stuff which unfortunately any critical review can't really point us in the right direction on notability (it can only tell us that the book/article was notable not the co-authors). Ttiotsw 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed ... from a section headed "Singly authored articles in peer reviewed or similar publications". Ah well. It's already clear enough that many people here don't like NBeale's edits on WikiPedia. FWIW I'm not making a personal attack on anyone, and I apologise to anyone who took it that way, just an observation about the arguments used. NBeale 06:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • here is the request to re-evaluate the article due to significant change. I agree that NBeale should refrain from advocacy, but we should be attentive to any relevant information and evidence he adds to the talk page. John Vandenberg 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most pathetic afd's I have ever witnessed. Have people really, really got nothing better to do with their time? --Mais oui! 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. As pointed out by many editors below, the fact that a concept does not have mainstream support does not, in itself, demonstrate a lack of notability. Articles with NPOV problems should be fixed, not deleted. --Selket Talk 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth pillar of Islam[edit]

Sixth pillar of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not a main-stream concept. There is no reason to create article using couple of references for something that does not exist. It is against WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight. A. L. M. 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Kharijite groups also support the existence of a sixth pillar. You should bring this up on the Talk page of that article before AfD'ing it. What partly makes it notable is that this is one of the differences between Sunni Islam and other types of Islam.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do you have any have source which says that Shia consider it as Sixth pillar of Islam ? Or just because you think it is? --- A. L. M. 17:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It does not represent Shia main steam concept. If article name could be changed Sixth Pillar of Islam (Kharijites) then we could keep it otherwise it is wrong to present it as general Muslim concept and misguide people. --- A. L. M. 17:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep.Alright I support the rename as its related to the Kharjites only. You're right, my assumption about the Shias was incorrect, sorry. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The keywords are "You have only read about it here!"IP198 01:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll to the bottom and it says

IP198 15:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 16:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August Wilhelm Knispel[edit]

August Wilhelm Knispel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A biography, full of praise and looking like it was copied from somewhere, of someone who is very notable in the history of Franklin Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey (population 2,990). The extent to which he is notable in general is questionable. I refused a speedy deletion tag and brought it here with no vote. Sam Blacketer 17:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Farming is our livelihood, our business, said August Knispel, a 52-year-old dairy farmer who was born on the Franklin Township landin largely rural Hunterdon County that he still works. The Constitution avails us the right to go about our business the way we want to." "As Mr. Knispel, the Franklin Township dairy farmer, said: Farmers have certain rights, and they have to be protected if they are going to operate. and a [Illustration] (photo of August Knispel walking on his farm) (The entire article is 1183 words.) "Newton S. Layton, a Pilesgrove farmer and the Township Clerk.", is mentioned more prominently.DGG 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chaser - T 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentials of Programming Languages[edit]

Essentials of Programming Languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable book. I originally speedied it but evidently A7 doesn't apply to books so here it is.-- ugen64 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courses using this text[33]:

That seems pretty notable to me --MarSch 10:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twenty-three out of -- how many? 2,500? -- colleges and universities in North America? That's about the total number of colleges and universities in Washington State alone. Seems pretty unnotable to me. --Calton | Talk 15:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. but I hope MarSch can provide the websites if someone bugs him for them. Someguy1221 10:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as nominator. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario series enemies[edit]

List of Mario series enemies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

To start, this article is full of POV (even the word "enemies" is POV in a sense). Also, it's completely unsourced. And the main reason: what's the point of having this list? Most of the characters listed are insignificant, appearing only in one game. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep:This list is important. There are MANY Mario games, most of which have won awards, and these enemies star in most of them. They are important to the series, and need to be noted.--Scabloo 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 4th Generation Pokemon English Names[edit]

List of 4th Generation Pokemon English Names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is redundant to List of Pokémon. The only content is a one sentence introduction and then links to the articles. No other information is given. The List of Pokémon article has English and Japanese names. Funpika 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Diver[edit]

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

I originally tagged this speedy deletion; someone (against policy) removed the tag. I am putting it here because I think it easily fails in notability and seems too much like spam, and leaving in more experienced Wikipedians' hands. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Higgs[edit]

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

This summarizes an issue originally raised at the COI noticeboard

I discovered this article when putting a speedydelete tag on a slapdash spam article for Mr Higgs's book (The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). ([EDIT:] Article is currently being brought before DRV by its author.) I found that the only editor of note for that article was also the only editor of note for this article on Mr Higgs; an article for a Michelle Higgs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), whom I presume is a relative and whose music has been produced by Mr Higgs; the only editor for Healing Rooms, an album by Michelle Higgs and produced by Mr Higgs; and the main editor for articles on a David Ruis and a Boris Menart, also Higgs-produced musicians. The editor also claims suspiciously to be the copyright holder of Image:Healing-rooms-cover.jpg.

The editor, Particle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), became extremely evasive when asked if he had a conflict of interest on the book's talk page (now deleted here: Talk:The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store), Michelle Higgs's talk page (also now deleted), and his own userpage (which, though not lengthy at all, has been suspiciously archived by a bot, possibly so as to conceal the conflict of interest). Also note that, after this rigamarole, the user immediately blanked his userpage, which had previously linked to the Simon Higgs article with the redirect "Higgs' Law" [sic], and transcluded a UBX for WikiProject Contemporary Christian music, essentially scrambling to don a halo. User has also removed my spam tag from the Simon Higgs article while keeping in links intended to sell Mr Higgs's products.

User Particle is aware of my general opinion of his articles and of my intentions, as it was my "depredations against the innocent," or some such nonsense, that brought down (via speedydelete) the articles on his book and his (presumed) wife. I should also mention the categories he's created for himself and his wife ("Books [sic] by..." "Albums [sic] by," etc.), as well as his various redirects, apparent self-entries on lists (the "Higgs' Laws" entry on Scientific phenomena named after people is particularly galling), and other vain weirdnesses.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also Particle creations on musicians closely associated with Mr Higgs, which thus abysmally fail WP:COI and should be considered spam:

Healing Rooms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boris Menart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
David Ruis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--Dynaflow 18:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's much more fun to be persnickety, though. In any case, the [sic] is technically used to show simply that you are repeating what another has said, verbatim. Though there is often a tone of mild condescension attached to its use, it doesn't necessarily mean that the usage it follows is wrong, per se. I used it to show that I was using my preferred "s's" form alongside Particle's preferred "s'" form, and not just switching indiscriminately between them ... 'cause I's a grammar nazi like dat. Ah, how refreshing. I seem to have gotten through my day's quota of pedantry in one go! =) --Dynaflow 19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you Simon Higgs or are you closely associated with him in some way? [EDIT:] I would like to get Hephaestos' take on this, but he seems to have left Wikipedia [34] after getting into a rather messy fight with a robot [35]. --Dynaflow 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that after checking the facts, Hephaestos was right. Yes, I know who Simon Higgs is. This isn't significant. All the legitimate COI critiques made have been addressed and will continue to be addressed. If others want to update these pages, they can do that. This has all the appearance of a personal vendetta against Simon Higgs because every single deletion notice has come from the same person - Dynaflow. Not only that but you have decided singly-handed to delete informational stubs (which by definition are works in progress) on the sole grounds they were created by this account and are therefore spam. How ludicrous is that? Please explain yourself. particle 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem here is WP:NOTE. The conflict of interest problem on one article is what made me suspicious that other articles were being created by the same account that don't satisfy WP:NOTE due to the same conflict of interest. I turned out to be right, and so here we are at AfD. Also, I 'single-handedly deleted' nothing. I do not have the power to delete, only to put up for deletion review. Even speedydelete tags must be reviewed (the actual deletions of the redlinked articles above were carried out by sysop Enochlau). Now, to clarify the WP:COI issue, are you Simon Higgs or a close associate/relative/publisher/etc. of his? --Dynaflow 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You already have your answer above. It does not justify removing verifiable facts. How do we know that you don't have a COI in that you are a rival or competitor of Simon Higgs? After all, you're the only one placing "delete" notices on the pages here. Getting back to the facts. The information has been UNCONTESTED for 4 years since it was originally challenged by Hephaestos. There is no problem with WP:NOTE because notability has already been contested and the issue was resolved back in 2004. The Higgs' Laws originally had their own page and the Wikipedia community decided they didn't merit their own page, so they were added to Simon Higgs' page (by someone else). Again, problem resolved. Now you come along with a very specific agenda to target EVERYTHING that has been made by this account. While other Wiki users seem to want to contribute to the pages this account has created, you seem to want to delete them and remove them from Wiki history so apparently you have an agenda at work here. Choose wisely. Your actions are not that of someone challenging information and sources per the Wikipedia mandate and these actions are not going unnoticed. particle 00:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a student with no interest in the genre of music in question, nor with the workings of the music industry in general. I am more than willing to reveal my identity to a third-party admin to verify this if needs be. My interests lie in keeping Wikipedia free of vanity autobiographical articles (WP:AUTO), vandalism (WP:VAND), and spam (WP:SPAM). Now -- who are you? --Dynaflow 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering none of those three items apply here I suggest we all go our separate ways and you remove the vandalism that you have attached to these pages. particle 03:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
time does not make poor decisions right. WP has tolerated many things accepted at the start which are only now being improved.DGG 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How long have you been the official spokesperson for Wikipedia? Wikipedia is made up of people. People have agendas, hold grudges and make personal attacks. Wikipedia is actually crumbling apart because of it. Vandalism of pages is a huge no-no here but you are apparently condoning it on these pages. Censorship and the removal of knowledge is never, ever, an improvement. Careful editing and fact-checking is. Remember, the whole world is watching. particle 07:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole deletion thread is apparently initiated by the mis-tagging of a book entitled The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store. It was incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion and here's why - Wikipedia lists the following criteria for speedy deletion to include, but are not limited to, the following:
  • Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
However, the book in question is specifically about sales and advertising. By definition it has relevant content related to sales and advertising and is not considered spam according to Wikipedia's own guidelines. particle 15:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you Simon Higgs or a close associate/relative/publisher/etc., of his? --Dynaflow 18:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As an owner of this author's book, it seems to me that the controversy raised here must have been from a competitor. Mr. Higgs' information online can be found on Google [39] and other search engines dating back some 10 years. I also confirmed via the ICANN website[40] that he has contributed work there as well. Skullkrax 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC) — Skullkrax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment this user has only made two edits, this one and a comment on the talk page of this article up for AFD. Russeasby 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppet? User's date and time of account creation are: 16:44, 8 May 2007 my time, which is about four hours ago. In other news, user Particle has brought (The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) up for a deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion review#The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store. Drop by if you have an opinion. I'll abstain from that one until this AfD closes. --Dynaflow 03:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynaflow has an unseen agenda here. He is the ONLY one involved in the tagging of this article. He is also the ONLY one involved in the tagging of the other pages. In fact it seems to be a concerted effort by Dynaflow to delete ALL pages generated by particle (this user). Yes, this sticks out like a sore thumb and there has to be some ulterior motive involved here. particle 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to that accusation from the first time you made it (above). --Dynaflow babble 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 6.3.2: "Many others, including Simon Higgs and Karl Denninger, favored the rapid creation of new registries like Network Solutions, but with different top-level domain names."
  • Section 6.3.3: "On July 31, 1996, Bill Manning, an Information Sciences Institute (ISI) employee who worked with Postel on IANA functions, met with Chris Ambler, Simon Higgs, and another prospective registry operator to discuss the evaluation criteria."
  • There are also two entries that mention Higgs' name in: Table 6.3: TLD Applications to IANA, 1995-1996. One shows that he proposed the creation of a new top-level domain (TLD) called .news on 9/14/95. Another showed him proposing .coupons and .rebates on 12/5/95.
I think the above quotes are the ONLY support for Higgs' notability from that book. (He was also mentioned in the index, but I didn't check that). As you can see, there is nothing about the various Higgs' Laws in those quotes. EdJohnston 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure what all the commotion is about here. There are references in multiple places to Simon Higgs for a number of different things. Mueller's book is just one item. There's a ton of internet related stuff from the 1995-1996 Draft Postel period. There's enough to establish notability. However, if the Higgs' Laws are questioned and can't be sourced then maybe edit them out. But what Dynaflow is attempting to do is throw EVERYTHING out. That's not editorial. That's censorship/book-burning. Wikipedia is all about editorial. This isn't happening here in an objective fashion and this delete request is essentially an all or nothing proposition and includes innocent articles. If information is not sourced then edit it. But Dynaflow is attempting to erase documented history here. That's not right. particle 05:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References to Usenet are generally frowned upon by our guidelines. The book seemed different because books have credibility in our system. However the mentions of Simon Higgs in the book are not very profound, so they don't help much to establish his notability. Dynaflow asked for advice at WP:COI/N, and I was one of those who advised him to add the music-related articles to the AfD, because they seemed to establish a pattern of Conflict Of Interest. Dynaflow has merely followed the rules, so far as I can tell. It is better to try to offer substantive evidence than attack the messenger. If you were more frank about your situation regarding the music-related articles, or were willing to reveal your identity, it would improve the atmosphere of this discussion. Of course, Wikipedia doesn't require you to reveal your identity, but nothing requires us to vote to keep these articles either. EdJohnston 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit, yes. Delete, no. It's commendable that that Dynaflow has supporters, but I'd like to point out that Dynaflow's actions haven't exactly followed the rules. I'd like to refer to the origin of this thread, the speedy deletion of (The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), which was substantially rewritten between the time the speedy delete notice was created and the time of deletion. This didn't meet the standards for a speedy delete and ignored the criteria noted here. However, following up on the success of the speedy delete, Dynaflow has taken it upon himself to AfD EVERYTHING else this author has contributed ignoring content, relevance and fact. Some of the pages are stubs with basic non-spammy content that Dynaflow is attempting to delete here. Makes no sense. particle 01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As noted below, Wikipedia is for topics that have reliable, independent sources writing about them. Being of interest to insiders does not meet our inclusion standards for corporations.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trellia[edit]

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

Notability not asserted. GSearch shows mainly primary sources soum (0_o) 18:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Trellia was founded 4 years ago, not two as mentioned above. More notably though, Trellia is a memeber of the WiMax Forum, and as such is helping to define the IEEE 802.16 and ETSI HiperMAN standards. This makes Trellia a company to watch as wireless carries such as Spint in the US deploy 802.16 wireless networks and chip manufacturers such as Intel and AMD incorporate WiMax radios into their laptop processors. Companies such as Trellia are of great interest to technology analysts and financial investors. [42]--Bberanek22 14:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. The only keep comments were from editors who dropped by only to contribute to this AfD --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Town of Odyssey[edit]

The Town of Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Enceladus[edit]

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

Recreation (of the same form of junk) of deleted article (created 8 days after the old one was deleted) junk pseudo-science without any valid referencing (outside its own self-publicist websites), additionally appallingly written as a encyclopaedic article (written in style of academic paper) and clearly being used to give a degree of officialism to crackpot junk. All the points for deletion made in original articles AfD (namely, COI, OR, NN, V, and RS) are valid for this one. Additional clean-up deletions needed on all the uploaded images (presumably copyvio's) as well SFC9394 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • However, be careful with the images. Trying to delete them as copyvios will most likely backfire, with the uploaders suddenly revealing themselves as the authors, or as people with control over the copyrights. --Philosophus T 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the article not quite being a recreation along with this being the subject of significant comment and two ArbCom cases I felt it was important for a public AfD to be made, for clear reasons to be displayed and consensus clearly broadcast. If it had just being SD'ed by me and the article disappeared into thin air an hour later it would have fuelled the conspirators views that this is being "suppressed" or "covered up" in some way. As for the pictures, either way they can be deleted as unencyclopaedic and/or as orphans. The picture of the sunspot and the eclipse are very likely copyvio's - the rest are probably from their crackpot book. SFC9394 10:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, let's do this in a way that is procedurally impeccable, in hope that we won't have to do it over again.DGG 22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duel on Mustafar[edit]

Duel on Mustafar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreation of a recently deleted article (via prod). This is appropriate for a Star Wars wiki, but not for Wikipeda. The info can be in articles on Anakin or Obi-wan. Or even Mustafar. Also unsourced. Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the prodded article was created on April 28 [43] by Halo 31887 (talk · contribs), and the recreation was today (May 5) by Jimblack (talk · contribs) [44], apparently in a different form. Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 08:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.F.C Bournemouth Reserve & Youth Team[edit]

A.F.C Bournemouth Reserve & Youth Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pointless page. Bournemouth is too small a team not to have players in consideration for the first team squad listed on the main article. Thus all the players listed on it will not have pages as they don't pass notability criteria. The results is news service stuff, and not for Wikipedia. I'm also listing the lage amount of re-direct pages it has:

HornetMike 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, fails WP:MUSIC and no non-trivial reviews were produced --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Rodriguez[edit]

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

Lacks the necessary secondary sources to establish notability. Fails WP:Music as not released on a major label. This is a multi-nomination for the articles on his releases and the company he has set up to self-publish.

Delete all. Bridgeplayer 21:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article if about a notable musician,composer. ThanksÁ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Df3 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - a secondary source is, for example, an article in a notable publication that favourably reviews the artist's work. Also, please stop removing the AFD template - it doesn't help and simply weakens your case. Bridgeplayer 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, This artist have alots of reviews , i display links, also he is in all Databases like All Music and Discgocs, i read the policy of nobility in Wikipedia and say this both Music data bases are notable for you it. Also he was student one of the most great masters in Japan of Japanese traditional music. Also perform in all this places like bio say. He has release two albums, and license tracks with very notable Record company.

I dont undertand what more information need this article? Its alots of bio of artists and musicians, with only 1 release in the market, and less information than Rodrigo Rodriguez, and are not deleted, like his master Kakizakai Kaoru. Please informe ?

Thanks in advance.

I think you need to ask to the Editor who aprove the biography of Rodrigo Rodriguez, I submited and him aprove , becouse he is a notable artist. Famouse, New Age , or World music composer, will not apear never in magazines of Celebrities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koku (talk • contribs) 10:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. If a merge is thought best, it should be discussed on the article's talkpage and listed at WP:PM. WjBscribe 10:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of nationalism in Europe[edit]

Rise of nationalism in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced content fork. Biruitorul 21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the author asked for further details, so here: Whatever useful content there is in there can easily be moved to Romantic nationalism, Zionism, etc. It's also rather pat: the article takes a broad, disparate subject and tries to force some artificial contours around it. Better to leave that for the pre-existing articles, in my view. Also it's vague: nationalism has come in waves over the past two centuries. One could speak, for instance, without too much exaggeration, of a rise in nationalism in Europe just since the 1990s (BNP, FN, NDP, FPÖ, etc). Plus, the article lacks any sort of meaningful references, and it reads like a school essay. Since we already have similar articles, we really don't need this one. Biruitorul 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. I see occassional sentences that I see might be challenged, and certainly one might trace this subject further back in time for earlier nationalistic sentiments, but I have not seen anyone challenge the theme and main points nor do I see this to be more likely to be challenged. So why delete? I am not voting here (yet), since I prefer discussion and consensus. DanielDemaret 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. --Richard 08:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Docg 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy in Britain and France 1154-1314[edit]

Monarchy in Britain and France 1154-1314 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced content fork. Biruitorul 21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Kapelli[edit]

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

Nom & Vote Del on this nn singer. "review" added to justify rem'g ProD was interview that describes how [tho]

she has been able to make a living from music – just – Kapelli has found her can-do positivity tested.

You can make a decent living from music w/o being notable; she has all the hallmarks of non-notability. Jerzy•t 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Petolicchio[edit]

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

This article was nominated before but some reason, never went anywhere. I think this article has several none wiki worthy areas, such as the part of the current Louis Petolicchio and the first Petolicchio. The part in the middle is debatable. Postcard Cathy 22:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Everett Carigan II[edit]

William Everett Carigan II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Even though he did publish a novel, I don't see anything about this chap to make him notable enough to pass WP:BIO, thought about speedying but wasn't sure so I've brought it here. Madmedea 22:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, article was expanded to evidence notability --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chalmers[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because really, it is only two lines. There is nothing about the actor, and is he really even a well enough known person? --Scabloo 22:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merged and redirected to Jakarta International Java Jazz Festival, which needs a clean up Steve (Stephen) talk 09:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta International Jazz Festival[edit]

Jakarta International Jazz Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a repetition of Jakarta International Java Jazz Festival which was created on August 26, 2005 --VS talk 22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAMPA chart for Nahuatl[edit]

SAMPA chart for Nahuatl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research: while the article notes that each language has its own individual SAMPA chart, Nahuatl is not one of the languages that has one; inaccurate: Nahuatl does not have a uvular stop, and I'm pretty sure l is /l/, not /ɬ/; and unnecessary, since we use IPA. Ptcamn 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for further discussion -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 08:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bread sticks[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, Wikipedia is not a cookbook. John254 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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