< May 5 May 7 >
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 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]

Growth of natural systems[edit]

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

I have proposed Growth of natural systems for deletion, because of WP:OR, WP:V, personal tone and redundancy (subject is already covered under emergence) 1Z 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, If you understand what I mean I think you'd agree that growth is definitely a physics problem.

I've been studying 'emergence' as a natural process for many years, much longer than it has been a field of theoretical analysis. I have a broad rigorous method for probing them as individual autonomously evolving structures . The success I've had is considerable but I have not yet found any journal, or conversation really, interested in close observation of emerging systems as a addition to the scientific method. I'm making some new progress but, it's clear that the whole community is confounded by the idea that anyone would want to do that (well, unless you know someone different).

The reason appears to be that I look at emerging 'properties' as the byproduct of emerging 'processes', and locate them from the growth of organizationally independent physical networks with interiors. Their evolution appears to progress by what may best be called their 'exploring' their environments rather than either by following a system of rules or being controlled by their environments. My best tool is identifying the periods when the progressions of change with all higher derivatives of one sign, the growth periods and their beginning and end. Once you learn how, it tells you a huge amount about what is going on inside. The fact that my approach readily produces durable new findings is enough to tell me it has validity.

I've always thought of it as physics, only not about control. To do the work I need to leave things alone, and just watch with unusual sensitivity. The 'laws' you find are solid and neat, and would be highly useful. The people studying complex systems and using the term 'emergence' are plentiful, but they don't talk about it as a *physical* process at all, nor about needing a major innovation in the scientific method just to clearly identify their subject.

I admit I have an old fashioned idea of what physics is about. The modern idea is that it is about mathematics, and that the physical world is a manifestation of that mathematics. The older view is that mathematics is descriptive, and the physical processes are not well represented when reduced to a set of measures.

Well, I think it's fairly self-evident that any form of multiplying local organizational evolution is not predicted by the present laws of physics, and it happens all over the place if you look.

Is that sufficient in your mind to say that one of the most common natural phenomena is not yet adequately explained? If you can suggest how to rephrase things I'd be glad to have tips.

Phil Henshaw

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Chon[edit]

Justin Chon – (View AfD) Vanity page. This actor's work is insubstantial and does not warrant an article. 601 hits in google search. Actor has no public following. Prod tag was removed by someone with a bare IP. Quatloo 09:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that it does exactly the opposite. Quatloo 21:53, 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 00:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a vanity page? The guy is a total nobody. Quatloo 04:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be expanded because nothing has ever been published on this guy. Quatloo 06:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as attack page. Slavlin 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jorgenson[edit]

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

profanity Mseliw 00:11, 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 nomination withdrawn. –Pomte 05:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===A New Star===

A New Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I nominated this for deletion because: 1) Possible Copyvio. 2) Notability; It's just an interview with Sports Illustrated. It's not like he won an award for it or anything. 3) Possible advertisement, in that he is trying to advertise himself, to show how good he is. SuperDT 15:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ... I made this out of mistake. Please remove it. Sorry. SuperDT 16:30, 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 (CSD G1). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About inventors[edit]

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

This article is an unnecessary fork of Inventor. John254 00:01, 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 merge and redirect to The Chronicles of Riddick. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furyan[edit]

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

Delete Non notable movie element; not much info is know about it anyway. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:18, 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. The claims to notability aren't clearly substantiated and the article has insufficient legitimate sources. Srikeit 04:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Pollack[edit]

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

This is a borderline case. The guy seems like he would be notable, and thus have sources on him. The problem is, the only sources I can find on this Henry Pollack are the article cited in the references section and various copies of a Department of Justice press release. I'm not sure that's enough to have an article, but it's kinda ambiguous. So I formally have no opinion, leaning towards delete. It just needs some discussion. Amarkov moo! 00:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush (band) equipment[edit]

Rush (band) equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of what it says on the cover. BanyanTree 00:22, 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 & cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vets For Freedom Action Fund[edit]

Vets For Freedom Action Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, this article seems to exist solely to promote this organization and its adopted viewpoint. The "sources" are either the organization itself, or editorials produced by its membership about political issues (not about the organization itself). Wikipedia isn't the place to push an agenda or promote a non-notable political group. /Blaxthos 00:22, 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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Alert (Star Trek)[edit]

Blue Alert (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about what amounts to some blinking lights and a siren. While the circumstances that lead to "blue alert" may be notable, the term/condition itself does not warrant its own article. The condition occurs most frequently in Star Trek: Voyager; I'd recommend redirecting either to that article or, more appropriately, USS Voyager (Star Trek). --EEMeltonIV 00:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because, like "blue alert," "yellow alert" amounts to some lights and sound effects; minor significance to the shows' in-universe plots, and can't fathom any real-world (i.e. of-interest-to-Wikipedia) notability. No particular recommendation on where, if anywhere, to redirect.

Yellow Alert (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--EEMeltonIV 01:02, 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. — Caknuck 03:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)W.marsh 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Night at the Museum[edit]

The Night at the Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable book besides being the base of the movie, hardly any contributors-most recent was in Febuary. Lemonflash|(speak out) 01:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Inquisition (myths and misconceptions)[edit]

The Inquisition (myths and misconceptions) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Comment merging doesn't seem like a great idea. articles shouldn't have trivia style sections. Documented false claims that have published work about them could go into Inquisition, but this stuff is unsourced and in an improper format. i kan reed 21:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWF Kuwaiti Cup[edit]

WWF Kuwaiti Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wretling tournament, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources about it so fails WP:N, and Wikipedia is not a directory of wrestling results. One Night In Hackney303 01:52, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Breed Entertainment[edit]

New Breed Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music label that fails all points of WP:MUSIC. The label has yet to release any albums, nor does it have any notable artists. No reliable sources provided, and it's doubtful that any exist. Speedy tag was deleted by author last month.

I'm also nominating the article for the label's forthcoming album...

The Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Caknuck 02:26, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mundana Quartet[edit]

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

Prodded with "Not notable, not referenced, not encyclopedic tone." Prod removed by creator with argument "Article improved. Having been elected to represent a country at Expo 2000, is definetely an enyclopedic". There are still no references for the article, the tone is very unencyclopedic, and playing at a single big event doesn't make one notable - does it? Update: this article was also deleted from Polish Wikipedia (see pl:Wikipedia:SDU/Mundana Quartet for Polish AfD); the reason was the same as mine above - participation in a single event does not made them notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If you can elaborate on how that piece of policy pertains to this string quartet I'll think of changing my vote. As it is, I am at a loss as to what you intend to accomplish since that, as it were, was my very point. Eusebeus 23:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted some references regarding newspaper articles about Mundana. Gazeta Poznańska is a major national daily; Głos Wielkopolski - a local daily reaching population about size of Quebec population - you can find this article here but it's only an abstract. Just like in New York Times, to read the full text of the archived article, one must become a member and pay for it. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, so I cannot use this link on main page. It relates to a big event - International Music Day in 2005 Poland - televised nationwide by Channel II Polish TV at prime time with footings broadcast across Europe and South America. It took place in downtown Poznań - the only city in Poland which partcipate in it for the first time. Mundana Quartet not only participate in it together with many well established ensembles including Poznańskie Słowiki with Stefan Stuligrosz, but also organized it and does it now each year. If not for Mundana this event never would happen. You can check that out with another reference on main page in Gazeta Wyborcza. If this event is not encyclopedic, Live 8, Concert for Bangladesh and Woodstock 69' also should qualify for AfD. greg park avenue 10:39, 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Polish wiki has different AfD procedure, their AfD is indistinguishable from a majority vote, if you go to the link and take a look. In English wiki, we don't count votes for AfD. WooyiTalk, Editor review 14:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a vote (not quite majority through), and the article failed by 2:1 (no:yes) votes. It is also true, that the author appears to have a very strong personal interest in promoting the band and its members. During the vote he had to be blocked on pl.wiki for a week because of personal and abusive attacks towards persons who voted against the article. Jotempe 14:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for someone who didn't contibute to English wiki not even a single edition except creating his own user page and starts the editing career from AfD complains, he doesn't seem very credible to me; it looks more like a personal attack which, by the way, Polish AfD was all about, however, the other way around than stated above. And here we've got a typical sample of that activity. And yes, I have a strong personal interest to promote the only band in Poland which is 100% tolerant, just for want of the others. greg park avenue 15:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually someone as experienced on wiki as you, should have noticed that I do have several edits in the main space (admitted, mostly minor ones). But, most important, I'm not complaining here, I'm explaining the backgroud of article deletion on pl.wiki to people, who don't know Polish. You may notice, that I did not put forth my opinion about the article, just described what happened with it there. BTW: I consider the claim that it is the only band in Poland which is 100% tolerant a gross overstatement. Jotempe 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT a forum. Concentrate on article. Nobody in here cares about Polish bias. greg park avenue 16:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, but what has that to do with Mundana? Though, while we at Sarc1 I took a freedom to correct German spelling on your user page - instead of "mucken auf" it supposed to be "aufzumucken". greg park avenue 13:06, 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. Sr13 02:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlust Software Universe[edit]

Bloodlust Software Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previous AfD - not sure what originally happened here, the AfD seemed to result in merge but I'm struggling to understand what was merged to where if anything, and the closing admin isn't editing any more, at least with that account. Seems to be mostly original research, and there's no real evidence of notability either. One Night In Hackney303 02:38, 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 blam blam blam blam click... gone. DS 15:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting (2008 film)[edit]

No reference whatsoever to this movie on IMDB, Google or Yahoo. Plus, "Night Sky Films" doesn't appear to be a company capable of producing a film of this scale, based on their Web site. And neither of the stars exist. Bottom line--a possible hoax. Blueboy96 03:14, 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 speedy delete. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 09:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youthfire[edit]

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

(contested PROD) This website does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. Joyous! | Talk 03:22, 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 Huntsville, Alabama, nothing of particular note to merge. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Gap Middle School[edit]

Mountain Gap Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, what may be notable is potentially slanderous Chris 03:30, 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 and move to Arbuthnot and Ambrister incident. Sr13 02:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander George Arbuthnot[edit]

Alexander George Arbuthnot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable shopkeeper, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But let's keep an eye out for other Arbuthnots of much lesser interest or importance. DGG 04:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is quite possibly that the incident and trial is notable, however the sources are very poor and not from recognised reliable sources, however I dont believe that the individual himself is notable.--Vintagekits 16:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, "International repercussions and had permanent effect on General Jackson's reputation" - yes the incident caused this not the person. Is there any chance the you could start being a little more objective when it comes to articles that you have created about your own family - remember WP:COI--Vintagekits 13:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, What?!?! I didnt nominate this AfD. Kittybrewster has been warned about his WP:COI when ity comes to editing articles the he has created about members of his own family (and probably shouldnt havent !voted here either). I dont see the malice in that. Additionally he was been warned before about breaching WP:CANVAS yet he has posted this messege here.--Vintagekits 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, are you trying to say that I am double voting? (like someone did in the last AfD! no names mentioned!) I was argeeing with a comment above, this is my official !vote.--Vintagekits 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone has a problem with somebody producing an article on the incident. The article we have does not breach copywrite. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually the sons were involved. "But the prey had been forewarned. A letter from Arbuthnot to his son had reached the place and had been explained to Bowlegs, who had been ever since employed in sending the women and children across the broad Suwanee into those inaccessible retreats which render Florida the best place in the world for such warfare as Indians wage. The troops reached the vicinity of the town, and in a few minutes drove out the enemy and captured the place. The pursuit was continued on the following morning by General Gaines; but the foe had vanished by a hundred paths, and were no more seen." - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nonsense, these criminals were killed for breaking the law in an incident that was notable, it was not the individuals that is notable its the incident.--Vintagekits 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Interesting parallel we have here, don't you think? Here is a man who set out to help the indigenous population against the new "incomers" who he perceived were giving them a pretty raw deal. I would have thought that you would have appreciated such a person. Does this resonate? Think Ireland here. --Bill Reid | Talk 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the convictions were not questioned - the punishment for these crims was what was questioned. This is not the place for this discussion - if you want to carry on please do it on the articles talkpage.--Vintagekits 20:31, 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 merge. Petros471 14:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAH Theater[edit]

This organization is not notable. The article's creator appears to be using Wikipedia as a form of free advertising for an unknown, amateur theatre company. It appears to be a vanity article. KindSould 10:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WAH Theater is part of a professional not for profit organization, whose building is on the National Register of Historic Places. The WAH Center has had numerous article written about it including a full page article in the New York Times. Kindsould is making assumptions about the motives of the article's creator saying that he is" using wiki as a form of free advertising." Kindsould has access to no information on the creators motives. It is suspected that Kindsould is an indvidual with hostile intent or a grudge and his/her opinion is not credible. The WAH Center and the WAH Theater are notable. KEEP article. 24.215.156.154 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for my misuse of the term vanity article. I have no knowlege what-so-ever of the creator of this article. Nor do I have any sort of grudge. I simply have recently come accross a number of theatre articles for non-union theatres, which do not appear to be notable within the industry. Wikipedia needs to maintain some sort of standard for professionalism when it comes to theatre articles. If small non-union theatre companies are to be included simply because they are located in New York, then amateur community theatres throughout the country should also be given articles. KindSould 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WAH Center is a notable building. The WAH theatre does not appear to share that notoriety. KindSould 21:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a more reasonable presentation of your view. i might even agree. What other theater articles have you suggested that wiki delete? That way i can determine whether you have a particular grudge or are objective. Also, you say the WAh Builkding is notable. Is the WAH Center notable in your opinion, or should that article be deleted too? They just got a $100,000 grant from the City of New York. Sincerely24.215.156.154 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KindSould: I just looked at your record. You appear to be legitimate. Let s then see what other Wikipedians think. I believe in fairness. Best regards. 24.215.156.154 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I concur, Merge to WAHC. The historical building is the Kings County Savings Bank24.215.156.154 13:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still say merge. What is notable to one person is not notable to the next. The Metropolitan Opera is not notable in Timbuktu. In fact there are few articles if any in major press as of yet on WAH Theater, so by that standard it is not notable. On the other hand, the Williamsburg Art & Historical Center is important. The Center has major collections, and the center's directors are world reknowned. As for the building's notability, it is considered one of the finest examples of 19th century architecture in America. It was the 7th building in all of New York City to be landmarked, so that is an odd statement that it "may" be notable.24.215.156.154 20:02, 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, but moved to Welsh independence --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Independence[edit]

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

A stub for a principal that is already explictly mentioned in Plaid Cymru - Party of Wales article already. This article, at this state, serves only to explictly state the goal of the Party of Wales, advocating Welsh independence - violating NPOV already. Granted that a well-rounded article may potentially develop, I previously nominated this article be speedily deleted in March 2007 under CSD - but withdrew the notice after the article creator cited natural article growth for keeping it. Since that time, this stub continues to provide little to no encyclopedic value, that otherwise couldn't be found in other articles. Wikipedia should not be used to progress political agendas. If the intent of this article is to create an informed article on Welsh Independance, then may I suggest a new section in the Plaid Cymru article - as is the case with Quebec independence in Canada Luke! 03:41, 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.

Vincent mazzaro[edit]

The result was already speedy deleted,, non-admin closing. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a minor league baseball player that has never made the majors--current precedent dictates that baseball players without a significant career in MLB are non-notable. Blueboy96 03:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GLJ[edit]

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

An unsourced article on a non-notable neologism. Contested prod. MER-C 03:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With this in mind, can this be speedied G10? Serpent's Choice 11:46, 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 redirect to Xenosaga. WjBscribe 03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in Xenosaga[edit]

List of terms in Xenosaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was nominated and kept in January: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga. False promises to cleanup were made: and never came through. The article is a huge mess 3 months later. In my opinion, 3 months is more than enough to at least do some cleanup. Little to none was done by the looks of the edit history/current state of the article. RobJ1981 03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has, and the Xenosaga Wikia appears on Google. — Deckiller 02:07, 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. Petros471 14:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Chernik[edit]

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

Not Notable. This article's content is mostly from three single purpose editors (two registered and one IP). I've tried to improve the article myself by adding some references, but all I can find are primary sources that the subject's directly affiliated with. The article's been tagged with ((primarysources)) since February without any improvement. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - This is the artist. I'm not sure where to make notes on this. The person who posted this article under Echochernik, did so from a student interview (for their school) and is not the artist. All my online accounts are under echox, which is my screenname whenever possible (including on wikipedia). I was emailed today to come here and help clear this up. I believe Holly was a student of mine a long time ago (I used to teach illustration at Skidmore and Pratt); and I believe it's the same person. I'm not sure if it's the same person who wrote the article - I don't think so. Either way, neither are me (me being the artist), nor are any of the other screennames. I guess they don't want their article deleted, which is why they wrote to me to clear it up. I go by echox whenever possible.

So, let me know if you need to talk, or whatever - to verify that I am indeed me (the artist) and I did not write the article - in fact, I didn't know about it until today. It looks like the information from the interview. I do about ten or twelve interviews a year.

Email me if you want to clarify the authorship of this. ((I think that's why they wanted me to post)). But, no the person who wrote this is not a relative - and we have never met (beyond the email interview). Let me know if you need any other information from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echox (talk • contribs) 11:42, May 7, 2007

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

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster, Prescott and Russell United Counties, Ontario[edit]

Westminster, Prescott and Russell United Counties, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not listed on official Website of United Counties of Prescott and Russell--so possibly a hoax. Even if it did exist, this is a hamlet of only 50 people--not nearly enough to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Blueboy96 04:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living Platform[edit]

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

Unreferenced and may be non-notable, and the website itself is a dead link, probably a non-existent website. WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:54, 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 no consensus, as so often happens with these mass nominations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCW Cruiserweight Championship[edit]

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

Article about a title held in a minor league wrestling promotion, simply not notable or encyclopedic. One Night In Hackney303 05:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:[reply]

MCW Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MCW Light Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MCW Rage Television Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MCW Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Added CommentOne of the stated reasons of the Wikiproject Professional Wrestling is: "To create and edit featured article quality professional wrestling articles on Wikipedia, with the intent of making Wikipedia an accurate and valued reference for pro wrestling information." Note the last half of that! In order for me to view Wikipedia as a valued reference for pro wrestling information I would expect to find this type of information. Theophilus75 05:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of OVW Light Heavyweight Championship reigns by length[edit]

List of OVW Light Heavyweight Championship reigns by length (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

trivial list for a short-lived title in a low/mid level independent wrestling promotion. The whole concept of how long someone held a professional wrestling title, a predetermined event, is pretty trivial in itself, I surely don't think a separate article is needed for this. Biggspowd 06:02, 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 merge pertinent information back into The A-Team, per both the delete and merge arguments; article kept as redirect to preserve GFDL history. Krimpet (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural effects of The A-Team[edit]

Cultural effects of The A-Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

trivia fork, full of various mentions of a-team in other media. Not necessary for own article. Biggspowd 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - User has history of vandalism. He had placed a PROD on the page, which I removed on the basis of his history as a vandal. As the creator of the article, I also did not recieve a notice of the PROD on my talk page, as recommended for PRODs. On these bases, I do not feel this AfD is a serious action, and smacks of a bicycle shed issue. - BillCJ 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see this diff for an example of either vandalism or a violation of WP:POINT. I'm sorry for leaving the "point" part out of the above comment, but it is in my removal of his PROD here. Because I did not recieve a notification of the PROD as reconmmended, the action seemed consistent with his previous pattern of behavior, which I did check before removing the PROD. - BillCJ 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the vandalism/POINT claim on the basis of the usere's prior edits. As it turns out I was wrong, I apologize. I do appreciate the user first posting a PROD, as most trivia-article-deletionist that I have been involved with lack the courtesyt to discuss their concerns first, as someone with a good respect for the WP:AGF guideline would do. Please don't let my assumption of continued bad behaivor on your part push you into bad behavior of another sort. Thanks. - BillCJ 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - over the last several months we have deleted innumerable "in popular culture" articles on topics ranging from TV shows to films to people to weapons to bands. Precedent does not support the automatic keeping of these articles. Otto4711 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Okay then, so ignore the first two sentences in my vote explanation. The main idea I was trying to get across is that there are at least two users (BillCJ and I) who are willing to put effort into this article to improve it. This article needs a chance to improve, which is what Wikipedia is all about. What ever happened to eventualism? →EdGl 17:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing to improve... there are no reliable sources that discuss the significance of the A-Team in popular culture because, when you get down to it, there is no real impact -- this has simply become a place for everyone to list where they've seen A-Team references... far past the mission and guidelines of Wikipedia. /Blaxthos 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply One of the ways to improve this article is to find reliable sources for the statements in the article. For example, one could probably find a movie review that mentions an A-Team reference in that particular movie. This is what I had in mind when I said "improvement," along with eliminating entries that are too trivial even for a "trivia page!" (Meaning ones that are truly impossible to find sources for. I believe there are some sources out there for several of those entries.) →EdGl 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've posted a number of suggestions on the talk page based on experience gained from working on other entries within the general in popular culture area (that is just an opening salvo and there is more that can be done). I'd also contest the notion that there has been no cultural impact - there are at least 4 classic stereotypes arising from the series which are instantly recognisable: The distinctive foursome, the tune, the van and their constructing impossible machines from a random selection of found objects. (Emperor 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think you guys are missing the point... this content is simply not information appropriate for Wikipedia... we're not a place to house every pop culture reference. If it's notable, incorporate it into the main article (A-Team or whatever)... but this is why it got moved out of the article -- it's not appropriate content. /Blaxthos 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see I don't think I am missing the point. From your coments it appears you also think that some of this information is relevant (as you think it shouls be put back into the main entry). I also agree there is informaiton in the entry under discussion which shouldn't be there and relevant information that should remain in Wikipedia. The difference seems to be that I think we can clean up the current entry and make it useful - the presence of some suspect information should be dealt with by an attempt to tdy things up before going straight for deletion. Putting it back into the main entry will end up with it expanding again, growing too big for the entry and getting split off again (the reason I thought this was split off in the first place [3]). What I'd rather do is address the problems here and now (rather than shoving them around) and work up a consensus on what should and shouldn't be kept and devise a way forward that works to everyone's satisfaction so we have a long term solution. Now I might be misreading what you have said but I suspect our positions aren't actually that different ;) (Emperor 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
...There could be a simple paragraph about the cultural impact of "The A-Team" on the main article without all the "The A-Team was referenced on this Family Guy episode..." garbage. I also think the last section about the reunion show should be put on the main article, rather than tagged on to the end of this list. Wavy G 04:36, 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 keep. --Selket Talk 06:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia Applications Development Environment[edit]

Multimedia Applications Development Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I hate this article! Its presence is annoying me! I mean, do we really need an article about something that is not notable!? Get rid of this article! Especially since it was not edited in 2006!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Outcome would almost certainly be the same if left for the full 5 days, and we take WP:BLP concerns very seriously round here. I think it's best if we close the debate early. kingboyk 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Chiba[edit]

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

being someone's girlfriend does not make someone notable. If she was a murder suspect in an ongoing, highly publicized trial, it might be different, but at present there is no justification for this article Chris 06:19, 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 all. Consensus was obviously clearer on the related articles, but also one the main one when taking into account the strength of arguments presented. Petros471 14:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Shockwave[edit]

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

Contested prod, "in honor of the great Billy "whatshisname" Firehawk". Non notable independent wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney303 06:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

NWA Shockwave Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Shockwave Internet Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Shockwave Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Shockwave Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Shockwave Cruiser X Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 12:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demonica Deadwater[edit]

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

nn independent wrestling manager, gets less than 200 Ghits, no WP:RS Biggspowd 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons Article Should NOT Be Deleted Biggspowd already tried to nominate this article as a Candidate for Speedy Deletion and it was DENIED. Now Biggspowd is trying to have this article deleted again based on the same generally unfounded claims of non-notability.

This article is about a notable female independent professional wrestling manager. Cause for Demonica Deadwater's notability is listed on the article's talk page and in the article itself. The article asserts the subject's importance and significance, and that is why Biggspowd's attempt to have it speedy deleted was DENIED.

Ghits are irrelevant. It is a new article and if ghits are the measure of the importance of an article, then lots of valuable resources would be lost from Wikipedia.

The article has reliable sources. Threat's Official Fan Site has photos, videos, and news articles that have been around as long (and in some cases longer) than Wikipedia itself and Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.because the authors of the articles at Threat's Official Fan Site are first person witnesses to Demonica Deadwater's professional wrestling managerial career. You can get no more authoritative than that.

If Biggspowd doesn't care for the article, then Biggspowd can go edit pages elsewhere on Wikipedia. Biggspowd's claim that Demonica Deadwater is non-notable is generally unfounded. Kotterpin 08:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin — Kotterpin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Do Not Delete I did read what a reliable source was, and it said nothing about fansites, especially a fan site that has newspaper-length articles written by a staff of writers. Again, Threat's Official Fan Site is more than just a typical fan site, it is a news site- a repository of photos, videos, and news articles detailing his career and the careers of those who he works most closest with, written by a staff of news writers independent of the subject who cover the matches in similar (and usually in even more) detail as other pro-wrestling news sites. His fan site is independent of the subject of the article. His fan site is authoritative in relation to the subject at hand, and that is the exact definition of a reliable source. Shelly Martinez has fewer cited sources than Demonica Deadwater and there is no dicussion about her reliable sources. Demonica Deadwater has been around longer than Shelly Martinez (she's been around since TJ Spyke was a freshman in high school, years before TJ Spyke could drive, and for 3 years while TJ Spyke had to take parents so TJ Spyke could watch a Rated-R movie at the theater), and "fame" or "importance" are not the definition of notability so you can't say just because Martinez is on ECW and Demonica isn't, then that makes Martinez notable and Demonica "nothing more than an indy manager" because Demonica has more cited sources from news articles archived on the Internet for years written by trustworthy authors who have covered her career in it's entirety so far. "Nothing more than an indy manager" is an opinionated statement and therefore should not be considered when dedciding on whether to delete the article or not. Definition: A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Go and look at Shelly Martinez' article. No reliable sources whatsoever for the bulk of the article including stats. On Martinez' page it claims she performed as the (kayfabe) sister of Melina Perez. Where is the only place on the entire Internet where you can find a news article detailing the fact that Martinez performed as the (kayfabe) sister of Melina Perez? Threat's Official Fan Site. It covers her match vs. Perez in detail and provides photographic and video coverage as well. That's the only place to find that information listed on Martinez' page so I believe that makes Threat's Official Fan (News) Site a credible, very reliable source for Wikipedia information. Thank you. If "fame" or "importance" is not the true definition of notability, then the statement "Nothing more than an indy manager" has no bearing on the topic at hand because the Demonica Deadwater article has plenty of cited sources in the form of news articles written by various news writers and archived at a news site which is labeled a fan site because that is the bulk of the readers- fans. Just like any other pro-wrestling news site. Do not delete this article. Kotterpin 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin — Kotterpin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Goodbye and whatever happens, happens, but this attack has made Wikipedia a very negative experience for me. Enjoy your Wiki-obsessed lives and have a nice day. I doubt I will be participating much anymore here because of the elitist, snobbish attitudes presented by censors. Kotterpin 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin — Kotterpin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please take this 300 word rebuttal into consideration when deciding on deleting this pro-wrestling article and Threat (Wrestler) which both actually have sources, the latter, multiple. Save the Wiki-cliche comments because I won't be back for over a week, when I return to see if these two articles have been deleted when 99% of all independent pro-wrestling articles on Wikipedia are not.

Respond with all the Wiki-cliche links you want. They're coming from people who have a track record of editing unsourced articles or people who have no clue that just about every independent pro-wrestler article is unsourced, that is every article except Demonica Deadwater and Threat (Wrestler)

Thank you to the Wikipedian who exposed to me that every person on this list as being unqualified to rate the merits of a pro-wrestling article nominated for deletion. Kotterpin 06:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films and television shows shot in Pittsburgh[edit]

List of films and television shows shot in Pittsburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probable violation of WP:NOT#DIR. --Tinctorius 07:10, 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 MERGE, mainly to Theodor Mommsen and perhaps a bit also to Getica (Jordanes) to exapand the phrase in that article "...was destroyed in a fire at Mommsen's house..." to include perhaps the date at least. It's not a long article and I may not merge the whole thing into the Mommsen article, so this is a deletey kind of merge, I guess. Herostratus 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire at Theodor Mommsen house[edit]

This incredibly poorly written article fails to assert any notability of the subject, is poorly written, and completely fails to meet manual of style guidelines. I originally speedied it, but the author promptly recreated it and complained on my talk. I'd like to close this matter once and for all, and I suggest that we delete it. alphachimp 07:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact every fire is tragic but how many Noble laureates publish works based on by them destroyed sources? His daughter clearly saying, that the fire was initiated (accidentally) by him. I’m not saying (like Aldux falsely accuse me) that Mommsen staged the fire, or I not hypothesize that 'Car of Russia ohrona send an agent/terminator for sake of Pan-Slavism' :) It was a fire: tragic, ironic ... we may say whatever emotional description? I’m far from labeling it - I don’t know; anyway it will be not neutral. The information is scattered... when we have 3 different titles just in top of art Getica (Jordanes) and the first one unreferenced, when I did provided 3 different meaning of the word Getica found just in one source - W Smith dictionary, when is not clear what was the source of Mommsen critical edition, then I believe it will be good to keep the art until by cooperation of Wikipedia Editors (like you) the question which manuscripts was burn down and which were the sources for Mommsen publication, will be answered.
Nasz 12:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--about notability--

Two years after the fire in 1882 critical edition of the Jordanes manuscripts was published under title Iordanis Romana et Getica the major source for allochtonic argumentation in politicized debate used in Drang nach Osten. 'Controversial arguments' reverberated in WW1 and WW2 and cost millions of lives. If the manuscripts will not be burned, it may be possible to show them in autochtonic/allochtonic debate.
If you think that the Fire at Theodor Mommsen house it is pure nonsense ….but it is a notable - documented and not curious fact
Nasz 08:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't a clue what you mean by this. "Allochtonic argumentation in politicized debate" - what does that mean in standard English? Perhaps this is the problem - the article is as difficult (or impossible) to understand as your comment. --Charlene 08:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the link and scroll up, there is introduction. ((Do you need separated article ;) it will be deleted/able like this one). I like to keep the subject apart form other subjects. There is tendency in Wikipedia to merge huge articles. The people just forgetting the idea of wiki. Nasz 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nasz, you seem not to be a native speaker of English, and you are also using academic words whose context is unclear. You seem to be arguing that the loss of the historical texts led to the deaths of millions of people, which makes very little sense. I can certainly see that this was a notable event in Mommsen's career, but I can't understand why it needs a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because the information is better encapsulated. One subject/event one article. It may be summary of articles consisting of review of knowledge, but can you imagine(?) wrote in Professor Mommsen article all the details about the fire? That 3 daughters slept in the room under Mommsen work room when the fire begins. That the father had burned hairs. That other newspaper reported a gas explosion unnoticed at least one hour by the sleeping 3 daughters under the work room of hers father. There is a lot of information to collect, I just started to review the sources and to reson of special [animosity of Al-baragit(he mark this art for deletion) days of may work will be lost (but I hired a programmer to write a soft to protect my editions in case like this.So you can now debate about my case). Othervise all will be lost if I will belived in wiki promise. I tought that wiki want to collect knowledge I believe that hard drive space is so chip that should be not limit for details of important events. Look 500 GB HD cost $130 but one hour of time $30(US average). It is a ratio 1:e+8. I was thinking to start a concurrent project of better wiki society, but I hope you have a few kB for this, describetdas to delete event.
Nasz 10:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? --Tractorkingsfan 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Nasz, you seem to argue at the end that Wikipedia can include even minor topics, which is what we mean when we say that Wikipedia is not paper, but we still should have a reasonable rationale for inclusion of an article. Is this fire separately notable from Mommsen's career or the work itself? Nothing you have said shows this. Sorry about the days of work you put into this (it's not that long, though), but every edit page on this site says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Wikipedia editors don't own their work. --Dhartung | Talk 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: has been long pushing in several articles the OR (for which he has yet to provide a reliable source
  • N: Is in this art an element of not documented fantasy? Every sentence is referenced.
  • A: ..as many other manuscripts of the work survive in perfect conditiions..
  • N: I asked you Aldux long before, show me one of this manuscripts. Give a source . All your references bounce to nowhere. Just Shove the manuscript. All your sources are burnt down?
  • A: Mommsen forged the work
  • N: I never say this. I just can not find the sources your reference point to. The "Jordanes Manuscript" sorce edited by Mommsen.
  • A;something is not notable
  • N: I cant find the list of manuscript burned in Mommsen House. Are you interested what was there burned completly and what partialy? What is recoverable what we never recover? Or you dont care about burned books? As you dont care about the truth... did you commented you revert ~"Who care what is in Wikipedia?" ' ?
Nasz 19:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let our German friends do our thinking for us. Stammer 10:28, 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 keep. Petros471 14:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Right![edit]

Yeah Right! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Came across this when reading up on Owen Wilson, who apparently made a cameo appearance in this. This movie looks to be a production put out by a skateboard manufacturer based in southern California. Biggest problem with searching is that the phrase "Yeah Right!" turns up an impossible number of search items, making this one a hard one to dig stuff up for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:56, 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 Sppedied as vandalism. -Docg 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Rhys-Einhorn, Count of Einhorn[edit]

This is most likely a hoax. Google shows not a single non-Wikipedia hit for "Rhys-Einhorn" or "Count of Einhorn", which would be remarkable if this family was real and extant. This and John Rhys-Einhorn, Marquess of Meleros and San Elias of the Cardona were both created by User:NobilityFan. Unless some verification is offered, any other contributions of this user should also be deleted. Pharamond 22:44, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Investor[edit]

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

This was a contested speedydelete that gradually devolved into an irreconcilable argument between a somewhat-inclusionist admin and a somewhat-deletionist editor over the interpretation of WP's notability guidelines. See the article's Talk page for the main points. To summarize my main arguments for deletion, the article has one real, third-party source (a blog post [5]), saying this band made "#1" on a station's chart -- which I suspect is code for their internal user-request playlist. The vaunted "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" apparently either does not exist or cannot be found. The band may one day satisfy WP:NOTE, but that day won't be today. --Dynaflow 08:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[To clarify terms, the chart referred to is CBC Radio 3's R3-30 indie-rock singles listing. --Dynaflow 08:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]

A national radio network's Top 30 chart is a national radio network's Top 30 chart, and therefore meets WP:MUSIC criteria #3#2 and #11. No amount of whining about whether or not you personally like the standards by which said chart is compiled entitles you to dismiss the fact that it's a national radio network's Top 30 chart, and therefore a band which reaches #1 on it is notable enough for inclusion here. It doesn't matter whether the chart is compiled by airplay or by sales or by listener requests or by dangling chickens off the roof of a yurt or by factoring in all of the above at once — it's still a national radio network's Top 30 chart, and therefore satisfies our inclusion criteria. And for that matter, the supposed "blog post" is CBC Radio 3's official publication of its weekly charts on its own website, and is therefore the most definitive source that can possibly be provided for a statement about its charts. There's simply no valid argument to be had here; the band meets sufficient criteria at WP:MUSIC. Keep. (And would you care to explain to me how a broadcast radio network has "internal users" rather than listeners? Because I'm at a total loss as to what you mean by that.) Bearcat 08:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If more good sources on the article subject were forthcoming, I would drop my objection to the article's inclusion (and, indeed, the article's sourcing has gotten slightly better since this was taken to AfD), but the sources are still thin, as per WP:NOTE, and the comments of other editors show that this is a legitimate area of concern. I shall now resume leaving this AfD alone to let it take its course. --Dynaflow 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for stepping over WP:NPA; I didn't feel that I was, in my first comment, though I can see how you would feel I did, and I think you're right, I did in my second. I am sorry. I do feel there are many other bands with fewer and thinner cites that have been accepted as satisfying WP:NOTE in the past.--Thespian 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright. Things do get a bit heated around here. I also apologize for the tone of my response. I had been fighting off attacks by sockpuppets all weekend and was still in combat mode when I responded to your comment. --Dynaflow 21:44, 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 Speedy Deleted by User:Anthony.bradbury. --kingboyk 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Greer[edit]

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

This biography of a "Biological Reasearcher from Manteca, California, [who] is widely regarded by the scientific community as the first person to successfully domesticate a wild North American Buffalo" was prodded as a hoax. The prod was contested, but among other unlikely things in the article, there is no such thing as a "Nobel Prize from the Biological Committee of Interactive Research". Pharamond 08:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Reitano[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unclear on this fellow, but seems of quite dubious notability. Flash animation maker. Has done work for musicians, but in the "underground", not stars. One interview, but at an online site. One review, but on a Flash-specific online site. Herostratus 08:34, 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. The smell of fish surrounds it. The basic argument is the we don't know what it is. Until somebody can figure out just exactly what the heck it is, it probably shouldn't have an article. 15:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Brexgata University Academy[edit]

Brexgata University Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There appears to be strong elements of hoax or pseudo-history in the history of the article and in the contributions of its main authors/editors.

It has been on Wikipedia since December 2004, and the history shows that it originally contained extravagant claims to originate in the Carolingian period: "The ancestor school of Brexgata was founded in 798 by a small group of Carolingian noblemen."[6] This claim was disputed by User:Stbalbach and removed (see talkpage and history), but it still seriously weakens the credibility of the article.

A number of closely related IPs edited this article:

These also added links to it in various places, as did

That user also added the sentence "Another school, nowadays embodied by the Brexgata University Academy, was founded in the year 798 by Carolingian leaders." to the "University" article in May 2006[7]. This sentence is still there. User:ActaCarolingiana later removed a tag requesting a source for the statement.

There appears to be no evidence that it is in any way connected to an institution founded in 798. Even the official website which describe the historical claims says that "To ensure ease of reading, the detailed references and sources are not listed in this Executive Summary".[8] Instead it just lists a number of people, which does not really make the information verifiable.

I can find no evidence that this Brexgata University Academy is a real institution of higher education of any kind. The only three hits in Google Books are for books advertising MBA programmes. There is not a single hit on Google Scholar for an individual associated with it. Using the most general searches possible, I find no hits for "brexgata" in the catalogues of Library of Congress, the British Library, the Royal Library of Belgium, the German National Library or the Bibliothèque nationale de France. If there had been any publication obviously about Brexgata or even any publication (journal, publication series et or even individual publication) associated with this institution such hits would have been found.

A real institution surviving since the Carolingian period is unlikely, to say the least, to completely have evaded being covered in scholarly publications. A real institution of higher education and research, regardless of age, would have been mentioned somewhere among all the posts of the national library catalogues of five nations. Pharamond 09:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have found the reasons why the organization is probably somewhere between a con and a diploma mill, but the School does seem to have a staff. DGG 01:38, 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 speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. ((Hangon))s do not preclude speedy deletion. Sandstein 14:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Approach on living[edit]

An Approach on living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A band with one demo and one band member with an preexisting article. Contested speedy; procedural listing. BanyanTree 10:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhatai[edit]

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

Hoax. 9 ghits. Fails WP:V, no sources. MER-C 12:06, 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. Krimpet (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warbears[edit]

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

Fairly unremarkable flash animation. No case is made for passing WP:WEB and I could only find a passing mention in Der Spiegel. Article is of a in-universe game guide nature and is completely unsourced. MER-C 12:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Geek News[edit]

Your Geek News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability. Is written by the owner of Your Geek News, Zymaseman (Matt Campagna), which makes NPOV questionable at best. Furthermore, his past edits (mostly linkspams) shows he's basically looking for free advertisement for his website and, by extension, himself. Atlan 12:49, 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 no consensus to delete. I've re-directed to Culture and menstruation for now, this isn't meant to imply that more merging can't be done (that's an editorial, not deletion decision). Petros471 14:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menstruation and the origins of culture (2nd nomination)[edit]

Menstruation and the origins of culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable theory. The first AfD ended with no consensus. The only recent editor uses a dynamic IP address; from comments on the talk page I suspect (but am not sure) that the dynamic IP and the page's original authors (Martinklopstock and Chris d knight} are all one person.

An important consideration in the first AfD was the heavy citation the work of Knight, Power, and Watts has received in scientific journals, though examples of how the citation was used could not be found. I now believe that these author's work with ocher is regarded as important in determining the origins of culture - but that their theory on menstruation and culture has nevertheless been largely ignored and is not notable. A Google search for "ritual" and "ocher" gets 27,000 hits talking about the earliest archaeological evidence of human culture. An article they co-authored on ritual and ocher (list of authors) was written about in BBC news. This article that was published in Human Nature on p.346 talks about ocher as evidence of early human ritual and cites Knight and Watts. Menstruation is not mentioned once through the entire article.

It has been four months since the last AfD. Despite requests both through a tag on the article and discussion on the talk page beginning in January, no evidence of notability for this theory regarding menstruation has been provided. Lyrl Talk C 13:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An additional objection was that of the several hundred articles citing the ones listed here, one of them was not on point. DGG 23:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is there any reason the article culture and menstruation should not contain information on cultural aspects other than religion? It has been tagged asking for such information (see its talk page) for some time now and no one has objected. The article in question here is not an encyclopedic discussion of culture and menstruation - it is a discussion of three people's theory. The title of the book presenting the theory is "Blood Relations:Menstruation and the origins of culture". I believe by titling the article after their book the original author(s) pretty clearly intended it to be an article only on their theory, not on the general topic of menstruation and culture. I would support a merge/redirect decision, and would help implement it. That was actually my original proposal when the article was created (diff), but the author(s) refused. Lyrl Talk C 21:56, 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. Srikeit 04:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bashy Quraishy[edit]

Bashy Quraishy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Yeah, I'd suggest creating an article about the group and merging/redirecting his name to it, since most of his coverage seems to be in relation to that. Searching google news turns up dozens of hits for the group being quoted as a source, as does a google search for his name or the group's name, which makes digging up the sources that talk about them difficult. Given the large number of internationally distributed, reliable news outlets that use him and the group as a source, I'd recommend giving them the benefit of the doubt. here's a cbc radio interview here's the report of a symposium where he was invited to speak Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J stevens PSU[edit]

Robert J stevens PSU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Thanks, now I get it -- I didn't think that PSU in the name would indicate affiliation. Man, oh man! Turgidson 13:02, 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. Petros471 14:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mari Henmi[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails to satisfy any notability requirements, incuding WP:BIO. Valrith 14:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rizzono[edit]

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

Person does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 14:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming that they're there, buried under the fan websites, they're all still local (Bay Area) references: so mr famous national wrestler only gets referenced by local news sources? Uh uh.--Calton | Talk 03:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am Shavenhead2 so I am the only person who has made substantial contributions. Also, I added the speedy delete tag before Parsonburg edited the page so no substantial contributions had been added before I added the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shavenhead2 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Again, just because an article is good doesn't mean it can stay. If I made an excellent article on me, that was well sourced, would that be able to stay? No, because I haven't done anything that to need of an article. Kris 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment considering I voted keep on the grounds of it falling within WP:N my additional comment on it being a good article is just that - an additional comment. It fullfills the notability requirement so unless you want to talk about that fact we've got nothing to talk about. MPJ-DK 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is ridiculous. If any random person writes about him online it doesn't make him notable. Kris 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you can't say notability is a matter of degree - "he's not very notable" isn't a criteria, the "Notability" requirement has been met with sources & references MPJ-DK 21:49, 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 speedy delete, CSD A1. Krimpet (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinder edna[edit]

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

Cinder edna??? Is this even real? Almost speedily deleted it. eskimospy (talk • contribs • count) 15:07, 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. Neil (►) 08:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave of American Metal (second nomination)[edit]

New Wave of American Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One source from a documentary does not make a genre notable. This article fails WP:NEO and WP:N and should be deleted, unless someone can come up with any other sources other than this one documentary. dposse 15:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the metalcore article. With just one source this article is better than a lot of other articles about genres such as: moshcore, mallcore, ska punk, UK 82, youth crew, and d-beat, all of which cite no sources whatsoever. Personally I think people are targeting this article because they hate the term and/or hate this subgenre. The article clearly describes a group of new bands that are playing a style of metalcore that is different than the original metalcore of the 1980's. I believe the information is at least notable enough to be merged into the metalcore article. --Leon Sword 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I do not hate the term or the genre. I've nominated this article for deletion due to it being a non-notable neologism which violates wikipedia guidelines. dposse 21:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you hate the genre but a lot of other editors have fought hard against this article which is decently written, while other articles which contain obvious original research have been left alone for a long time. It just all looks very suspicious. --Leon Sword 21:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you browse through the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal, you can see that there are several editors working in good faith and trying to separate the notable and verifiable genres/terms from the unverifiable neologisms. Sure, other stuff still exists, but it is not a good reason to keep this one. Mallcore was already deleted once, and should probably be deleted again. Prolog 09:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Though I was the editor to originally nominate this, after reading Leons response I agree that some of the info is notable enough to be merged into the metalcore article. Inhumer 00:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With , like Zouavman said, a small paragraph in the Metalcore article mentioning the "movement/scene". Inhumer 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't satisfy WP:NEO. The article is a neologism, and per WP:NEO, we cannot have it on wikipedia. dposse 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree 100% that its a neologism. Inhumer 17:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then i do not understand how you can say that merging is the solution, when the entire thing violates WP:NEO dposse 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NEO, "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." Perhaps the term New Wave of American Metal is a neologism, but the group of bands that the article is about is not a neologism. The information should be merged into the metalcore article. --Leon Sword 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. A small pagagraph in the metalcore article should be more than enough. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable term. There is even a book about it. [23] Elsebroke 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This book seems to be about all American metal bands from mid-90's to this day.[24] Besides the title, it does not seem to be related to content in this article. Prolog 09:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all actuality, Most, if not all of those bands have little to no actual hardcore influence. Inhumer 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So the punk beats come from metal? Elsebroke 08:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There rarely is a punk beat. Inhumer 18:12, 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. WjBscribe 23:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power supply (Star Trek)[edit]

Power supply (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An in-universe, uncited technical explanation that does not attempt to explain, if any, real-world significance. More appropriate for Memory Alpha. --EEMeltonIV 15:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:[reply]

Nadion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Verteron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Drobe Mines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) <- Not even an entry at Memory Alpha. Added this after Jay32183's note.
SubCommander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Added this after Jay32183's note
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Presidents by longevity[edit]

List of Philippine Presidents by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was deleted through AfD. DRV overturned, concluding that the closer was wrong to ignore completely rationales based on precedent and consistency. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - things that are the subject of legitimate curiosity are deleted every single day from this encyclopedia. That something is a subject of legitimate curiosity is not sufficient to make it automatically suitable for inclusion. As much disdain as you have for the other stuff exists argument, that's all you're offering. You're offering up the existence of a bunch of other articles as an excuse for this one. Not to mention offering totally unsupportable speculation regarding the reason why other articles don't exist as if their non-existence somehow supports this article. The fact that Wikipedia isn't paper is not a license to keep every article ever written, and the effort that someone put into writing an article is also irrelevant not to mention a base appeal to emotion. Otto4711 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Precedent and analogy are perfectly good arguments, at least as far as I can see; this is the biggest problem with the canned response of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Many of the articles found here are the work of good faith contributors. If keeping ever in mind the fact that each article is in fact the fruit of an unpaid volunteer's labour is a "base appeal to emotion," I confess. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, all sorts of fruits of our labors, including mine, have been deleted as a result of this process. It's unfortunate that the time someone puts into such articles wasn't spent on articles that were within WIkipedia policy and guidelines, but that's not an excuse for keeping an article that doesn;t pass said policy and guidelines. WP:SOMEONEWORKEDREALHARDONIT is not grounds for keeping anything. Otto4711 02:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the US Prezes article survived on two outcomes of "no consensus," which is not the same as a "keep" result. The value of two no consensus results as precedent is questionable at best. The jury is still out on these sorts of articles. As for the category you mention, if its articles should be deleted then they should be deleted regardless of how this AFD turns out. Otto4711 02:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three "no consensus" results suggests that there is no consensus that these articles should be deleted. As for the category, it's true that if the articles should be deleted then they should be deleted. That doesn't mean that editors who disagree with the outcomes of deletion debates should nominate the same articles for deletion over and over and over. The outcome should be the same for all the "List of X Presidents by longevity" articles: all should be deleted or all should stay. It would be bad to have dozens of separate deletion nominations because they would either be a waste of time (because they all have the same result) or create inconsistency (because they have different outcomes). A group nomination might be appropriate, although there's no reason to think it would turn out differently from the last group nomination. -Fagles 03:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although consensus can change, there is no reason to believe that it has changed, and thus there is no reason to think that the next nomination would turn out differently. There is no reason to believe that any editor has changed their mind since last week, and no new arguments for deletion have been presented. WP:CCC does not mean that it would be good for Wikipedia to have the same deletion debate every day forever. -Fagles 18:33, 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 Speedy Delete. kingboyk 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camillus McElhinney[edit]

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

Serious notability issues--the article appears to be a vanity page. Blueboy96 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a vanity page, although as I informed Blueboy96 Cam is a friend of mine. I believe Cam is representative of contemporary computer programming and he is a published editor. Seosaimh Mac Domhnaill 16:00, 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. Srikeit 04:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isogram (Star Trek)[edit]

Isogram (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Make-believe unit of measurement with no explanation of what it measures or why it matters. No possibility of extending to a full article, or even really a stub of more than a couple of sentences. --EEMeltonIV 15:59, 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 as no one has argued for deletion during this debate. WjBscribe 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Cass[edit]

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

This article was originally deleted as a collateral article in this AfD. DRV overturned, in light of new evidence presented at the DRV. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:01, 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. Krimpet (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featured on House, M.D.[edit]

List of songs featured on House, M.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - similar to the deleted List of songs played in the Bada bing club. Wikipedia is not a directory of incidental music used in television series. The songs have nothing in common beyond having been chosen by some production person. Otto4711 16:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nefferson[edit]

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

This article is a haox. Even if it's not, there is nothing on IMDB or Google that relates and no sources are given. Under the image thats being used it claimed the source is "Ralph's official website" but there is no website for Ralph as far as I can find. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:29, 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. Krimpet (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International airings of The A-Team[edit]

International airings of The A-Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - as with similar articles for The Simpsons, Desperate Housewives, Smallville, The Amazing Race and others, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Otto4711 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with parent article. There's no need for this to be a seperate article, plus it is in breach of Wikipedia is not a directory--Cailil talk 17:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree 100% that this article should be judged on its own merits. Specifically it should be judged on its merits as a direct violation of WP:NOT, which states in relevent part that Wikipedia is not for "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business." Otto4711 21:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responses like yours are rooted in WP:ILIKEIT as opposed to any actual policy or guideline, are a failure to assume good faith and generally cause those who make them come off poorly. Articles that are flat out violations of Wikipedia policy, as this one is, are certainly not a waste of the time of editors who believe that Wikipedia policies should be adhered to regardless ofhow much we might like watching the A-Team in Sumatra or wherever. Otto4711 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have yet to be involved in an AfD of a "trivia" article that first began as a PROD or some other effort at communication with the editors of the article. I find that lack of good faith on the part of those editors troubling. Yes, every editor has the right to AfD an article he feels doesn't belong on Wiki, but a litte common courtesy to hard-working contributors on Wiki would be nice every once in a while. Oh, in the interst of truth, a newbie did file a PROD on a trivia article I was involved in, but I guess he was to new to be rude yet. I am sure by pointing this out I am voilating a guideline somewhere, so please spare me the alphabet soup, as I am choosing to ignore said guideline. - BillCJ 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assume good faith is the fact that those opposing trivia article seem to feel that they are not

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul International School[edit]

Korea International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seoul International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Contested prod. The reason cited was "high schools have sufficient inherent notability", which seems counter to WP:N, given that there are thousands of high schools around the world that have little notability beyond their communities. The articles have no assertion of notability other than that they exist and no discernible encyclopedic content, and read more like brochure. Ytny (talk) 16:31, 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Gauntlett[edit]

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

Questionable notability (WP:PROF would be relevant; also autobiography and, I would contend (sorry), vanity. kingboyk 16:59, 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 -- Y not? 22:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sindh Madrasatul-Islam[edit]

Sindh Madrasatul-Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks content (even a basic definition of the article's subject is missing) and sources. High on a tree 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, never mind, we already have the article. It's Sindh-Madrasa-tul-Islam. Changed the article to redirect. This can be closed. CitiCat 21:05, 6 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 03:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Guttman[edit]

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

He has never coached in a fully professional league and was never international user:KRBN 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have now found some more refs and added tham to the article, he's coached practically every major team in Israel. Oldelpaso 18:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is no diminishing of notability just because Israel does not have a "fully professional league". It is a league which nevertheless qualifies for its clubs to be included in UEFA Competitions, professional or not. This implies notability for the league, and notability for one of its leading coaches. Ref (chew)(do) 20:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was manager of Hapoel Haifa when they won the Liga Leumit. That in itself is notable. This entry should not even be considered for deletion.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does not matter that it qualifies to UEFA Competition. WP:BIO says clearly for fully professional league. Even the Andorran and San Marinese Leage qualifies for such competitions. For example, in the Basketball, the Cypriot League itself qualifies to FIBA Europe competitions but it is not fully professional. So Articles like Andreas Stylianou were deleted. As for the fact that he was champion with Hapoel Haifa, he was champion in not fully professional league. user:KRBN 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BIO, under Athletes, says "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" are notable. So, as Tangerines previously noted, this entry shouldn't even be considered for deletion. --Angelo 18:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BIO, under Athletes, says "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" are notable. Well Israel Premiership is the highest level just of Israel. Highest level are champions league, world cup, euro, etc. Also football is not an amature sport Look also for a player likeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Stylianou who played in top division of cyprus. --User:KRBN 12:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It merely says "highest level in amateur sports". If it is the highest level in Israel then it is at the highest level. And football is both a professional and amateur sport.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:21, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Sinclair[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No coverage in secondary sources. Fails to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 17:20, 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. Krimpet (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testatika[edit]

This article may seem to have a large number of sources, but they fall into two classes:

The very definition is sourced to YouTube video by http://www.overunity.com/ -- hardly a reliable source. And very importantly not the inventors site, so the unreliable sources for articles about themselves clause doesn't apply.

For years Reddi is patiently trying to make this perpetuum motion machine look more reputable by his special method of building heaps of references.

Deletion rationale

We must differentiate between the apparatus and the legend.

For the device next to no sources are available, as the inventor doesn't thing the world is ready to learn about. So we should delete this article for lack of sources and non-notability of the device and give it a short mentioning only in the Methernitha article.

If you don't put your claim of having a working perpetual motion machiebe on the desk of the nearest university's physics department (if successfull an sure bid for the Nobel prize), we are better off without speculations.

For the legend: Everybody is free to claim to have a description of the device, or having successfully or not build a replica. Or to claim this his very own theory of new physics explain why it runs ober-unity. But that's a different story. And a non-notable one.

Pjacobi 17:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I noted elsewhere, this is appropriate notification, as most people who watch the pages there will be interested in the AfD, regardless of their opinions. --Philosophus T 04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pjacobi has patiently trying to make this machine look less reputable. Please use decent language too (eg., "crap" ... )
This is a known and notable topic in so-called" perpetual motion' ... much like the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, and the cox's timepiece. For the device various sources are available ... as the item has been looked over and engineers have been present at the demonstration of it. J. D. Redding 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice the [citation needed] ... "Skeptics call it an alleged perpetual motion machine" (skeptics that have made models and really looked at the device have noted that it's not a overunity machine, jsut a notable device.) .... "Replicated devices were hand started and, then, powered directly from the device's generated electricity" (why some call it a "PMM" or "free energy device") ... "By this description (and without further components), a Testatika would be a perpetual motion machine" (there is more information on it ... but maybe the non-neutrality ofd some editors will not allow this ...) J. D. Redding 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second afd had only 3 participants, and was closed as no consensus. The earlier one was unduly impressed by the number of references, and didn't look at them closely. DGG 23:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Potter, Paul E., "Methernitha Back-Engineered" - this source appears to be a personal impression about the nature of the machine, and how it operates, based on a "back-engineering" by the author. I'm not sure why the author, or his research, is supposed to be considered reliable - but its not published, and the author appears to have no special claim to authority in this area. This does not appear to be reliable.
  2. Google Video - is not a reliable source.
  3. "THE SWISS M-L CONVERTER" - this is definitely not a reliable source. Again, it's an essay by someone with no apparent claim to authority, published on a website which is at the very least biased, and has no clear peer review or editorial oversight. This is not a reliable source/
  4. "The Thestatika Machine of the Methernitha Commune" - this is 95% a reprint of a self-published website by proponents of the technology, and what is not a reprint says nothing about this topic, nor that it is reliable. Inclusion of this resource appears to be an attempt to disguise the true source of the content. In context, what is being used here is being drawn from a non-reliable source.
  5. "Die Thesta-Distatica" - this source is in German, which I do not speak, so I am not qualified to judge the quality of this resource. However, it only sources for the German name, so I don't really see a problem either way.
  6. "Prinzipversuch zur Testatika" - this source is also in German, and the machine translation provided is inadequate for my purposes. I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of this source.
  7. An image - this picture is used to source the claim "The Testatika ultilizes the 1898 Pidgeon machine setup". It does no such thing, reliability aside.
  8. Another image - this image is used to source the claim "the fixed inductors are positioned in such a way that there is an increased induction effect". It does no such thing, reliability aside, again.
  9. Another image - this image is used to source the claim "[it] charges parallel pads via air gaps." It does no such thing, and the words "air gaps" do no appear in the diagram.
  10. Another Google Video link - this is not a reliable source.
  11. Link to a patent filing. I'm unsure if this is reliable or not.
  12. See above.
  13. See above.

I can't finish all of these, since I other things to go through, but the sourcing is very weak. I would hope someone else can finish this up for me. --Haemo 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The google video is reliable ... it's what you call a primary source (need for Wikipedia, a secondary source) ... just like say, the the frank zappa video is from meida censorship. As to air gaps, the please read up on induction electrostatic machines, also. J. D. Redding 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (an article I constructed almost totally alone ...)[reply]
Comment: regarding the two references in German: They are on the site http://www.hcrs.at/of two Austrian engineers, which offers some HF and high voltage experiments, as well as standard physics stuff. Their speculations about how the Testatica works, are their very own (and would made them fail their physics exam, if I were the examiner). They have also a books to to sell: One about mainstream HF experiments, ISBN 3772358454, and two of the "free energy" type: ISBN 3772354092, ISBN 3772344003. As both of them are still alive, the Free energy suppression seems to fail in Austria. --Pjacobi 09:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that these are international sources ... not just one or two Americans. (Funny you bring up Free energy suppression ... as the attempts to remove this noteable "PMM" seems to fall into it. ) J. D. Redding 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to merge. If the Methernitha cult is notable, then this is just a paragraph in that article. One reference [28] notes that this is not a replicable instrument and is more of a legend. Appears to meet WP:RS as far as references to existence of the term - notability as usual questionable. There is no replicability or exact definition of the machine anywhere as per references cited. If this article is providing construction details, it appears to be OR. Shyamal 03:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [7] and [8] are used to support the contention that the Testatika uses the same set-up as the Pidgeon machine; however the linked pages describe the Pidgeon Machine—itself derivative of the Wimshurst machine, a primitive AC disk generator—and make no mention of the Testatika.
  • [9] is a link to a personal Tiscali-hosted website and fails WP:RS.
  • The problems with [10] have already been described in the nom.
  • [11] is a reference to a patent for a variable-capacitance membrane generator. Although roughly contemporary with the Testatika, I can find no reference to it in the patent application.
  • [12] is very similar to [11]. These machines, incidentally, perform work by means of varying the capacitor electrode separation.
  • [13] is a reference to a 1930's patent for the Van de Graaf generator. It predates the Testatika by decades and makes no reference to it.
  • [16]'s first link is to Tesla's patent for an electric light bulb. The second is to Fleming's patent for the vacuum tube rectifier. The third is to de Forest's patent for a vacuum tube amplifier. The fourth is to Forest's patent for radio transmitter/receivers. All predate the Testatika by 5-6 decades and none make any mention of it.
  • [17] is a list of patents by Nikola Tesla. Tesla died decades earlier and these references make no mention of the Testatika.
  • [18] is a list of patents for three air (or fluid) ionisers and one deioniser. There is no mention of the Testatika.
  • [19] is a link to a personal Tiscali-hosted website and fails WP:RS.
  • [21] and [22] are links to papers about the topic of electron avalanche. It is not clear what contention they are being used to support.
  • [25] is, like [10], a link to a google video, and fails WP:RS
  • [31] is a link to a personal Tiscali-hosted website and fails WP:RS.
  • [33] is a link to a yahoo group and fails WP:RS, though I think it would be acceptable as an external link.
— BillC talk 13:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Have you watched the video? or read the supporting material? It doesn't seem that you have as you fail to grasp them ... I do not think that you read through the material ... most probably a cursury glance
A primary source, the video, shows clearly that the Testatika uses the same set-up as the Pidgeon machine; If you know anything about electrostatic machines the Pidgeon Machine — itself derivative of the Wimshurst machine.
It is well-referenced, especially for a so-called "perpetual motion machine". The citations do actually back up the statements in the article, if you understand engineering and the operation of hte device. Many fall into a category of "this machine utilises Principle X[ref]"; The reference is to the Testatika's utilization of Principle X, via the material on X itself. For example:
  • [9] is a link to a website that takes a scholar stance to the subject.
  • [11] is a reference to a patent for a variable-capacitance membrane generator. This is one of the principles behind the device ... from the investigators of the subject [not OR]
  • [12] is very similar to [11].
  • [13] is a reference to a 1930's patent for a Van de Graaf generator (not the one usually shown; did you even read the patent?).
  • [16]'s first link is to Tesla's patent for an electric light bulb. The second is to Fleming's patent for the vacuum tube rectifier. The third is to de Forest's patent for a vacuum tube amplifier. The fourth is to Forest's patent for radio transmitter/receivers. ALL OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE THERMIONIC TUBE AT THE TOP OF THE DEVICE ... others have comment on the vacuum tube at the top in the video ...
  • [17] is a list of patents by Nikola Tesla. This is technology in the condenser [the big metal cans in the video] ....
  • [18] is a list of patents for three air (or fluid) ionisers and one deioniser. The Testatika izonized the air during it's operation ...
  • [19] is a link to about the operation of the device ...
  • [21] and [22] are links to papers about the topic of electron avalanche. This is about the operation of the circuit ...
  • [25] is, like [10] (a link to a google video), is a primary source ...
  • [31] is the information on the presentation to the engineers ...
  • So ignoring that there are builders out there replicating the device [such as yahoo group] fails that? This is a significant-minority of the topic ...
J. D. Redding 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
which ones are unreliable? Which is "trival"? The sources do support the claim, if you read the sources. J. D. Redding
Please assume good faith and quit accusing other editors of not reading the sources. Unreliable? How about personal websites, youtube videos, websites of organizations that seem to be just one person, etc. And "trivial" would be sources that barely mention the topic, or don't mention it at all - they may be useful references for facts within the article, but they don't help establish notability of the topic.--Minderbinder 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability? do you know about the history of perpetual motion machine? This is on of the more recent ones that is cites as a so-called PMM (though it may not be one ....) J. D. Redding 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's listed on that article. But articles can't use wikipedia as a source, and notability isn't demonstrated there either. Could you give us an example of the source you think best demonstrates notability? --Minderbinder 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did the fricken most part on the "history of perpetual motion machines". It would not have been included unless there were citations for it in various histories. But it seems that endeavors to add relevant info such as this is "not good". Oh how time passes on the net and ppl ignore previous contributions
testatika -wikipedia -wiki -PESWiki : general search : [29]
testatika @ google scholar : [30]
testatika : Google images : [31]
They also mention it in Books ... from google books, which doesn't have a very large coverage,:
  • They All Told the Truth: The Antigravity Papers; Richard P. Crandall, 2003 (700 pages)
  • Mit Bleistift und Papier. Remote Viewing in der Praxis, Band 1, Volker Hochmuth - 2003 (264 pages)
Take your pick.
It is notable (in the least, in Perpetual motion history) ... but maybe not in wikiality land. J. D. Redding 20:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment on reliability': Please remember that this is a perpetual motion/Over Unity device. With the exception of a source scientifically debunking it, NO SOURCE on it will be reliable in terms of mainstream science. Arguments over WP:RS should be thrown out on these grounds alone. We're not talking about a fact of science that should be verified using scientific sources, we're talking about something that barely even counts as pseudo science. This device should be treated as an urban legend and sourced as such, meaning that we need to prove that it exists in popular myth/culture, not in science. You wouldn't ask for peer review evidence for a page about Elvis being seen grocery shopping in Wal-mart, so why ask for it here. This page should be defining what the device is supposed to be and what it is supposed to do, and for this just about any trash source will do. - perfectblue 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is over WP:OR. As has been pointed out, while the article is chock-full of references, peer-reviewed or not, they do not back up statements in the article. How, for example, does a citation to Tesla's 1894 patent for an incandescent lamp support a physical description of the 1960's Testatika? — BillC talk 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you understood vacuum tubes, his single node vacuum tube was one of the 1st early tubes ... Tesla produced X-rays with it (among other things). Have you read any history on vacuum tubes? The other patents are supporting material on vacuum tubes, the item at the top of the device, as clearly shown in the video (the primary source). J. D. Redding 18:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not what references are for. A reference says "Here is the place where I got this fact". This serves two functions: one, the reader can judge the reliability of the source, since it is named. Two, the reader can check the statement for him/herself. For example, today's featured article, Mars, contains the sentence "The average thickness of the planet's crust is about 50 km (31 mi), with a maximum thickness of 125 km (78 mi).[8]", and in the list of references we see:
*[8] Dave Jacqué. "APS X-rays reveal secrets of Mars' core", Argonne National Laboratory
The reader can thus ask him/herself "Does a science press release from the Argonne National Laboratory count as a reliable source?" (yes it does); and:
"Does that document actually say the thing that is said in the article?" (yes it does, it's in its fourth paragraph)
Back at Testatika, we have for example "Testatika's thermionic rectifying valve has an anode mesh-plate, a coiled copper grid, a glowing (heated) cathode wire running horizontally across its centre, and the associated wires.[16]". Reference [16] is a list of links to four patents, the first of which is for Tesla's Incandescent Electric Light. Which of these four patents backs up the statement in the article that the Testatika's thermionic rectifying valve has an anode mesh-plate and a horizontal wire cathode? — BillC talk 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good example (Mars article) of what sources should be. Bubba73 (talk), 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see Testatika's thermionic rectifying valve? The operation of it is in the four patents.
Does that document actually say the thing that is said in the article? Yes ... it's about vacuum tubes ...
You two though must know better for the reader what is and isn't a "reliable source" and what is and isn't supporting material. Riiiight ... J. D. Redding 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one source about the Testatike from the Methernita commune itself. And it speaks only in esoteric terms about the alleged mode of operation "one disc represents the earth, one disc represents the clouds" or something like that.
All other modern sources are just speculations by fans and skeptics. To even make them notable (let alone reliable) there would be reliable secondary sources needed.
All the old stuff, Tesla etc. are brought into the discussion by these modern sources (or you yourself, Reddi!), who can only speculate about how the Testika works.
The Methernita site states that it cannot be analysed by physics and the any physical terms they use for their descriptions, are only lend and used in a completely different.
In light of this, a short mentioning in the Methernita article should be fine. Some spiritual community have roses floweing in winter, some have wells with fairies, some have gurus materialising holy ash. The Methernita community claims to have en eternally rotating disc, producing some kW. OK, we can report that.
Pjacobi 19:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are source other sources about the Testatike. One is from the Methernita commune itself. There is also the video.
Modern sources are just research by investigators (your socalled "fans") and skeptics. These are secondary sources (eg., synthetic account based on primary sources and other secondary sources.).
All the old stuff, Tesla etc. are brought into the discussion by these modern sources (eg. other secondary sources) ... this isn't my views but from the views in the references on the Testika operation. Does anyone read here?
If anyone states that something "cannot be analysed by physics and the any physical terms", does that mean it cannot? The other reerences to it would indicate no.
The next point is your opinion that they use them in a completely different fashion (a common, but inappropriate, refrain from you).
Your last comment displays your POV and can stand as is ... J. D. Redding 19:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PESwiki, the Naudin site, other personal web pages, Yahoo groups, YouTube or Google videos are not secondary sources. --Pjacobi 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The video is a primary source! Some webpages and other scholarly work are mostly either secondary sources or tertiary source. Do you know what a the levels of source are? J. D. Redding 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The inability of a topic to obtain notability in a given area (such as science) is just that, and is not an excuse to keep an article in Wikipedia. If anything, the above "general comment on reliability" is an admission of the sorry state of the references for this article and the overall lack of attention that this device has gotten. I am willing to admit that this is an urban legend, but even an urban legend needs to be notable before it can be have a Wikipedia article. In this case, I see no evidence for notability in this case either within science or within the culture at large. --EMS | Talk 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is notable in history. J. D. Redding 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the books? None of the papers? None of the websites? None of these are notable? What? This is notable in the History of Perpetual motion. J. D. Redding 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (ps., I'll have to wait and see if wikiality does exist ...)[reply]
You seem to be arguing piggyback notability: If you cite something that is notable, or are notable within something else that is notable, you become notable. The issue is the topic's notability on its own or within a broad and accepted topic such as physics. "Perpertual motion machines" is neither broad nor accepted. As for the citations: Source do not transfer notability, and usually are not notable to begin with. Instead the issue is how the sources show that the Testatika is notable, and in that case "the sources are irrelevant when reliable and not reliable when relevant". --EMS | Talk 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is notable in history. J. D. Redding 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Published books that are in libraries are "unreliable and unreputable" for Wikipedia .... hmmm. What is the "suitable reference"? No primary sources? These do adhere to WP:V and WP:ARB/PS ... but you POV of "Unofficial Anti-Pseudoscience Executive" (as stated on your user page) slants this vote ... J. D. Redding 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (ps., this isn't so-called "Pseudoscience" topic, it a historical topic and engineering topic.)[reply]
They can be, yes. I have a few libraries, and I could publish a book and put it in one of the libraries, but that doesn't make my book an RS or AS. What books are you referring to, anyway? The two you mentioned earlier on this page? Both appear to be either self published or published by disreputable publishers; for the book in English, it is quite obvious that it is pseudoscientific and not an RS or AS. --Philosophus T 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This in interesting ... Template:RationalSkepticismTasks J. D. Redding 22:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is explained on the project talk page. --Philosophus T 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please No person attacks Joshua. AND this article was here before you even started editing Wikipedia. J. D. Redding 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a considerable history at Wikipedia as a problematic editor, Redi. People have suggested a community ban for your account. And it is quite ironic that you are lecturing me about personal attacks when just a few weeks ago a number of editors and myself had to go through redacting your incredibly personal user talk page. This article is maintained by yourself as a basic POV-push. It's gotta go. --ScienceApologist 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have suggested that Joshua (among the few). I have a considerable history of not dealing with internet trolls or pseudoskeptics. As to the "redacting", I moved it off to my personal space on the web because it was being censored ... it's my opinion of certain editors here at wikipedia, such as you. You have been sanction several times ... and have been told to refrain from personal attacks but various editos; Not to mention the computer attacks originate from systems that you control. J. D. Redding 22:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you don't know when to quit, do you? I was cautioned by one arbitration and was counseled by another. In comparison to the ban that was leveled against your account, where do you get off mounting any sort of high horse? Your attempts at enlisting the help of members of the paranormal project to help with your POV-pushing are not going unnoticed. --ScienceApologist 13:01, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Europe[edit]

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

Reason the page should be deleted: This article contains no info other than complete original research. Modern times according the majority of scolars is a period from about 18th century until First World War. Things like "Age of Revolutions", "Age of Liberalism", "Age of European Union" is the result of editor's fantasy etc etc. No worthful information. Dojarca 18:15, 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. Petros471 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilderspin[edit]

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

Semi-professional organist. Main job is a (chemistry?) teacher at a secondary school. Not notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Venables for previous bundled discussion, result: no consensus. Clavecin 18:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop to Delete, but I still haven't seen anyone point out anything that meets WP:BIO CitiCat 00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big break[edit]

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

Dicdef with little prospect of expansion. PC78 19:20, 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. Krimpet (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to the board game Risk in popular culture[edit]

References to the board game Risk in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

a trivia fork based on a few mentions of a board game, not notable enough for it's own article. Was previously deleted as a prod. Biggspowd 19:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keeping the article because it keeps the garbage out of the main article is not a reasonable argument. If the information is garbage in the main article then it's garbage in a standalone article. All forking off garbage does is make the garbage someone else's problem. Otto4711 12:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, as long as the trivia is deleted and not merged or forked back into the article I'm happy. b_cubed 05:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Fate[edit]

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

Prodded by User:Postcard Cathy a week ago and deprodded without explanation. Unsourced, and seems to me unsourceable; a lot of Ghits but I can't find any that are nontrivial — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:52, 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 speedy delete I tried to look for context anywhere, even the title, but couldn't find any. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 02:08Z

2006 Number Ones[edit]

2006 Number Ones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Number ones where, of what and according to whom? Looks like some pop charts, either copyrighted or made up, at any rate not encyclopedic. Author currently blocked for persistently removing the maintenance tags on it. Sandstein 19:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politically Incorrect Wrestling[edit]

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

Contested prod that was deleted, then restored. Completely non notable independent wrestling promotion, fails WP:CORP. Before thinking it's notable based on any of the current unsourced claims in the article, the first version includes the telling phrase of "it hosted its first and only professional independent show", so it's nothing more than a glorified backyard wrestling "promotion". One Night In Hackney303 20:01, 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. Herostratus 15:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Catlin[edit]

Hampton Catlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Howdtheyvote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Haml (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hampton Catlin is a programmer who has spoken at conferences and committed a few patches to Ruby on Rails, which doesn't sound like notability to me. The three articles together prop each other, whilst being very short on evidence of notability or reliable sources, or indeed third party incoming links. --kingboyk 19:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not much more notable than me. And I'm not notable. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching turns up no secondary sources on either the person or the program/company. Also appears to have been a WP:COI issue, as User:Hcatlin == Hampton Catlin. Tarc 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's worth noting that Hcatlin has edited Hampton Catlin exactly zero times. dcandeto 04:23, 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 Flung it..er...Delete. Srikeit 04:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wing It[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant in Boston. Any web sites that reference this place are merely directories of restaurants. Crunch 20:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Appearances discography[edit]

Guest Appearances discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unmanageable list, should be merged into relevant artist pages and deleted. attempted to engage author in discussion, but he just blanked his talk page and never responded. Calliopejen1 20:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rappers' discography[edit]

List of rappers' discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unmanageable list. attempted to engage author in discussion, but he just blanked his talk page and never responded. Calliopejen1 20:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Shum[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. Article is basically a resume.CitiCat 20:30, 6 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 Keep. Srikeit 04:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real to Reel[edit]

Real to Reel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was tagged as a G11-speedy, and not without reason. As it stands, the article is spammy, and not reliably-sourced. However, Tesla is famous enough that even I've heard of them, so I assume the article is easy to clean. Just sending this to AfD to ensure it isn't a hoax (and, one hopes, start the cleanup.) Xoloz 20:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Train (wrestler)[edit]

Crazy Train (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 20:38, 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. — Scientizzle 22:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Rosewoman[edit]

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

Calling all Jazz lovers! I suppose some of these claimed collaborations might make the subject notable, but I know none of the musicians involved. I do know that the article lacks sources. Delete, pending those. Xoloz 21:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. All about jazz newsletter
  2. Chicago Tribune
  3. NY Times review
  4. Jazz police magazine listing of performances

Comment these sources would have been trivial to find--easier than doing an AfD nomination. And the nom. was only 6 hours after the article was created. I don't make guesses in fields where I don't know the names. DGG 00:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the comment is directed at me -- I learned long ago not to trust myself evaluating music articles, so I freely admit I rarely bother with Google there. Nowadays, though, I also don't leave unsourced articles alone, even if I am clueless on the subject -- they need to meet WP:V fast. So, I send 'em to AfD, and trust the process to work. In this case, it certainly seems to have done so. Xoloz 00:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But AfD is not the process for cleanup. --Maxamegalon2000 05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true. It is a process for deleting articles, which would be done here, had sources not been brought forward. In this way, it is also a process for saving articles. Cleanup is very different from "causing to meet WP:V," the minimum threshold of being encyclopedic. Xoloz 06:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Tornado[edit]

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

The article is about a neologism which does not cite or prove notability Thomas.macmillan 21:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grebo (Subculture)[edit]

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

Non-notable topic Dchall1 21:59, 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. Srikeit 05:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nozz-A-La[edit]

Nozz-A-La (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Repost. Previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nozz-A-La. Another sysop declined G4 on a very flimsy basis IMO. Thus we are back at AfD. This fictional beverage is not notable on its own. If it's more important to the plot of one or the other of the things where it's mentioned then it can be described in those articles as appropriate. -- Y not? 22:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baguette-Nibbler[edit]

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

unsourced neologism Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 22:15, 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. No election took place, no election was scheduled to take place, having references doesn't stop it being original research. Neil (►) 08:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian general election, 2007[edit]

Palestinian general election, 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article entirely based on a speculation, a speculation that seems to proven wrong. No material to be included here not already covered in other articles Soman 22:20, 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 (taking into account lack of any third party sources). Petros471 14:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pub Standards[edit]

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

It's hard to see how an event like this can be notable. At best, the article will never meet the standards of attribution. Placeholder account 22:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sly 4: Power of Thieves[edit]

Sly 4: Power of Thieves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, rumors and Internet speculation do not constitute verifiable or attributable sources, and a Google for "Sly Cooper 4" (with quotes) returns fewer than 2,000 hits. Stratadrake 22:38, 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 the very thorough history of citations and media exposure should be added to the article. -- Selket Talk 07:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Anatole[edit]

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

Clearly spam/advert violation of NPOV, also non-notable. VanTucky 21:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the facts as Alex Anatole has related by him and his acquaintances. They are cited in various Russian language articles you can Google. He's cited in Professor Komjathy's articles-that's a fact, and included in the bio. You folks can research him on the web-those are facts. The name of the book is a fact. If you contact me, I'll send you .pdf scans of the articles you can translate to verify.Nemome 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


24.91.176.209 20:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could please be more specific about their problem with this. These facts can be

formation? There is a European publishing company that has contracted with him for his biography/autobiography. Would you like me to see if I can get you a copy of the contract? Nemome 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your assurances of factual accuracy do not count as citations. Also, remember that the qualification for inclusion is not truth but citation via reliable published sources. Even if you could provide citation for some of the assertions on the page (which you don't), it is written in the tone of a resume/advert for Alex Anatole and his organisation and it would still need a complete rewrite to jive with NPOV. Thus, per the tag, it meets the qualifications for speedy deletion. No, not any article is a promotion of that thing. It is a neutral encyclopedia. You might want to read WP:What Wikipedia is not. As to WP:Conflict of interest, read the policy page. It seems that in general, you fail to understand that it is Wikipedia policy that begs the page's speedy deletion. Arguments about the truth of the claims or the definition of terms does not negate it's candidacy. VanTucky 20:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also might want to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. VanTucky 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Give me an address where I can send the scans of the articles and then you can verify them.

If you are using your policy as a guide than you must remove:

The problem with Taoism and Taoist training is that it does not lend itself to the same criteria as science, which can be relatively easily verified by duplicating experimental results. Scholarly works on Taoism are relatively external views. They give dates, times names, procedures and comparisons and contrasts. The knowledge of a master is transferred in a personal relationship between he and the student, much as master musicians, doctors, or other practitioners of the highest skill levels within their respective disciplines, study with master teachers. Brain surgeons study with brain surgeons. The best musicians study with master teachers. Unless,a scholar has had the opportunity to have extended private study (20 years)it is unlikely they can develop a comprehensive understanding of The Way. Nemome 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge those of you who judge this entry to visit the website www.tao.org and read the newsletters and material therein, send me an email address where I can send you the scans of the articles. Many of you are much more computer savvy than I am. You can find the articles and verify the veracity. Promotion...well, the question is the validity of the information.

Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The burden is on the article's creator to prove notability and the existence of citations, not us. Having everyone who wants to verify information e-mail you is not what we do here. As a tertiary source, verification should be #1: citations for all information should be in the article using appropriate tags and references. -Wooty Woot? contribs 23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any person who's sole advocates for notability are his own students is seriously lacking in that respect. Also, I tagged it for deletion not only on the basis of questions about notability, but that per the description of speedy deletion criteria about soam/advert articles it would require a complete rewrite to comply with NPOV thus qualifying it for deletion. This article's sole creator (Nemome) is an student/member of Alex Anatole's organisation, and has clearly failed to follow NPOV and certainly violates WP:Conflict of interest. Despite the article passing a Google test (which is a forbidden test of notability anyway), the citations it is lacking are all in important areas of biographical information, as well as any outside sources confirming the non-profit tax status. Hmm, an article of questionable notability that is written like an advertisement by editors with a conflict of interest? sounds pretty qualified for deletion to me. VanTucky 00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Nemome 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)How do you define an advertisement? Oh, and isn't that a promotion on the right side of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra[reply]

Yes, but that's what encyclopedia publishing companies do. O.K. added the links to the Komjathy papers. Regarding the other information, so even if I cite the articles, they are in Russian. You are going to delete this if you want. You all don't have to email, I'll post the .pdf to a common area if you want. If one of you speaks Chinese, pronounce the name of his master and draw the characters that could be used to produce those sounds, you'll find a set that mean "Enlightened One"

Now is anybody going to address either the lack of or comparable qualifications in those "Taoists" entries I cited. Because if you don't, that shows unequal treatment at least in regards to categorization, if not inclusion. Oh, and isn't that a promotion on the right side of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra

Personally, I have no problem with maintaining a caveat on the entry. Most educational institutions won't accept Wikipedia based research anyway, but to deny the entry is to deny a source of information. As Napoleon said, "History is merely a fantasy upon which we all agree." Then, again, that's power...isn't it?


Now, as far as being a student, does that invalidate the information? Hardly. That doesn't make it innacurate. Considering the citations I've notated regarding, shall we say qualifications of Taoists, who is putting this stuff up and qualifying people anyway? At least I've been forthright. Frankly, Vantucky is an avowed atheist, per his own Wiki page, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest, given he seems to be the most vehement antagonist against a spiritual professional?


Saw the thing on his birthday: 5/20/1948-He doesn't like to publicise it.

I'm sorry, it's too funny. Wikipedia not allowing a Google test when no institution of higher education will allow a student to cite Wikipedia. That's the pot calling the kettle black. Assign a caveat.

Got one last question: How many entries for persons are written by disinterested parties? Basically, all anyone has to do is get someone to submit a properly formatted article for them, giving the impression of arms-length submission. So,is it the validity of the information or jumping through the proper hoops and keeping the veil in place? So, maybe some day a reader of one of the russian articles will think,"we should do a Wiki entry of him," and then it will be o.k. Or maybe somebody will go to the website, or attend one of the seminars and think the same thing.

It's funny, we always present that the Taoist philosophy makes sense for not only the spiritual individual, but for the atheist, because it provides a philosophical model that allows both to pursue maximum contentment in life.

Wikipedia, because it is a commonly edited vehicle, will always be full of myriad incongruences, of which I was able to find quite a few just today and pointed out in this page.

It is part of a network of information that hopefully guide people to accurate information-nothing more. Now, you're either helping this information to get out, and I'm trying to get some guidance here, or you're pendantically following a catechism that is unequally applied. Maybe some day, his notability/notariety/fame that exists in Russia will breach that hurdle Vantucky demands (I'll bet he sings the praises of his martial arts instructor).


Oh, took this section from Chopra's page:

"Chopra was born in New Delhi and educated in India. He completed his primary education at St. Columba's School in New Delhi and eventually graduated from the prestigious All India Institute of Medical Sciences in 1968. He emigrated to the U.S. in 1970, becoming board-certified in internal medicine and endocrinology , and after interning at a New Jersey hospital, trained for several more years at the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Massachusetts and at the University of Virginia Hospital. He taught at Tufts University and Boston University Schools of Medicine, became the chief of staff at the New England Memorial Hospital and established a large private practice. He became a leader in the Transcendental Meditation movement, but later branched off on his own to pursue broader aims in mind-body treatment.

Chopra is the co-founder of The Chopra Center, which he founded in 1996 in La Jolla with Dr. David Simon; in 2002 the Center moved it's official headquarters to La Costa Resort & Spa in Carlsbad, California with a branch in New York City and other centers opening soon.

In 2004, Chopra was recruited to co-write a script with Indian film director Shekhar Kapur on a proposed film to be made about the life of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.

In June, 2005, Mallika Chopra, Deepak's daughter, launched a discussion blog [1] with Deepak, Shekhar Kapur, and other well known voices. The stated purpose of the blog is to present original voices from South Asia (particularly India) and discuss a variety of topics.

In 2006, Chopra launched Virgin Comics LLC alongside his son, Gotham Chopra, and Richard Branson, famed entrepreneur and thrill-seeker. The aim of the company is to promote and examine Southeast Asian themes and culture through the use of the traditional comic book medium."

NOW, OUT OF ALL THESE CLAIMED ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THESE PARAGRAPHS, WHICH I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT, THE ONLY CLAIM WITH A SOURCE CITED IS THE VIRGIN COMICS CLAIM!!!"

But then again, everybody has heard of him, right....?


Look, I'm in here arguing and I'm done. Here's my last defense: https://maxvps001.maximumasp.com/v001u23zac/Tao/Center/ArticleDetail.asp?ArticleID=37 Maybe this will give a sense of the rationality of the Center's Approach

Beyond that, you will do what you're going to do. If you don't think there's value in his bio as a part of this web of information, this is your kingdom. I expect you'll rule as you choose. Perhaps you are the philosopher class that killed Socrates.


Please refrain from making personal attacks as the above, which is a breach of Wikipedia etiquette. You seem to be misunderstand that Wikipedia is not a traditional paper encyclopedia, and that there are fundamental differences in how it operates. First and foremost is that it is not ours in the sense of editor seniority. It is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation but all editors (including you) are responsoble for content and have a say in creating consensus. Also, you seem (once again) to fail to understand that your arugments are peripheral because you are not addressing the veracity of deletion per Wikipedia policy. Consensus on teh application of Wikipedia policy alone decide the fate of articles up for deletion. The most expedient way of resolving is then to stick to discussions of the topic via policy. About your examples: to begin with, using comparision is not really a way to argue around the topic successfully. We are talking about the merit of the article as it pertains to WP:Notability and WP:NPOV (as well as any other foundations of Wikipedia inclusion criteria). You seem to misunderstand the image in the Deepak Chopra article as well. This is not an advertisement, but an example highlighting the text. Furthermore, the article under discussion is written like an advertisement for Alex Anatole and his organization. That is, it simply lists the uncited "history" of Anatole and his group and does not address all points of view equally. The fact that the article only addresses Anatole and his group from the perspective of a supporter is because it was written entirely by a student of his, which clearly violates NPOV and WP:Conflict of interest. When sections of an article violate this, or it is mild, then we simply revise it. But in this case, the entire content of the article is not fit for inclusion. Therefore it begs deletion. VanTucky 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


you seem to be misunderstand that Wikipedia is not a traditional paper encyclopedia, and that there are fundamental differences in how it operates. First and foremost is that it is not ours in the sense of editor seniority. It is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation but all editors (including you) are responsoble for content and have a say in creating consensus. Also, you seem (once again) to fail to understand that your arugments are peripheral because you are not addressing the veracity of deletion per Wikipedia policy.


Wikipedia is adjudicated by anybody who decides they want to have input they believe conforms to accepted Policy. Yes, consensus, which just means more opinions for a specific point of view than for another. That's all. Again I use the comparison of other similar individual entries that demonstrate evidence of uneven application of policy. Uneven application of Wikipedia policy is not a peripheral issue. For, if those entries conform, than so does this. And if it doesn't, they don't either. I have requested help in making it conforming.

Then again,who was it that said, "some animals are more equal than others." Oh, yes...Orwell.


You seem to misunderstand the image in the Deepak Chopra article as well. This is not an advertisement, but an example highlighting the text.


"Grow Younger, Live Longer. 10 Steps To Reverse Aging." Deepak_ChopraSorry, the duck test says that's advertisement!!

That is, it simply lists the uncited "history" of Anatole and his group and does not address all points of view equally.

Well, since the entry is about "Alex Anatole" what would you expect it to be about and whose point of view should be included? It's not about all Taoists, it's about one Taoist. It's not about Abbot Liu, it's about Alex Anatole. It's not about Taoism in general, it's about a practitioner. One of the previous contributors to this discussion said:

The PLU "citation" is more than a listing, but a full paragraph in a reasonably RS which does give some biographical information that does support the article. The Harvard one includes signif. details not in the WP article. " represent the Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine here in America." an aspect not mentioned in the article. I consider this just sufficient. As for the Russian sources, pdfs are not necessary--they need only be listed as references and a key sentence or two translated--I would certainly GF based on that.


As for "notability" at what level does one clear that hurdle? One article written about an individual? Two articles written about an individual? Three? Writing one book, or does it require a second? Founding a Center? Having television interviews? Having news stories done about a subject? Is Wikipedia about hurdling a specific level of fame, or is it about information?

On that note, please see the entry for "Nick Cerio." As a martial arts expert Mr. Vantucky (per your own Wiki page), can you explain to me at what point his entry rose to notability: the book, or the few magazine articles in which his name was featured? Again, this goes to application of policy, not the policy itself. Uniform and equal application of policy is not peripheral.

Whereas there may be a "notability policy," (or any "policy" for that matter) there is still the variability of human interpretation involved. Frankly, that's why the Supreme Court has all those 5 to 4 decisions, even though they hear the same evidence. They interpret laws (policy) differently. Just as those creating a consensus here will interpret policy differently.

As for neutrality, should I just call someone on the phone and have them submit it? If the information is valid, which gets back to my request to help make it conforming, then why is the source a concern? Then again, this issue begs the question: How do you vet the neutrality of all the contributors? I would think, sitting behind a computer, that would be impossible. Isn't vetting the information more important?Nemome 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If the information is valid, which gets back to my request to help make it conforming, then why is the source a concern?" Because the criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We are a collection of what other people say, not a information hub in ourselves. The notability policy does not need any sort of "interpretation", we are not the Supreme Court. WP:N says "He or she has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". Passing references to the guy doesn't allow for that, nor does it allow for citation of any of the information in here. "At the age of eight, Alex met Master Lu Yang Tai, the “Enlightened One”, a Taoist sage whose genealogical lineage extended to the ancient origins of Taoism. He studied all aspects of the Tao under Master Tai and was ordained as a Taoist priest in 1966,and with his master founded the Temple of Original Simplicity."? SAYS WHO? None of this is cited, and the reason is that there are no reliable sources to do so. Therefore, the article should be deleted pending some actual sources that can verify all this information. -Wooty Woot? contribs 20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Not Notable and specifically Mr. Rehse's Research:Nemome 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the Russian Version of Architectural Digest File:GMAnatole.jpg File:GMA2.jpg File:GMA3.jpg File:GMA4.jpg

From Men's Health in Russia promoting Taoist and Martial Arts Seminars File:Lecture0.jpg File:RRM1.jpg File:RRM2.jpg File:RRM3.jpg


Announcement in Russian Martial Arts Magazine about lecture and seminar File:Lecture9.jpg

From Another Russian Martial Arts Magazine

Image:noch1.jpg File:Noch2.jpg File:GMAlast.jpg

These examples fail to pass muster. As mentioned above, he is a US-based teacher according to the article and his website. If there isnt any media about him but for his country of origin saying "look, this guy is a famous taoist in the US!" and then there is no US sources on him that meet notability criteria, then there is a serious lack of qualification for inclusion. Also, I have failed to see any reliable sources on the verifiability of the 501-C3 non-profit religious status. If this can't be proved then I think it qualifies as spam per WP:Spam. VanTucky 17:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are scans of articles from The Boston Globe:

File:Bg1te.jpg File:Bg2te.jpg File:Bg3te.jpg File:BGte5.jpg

From Wikipedia: "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable"


So, the THREE Boston Globe articles don't count.

The article citing Dr. Wang's visit from the Quan Zhen sect doesn't count, recognizing him as a priest and a temple-doesn't count.

So, the Boston TV interview doesn't count.

The citations in Harvard's Pluralism project,doesn't count.

The academic articles by Komjathy don't count.

The fact that the academics wished to invite them to their world conference way back in 2001 http://www.daoistcenter.org/Articles/Articles_pdf/Report.pdf. doesn't count.

The article in Architectual Digest doesn't count

The article in Men's Health doesn't count

The articles in two Martial Arts magazines don't count


Again, as in previous posts, if his entry doesn't past muster, than the entries I previously cited don't pass muster either.

As for the 501C3, go to http://apps.irs.gov/app/pub78 and look it up. Center of Traditional Taoist Studies, Weston, MA It's right there. Nemome 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so it may be arguable that it meets notability. However, it still completely violates NPOV and WP:Conflict of interest. Since most of the disputable facts and history in the article are not cited (or cited correctly) and it was written solely by an editor with a CoI, it still begs deletion. VanTucky 19:21, 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.

Actually, I contacted one of the commentators(Wooty I believe) and asked him to revisit the information basically contained within this discussion. He claims to be a fellow with a library sciences background. He independently, re-wrote the entry according to his professional and Wiki experience to conform. I have not touched the text since.

Frankly, I hadn't looked at, because my computer excreted on the mattress. So, if the notability issue is relatively settled, then information assembled to conform to Wiki by a third party as a result of their earlier entry in this discussion supports neutrality in the entry and dilutes conflict of interest.

I gather you went to the IRS site and found the religious organization designation?24.91.176.209 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sr13 03:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hutton, Cumbria[edit]

Not notable villiage. --DimaG 22:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this nomination was not completed properly. It is now. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 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. Sr13 03:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Spoilers[edit]

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

Blatantly violates WP:CRYSTAL. -- Wikipedical 23:28, 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. This is a non-admin closure. The page was redirected by nominator after nomination, nomination withdrawn. This AFD was never properly listed. Only myself and nominator became involved. Someguy1221 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emery Dreifus[edit]

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

The title of this article is a just misspelling of a medical syndrome for which there already exists a Wikipedia page, namely Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy. This page adds nothing, and is a poor substitute for the real article. — Aetheling 13:22, 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.
More