< May 7 May 9 >
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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfrog International[edit]

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

Very promostional sounding, needs citations. —— Eagle101 [[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need tatwood (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)help?]] 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at Pool & Spa News? It is an industry rag, but neutral with respect to Bullfrog. See citations in article, and others. Thompson-Gale InfoTrac Professional Collection pulls up 14 references since 2002, mostly short news blurbs. --Bejnar 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have looked at them thanks. I stroke my delete vote but keep neutral on this debate. I still see the article in this current state as a WP:SPAM but there are secondary sources about the subject. Thus it passes the primary criterion of WP:CORP but it surely needs expansion and more widely coverage sources (not only award & recognition stories). How about customer reviews? independent comparison with other products? etc. — Indon (reply) — 07:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When did patents become unreliable? They are one of the most reliable sources, along with court documents. No one would risk invalidating a patent by having it contain a falsehood. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, a patent is a primary source, and it is not independent. Having a patent is not notable; having a patent that somebody else writes about is. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 8 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, Mailer Diablo 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an impressive list Claybnorman. Is that cited in the reference section? tatwood (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dartung, it seems to me that if an object is relevant enough to receive respected industry awards, it is more than relevant to be included in wikipedia. If inventions, works or art, distinguished businesses, or other notable topics such as this are not included on wikipedia, this project as a whole will be incomplete. tatwood (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – it should be noted that “Pool & Spa News” is a trade magazine that will publish any articles by any advertiser. Do not believe this is a legitimate source. Shoessss 01:02, 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 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Radio[edit]

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

Does not assert the topic's notability. — D. Wo. 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If that's the case, then please provide sources in the article showing that Flash Radio is independently notable. As it is, there are only links to the station's own website and MySpace page. Heather 13:57, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see if there is something. I know the original author of the article said there was local news coverage. I am from the area and heard about the issue but never actually saw it in the press. Jkmartinjk 02:30, 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. For all the edits this article got in its five-day spell, it still looks nothing more than a textual translation of a road map - an endeavour for which the page creator must have spent some time. However, Wikipedia is not a directory and thus this road must be notable to have its own article. Since the only detailed write-up linked from the article [1] is not as much about the road itself as on a facility that used to be near it, it falls short of the "multiple non-trivial mentions" that notability requires. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 12:44Z

Deer Ridge Drive[edit]

Deer Ridge Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable road. Disputed prod. -- RHaworth 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, how do I talk to you other than on this debate thing. I'm not even sure how to do any of this. By the way whats "AFD"Googler1117 23:48, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 11:35, 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 no assertions of notability. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 12:32Z

Bluegrass college[edit]

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

Seems to me to be advertising. Not a particularly notable website (subscription only), and page apparenly created by one of the website's founders Chris 20:35, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 11:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Could be recreated once the song is released, assuming it meets WP:N or the proposals at WP:MUSIC. Already mentioned in the album article. MastCell Talk 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Can't Deny It (Ridah)[edit]

You Can't Deny It (Ridah) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Crystal-ball-ism regarding an Ashanti song. Nothing but rumor - at least the parts I understand seem like rumor, the prose is so jumbled I don't know what's going on with this one. - eo 19:12, 2 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, — Scientizzle 03:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the article states " It's yet unknown if the song will be released as a single " EliminatorJR Talk 11:11, 7 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, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve drastically - "Crystal-Ball-ism isn't the best quality in an article, but may assert some notability if improved. R_Orange 18:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Arena[edit]

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

No real assertion of notability for this game, plus no sourcing. I took a look for reliable sources discussing it, and couldn't find any. I'm sure it's fun, but it just doesn't seem notable or encyclopedic. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sort of, but not exactly. Those are reader-submitted reviews; what we'd need are reviews/articles by paid contributors to the site, like this IGN one for Syphon Filter, or this GameSpot one for Pimp My Ride. Basically, something with some degree of editorial oversight. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were a winner (or even a finalist) that would certainly help, but it looks like there are quite a few nominees in any given year. As such, I'm not sure how good an illustration of notability that is. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one might be helpful. Could you add it to the article? I would, but you seem to be more familiar with the game than I am, and as such would probably do a better job of it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a minor clarification here: It was never nominated for AFD before. It WAS prodded once, but that's a different process, and all that's needed to avoid deletion in that case is for someone to ask that it be kept. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:05, 7 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, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 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 No consensus. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Lovett[edit]

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

I'm trying to help out a new user by listing this AfD. Per an email conversation, the subject of the article (Dane Lovett) doesn't feel he merits an article. I declined a speedy deletion because the subjects of articles don't have any special control over them, and it does assert notability in what might be considered a reasonable way. Whether or not it succeeds is another story. I'd say it's probably not notable, as the biggest accomplishment appears to be designing an album cover and being nominated for (but not winning) an ARIA award. Seems reasonable to me to delete it, but I want to get a broader consensus first. I'm not opposed to reconsidering the speedy deletion and closing early if we are unanimous here. Kafziel Talk 18:27, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.
I'd say to be nominated for an ARIA, his work has won signficiant critical attention.
Garrie 23:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livnot U'Lehibanot[edit]

Livnot U'Lehibanot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish notability. Additionally, the creating editor's username suggests personal involvement. Adrian M. H. 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It can grow and evolve off-line and be uploaded to Wikipedia if or when it is ready. If being new to Wikipedia was a valid excuse for failing to demonstrate notability, we would have to leave a huge quantity of poor articles in place while we wait, probably indefinitely, for someone to do what should have been done right at the start. Notability and the proving thereof does not have an opt-out clause. Adrian M. H. 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Adrian, you're totally right. And while I know that the original authors of this article probably have every intention of living up to Wikipedia standards, such knowledge cannot simply be assumed. So I took the liberty of cleaning up some of the text, getting rid of grammatical errors and deleting claims that may be considered boastful and cannot be substantiated. I also added in references from 3 articles about the organization which ought to go a long way to showing notability. I will add more as I find them. --Jewlicious 13:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I saw that. Good work. Now that third-party refs have been proven to be available, and another contributor is working on it, the two issues that I outlined in my nomination no longer apply. So, with that in mind, I would be happy to see it remain. If only the original contributor could either have done that right from the start or responded properly by improving it. Adrian M. H. 13:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you looked for such sources before you listed this for AfD Adrian? You didn't just list it for deletion without doing any research on the topic? A google search for Livnot U'Lehibanot gets 11,500 hits. Nick mallory 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked. It didn't produce anything that was obviously independent. I can't speak for Google - that's your choice. Besides, it's not my job to source the article, so don't get like that. That's primarily the responsibility of the article's creator. Adrian M. H. 13:08, 8 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, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made what I think are significant edits to the entry. I am familiar with the organization but I am not affiliated with them in any way. My subsequent edits of the original article as well as my inclusion of relevant non-trivial sources ought to quell any concerns related to WP:COI. I would further urge anyone familiar with the organization to ad historical information or other articles - with over 11,000 Google search results for Livnot, there ought to be more information that can be added in. --Jewlicious 02:15, 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. Walton Need some help? 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAK (audio codec)[edit]

TAK (audio codec) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not demonstrated. No secondary sources. --Pjacobi 17:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it's outstanding performance noteable. There are comparisons – even one on the official FLAC homepage – that prove it. --Speck-Made 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More on http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=TAK and http://synthetic-soul.co.uk/comparison/lossless/ 80.203.49.34 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinions, but do you have secondary sources? That the existence of the software is acknowledged by inclusion in benchmarks is really good first step, but IMHO far from an article in an IEEE journal or conference talk etc. --Pjacobi 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did FLAC, WavPack, Monkey's Audio, TrueAudio or OptimFrog ever have that? What chance do they have to ever have that? --Speck-Made 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For sure: http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=FLAC+lossless&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search --Pjacobi 07:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None at all: neither here nor there (dunno where else to look). And the others? Too lazy to check... (We have articles for each and more...) But that's not exactly the point for me – like you may probably guess... --Speck-Made 21:27, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 11:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylphagora[edit]

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

No reliable sources or refrences; fails all three criteria for WP:WEB Xkeeper 11:20, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 11:39, 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 Historical characters in Harry Potter. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie McDonald[edit]

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

Non-notable Harry potter character, only mentioned once (GoF Lemonflash|(say hi) 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Season: L'Essor Football 2006[edit]

The Last Season: L'Essor Football 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book being written by the author of the page. Has not been published and does not appear to have any third-party coverage from reliable sources. ShadowHalo 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: disputed prod, no reason given. ShadowHalo 04:19, 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 Speedily deleted as a copy vio. Steve (Stephen) talk 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules Of Racial Standing[edit]

Rules Of Racial Standing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A random definition from a book of some professor, which didn't generate any significant buzz nor reasonable secondary source criticism. I say, it is original research `'mikka 01:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a blatant copyright violation of www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/define/bellsRules.html. Change to speedy delete.Shoessss 01:48, 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, does (sort of) assert notability, but considering this team doesn't exist outside of the virtual world, I will give it short shrift. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 02:36Z

Northstar Nerd[edit]

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

Non-notable fantasy baseball team. Unfortunately, I can't find any CSD criterion this fits. *** Crotalus *** 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible Architecture for Simulation and Testing[edit]

Flexible Architecture for Simulation and Testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article discusses about a future process for chips. However, here is my issue with the article. One, it sounds like Wikipedia is being used as a platform for a research paper, which is a no-no. Second, some of the text I have found were copied from here, but not enough to make it a pure copyright violation. Third, all images this guy is adding are under a Non-modification license. I feel uneasy with this article, if we know that many of the text is released under a non-modification license (ditto with the images). Yall figure this out, since I have no clue what to do. Anyways, delete. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, still not notable and a new article under a new title won't change that. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kennedy (Writer)[edit]

Sean Kennedy (Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article on a person who has twice been the subject of successful AfD nominations in recent months (in March 2007 and April 2007). Though the person in question, Sean Kennedy, has since self-published a book through lulu.com, he continues to fail notability. Victoriagirl 02:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's why I refuse to interfere and simply watch it all with a smug grin on my face. The swarm in action, eh. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, it's pretty funny to watch. The self-fulfilling prophecy that's trying its damnedest not to fulfil itself.OldMixcoatl 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you couldn't travel back in time to do it, now could you? Nigosh 09:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that as an entertainer, he has:
  • Has a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made a prolific contribution to a field of entertainment.
Nigosh 09:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must disagree with the comment concerning time travel. It is entirely possible for a person to create a piece for bbc h2g2 and later cite the same. In no way am I suggesting that this has occured. My point is that the anonymous article posted on bbc h2g2 fails to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. How are we to create an article without being able to cite verifiable, authoritative sources? As I wrote during the successful AfD nomination last month, this concern speaks to verifiability and, by extension, notability. While I recognize that Sean Kennedy might be have a "cult" following, I must wonder why it is that he has not been the subject of an article in even one of Vancouver's numerous alternative papers. If he has made "a prolific contribution to a field of entertainment", citations should be easy to come by. Victoriagirl 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't hold the h2g2 article up as anything other than a previously unmentioned reference; but since it was dated Feb 2005, I do think your hypothetical situation stretches too far. Nigosh 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once again, in no way am I suggesting that the bbc h2g2 article was created in order to support a future Wikipedia article. The hypothetical situation was presented as just one reason why bbc h2g2 postings should not be considered as references or evidence of notability. A needless example, I suppose, as bbc h2g2 fails to meet the verifiability policy. Victoriagirl 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any verifiable sources saying he has not been the subject of an article in any one of Vancouver's alternative papers?OldMixcoatl 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OldMixcoatl may remember that I first raised this issue in response to one of his/her comments in the previous AfD discussion. I can report that neither the Canadian Index, nor the British Columbia Index records articles on Kennedy. That said, the burden of evidence does not lie with me. I made mention of Vancouver's alternative press only because it seems like the most likely place to find articles on a significant Vancouver "cult" figure (as has been claimed). Should articles exist in the aforementioned media - or any media, for that matter - I'd welcome the news. As it is, I've only come across one piece, a a short profile from 2000, that has Sean Kennedy as its subject. Victoriagirl 23:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to say 'I am unable to find an article in one of Vancouver's alternative papers in which Kennedy is the subject', this is merely a statement of your own progress in researching this issue, and has no bearing as to whether Kennedy is notable. However, if you say 'Kennedy has not been the subject in even one of Vancouver's numerous alternative papers', and use this fact as a claim to Kennedy's lack of notability, then I believe the burden of proof lies with you on this. Of course, the whole logical structure of the place is very fragile (Do the criteria for notability meet the criteria for verifiability? Do all statements of truth need to be verified, including the statement that all statements of truth need to be verified?), but I suppose we should try to keep everything as intact as possible.OldMixcoatl 05:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fair enough. I'll correct my statement. Kennedy's name is absent as a subject in the Canadian Index and the British Columbia Index. I have yet to find anything to contradict this. There is, of course, always a possibility that article escaped the attention of these publications. It is also possible that a piece appeared in one of the lesser-known papers not covered by either index. I mention the burden of evidence only because this AfD asserts that the subject fails to meet notability guidelines. As the nominator, I don't think it is my role to prove otherwise. That said, I have produced what I consider to be the only verifiable article thus far. I encourage others to uncover more articles. If, as 59.167.21.40 suggests below, Kennedy has a global fanbase, this should not be difficult. Victoriagirl 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This count? The problem is that Kennedy is kind of the progenitor of his field, and any newspaper would find it rather difficult to report on him, with the lack of context that this brings. It's difficult to think of concepts developed in the late 20th/early 21st century that haven't been logical steps from or simply copies of concepts from much earlier, but the heavy use of self-irony in rabid, militant, absolutist political commentary is such a concept, in my opinion. OldMixcoatl 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Others may disagree, but to this girl a two sentence caption ("Sean Kennedy is one of the longest (possibly the longest) running audio ranter and he knows what he's talking about. Sean Kennedy is the fucking man.") on what appears to be a dormant website created by fellow ranters doesn't speak much to notability. There must be something more out there. I mean, even progenitors get some sort of coverage. Academic journals perhaps? Victoriagirl 20:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... The stuff he does really isn't the kind of thing you'd find in academic journals... maybe in a few years when he's proven his point. The survivalist culture is currently entertainment rather than a socio-cultural phenomenon. I don't know whether it's been brought up that he did get two 'interviews' from a Christian radio show. He supposedly was asked back due to the response generated from the first. They can be heard here and here. If you listen to the earlier show, the reason he is asked on is due to a version of one of his rants that was put on youtube. Sorry this is taking so much of your time, by the way, I actually enjoy this kind of thing, but I can imagine it could be a little frustrating from your point of view. OldMixcoatl 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sean Kennedy is probably not that popular in Vancouver. His fan base is online and global, kinda like wikipedia. How many articles about wikipedia have been published in its home town? 59.167.21.40 05:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little disingenuous since the main Sean Kennedy article has in the mean time been both the present Sean Kennedy (Hollyoaks) and now a disambig page, (and I would question the value of the whole Hollyoaks cast list being here, despite it being the comitted and sterling work of one dedicated author!) By the way, can you confirm that the author was the same person for both page recreations? Nigosh 09:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. Sean used to link to his Wikipedia page as a bio, on his livejournal page. Dunno if he still does, but if it happens to be that more than one user has recreated each page, then maybe that speaks to the fact he does have more than one listener. As for the authors not noticing, I think the articles get created by people who have not had extensive enough experience with Wikipedia policies to know about these rules. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone can blame me - I'm the guy who let Sean know his article had been deleted in the first AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one has ever questioned Kennedy's existence. The issue at hand in this nomination and the AfD nominations of March and April is notability. Victoriagirl 23:19, 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 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Dham Nottingham UK[edit]

Sai Dham Nottingham UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sai Dham (Nottingham) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable prayer centre for an unremarkable religion. Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 02:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article may look notable but that doesn't make it notable. All the preceding arguments still apply. andy 06:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:N to find out what notability means in wikipedia. On this basis there is still no evidence of notability in the article. andy 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The etiquette is one vote per editor. andy 09:06, 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. Sr13 02:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wacky Wood[edit]

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

Local dance. No assertion of popularity outside of Columbus, no assertion of particular noteworthiness in Columbus, and no reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 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 Michelle McManus. Sr13 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning Of Love (album)[edit]

The Meaning Of Love (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

okay, it's an album, can anyone guess beyond that? Chris 03:16, 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 keep, apparent bad faith nomination. --Kinu t/c 04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randomness[edit]

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

Completing incomplete nom (no reason given). I'd say keep WP:SNOW, part of several apparent WP:POINT noms...editor upset at page he created was tagged for speedy. DMacks 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Paulus[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. The subject's only notability comes from claiming to having had sex once with pop singer Clay Aiken. He might (or might not) have withdrawn the claim recently. The article is thinly-sourced, chiefly from gossip columns. The subject does not appear notable in any lasting fashion. Also, he has begun editing the article and requested that it be deleted. I see no reason to keep it. Will Beback · † · 03:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)arro[reply]

Delete. Individual is notable only for making a claim in the tabloids. Even the Enquirer, which originally published his claim, has disputed the credibility of statements he has made since. Were everything based on tabloid/gossip sources (all based solely on the individual's claims with no independent verification) to be removed from this entry, there would be nothing left except his ignominious exit from the military in 1997. This entry should be deleted. -Jmh123 03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI: some disputed material has just been removed by Ken Arromdee. Some comments in the following discussion prior to that deletion may not make sense unless edit history is consulted. -Jmh123 06:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More material has been removed by another user this morning, following statements by Ken Arromdee in "talk". I wonder if it would not have been better to just let this AFD process take its course rather than intervening as Ken Arromdee did. -Jmh123 15:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There you go again. The National Enquirer DID NOT say that my claims were in question. You are rewriting history. Bias are you? That's the problem with this particular article it is skewed and infested with Claymate opinion and NO fact. And reference my military exit. At least I served my country. --JohnPaulus 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Scoop, the Enquirer did "question statements you have made since" just as I said. -Jmh123 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The National Enquirer NEVER questioned the validity of the allegations as you have cleverly tried to insinuate. It's imperative that you keep to the facts rather than mending them to suit you and your agenda.--JohnPaulus 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Enquirer did not specifically question the validity of your allegations, they publically questioned YOU as a reliable source, stating that you were “completely distorting” the story of your interaction with them. Triage 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "keep" vote below, the sources are the NY Post gossip column (Page Six), the NY Daily News gossip column, the MSNBC.com (per below, under Cyrus Andiron, that's a website, not a broadcast network) gossip column (the Scoop). The People reference is not related to Paulus, but to a frivilous lawsuit launched against Aiken over an unauthorized biography that he didn't endorse. -Jmh123 04:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite something in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that says that a properly fact-checked "gossip column" is not a reliable source. Otto4711 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_questionable_reliability: By definition, gossip columns report rumors and allegations, not facts. The Post and the Daily News can and do report that 'the Enquirer said that so and so alleges...'. Page Six & the Scoop are places for gossip and rumor, not "fact checked" news. Google articles about the Post's Page Six writer caught shaking down a millionaire last year--if he'd pay a quarter of a million, they'd stop printing lies about him. To step outside the world of celebrities, how about this one on acquisition rumors? [7] In the linked article you have the Post vs the Wall Street Journal with warring financial rumors. -Jmh123 15:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


But for you convenience you cite Realityblurred as an independent surce that did nothing, but regurgitate information provided to them by Claymates? They never called nor did they attempt to verify the facts with me. Sounds like a double standard and reinforces my argument that there have been a few that have compromised the integrity of Wikipedia by using it has a propaganda tool to promote an agenda.--JohnPaulus 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about whether something is true it's about whether something is notable. Unless you're suggesting that everything in Category:Hoaxes and Category:Urban legends be deleted, arguing that something be deleted because it's a rumor has no foundation in Wikipedia policy. Whether Paulus ever met Aiken or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there are reliable sources reporting on the allegations, and dismissing reliable sources on the basis of their being gossip columns is ridiculous. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gossip is gossip, Otto. It isn't "unquestionably reliable." Paulus, in an entry full of gossip, it is only fair to cite gossip on Aiken's behalf as well as yours. -Jmh123 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:RS: "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." If you can cite something that says that gossip columns that appear in fact-checked publications or are broadcast over the fact-checked MSNBC don't qualify as reliable, then pony it up. Otherwise the dismissal of reliable sources stinks of WP:BIAS. Otto4711 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, the MSNBC broadcast network is not cited in the entry in question; please check your own facts. -Jmh123 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you asserting that the New York Post and MSNBC have fact-checked their gossip columns like they (are presumed to) do for their actual journalism? I don't have firsthand knowledge but I have very strong doubts about this. The Post has a horoscope section too; are you asserting that their horoscopes meet WP:RS because they appear in that paper? Delete per Guy, per WP:BLP, per WP:ATT, and so forth. Barno 14:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one were writing an article on Astrology and the continued interest of the American public in it, one could certainly use the horoscopes as a reliable source to document that interest. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gossip, by its definition is nothing but rumors. Also, the alleged encounter could only be verified by Aiken, who refused to comment and Mr. Paulus, who claimed the encounter happened, then retracted, then claimed he never retracted. I'm going out on a limb here, but that doesn't seem too reliabe to me. Just because a gossip columnist chooses to publish his story, that doesn't make it any more true or reliable. I would point you to Jmh123's comments above about reliable sources. Otto, you continue to amuse. --Cyrus Andiron 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You continue to either misread or misrepresent Wikipedia policy. Do you have credible evidence that the Post or MSNBC allows reports in any of its outlets without a fact-checking process in place? It sounds like you're making assumptions about what these media outlets are and aren't doing that fly in the face of standard journalism and legal practice. The truth of Paulus's allegations is irrelevant to the existence of them, and there are reliable sources that attest to the existence of them. Something does not have to be true to be on Wikipedia. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not the forum for settling content disputes or WP:BLP disputes. Otto4711 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the review process which led to this AfD began two months ago, before the subject came on the scene.[8][9] I think we'd presumed the subject would want to keep the article so when he indicated he also wanted to delete it there was no longer any reason to wait. -Will Beback · † · 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The material should be deleted from the Aiken entry as well. It is simply non-encyclopaedic. FNMF 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know that will never happen. Allon Fambrizzi 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
I don't believe that perpetual inclusion of malicious, controversial, insensitive, unsubstantiated non-encyclopaedic sexual allegations is a foregone conclusion. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP at Aiken as well as here. Furthermore, the failure to apply policy by editors at one entry does not justify deciding not to apply policy at another entry. This material does not belong in any genuine encyclopaedia, neither under the heading of Paulus, nor under the heading of Aiken. It is up to editors to enforce policy, rather than come up with a "fair balance" on the grounds policy will not be enforced at either entry. FNMF 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about coming up with a "fair balance" (your term, not mine), it's about developing policies that are realistic in the first place. This information will survive at the "controversies about Clay Aiken" page and at the main Clay Aiken page (why don't you try and delete it and see what happens?), but the John Paulus page will be gone, with the result that the controversy revolves around Aiken, not Paulus. Allon Fambrizzi 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
I appreciate the logic of your argument, but as the retraction has now been deleted from the Paulus page by Ken Arromdee as a violation of Paulus's WP:BLP, and he will brook no discussion on the matter, your argument is moot. Paulus gets a pass and his allegations stick to Aiken whether the Paulus entry as now written is deleted or not. -Jmh123 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. There's no reason that material can't be deleted from the Aiken page too, and tabloid-style allegations should be. Ken Arromdee 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see it happen. Ain't there for lack of trying: See Mediation Cabal Case plus 13 archived pages on Talk:Clay Aiken. -Jmh123

Jimmy Wales has said it is sometimes better to have nothing at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

– Jimbo Wales

AllDone 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second - how is it a violation of BLP on Aiken - it's something that actually happened ... Wikipedia is made of articles about things that happen - and if something notable happens - regardless of whether it makes someone else look bad - we have it. That being said, delete due to a lack of notability.danielfolsom 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it most probably did not happen. All that there is to this is one person's story to a tabloid. Absolutely nothing else to substantiate it. Which would make it potentially libel. But in any case - it would be the event that would be notable IF it actually happened, the person in question is not notable enough for an article, and he is requesting that the article be deleted. 66.82.9.103 03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danielfolsom said "how is it a violation of BLP on Aiken - it's something that actually happened." The only source for that story is John Paulus and the same John Paulus also retracted the story and said it was a hoax. He then wanted to retract the retraction because he said he was fibbing. There is no verifiable information whatsoever that it did happen. The alleged incident is the only thing that would be notable but there is no evidence that the incident ever occured. AllDone 03:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It makes no difference whether the two actually had sex. What is being discussed is the allegation that they had sex. This allegation is sourced in accordance with every applicable Wikipedia policy and guideline. Something does not have to be true to be in Wikipedia, as the existence of the articles in Category:Hoaxes ably proves. If the article read "Clay Aiken had sex with John Paulus" and they did not have sex, then it might be libelous. But an aricle saying that Paulus claimed to have sex with Aiken is not libelous. Paulus did make the claim and reporting the truth - that he made the allegation - by definition can not be libel. Otto4711 04:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711 said."Paulus did make the claim and reporting the truth - that he made the allegation - by definition can not be libel." Then it must also be reported that he confessed that it was a hoax and the article be moved to Category:Hoaxes. His allegations were published in tabloids and later the tabloids were cited as the source in gossip columns. The gossip columns in People, the New York Post, the New York Daily News and MSNBC are not high quality references.

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

* Verifiability * Neutral point of view (NPOV) * No original research

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

AllDone 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if the article was stating that Paulus had sex with Aiken, then you're right, there would need to be better sourcing than what exists. However, the article is not stating that Paulus had sex with Aiken. It is stating that Paulus said he had sex with Aiken and the sourcing for his statement are solid. Otto4711 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, the question is whether a guy who says he had sex with a celebrity once, who by virtue of the celebrity's notability, not his, got the attention of gossip columns and tabloids for a little while, is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I don't think he is. -Jmh123 15:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BLP policy has improved since this article was written. It now includes a caution to use high quality references and to be careful when including biographical material about living persons in other articles. Tabloid and gossip columns certainly cannot be considered high quality. The subject of the article is not himself notable and the article circumvents the policy as it would be applied to Aiken's article. - Maria202 16:19, 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. At this point, the keep arguments boil down to WP:NOTINHERITED. However, if non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources is produced, the article can be re-created using them. MastCell Talk 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Mountain Community Church[edit]

Shadow Mountain Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Editing history shows that the page was originally entered as cruft. Fails WP:N Shadow Mountain Community Church is a religious institution located in the east county region of San Diego County, historically lacking in any "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Nascentatheist 04:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chasetown F.C. season 2006-07[edit]

Chasetown F.C. season 2006-07 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While there may be a good case for keeping season-by-season articles on major teams, I can see no reason for keeping a season-by-season breakdown of a minor team, who play at the 8th tier in the English football league system, in such absurd detail. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:24, 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. — Scientizzle 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deal-Mendenhall Hall[edit]

Deal-Mendenhall Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roe A. and Louise R. Deal House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. These pages are simply a copy of the single source given, and the only reason I didn't nominate for speedy was that I wasn't sure if a simple table of info counted as a copyvio. Anywho, delete for zero assertion of notability. Someguy1221 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A Multiple Property Submission is not the same thing as an Historic District. A district can include many buildings which are not individually notable. An MPS is for buildings (usually non-adjacent) that are thematically linked in some way (a common event, architectural style, etc.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew that.  :-) I guess the question I should have asked, then, is whether we should write a single article to encompass all of the historic resources in the Multiple Property Submission, or whether separate articles are more appropriate. I checked out the Multiple Property Submission document some more, and it looks like they don't mention much at all about the individual buildings. I'm undecided as to whether it's better, in general, to write a single article about multiple-property submissions as opposed to writing one article for each submission. This might be a better topic for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places rather than in this AFD. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perusing the interwebs, I haven't checked any scholarly databases yet, I found a few scant references to a Thomas Deal Mendenhall in Springville as well as some references to the Mendenhall's as an important family there. I am sure a good library in Utah, or Springville itself, would have the National Register nomination form as well as other sources of information including a lot of old and out of print books. A lack of Google information isn't sufficient to delete this particular article. IvoShandor 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles were copy vios, the site nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com isn't a government website. I cleaned them up, they are currently stubs but could easily be expanded. IvoShandor 17:41, 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 transwiki to commons. Mangojuicetalk 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of Dublin[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Any useful information on this page should be moved to Dublin or Commons:Dublin and the article deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:18, 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. John254 17:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwashing 101[edit]

Brainwashing 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non Notable 'Film' /TheDeciderDecides 06:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Throne[edit]

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

Delete No verifiable assertions of notability, no reliable sources, No evidence that it passes WP:WEB, previous AfD was a No Consensus train-wreck, no improvements to the article since then have got it up to inclusion standards. DarkSaber2k 08:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article! It helped a lot! I am begging you! — 72.94.26.62 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 humanity! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women and children[edit]

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

It's hard to see what this is doing in an encyclopedia. The first 100 Google results do not reveal this to be a common Muslim phrase, or any kind of Muslim phrase at all. It's difficult to see what the article is trying to say about the phrase--it's used by Muslims? by Israelis? by women even though "more" men are killed? killed by whom? Qworty 09:07, 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 - several suggestions to rename, or merge to People (magazine). Nabla 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexiest Man Alive[edit]

Sexiest Man Alive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV list of celebrities, no source or context Clicketyclack 09:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with this page is the title. After I AfD'd this list, User:Resurgent insurgent dug down a dozen changes, and discovered that the context had originally been established in the intro, but had long since vandalized been out, leaving just a list titled "Sexiest Man Alive", with no clue that it's a list of nominations by a magazine.
A list like that just begs for "contributions" from every boy that searches WP for "sexiest".
Please also note that People magazine is entirely unknown outside of the USA & Canada, and so likewise People's "SMA" list. Without the explicit context of it being a magazine feature, the list makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who's never been to the US - that is to say, most people on the planet. That could be seen as a ((Globalize/USA)) issue, but I can see now that the title is really the underlying problem.
So if consensus is that this list really is a notable feature of USA culture, and that this isn't a matter of WP mirroring content for People magazine, then it should be merged into People (magazine), or at the very least renamed, to stop its essential context being repeatedly removed. Thanks, Clicketyclack 08:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: there's a related debate going on over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Most Beautiful People, though in that case the consensus so far is strongly for deletion, since its meaning as (another) People magazine celeb award was never mentioned for that article. Clicketyclack 11:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above: it's only well-known in one country, and lacks context, press or notability for anyone from the rest of the planet. Clicketyclack 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above: it gets national mainstream coverage in one country only, and lacks context, coverage or notability for anyone from the rest of the planet. Clicketyclack 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are entirely relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine you're searching WP for "sexiest man alive", and it takes you to a list of men awarded that title annually by a magazine called Celebs, published only in New Zealand. The list consists almost entirely of celebrities from New Zealand, most or all of whom you've never heard of. It wouldn't make much sense to you, or to people from anywhere else outside of New Zealand. But the magazine is wildly popular there, and Wikipedians from New Zealand (WiKiwis?) might argue that the designation is very notable in their country, gets talked about on TV there, gets covered by the press there, etc. Is it encyclopedic material worthy of an article on WP? That's a matter for debate. But even if it is, the right thing to do with that list would be either a merge to Celebs (magazine), or at least a rename to Celebs Sexiest Man Alive list.
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - Clicketyclack 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is countering systematic bias - if you haven't heard about it outside of the US, it doesn't make it non-notable. If the NZ magazine's yearly list gets press in every major publication in NZ, then I'd defend the list's inclusion here as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find much evidence of systemic bias against US pop culture on WP. :-)   Note that it's not nominated as non-notable, but as "POV list of celebrities, no source or context". Are you also opposing merging it to People (magazine)? Clicketyclack 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point being is that the assumption that it's not notable because it allegedly only gets coverage in one country is the definition of systematic bias. The nomination, however, is completely spurious (nothing POV, unsourced, or uncontextual), and may have been based on a previously vandalised version. And yes, I'm strongly opposed to a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I haven't nominated it on grounds of non-notability, so no such assumption's being made. Also, the nomination is demonstrably not spurious:
  • POV: An encyclopedic entry on the sexiest man alive, assuming that that should be in WP, shouldn't be based solely on a nomination by a single magazine, especially one that's only published in one country.
  • Unsourced: I can find no sources cited in the article that People ever nominated any of them for SMA, or that Mel Gibson was the first winner, Clooney twice, etc. Nor can I find sources in any of the articles linked.
  • Context: Context has been restored to the article's body (though not the title) by User:Resurgent insurgent after nomination, though looking at the edit history that's highly likely to be deleted again. That problem could be fixed by merging, rather than deleting, as I've noted above. The other two remain grounds for a complete re-write or deletion. Clicketyclack 14:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John L. Lee[edit]

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

Subject was supposedly "a Central Intelligence Agency field operative involved in a covert military intelligence rogue operation undertaken by the CIA" ... "By the age of 21, Lee had become one of the primary high value assassination targets of the KGB First Chief Directorate in South East Asia.", etc. The article on the film Spy Game claims that a character played by Brad Pitt may have been based on Lee.

This was nominated for speedy deletion, but it seems reasonable under the circumstances to bump it to AFD: It has incoming links, makes assertions of notability, but is unreferenced and concerns a possibly living person making claims which are sensitive unless sourced. I don't find any hits on Google for anything resembling reliable sources. Pharamond 09:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo (band)[edit]

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

Reposted after speedy. One album, released a couple of weeks ago, no independent sources, I don't see the claim of notability but that might be systemic bias. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was userfy and delete. I've moved the page contents to User:BodyPride's user space. The article can be recreated if/when more secondary sources are available. MastCell Talk 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Body Pride Ride[edit]

Body Pride Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I asked the page creator a couple days ago to find sourcing for this event, and none has been found yet that mention it by name. If none can be found, then the article qualifies for deletion since it is not notable. I will withdraw the nomination if I see that there has been explicit discussion in the media of the event. nadav 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found another source which mentions this event saying:

In 2005, a third naked cycling event, Body Pride Ride (BPR), made its debut, joining the Painted Solstice Cyclists and Seattle WNBR and establishing Seattle as the city with the most annual naked/painted bike rides in the world.[15]

I'm sorry that the online coverage in the SGN in 2005 didn't mention the event by name, but the printed edition did. BPR is not a flash in the pan, and I'm working on finding more "good sources".
Since the AfD flagging, I'm posting my reply here, rather than double posting to the articles discussion page. Right?
The problem seems to be the definition of "good sources". Google finds 186 entries when searching for "body pride ride" + Seattle [16] ranging from other Wikipedia articles [17], Wikia entries [18], a local Seattle paper's website (see link above). Can you clarify what "good sources" requires?
I have a few photos that document the rides, body painting and some en route. Would adding those help establish the existence of this event? Since this is my topic, I guess it's not appropriate for me to say Keep here, but I'm not sure. BodyPride 02:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Event is a unique and significant addition to clothing-optional cycling events. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 00:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why this article is being requesting for deletion so soon after critical comments, while other articles flagged simply with ((unreferenced|January 2007)) are not flagged for deletion. Where is a concern like this supposed to be posed? Today I'm adding a ((todo)) to the article. Is there a place to prepare a wiki article "offline" or is "under construction" acceptable? BodyPride 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bekki Janssen[edit]

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

Notability and verifiability seems pretty low - a few appearances on local radio stations does not a celebrity make. ~Matticus TC 11:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravimotion[edit]

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

A "revolutionary interpretation of motion", brought here by its author. There seems to have existed a self-published book, but hardly any reception [19], not to mention in journals [20]. Tikiwont 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Please note that all three "keep" opinions present so far were placed here by User:Henrisalles, the creator of the article. --EMS | Talk 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is it not true also that new concepts are rejected as such, just because they are new! Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for endorsing the heliocentric theory. Galileo was forced to write essays he did not believe in. Newton had to delay the publishing of his famous Principia. Ludwig Boltzmann killed himself because nobody wanted to believe in his theory. I do not by far compare myself to these great men, but nowadays physics took over; any new idea, not in "physics" way of thinking, has no merit! Just read the comment above it has no valid argument! Please express what you understand is wrong with gravimotion's interpretation of nature. You can contact me if you need detailed explanations. In case my reference to my website "gravimotion.info" were to be the culprit, I just removed it. For ten years now I have been working at trying to get some exposure. A third book will be published this year. If this article is removed, it will prove once more that comments that are irrelevant are nowadays more important than innovative ideas are. User:HenriSalles8 May 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis in Bible[edit]

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

Original research. Copyvio from the author's own book Atlantis the Final Solution. A previous version was speedily deleted. This one is mainly irrelevant to the title, being a retelling of Genesis. Fork of Atlantis anyway. -- RHaworth 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the link to the author's book was added by a single-purpose IP address. -- RHaworth 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I was mostly implying that there is nothing to merge. Morover, the Atlantis references are full with ominous 'sources'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 13:36, 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. --Wafulz 22:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Palmer[edit]

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

No sources provided. Suspected hoax. Search for "Sabrina Palmer" deaf returns zero hits. Search for "Sabrina Palmer" blind returns 6, all unrelated. --OnoremDil 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, without prejudice towards recreation (delete comments focus on the current state of the article and the motivations of its author). If Rustavo is still interested in creating an NPOV stub from scratch, he may. The following are the references from the article.

Mangojuicetalk 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Holland[edit]

Joel Holland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | 1st AfD)

Blatant (self?)-promotion. Totally unencyclopedic in tone and that's unlikely to change as the article is unlikely to be of interest to any editor save its owner. Somehow this serviced an earlier deletion attempt. Let's do it properly this time.--Docg 22:45, 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. John254 17:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Bird[edit]

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

AFAIK, reality show contestants are supposed to have an article only if they are known for something else, which this one does not appear to, according to the article. Tizio 12:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Australian icon. And listed as one of Tasmania's Top 200 "movers and shakers".[21] Definitely keep.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (and redirect to Roman London), no reliable sources to verify information or notability. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia; whether or not the game has a "huge following" does not trump this. Krimpet (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Londinivm[edit]

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

Delete - No verifiable assertions of notability. No reliable thrid-party sources, fails WP:WEB as far as I can tell. The latest in a long-line of browser-game articles that either fails to assert, or fails to provide sources in support of notability. Procedural AfD since Admin removed prod stating it has already survived one, although 'survived' seems a strong word considering anyone can simply remove the prod to cancel it. DarkSaber2k 12:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Website has huge following

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

The result was speedily deleted by The Rambling Man. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Brockman[edit]

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

A non-notable sex offender. Criminals aren't encyclopedic unless they do something particularly out of the ordinary, and sexually assaulting some kids isn't. Also, a somewhat suspicious edit [28] makes me think this is an attack page on a high school principal; the sources aren't easy to verify. R. fiend 12:35, 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, following WP:MUSIC. Teke 04:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music is Live Andy Hui X Denise Ho Music is Live (Live Album)[edit]

Music is Live Andy Hui X Denise Ho Music is Live (Live Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not translated to english, marked since Jan 2007 99DBSIMLR 12:38, 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 Delete, failure to assert notability. Teke 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Leonard Larson[edit]

Mark Leonard Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable aikido teacher. The bio is not that unusual. He's the instructor at a non-notable clubPeter Rehse 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please delete the page titled Mark Leonard Larson so that I may create a new page with just Sensei Larson’s First and Last name. And you are correct, there a lot of fifth dan’s around, but there is only one Mark Larson Sensei and any research done would further substantiate the cause for this article.

Respectfully MNAikidoka 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Mark Larson" Aikido on google gives 307 hits which is not that many. The same exercise using my name by way of example falls just short of 12,000. Spending 10 years studying under an Aikido master in Japan is also not that unique.Peter Rehse 08:14, 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 as original research essay.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Rights in Religion[edit]

Women's Rights in Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like a school essay; very clearly original research. -- Merope 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (all). Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Coletta (Australian Journalist)[edit]

Frank Coletta (Australian Journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable substitute Australian news reporter - article is unreferenced. Also nominated are similar articles of other substitute news readers

Jacinta Hocking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Richard Davies (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Golden Wattle talk 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this is only a guideline - none of these journalists - nor many others that have wikipedia articles and would fall into the same category would meet any of these guidelines. There are no references for these articles and there is no assertion that they have made contributions to their profession in any sense as per the guidelines above. "A long history in the media" does not equal notable.--Golden Wattle talk 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, for those commenting who've not used Google to check what they're on about - here it is. Firstly, Coletta stood in the 2006 Hornsby City Council By-election[29] on a number of local issues, is a supporter of Cystic Fibrosis NSW on account of having a child suffering CF. He is also a member of the board of Australian Health Management since 2001. In his over 20yrs experience in the media industry across print, radio and television, with organisations including Sky News Australia, the Australian Radio Network and Fairfax newspapers. He’s also worked extensively as a freelance journalist with SBS radio, the National Soccer League and Australian Associated Press. He is also a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and is a NSW Justice of the Peace (Listed under Francesco Anthony Coletta). He also caused a minor uproar when during the Cronulla Riots, he read out in full, the text message that is supposedly doing the rounds at the moment, imploring the ‘lions of Lebanon’ to meet at a particular place, at a particular time, with the intent of committing violent crime. [30]. I think that covers it. Thewinchester (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response - the articles cite no sources, whether or not sources can be googled is not the point. Notability is not adequately asserted and therefore it is not a matter of requesting sources to support claims of notability; not one of the people are notable. The facts you give about Coletta immediately above may be sourced but not one of them makes him notable. History in the media is not a claim to notability - is he "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by [his] peers" - no! We do not have articles on justices of the peace - they are not notable, nor are people who support charities - many of us do. Company directors are not intrinsicaly notable, nor are people who stand for local councils - successfully elected mayors perhaps but just standing ... The Cronulla Riots incident might have pushed it over the edge but all he did was read somebody else's words - he is not mentioned in the article on the riots so I don't think that pushes him over the notability threshhold. In fact perhaps one test for notability is where the article links - at present the only link within article space is to Ten News; Jacinta Hocling and Richard Davies only link to a list of television presenters. I also suggest, if you have some additions to make on a person, you imnprove the article, not merely place them in the debate - an improved article provides different considerations. I personally don't think the additions you could make from the above would push it over the line, but perhaps it might look different if edited ....--Golden Wattle talk 11:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Coletta - Secondary reference from Fairfax media: WOOPS! We overpaid ourselves $262,000 Illawarra Mercury 24/03/2007 "DIRECTORS of Wollongong-based Australian Health Management have overpaid themselves $262,000 and must ask members to let them keep it......"
Jacinta Hocking - Secondary reference from Fairfax media: 2 one star references from the Sun Herald, likely to be incidental.
Search on 'Richard Davies AND Ten' found 1 one star reference, likely to be incidental.
Comment- Of the three references now on the article, only the second one - Channel Ten likes to make the news, not report it by the Chaser - I reckon is non-trivial. The others show he is a company director and plays amateur sport, which provides background but does not contribute substantially to his notability. Maybe another non-trivial secondary reference and I might be persuaded. --Takver 08:11, 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 Keep. Article may be need to be cleaned up, but it satisfies notability requirements.Madchester 06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of long-living organisms[edit]

List_of_long-living_organisms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article is very inproper.having an article on long living organisms first of all should be longest living, because that should be what it is describing as it is useless to simply list organisms that have had a relativly long life time.And even if it was the oldest living organisms, that is a very contraversial topic that can not be covered by a list because there is so much contraversy as to what is the oldest arganism.If necessary, I propose atleast having an article like the one on largest organism, an article which does not list the ones generally considered the largest but talks about the indecidedness about the topic and has examples of possible candidates, and does not specualte at which is "the largest". Rodrigue 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my article is being deleted so I want to delete an unrelated article just for fun.I don't appreciate your allegations towards me, especially when I have a reasonable argument anyways.At the very least the article should be moved to Oldest organism and get rid of the redirect, because then it would be more like the article on Largest organism.The reason that article is not a list is because there is no universally agreed upon "largest organism", and the same goes for this article.
And what is with the tittle being long-living organisms and not oldest living.There can be an endless list of organisms that have lived very "long" depending on your definition of the term, but it should be about the organisms ones that outlived mthe other ones.Can the tittle atleast be changed to the right term first of all. Rodrigue 21:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my article is being deleted so I want to delete an unrelated article just for fun. Nuff said. Speedy close, please. JuJube 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was being sarcastic man,I was merely responding to what another person said about what my intensions for this deletion was.
And for the record, that article he was referring to was being deleted because it was a list of most valuable comic books, and I'm deleting this article for the same reason because a list doesn't qualify for this subject, so by that logic I would want my own article deleted as well, which is rediculous.This is useless, this is a discussion of whether or not to delete a page and if someone wants to make allegations that is what talk pages are for. Rodrigue 22:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically a jocular rephrase of Richard Arthur Norton's "good almanac type list". Stammer 06:54, 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 reslisting at RfD. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prajwal kulkarni[edit]

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

No content - created in error Drdan14 23:31, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Cairns[edit]

Richard_J._Cairns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable head master of a minor public school. --Counter-revolutionary 22:28, 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 per WP:CSD#G4. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape holiday items[edit]

Runescape holiday items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

deleteThis article is not necessary. It is of too small a scale to merit inclusion as an article. Holiday events have not received much media attention. If it is decided that the content is worthy of inclusion, then the content of this article should be mergd with Runescape. Allhailthepowerofbauerforjackisback 12:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete. Pure fancruft, and really adds no value to the articles on RuneScape. Also badly worded and confusing, even somewhat inaccurate. Pyrospirit Shiny! 13:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure fancruft, and unnecessary information. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:47, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Art Creations[edit]

Superior_Art_Creations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This group is not relevant in the demo scene or any other context that would justify the existence of this page on wikipedia. I see violation of WP:BIO and possibly WP:COI since this page was most likely created by members of that group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qdr (talk • contribs) 2007/05/08 04:25:08

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

The result was speedy keep. Redirects should be nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. WjBscribe 06:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Ninja[edit]

White_Ninja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I don't think this redirect should go to a NN wrestler. If it's not going to the webcomic, then it should just go nowhere.

-Rebent 02:57, 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 g11 -- Y not? 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesh Din[edit]

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

Appears to be self-promotion/non-encyclopedic peterl 11:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James David Honsaker[edit]

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

Contested prod; ((prod)) (and ((stub))) tag removed by anonymous IP with no explanation. Not quite speediable due to the "award winning", but no indication of what these awards are, nothing to indicate what sort of composing he does and no information at all about the man himself. Needless to say, 0 Ghits on James David Honsaker and 1 ghit on Jim Honsaker, that 1 ghit being his Friendster page - which I'm not totally convinced is a reliable source — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There's no indication of sourcing the pivotal claim of refereeing at the olympics, so I consider this basically unanimous.Chaser - T 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bester Kalombo[edit]

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

Prodded by User:Indrian with reasoning "Importance of subject not established". This might not be the case, so I'm bringing it to AFD instead. Punkmorten 12:59, 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. John254 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Searwar[edit]

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

Prodded by User:Jim62sch with reasoning "notability -- the guy is DEAD an no one seems to have noticed". Seems borderline, so I'm bringing it to AFD instead. Punkmorten 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Briggs[edit]

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

Autobiography. References are subject's affiliations' websites and anyway do not verify the article content. De-prodded with comment edited due to faulty assumption by pam...I've checked with sources, etc...pam has not...just her opinion...but don't mess up wikipedia over opinion. (For the record, I am a he.) Pan Dan 13:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again...you have to watch this Pan Dan...he likes to tag pages he does not like...emotions and opinions do not belong here. I too checked the links and they reach far beyond suject's affiliations....shame on you Pan Dan...you need to stop your nonsense and deleting pages without proper wikipedia process...this pages was discussed and reviewed long before you...get with the program...

Florenda 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources. If this isn't proper Wikipedia process, what is? Phony Saint 16:37, 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. Punkmorten 08:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Perez[edit]

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

The result was delete. Not really any sourced content to justify a merge. MastCell Talk 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burger dot[edit]

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

Unverifiable, source that is linked to has no mention of it[32]. Lack of support from search engines[33] suggests it is therefore not notable. Was prodded, but template was removed by author at 5 day mark. Sounds like a bullet point to me. |→ Spaully₪† 13:44, 8 May 2007 (GMT)

For reference the author has linked to a number of sources on the talk page, however they are all blogs or forums so I suggest do not adhere to WP:RS. |→ Spaully₪† 14:10, 8 May 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment. Personally I don't see any reliable sources even to merit a mention on the bullet page. |→ Spaully₪† 09:49, 14 May 2007 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Rostrum[edit]

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

Advertising text (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox), written in the first person plural. Notability is not established, the (few) facts are unsourced. High on a tree 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Nebula[edit]

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

The article is about a non-notable dust cloud in a nebula. Even if the dust cloud is notable, it is difficult to identify what it is. This object's name is a neologism that was made up at this internet discussion board. The SIMBAD Astronomical Database and ADS Abstract Service produce no results for a search on "Philippine Nebula". The page has no useful references or information. Even turning it into a redirect for NGC 2264 would be a bad idea, as the name is not in widespread use. This should be deleted outright. Dr. Submillimeter 14:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The International Astronomical Union names these things and it obviously hasn't rung their bell. andy 06:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mental Health Software Development Companies[edit]

List of Mental Health Software Development Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A combination of original research and a list of external links. De-prodded with comment wrongful tag..pan dan has a hx of deleting contributions without following proper wikipedia process...shame.... Pan Dan 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to watch this Pan Dan...he has a hx of tagging things he does not like...emotions and opinions do not belong here...wikipedia wants worthy contributions that are in the public's interests...shame on you...

Florenda 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that attacking the nominator doesn't actually make for a good case. If there is any validity to this article, it's best to explain that first. While there are certainly times when a nomination is bad faith, I don't believe this is one, and I'd say that this user has been responsible in regards to this nomination. Therefore, if you do believe the nomination was mistaken, I suggest you try to convince the rest of us, not by attacking Pan Dan, but by telling us why it should be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Realms[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, and no reliable or verifiable sources beyond it's own web page. DarkAudit 14:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realm of the Five, based on the fact it's a offshoot of the Mystic Realms article. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of WCMA, World christian ministries association[edit]

University of WCMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
World christian ministries association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spammy, but perhaps less spammy than a previous version that was speedily deleted. A quick Google search suggests that there are no reliable in-depth sources about this institution, so it is not notable. Pan Dan 14:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction...this is not spammy...I too checked the sources and they meet or exceed all other similar wikipedia contributions...Pan Dan has a hx of tagging things he doesn't like...mere opinion...not looking out for wikipedia's need for valuable contributions that the public seeks.

Florenda 15:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete; disregarding the accusations of bad-faith towards the nom, which do not actually pertain to whether the article should be kept or not, the arguments for delete outweigh those for keep. Krimpet (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of micronations[edit]

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

This should really have been bundled with the "coats of arms" article; however, as I've only just discovered this article it's too late to add it. My rationale for deletion is the same as my extended rationale provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations; please read that debate before commenting here. kingboyk 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flags are, I would think, by their own nature copyrighted to their creator or the sovereign state concerned - there's no way you could get around that; you could always draw your own, I suppose. JRG 00:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer mate, but: I don't think there's copyright in old flags of "real" countries, the same may apply to historical micronations (especially if the artist is long deceased). Coats of arms generally seem to be copyright (see ((seal))). Some of these micronations are of course recent, private entities, and copyright undeniably applies to their flags and coats of arms unless they have specifically released them into the public domain or under a free licence. Copyright doesn't have to be claimed, it's automatic. Creating your own copy doesn't help, that's likely to be a "derivative work" and copyright to the original artist/micronation too. In summary, you'll have to proceed on a case by case basis: some can be used in a list, some can't. --kingboyk 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

I wrote the sentence in the Queen's English, and it's meaning is clear as crystal. Unless there's documentary or photographic evidence that a fabric flag of the documented design has actually physically existed in the real world, then don't list it. --Gene_poole 09:12, 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 delete. An argument for keeping arrived too late to be heard widely, but (1) that doesn't address the concern that this is an ad, and (2) based on the few comments afterwards, it seems to me unlikely that this would have changed the outcome. Mangojuicetalk 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bomberblitz[edit]

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

Disputed speedy. Assertion of notability ("...one of Australia's most important sporting websites and is well known in the Australian media") is not sourced. Their one claim to fame is a newspaper article describing how a newspaper was burned by using Bomberblitz as a source. That is one minor article, not sufficient in my opinion.Herostratus 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MC Luka[edit]

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

This article, which has been marked as unsourced for over a week, does not establish the notability of its subject. Apart from a mixtape which does not seem to have been released commercially on a record label, the only accomplishment is an announcement of a demo album which "will be released only on the net" in summer 2007, and whose title "is still unknown". (Note: For "MC Luka", Google finds also a Brazilian musician, which seems to be unrelated to this Croatian MC.) High on a tree 15:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are lacking sources and evidence of notability for the same reasons:

MC Luka's first studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prvi Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prvi Mixtape (Remastered Edition) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regards, High on a tree 15:24, 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 moot. I believe the amount of cleanup that occurred during the debate was so substantial that it's hard to draw any conclusion from this one. I considered a simple relist (I would have archived most of the lengthy discussion below) but some of the earlier comments no longer apply to the revised version. I am going to begin a new AfD right away, though, because letting Flyer22 continue to work so hard is not right if the article topic is deemed to be improper, so I think we really need to figure that out. Mangojuicetalk 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey[edit]

J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page consists of noting but an excessively long plot summary of various episodes in a TV series. There are no significant secondary sources. It is full of Original research synthesizing plot elements and explaining the motives of characters. It has far too many fair use screen shots for our image policy. Most importantly, it has nothing but plot summary. According to WP:FICT Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. and Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction and Plot summaries should be kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. This article violates all of these guidelines, and seems unlikely ever to include much "real-world context and sourced analysis". DES (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving This Article[edit]

I am the creator of this page, and will work on improving it while it is up for deletion. All I ask is that it is taken into great consideration (as I'm sure it will be) in not being deleted. I am very new to wikipedia and am just learning the ropes. I'd read on creating pages, and didn't feel that this article was that beyond help, if needed improvement. When I first came to this page a year ago, it seemed fine. Then, as I came back to it a few weeks ago, it was deleted. I was not the creator of this article then, but I decided to register and create the article since it was popular as to some of its fans before. I welcome the most skilled editors to please assist me in improving this page, so that it is not deleted. As for the summaries, I was contacted by a friend on how one of his favorite pages Spike (Buffyverse) was greatly detailed, and that the detail improved the enjoyment of that article, thus I wanted the J.R. and Babe page to be detailed in the same effect. If it truly required for me to cut back on the summaries, which it seems so...unless I provide a link to such quotes within it, then I will, or I will provide the link within the quote. The Free Use Images, I'm not certain if I should have tagged all of them Free Use. I have noticed a few screenshots on some articles only needed the appropriate license, and not the tag of Free Use. I will work on all of that as well, of course.

I am greatly sorry for having caused this inconvience my first time out on a page. I truly do welcome any help from editors who would like to accompany me in bettering this page. Flyer22 18:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- J.R. and Babe are a fictional couple. Real world context would be things like:

the actors who play them

inspiration from their lives which the actors use for their characters (that is, what they bring to their roles)

the people who developed the characters, the romance, and wrote their lines

the inspiration for the couple and their ongoing relationship (how the writers came up with it)

behind the camera politics

the impact the fictional couple have had on viewers, politics, society... and the world

the fictional couple's popularity

number of posters, t-shirts, and coffe cups sold with the couple on them

...and so on --

Updated The Article[edit]

Well, DES, I fixed up the article, added everything that needed to be added, trimmed down the summaries once more, such as The Baby-Switch section and The Love Triangle section, and now the summaries pretty much match in length to that of such other fictional characters' life, like Spike (Buffyverse), and I really do believe that this article is valid now. I feel a lot better about it, and I am glad that you called me out on fixing it up. It really does seem like an article combining the characters of J.R. and Babe, rather than what it was before. All I can do now is wait. Flyer22 13:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is somewhat improved, there are still multiple screenfuls of plot summery, versus a few paragraphs of other stuff. Also the writing is rather incoherent, but that is an editorial matter ("...the power of their love has been referenced more than once in the show to that of supercouple..." [is compared meant here?]; "One of her character creations in general, Babe Carey, first sprouted up in 2003" [mixed metaphor]; "This time between J.R. and Babe would come to be the day in which Babe would describe as the happiest day of her life." [misplaced word]; "When J.R. tried to murder Babe, and yet the couple was still portrayed as true loves to each other, it sparked a perplexing, 'former debate among soap opera viewers and viewers of television shows in general" [when did is stop being a debate? and who was perplexed by it?]; "Jacob Young's very realistic portrayal of an alcoholic battling his inner demons, who also couldn't fully grasp why he'd tried to kill his wife got him and his character noticed by PRISM..." [Wrong antecedent, unless it is the demons who had trouble understanding Young's motives]; etc). There are also lots of weasel words ("dishing out what many considered a complete overhaul of their beloved drama"; "Many fans felt that J.R. should have served time for his crime.") and grandiosities ("The events listed in this section occur from the huge history-shaping AMC/One Life To Live crossover"; "The events listed in this section occur from the greatly controversial AMC Satin Slayer, The Fusion Serial Killer storyline"). The current version also seem to have lots of [[WP:NOR|original research], and many of the sources now cited are either bloggers, fan sites, or provided by the production company or the network, i see few if any reliable, independent sources. I still thank this is worth deleting, perhaps after it is copied to the new soap operas wiki on Wikia, but it is a significant improvement over the earlier version. DES (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the references, I wouldn't consider TV Guide a fansite, but I get that you mean more of the references should be like that of TV Guide or the Associated Content reference. I know that I mentioned one blog site, but as for the ones pertaining to Dixie's death, that was more so to validate the impact of Dixie's death, but I will delete those. By "fan site", I would have thought that you meant a J.R. and Babe fansite, which, of course, isn't in my references. But by "sources supported by the production company or network"...you must mean the fact that some of it comes from abc.com. I would argue that considering that J.R. and Babe are a couple from a soap opera, the fact that most of their portrayers and or the creators of their characters' interviews would come via abc.com is to be expected. Sure, they are not characters from a show such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where tons of sources are available apart from the production company in which supported that show, but I don't feel that it makes the notion of a J.R. and Babe article on Wikipedia being useful and or sound any less valid.

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narayana Nethralaya[edit]

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

Non notable hospital. Reads like an advert, notability not asserted, unreferenced. Majorly (hot!) 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop albums by year[edit]

Hip Hop albums by year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unmanageable list, appears to be the exact same as List of rappers' discography, already nominated for deletion here. Calliopejen1 15:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hehe. I likewise object to the absense of Eedris Abdulkareem, Tony Tetuila, Ruggedman, etc. AntiNigerian bias, anyone? LOL. (Seriously, though, many of our hip hop articles do suffer from an anti-African bias, and this one is no exception, which is what I was complaining about above.) Heather 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IMO, the absence of non-American artists may be indicative of a slight systemic bias, but hip-hop is a predominantly American medium (and was an exclusively American medium at its birth). Therefore American artists should outnumber (by far) artists of other nationalities. Other nations have hip-hop music, true, but it is much less notable. Calliopejen1 16:39, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Rappers/Groups/Producer[edit]

Lists of Rappers/Groups/Producer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unmanageable list. Calliopejen1 15:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig White (footballer)[edit]

Craig White (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable footballer in a local league - not expandable using reputable third-party sources. Orderinchaos 15:52, 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 Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal number[edit]

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

Original research and speculations based on recent developments (AACS encryption key controversy). No reliable sources. While the listed refs do tackle the issue, the term itself is not introduced and not discussed, making the content of the article inadmissible Original research. Not to mention that 2 of 3 refs are not reliable sources. `'mikka 16:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I myself am fascinated with this idiotic idea to forbid numbers. In fact, there is a simple Theorem: All numbers are illegal. Lemma: At least one illegal number exists. Proof: it is the AACSkey. Proof of theorem ad absurdum: Suppose you say that the number X is legal. I publish the number Y=X-AACSkey on digg and tomorrow if your birthday is X, you will be in danger to be sued your ass off when you start e-mailing invitations to the party. `'mikka 00:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let's all keep WP:COOL here. I see some people getting a little hot under the collar about this whole thing. Sxeptomaniac 21:16, 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. WjBscribe 06:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Sandercoe[edit]

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

No sources. A search on Factiva turned up only passing mentions, none that I could see would be any use in building an article, let alone satisfying WP:N, and every single one of those was from the same local paper (the Newcastle Herald). Delete unless non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources is found. Sam Blanning(talk) 16:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Stern[edit]

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

Unnotible biography 99DBSIMLR 16:14, 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 Deleted (db-bio). -- JLaTondre 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan levine[edit]

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

non-notable person C5mjohn 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as a hoax.

Degarts Utar[edit]

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

Stuedgar created this page, claiming that Utar was briefly leader of the Knights Templar, but I did not know of any such person, and I can't find him mentioned anywhere. The page on templier.net given by Stu does not exist, and Utar is not mentioned in David Nicolle's "The Third Crusade 1191", in which Stu claims to have read two paragraphs about him. He gave another reference to a book by Peter Edbury but does not know which book it was; I am pretty familiar with Edbury's work so I am sure Utar is not mentioned in any of his books either. I looked at all the books I own about the crusades or Templars, as well as all the Templar books (both scholarly and popular) at my local Chapters, and Utar is nowhere to be found. Stu says he got this info from a professor, so perhaps the professor is making things up, although I can't explain why Stu says he read two non-existent paragraphs in Nicolle's book. I was also suspicious because "Stuedgar" is an anagram of "Degarts Utar", if you add another A and R, and because Stu says "Utar" is also spelled "Uktar", which is a month in one of the Forgotten Realms calendars. (By the way, Stu's previous Joe Jacks article is probably nonsense too, despite the failed AFD.) Adam Bishop 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "Degarts Utar" in an anagram of "Stuart Edgar" not "StuEdgar". Note also, Stuedgar has been warned for making vandalistic edits to unrelated articles in the past [46]. Pete.Hurd 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I didn't even think of "Stuart", that's even better! Adam Bishop 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Joe Jacks deserves another AfD, or DRV. IMHO, it should have come out like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Brett did. Plus, can anyone verify that Fisah Ketsi is for real? Pete.Hurd 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, since its captain, Ted Sugar, is another anagram of Stuedgar. Adam Bishop 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And also, Fisah Ketsi is an anagram of "shit is fake". Adam Bishop 23:30, 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 no consensus. There clearly is insufficient community will to delete this, and sources have been added since Moreschi's "original research" argument, which is cited by most of the opposers. That said, I think the article needs a complete workover. It's emphasis is on the workings of this system, not on encyclopedic information about it such as its history and influence. I cannot delete this right now, but I do think if its principal authors don't rethink its approach it will be deleted. This is not a website for gaming manuals. Chick Bowen 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DKP (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

I nominated this for deletion 6 weeks ago - here's a link to that discussion. My argument was that, while this article is undoubtedly very well written, it is completely devoid of reliable sources and therefore is 100% original research. The keep !votes in that discussion amounted to "DKP is notable!" without providing any sources to back up that claim, or even worse, "This information isn't available anywhere else, how can we get rid of it?" My question is how can we keep information that isn't available anywhere else? Wikipedia is not a place for original thought. Anyway, in the meantime, the only additions to this article have been more links to guild wepsites advertising their particular version of DKP. Take a look at the external links section - they are all to guild websites and DKP calculators and not a single one is to a reliable source describng DKP. A google search turns up one student whitepaper on the subject that might qualify as RS, but even then, the effort to rewrite this article with that source would require starting from scratch. Since there has been no improvement on this article and none forthcoming, I am renominating it for your consideration. Arkyan • (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The whitepaper you mention (I assume, since you provided no link) is actually authored by university professors, not students. Edward Castronova, one of the authors of this paper, is actually a noted economist that focuses his research on virtual world. I linked this whitepaper in my vote below. Psychochild 10:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a comment - this is totally untrue. --Haemo 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it's useful?
just because some thing's useful doesn't mean it's useful -Rebent 01:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To be fair, the 8.5M figure is worldwide subscriptions. The linked press release shows that there were 1.9 million purchases of the expansion in North American territories; in other words, this is the minimum number of subscriptions in the territory. Psychochild 10:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it cites this page, but why are you asking me? Can't you verify it on your own? I pointed out the reference because it confirms the topic's (not the article's) notability. And in any case, I did some work out there checking facts (ever heard of that?) that I could share in this discussion. Stammer 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC). I realise that my tone above is unnecessarily abrasive. Apologies. Stammer 07:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a rhetorical question; at any rate, it's not notable if it lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." A single whitepaper which seems to draw information from the Wikipedia article itself does not confer notability. Phony Saint 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty stunning that a professor would cite Wikipedia in such a manner. --Haemo 05:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be equally stunned if it cited the Britannica? Is reliability out of question for Wikipedia? Stammer 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said cited in such a manner; impermanence is the nature of Wikipedia, and a citation like that doesn't give context. --Haemo 05:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is non-trivial, however "impermanent" weblinks are routinely provided as helpful references in newspaper articles and in informal scholarly discussions (e.g. seminars). I guess that permanence of relevant information should be a goal of Wikipedia, but that's just a personal opinion, which arguably does not correspond to policy. Stammer 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC). Actually it does correspond to policy, through WP:V, which is at the core of this discussion. Stammer 06:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But my point was, what academic would cite a web resource in such a way - especially in an academic paper? I know it boggles my mind, given all of the training we have centered around citing accurately, and the positively reams of material based around how to cite web resources. --Haemo 06:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In essence, you're arguing that because Wikipedia is a useless resource, it should not be cited by an academic. Thanks for the vote of confidence; let's take the site down. Castronova is a well-respected academic in his own right. Why don't you take a look at his Wikipedia page? Saraid 05:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, in essence, you're reading a lot of hookum into my comments. I'm saying that citing a web reference - ANY web reference - without giving a date is a bad idea, because of the nature of the internet. This is elementary material, and any college English covers explains exactly why you're supposed to do this. It surprised me that a professor did not do this, given that any given freshman would in a their paper. --Haemo 06:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

(Note: I don't believe this is the same scholarly article by Castronova previously mentioned during the AfD; this article actually documents the subject, as opposed to providing a passing reference to WP's article.)

  • A Ten Ton Hammer article on the subject of DKP. Ten Ton Hammer is a significant website within the MMORPG media with a large number of contributing writers (I'm not referring to their forums). They've been used as a source in numerous other places. Their article: [49]
  • A reference to Nick Yee's MMORPG lexicon:

[50] Nick Yee is a PARC researcher noted for his extensive scholarly writings on the psychology and sociology of MMORPGs.

Since I found these sources in about ten minutes of careful Google sifting, I stand by my earlier assertion that sources are "likely" and not only that--but that additional sources would continue to be likely amongst the 4 million+ Ghits on the subject.

I've gone ahead and edited the article to reflect the additional references, and I've removed the "unsourced" tag from the article head. The two media sources are sites with multiple contributors that assert editorial authority over content, meeting the requirements of WP:RS and Nick Yee also meets the standards of WP:RS as a noted scholar who is widely published and acknowledged by his peers; Castronova's credentials are certainly not in question and his paper deals entirely with the subject of DKP. I hope this brings the debate to a close. Tarinth 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes, that is the Castronova article people repeatedly state is a reliable source despite its reference to this article. If that whitepaper takes information from this article itself, how can you cite that as a source?
  • I have just read the whitepaper. Have you? If you have, then you'd know that the statement here is untrue. This is a relatively long paper (on the order of 10-20 times longer than the WP article) that documents a number of things, utilizes a bunch of other sources, and is written in a scholarly tone. Yes, it is true that the Wikipedia article is mentioned within the whitepaper, but the only purpose in doing so is to refer readers of the whitepaper to a list of known DKP systems (presumably he's referring to the "external links" section of the article). The vast majority of the article deals with a description of what DKP is, and is a rather good source for the content of the WP article. I find the notion that simply mentioning Wikipedia in a scholarly article somehow undermines its credibility as utterly absurd. Tarinth 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No disrespect to Ten Ton Hammer, Stratics, and Nick Yee (I'm familiar with the former two, they're nice sites for guides), but they're not sources on the notability of DKP, just how to use them. Are you proposing we write articles on various types of aggro and tanks simply because the MMORPG community uses them a lot? I assure you I can find plenty of articles on how to use those, but I'm not about to write an encyclopedic article on them. (Actually, there is an article for Tank (computer gaming), but it's not reliably sourced either. See the problem?)
  • The fact that a media source discusses a concept or topic has consistently been a criteria for establishing encyclopedic notability on Wikipedia. That's exactly what those articles do, as they are articles that deal entirely with the subject in question. Tarinth 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's not enough to cite 2 sentences out of dozens (if not hundreds) in the article to reliable sources; the majority of the article must be cited or derived from a source somehow. If the talk page wasn't a big enough clue, the majority of the article - comparison charts, economics and all - are original research by the editors here. Transwiki it to a gaming wiki if you must, but this article does not belong here. Phony Saint 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In cases where a source is established earlier in the article and additional information is derived from the same sources, it isn't necessary to pepper the document with "ibid"-type references to the same source over and over. In any case, a lot of additional citations could be developed here, but these sources were provided to bring the article above the standards required for inclusion. We've had similar discussion over on the Evolution page where it's been agreed that you don't need to have citation on every single fact in the article (which would result in near-unreadability) when the facts are reasonably well reflected in the sources already presented. In any case, the fact that there's 4 references now probably takes it above the current level of referencing for about 99% of articles. Tarinth 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So where does the economics analysis come from? Who started the DKP controversy? Who decides what basic and variant DKPs are? None of that comes from any of the sources you listed, and is never going to come from any independent reliable source because it is OR. If you want to create a new DKP article based on reliable information, be my guest, but the current incarnation with rampant OR and lack of notability has to go. Phony Saint 23:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you don't seem to understand what the guidelines regarding WP:OR are.
On OR: Wikipedia itself does not *publish* OR, but it most certainly does use *outside* original research to support articles when the sources of such research are reliable sources. The Castronova article is a primary source, written by a recognized economist with expertise in this field, and deals directly with the subject matter. The TenTon and Stratics articles are secondary sources that deals directly with, among other things, one of the subjects you questioned (variations of DKP systems). When primary and secondary sources such as these deal with a subject, we regard them as expert in their domain and as such they are used to support articles in Wikipedia. Ultimately, *all* knowledge that is used as source material is traceable to original research since there's no codex of perfect knowledge that we can refer to in all matters. In any case, I beleve it is evident that subjects such as the economic implications of DKP and the variations of DKP systems is quite thoroughly reflected amongst the references I added.
On notability of article content: WP:N establishes the notability of the subject article itself, which can now be established through the references provided; see the subsection on "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content." All you are doing now is arguing for improvement of content, which is not an argument for deletion; and in any event, individual sections of the article need not establish notability on their own--if they did,articles would be threadbare indeed! May I suggest you learn a little more about Wikipedia before you adopt entrenched positions that involve the destruction/deletion of other Wikipedians' work? Tarinth 00:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I very well know what Wikipedia's guideline on OR is; my point is, the majority of this article's information has not been published anywhere else before. Most of the article needs a rewrite, either to delete wholly unsourced information or to make current information actually reflect sources. The economics section goes beyond what Castronova discusses; half the DKP systems aren't mentioned in any source; most of the pros and cons aren't discussed anywhere. Were it just a problem of OR, I would go with a week keep.
However, in addition to the OR problem, notability has not been established; Ten Ton Hammer and Stratics are primary sources, the articles being written and published by players. You can use them for information, but not for establishing notability itself. There aren't any independent, reliable secondary or tertiary sources.
I am arguing for deletion because the article:
Those are valid reasons for deletion, backed by policies and guidelines. Phony Saint 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Actually, all of the sources cited (TenTon, Stratics, Castonova) are secondary sources (I incorrectly stated earlier that Castronova was primary, but he's offering analysis and has not written a DKP system). The only primary sources are the DKP systems themselves (i.e., the software written that has categorized themselves as such), DKP documentation, and the authors of the DKP systems. The writers at TenTon and Stratics are journalists analyzing the information; the fact that they might also play games in which DKP is popular isn't relevant. Castronova is clearly providing analysis and synthesis. On your specific points:
* 1) There's no guideline specifically regarding "game guides," so presumably you are referring to the section that eliminates such content as an example of "indiscriminate information" which this is not (it isn't an instruction manual). This clearly isn't a "game guide" (it isn't giving you a walkthrough of how to do something in a game). It's documenting a real and verifiable social/economic phenomena which heretofore has only been criticized due to the lack of good sourcing, which has now been addressed.
* 2) WP:N requires multiple sources. WP:WEB doesn't apply because this isn't an article about a website. WP:SOFT probably applies since the article describes a category of software. In any case, it appears that this article is well-above the minimum bar established by the relevant guidelines.
* 3) Originally, the argument that it could not be attributed to reliable sources was the "strong" argument favoring the article's deletion, because there were no sources. This has now been addressed. You admit that it's now the weakest argument, except that I'd go further to say that it is a non-argument for the reasons already presented. Tarinth 11:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists? That's stretching it. TTH's article is written by a WoW community manager - he's paid to write for WoW, and the Stratics one was written by a WoW player ("Submitted in the WoW Stratics TBC Beta contest" is a clue as to its origins.) WP:N requires multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic, and I have severe doubts about the independence and reliability of articles written by WoW players from a WoW perspective. Castronova would be okay were there other sources as well, but his reference to the Wikipedia DKP article is troubling. The original problem is still not addressed, if all you have is a whitepaper and a couple of game guides on how to use DKPs. Phony Saint 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get off the "Castronova used Wikipedia as a source" argument? That simply isn't true. Read the whitepaper. All he did is mention in a footnote that Wikipedia maintains a list of known DKP systems. The paper itself is scholarly research. You aren't really adopting that position that Wikipedia must disqualify any source that simply mentions Wikipedia in the article? Is Yochai Benkler's definitive text, "The Wealth of Networks" not a valid source of knowledge about social and collaborative networking efforts because he mentions Wikipedia extensively in his book? There's really no difference here. And as for TTH and Stratics--I see no distinction between their writers and the people who contribute, for example, reviews of gadgets to Popular Science. Naturally, the people who write the articles are going to have knowledge of the domain, and are likely to be players! Tarinth 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is wrong with Stratics and TenTon? Those sites, along with a handful of others, are the media of the MMORPG industry. They certainly are not self-published sources (they both have contributions from dozens of journalists). They both assert editorial authority. Your judgment that Daedalus "looks" better is simply an opinion. The fact that independent journalists from the MMORPG media have covered the subject of DKP is what makes it notable. What is the difference between prominent online publications that deal with the subject of games--versus, say--boating, programming, management, etc.? Tarinth 23:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stratics is more akin to GameFAQs - that is, anyone can get an article or guide published there. The TenTon article is written by a WoW community manager (who is paid by Blizzard, unless I'm misinterpreting that title), so you can hardly call that independent journalism. Just because Stratics and TenTon have some news articles like this one does not make every article published by them reliable or journalistic; in this case, they're written by people who have a vested interest to write wholly about WoW-related topics (a player and a CM). Phony Saint 00:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're misinterpreting the roles. The "WoW Community Manager" title refers to a role within the website itself; paid Blizzard staff don't write articles for Stratics or TTH. It's untrue that "anyone" can write content for Stratics; it isn't GameFAQs, it isn't a Wiki, or a general blog. Articles have to be accepted by the editors of both sites. They have forums where anyone can contribute, but that's separate from the library of articles developed by their editorial staff. The fact that it was published in an area geared toward WoW players is not relevant because it still meets the definition of "independent of the source," i.e., it is not written by Blizzard but by the people who cover the news topics pertaining to Blizzard. Virtually every consumer industry that has attracted millions of enthusiasts have their own media dedicated to them, and the fact that they're interested in the subject matter doesn't disqualify them as independent media (unelss they're a house organ, i.e., a magazine owned and directed by the company soley to promote them). In any case, we're not even dealing with an article about Wow or Blizzard or its products, but a economic process (DKP) that existed *before* WoW as documented in the other sources presented. Tarinth 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or take every single contribution on gaming references off of Wikipedia entirely because those people will then be called liars despite their proofs as well. Take it ALL off. We don't need another web page advertising nothing more than a game anyway. That is, in effect, all you are reducing this information to include, so why bother having millions of fans look for an encyclopedia that can reference valid, individual and well-used contributions when the Wikipedia will obviously be lacking in that area. Just take it all off and give it to Wowwiki who doesn't give us these hassles. We'll just distribute the information on well read boards that this place doesn't allow it and recommend everyone delete their entries voluntarily. The old forums have thousands of entries of testimony that the source is the original source. Arkyan didn't bother to look those up, but we don't need further proof. Most of the people here knew that much. The original Afterlife website stamped their ownership which is good enough per copyright law, stated as much on their forums, but apparently that isn't good enough here. Just put this link on the major boards, especially WoW General where millions read, and everyone can go just go elsewhere so Arkyan and friends can be happy.

I don't think you're grasping the substance of my argument. I have no qualms with Afterlife's claims to have invented the DKP system, and "ownership" of it is not what is being disputed. Nor are there any questions regarding copyright status here. The only question is one of the factual reliability and verifiability of the sources in question. They don't satisfy Wikipedia inclusion standards - that's all there is to it. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there must be enough independent, reliable secondary sources to establish notability. It's all well and good if millions of players know about it, but if it's not notable, it's not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is not popularity. Phony Saint 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
Comment I suggest you peruse WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, poster of the above rant. Jtrainor 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't seem to understand what we say when we say reliable source. No one is disputing that they invented DKP, or whatever else. That's not our job. What we are debating is the fact that the "source" provided from them for claims in the articles does not back up that claim. That's what it's not a reliable source. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not about everything, and we're not in competition with WoWiki - they are welcome to this article, because that's where it belongs. --Haemo 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be gentle. Obviously some of the people who have come here don't understand the nuances; they are simply people who have come to know of WP as a good source for information and are shocked that a long-standing article is being debated for deletion. This debate isn't really about Afterlife or who created or it or whatnot. I agree that Afterlife is a primary source that isn't considered suitable per WP:RS. On the other hand, we have a number of other sources that have been identified during the course of the AfD (a couple media, at least one scholarly) and a fair likelihood that more will continue to turn up. The arguments against the sources presented have been: a) that the scholarly source mentions Wikipedia, and therefore cannot be considered valid--yet in fact, if you read the source, you'll note that it simply mentions that WP contains a list of known DKP systems and that its analysis contains original synthesis separate from the WP article, and relies on a number of distinct sources. In the case of TTH and Stratics, the argument is essentially that they don't qualify because they are independent (which is untrue, they aren't funded by any company with a material interest in DKP), or that they don't actually assert editorial authority (which is true of their *forums*, but certainly not their article libraries, from which these sources were obtained). Tarinth 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break, again[edit]

* I fail to see how adding more references can make the case for deletion "stronger." These references were not added to support a case for the notability of the subject, as this was already established through the earlier references. We already have three separate, independent sources that deal entirely with the subject of DKP. It is clear that you don't agree that those sources are reliable, although you've never given a good reason why (or at least one I can agree with). As for these additional sources: they are simply supporting relevant content within the article itself,and it is certainly within WP norms to do so. When a source has something important to say about a particular subject it is more than acceptable--it's encouraged--to identify such references, even when that information is drawn from the context of a larger subject (example: the MMORPG article, which is rated a Good Article, contains numerous references to factual information from a variety of sources in which MMORPGs are not the exclusive subject of the source.) Tarinth 15:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* And on your note regarding the addiction thesis: DKP is described within the context of an analysis of organizational systems used to obtain long-term commitment to a group, which the writer believes is something that contributes to addictive playstyles. Tarinth 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your interpretation of the thesis. Nowhere does the writer state he believes DKP contributes to addiction. The only statement of fact given in the thesis is the one I pointed out, that DKP is an "one example of guild complexity". Reading anything else in to the fact that a mention of DKP is included in an article about addiction is reading between the lines - and reading between the lines is inappropriate as far as sourcing an article go. As far as your original statement, when a source has something important to say about a topic, then of course it is encouraged to include it in the article. The problem is not one of these sources has anything important to say about DKP - they are brief mentions at best that do nothing to source the claims they are attached to. My argument has never been about notability - it has been about addressing OR concerns. This has yet to be satisfied. It is obvious you and I have different opinions as to what qualifies as a reliable source for the purpose of demonstrating a topic is not OR, and the debate is becoming circular so I won't belabor the issue further. My point is made, your point is made, and both are based on an interpretation of policy and guideline. I leave it up to the closer of the debate to judge which holds more weight within the context of the other opinions offered here. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed on the addiction reference. I probably read too much into it which may have led to a POV interpretation. I've moved the reference to the lead paragraph, and changed the content accordingly; now I am simply relying upon the source's direct analysis, which claims that DKP is the most common point system used in online games (which itself is an argument of notability, I suppose). Tarinth 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arkyan's arguing based on OR, while I'm the one arguing based on notability concerns. Three of the new sources mention DKP in passing - a single line in an article is not coverage at all. The thesis devotes about half a paragraph and doesn't particularly state anything about DKP aside from "people use it." Being common isn't a factor; "A notable topic, by definition, is one that is 'worthy of notice'; this is a concept distinct from 'fame' or 'importance'." Phony Saint 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries; the latest references were simply added to support individual points made within the article, not establish a case for notability overall. That was already done with the earlier, stronger references which we've already debated ad nauseum. Tarinth 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which earlier, stronger references? Stratics, where any player can publish a guide, or TenTon, where paid community managers write articles? Or the lexicon which is just a dictionary definition of DKP? Phony Saint 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you persist in belittling the sources? First, there was the economics paper written by Castronova. Second, there was Stratics, where guides are edited and written by an editorial staff, not "any player" as you allege. Third, TTH, where it was a member of the TTH editorial staff (their WoW community lead) who wrote the article, not the completely incorrect claim you've made about it being a paid WoW Community manager. And even if it *was* a paid WoW community manager, I don't see how that is relavent since this article is not about WoW. It is a subject that affects multiple online games and predates the very existance of WoW. Tarinth 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stratics: I would think that a guide submitted in a contest would be written by a player, especially with the player's screenname at the bottom. I could submit a guide myself if I chose to write one, but I'm horrible at writing them.
TenTon: It's useful as a reference for information, but not an independent reference to establish notability. There's a difference. I misinterpreted the "Community Manager" title they gave the writer, but still, he's just a volunteer gamer who writes about WoW, not a high-quality independent reference there.
Yes, I know Stratics and TenTon have independent news articles; but, in addition to those, they have game guides, and their guides most certainly aren't independent reliable sources. Phony Saint 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."
I assert that the University of Indiana (where Castronova is a noted economics professor), TTH and Stratics all meet this criteria: writing is subject to editorial oversight, the sources are trustworthy and authoritative in their domains. In the context of MMORPGs, these are what count as reliable sources. If we were talking about a source documenting something about Evolution or Byzantine History or Britney Spears, then we'd be dealing with a different set of sources (in each case) along with their own standards of what is considered authoritative. Stop insulting the people who are creating the media that surrounds the MMORPG industry and accept it for what it is--new scholars and journalists struggling to document the evolving, amazing world of virtual cultures and economies within online games. Tarinth 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware that I have insulted anyone in this matter? Nor have I said anythinga bout "real video game journalists". To whom are you directing this comment? In any case I think you've hit upon the core of the problem - new scholars and journalists struggling to document the evolving, amazing world of virtual cultures and economies within online games - a fact I can appreciate. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a place to document these kinds of things. We're a tertiary source, not a place for "new information". Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a response to Phony Saint. I'm aware that WP is a tertiary source. I was merely refuting claims that the secondary sources provided did not meet the standards of WP:RS. Tarinth 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so but wanted to make sure, the indent made it look like it was a reply to me and I was confused. Thank you for clearing it up. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most "editorial oversight" these sites have are either other volunteer gamers on the staff or webmasters (if there is any editorial oversight at all; the writers at TenTon most likely have privileges to submit whatever they want.) The articles sourced are guides written by WoW players, not by independent journalists reporting on a phenomenon. To state that guides written and reviewed by gamers are independent journalism is a misrepresentation of what they do. Phony Saint 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Significant improvements were made on May 10, after some of the delete votes, so I think we can read this debate as moving toward "keep." Chick Bowen 22:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael T. Sauer[edit]

Michael T. Sauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One low level case, even if it is a high profile case for tabloids, does not establish (encyclopedic) notability for a judge. Sloan21 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dothisthing, inclusion is not notability. Please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice essay, but it is not policy. My argument is still valid however, because it seeks consistency.Dothisthing 20:56, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flash ios[edit]

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

Originally tagged as a hoax I discovered that it is in fact not a hoax. However, no assertion of notability per WP:RS and WP:N. In fact the article specifically states that it is widely unknown.... Parts of it is unverifiable though that is only a secondary reason for deletion. MartinDK 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was posted on my talk page by the author of this software:
seen this wikipedia thread on my jummping around my site


To clear up some stuff here:
I started writning IOS back in 1997 and was the a dhtml version only javascript framwork.
http://michaelbystrom.com/dynapi-ios-0.2/ios/ (firefox only nowdays)
I ported it to Flash Actionscript 1 back in 2001 then "Webwindows" due to browser restirictions.
The again to AS 2 2004 (I think)
And now I have a version for AS 3 (not public)
This was a pet project of mine I just wanted to see If i could re-create a OS inside a browser window.
No I'm not 14 I'm in my 30+
No I have not been playing the google search game here.
Got Q I can be contacted through my site.
http://michaelbystrom.com/


Well thats it.
Michael —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelbystrom (talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
MartinDK 06:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Special:Contributions/Jakeaston seems to have made an error in adding this article to Wikipedia. Let's delete Flash ios and leave Michaelbystrom to his development work. --SueHay 13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. I guess I should have requested speedy deletion instead. I do wonder why he appears out of no where though as soon as the article was nominated for deletion. He wasn't even the creator of the article, he could easily have corrected the factual errors in case he has been keeping an eye on the article. MartinDK 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've looked into this some more. For the record, michaelbystrom.com is registered to Michael Bystrom Design in Stockholm, Sweden. The administrative address for this domain is michaelbystrom@gmail.com. Check out this blog entry with this "question" by "Jake". "Jake's" email address is Jake.aston@gmail.com. I'd say Wikipedia is being used to support some creative internet marketing here. --SueHay 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hehe, The url referrals for this page don't stop. No no no you have to stop SueHay this is not a conspiracy :-) The Flash IOS article has nothing to do with my Flash IOS. If I wanted to market this app I would not do this belive me. I didn't know about the Flash IOS article until I got a referral from this site asking to delete it. I did not write it and if did I would explain it better and correct. There maybe a movie in here somewhere :-) If you want I can make a real Flash IOS article. Stay warm from sunny Stockholm Sweden :-) Michaelbystrom 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wonderful to hear that you don't have anything to do with this. Since you're new to Wikipedia, you might not know that the thing for you to do to protect your credibility is to add a Delete opinion to this discussion. Please take a moment to do that now. --SueHay 12:53, 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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11 and G12. Article was advertising a business that made no particular claims to notability, and the page's author posted a copyright notice to its talk page, suggesting that she was attempting to assert proprietary control over the contents. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PandaShrimp Media[edit]

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

Spam, author removed speedy deletion tag 99DBSIMLR 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Davey[edit]

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

I'm really not finding any evidence of notability, or, for that matter, claims of notability. Veinor (talk to me) 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterbowl[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no independent references. A contested prod. I have asked the original editor on the article's talk page if there were any reviews etc (as he appears to be involved in the game itself) but it doesn't look like there is anything to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Marasmusine 17:44, 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 (A7) by Sr13 -- The Placebo Effect 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"net entertainment"[edit]

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

Article was speedy deleted using CSD A7 (corp/web). Article was then recreated by original author and then went through a failed PROD (somebody added a prod tag that was then removed by original author). Since this article went through a failed PROD I decided that tagging with a CSD template would be wrong, but I believe it definitely still fits under CSD A7. Speedy delete. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark One[edit]

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

This is a story, not an encyclopedia article. A lot of thought and effort went into the writing of this, but it has no place in Wikipedia. Clerks. 17:47, 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 Fallout (series). WjBscribe 07:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PIPBoy 2000[edit]

PIPBoy 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable device from a video game, fails WP:N. In addition, WP:NOT a video game guide. Also fails WP:V for lack of sources. Chardish 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Skull Defekts[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Possibly notable due to association with other bands. I'm neutral on this one. Petros471 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the reasons for your "speedy deletion" tagging and the and subsequent deletion of the The Skull Defekts article. It/the band fulfils quite a few of the criteria listed in the notability article for bands. For instance 5, Members were previlusly active in Union Carbide Productions, Kid commando and Anti-Cimex and 6, the band is the most prominent act of both the Gothenburg and Swedish electronic scenes.
I'm sure he won't mind me reposting it here. Marasmusine 18:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even navigating through the complexity that is the Scandinavian music scene, Kid commando don't appear too notable per WP:BAND, and the other two look to be borderline. EliminatorJR Talk 23:28, 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 under CSD G1. Likely hoax. Adambro 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tjörnhammar[edit]

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

I can find no verification that this person exists, and the details of his life seem implausible. I humbly suggest that the article may be a hoax. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:29, 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 as recreation (this is at least the fifth title this has been deleted under), as A7, and per consensus here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Rolfe (Video games)[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted under a different title, which was, I believe, salted at one point. Page is really nothing more than a vantiy and advertising page, not appropriate for an encyclopedia Rackabello 18:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I see a lot of discussion below about possible sourcing, but I also see that the article is still unsourced, which means the delete arguments very much apply. Chick Bowen 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Sheet Music[edit]

Virtual Sheet Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

'Delete.This article is a plug for an on-line commercial website. It is padded out, without explanation, with material which is a version of the article Digital Sheet Music which covers its topic adequately. Should it be agreed that the content of the present article 'Virtual Sheet Music' be deleted, it could be replaced by a redirect to Digital Sheet Music. Smerus 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above Rackabello 18:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In actuality should have been tagged as a “Speedy Delete” for Spam. Shoessss 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember it being PRODed at one point, actually, then it was fixed up. Then it got tagged as an ad and THAT got fixed (yes it was worse!). This article has always felt /wrong/ to me, but I don't have a good argument as to why, so I can't really give a delete !vote. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫

I am the author of both the Virtual Sheet Music and Digital Sheet Music articles. They share a similar content, but the Virtual Sheet Music article should tell about the Virtual Sheet Music company which has been the creator of the Virtual Sheet Music concept. I think that can't be ignored. To remove that entry and redirect it to the Digital Sheet Music article would be like removing the Amazon article about the company and redirect it to the Amazon article about the river. Please, let me know your thoughts.--Fablau 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what makes the website notable? There's no references in the ariticle, probably the reason this got put under AFD in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
to compare the Virtual Sheet Music website to Amazon counts as a notable piece of chutzpah; but seems to confirm that the main motive of this WP article was advertising. - Smerus 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When I first wrote that article, I was first flagged then I submitted proof of notability to Seraphimblade proving how Virtual Sheet Music has been reviewed on major music magazines and websites since 1999 as a notable company. To learn more about this issue, here is the talking discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virtual_Sheet_Music

and then my article was accepted. Now what? Do I have to prove it again? --Fablau 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fablau, please do provide it again here. We need to know the precise details of the magazines it has appeared on, including the date of the issue it appeared in. This is required for verification purposes. John Vandenberg 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. I have a PDF file containing all the documentation. How can I upload it here? Thank you again. --Fablau 15:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cant. You will need to provide it as normal text here. John Vandenberg 09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can download the PDF file from the Virtual Sheet Music server:

http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/storage/Main_Evidence.pdf

it includes detailed information and images of reviews, ads, charts, etc.


Here is a summary of the evidence:


1. Virtual Sheet Music and Classical Sheet Music Downloads are two concepts created in 1999 and now two registered trademarks. Virtual Sheet Music website started in 1999 with a few users. Now its user base is of over 20,000 unique users a day, over 70,000 mailing list subscribers and 15,000 resident Members (musicians, music teachers, students, libraries, music schools, musical institutions, etc.)


2. After only 8 months from its creation, Virtual Sheet Music was reviewed by Apple foreseeing the success that such a new and unique musical resource would have been able to have in the near future.


3. Virtual Sheet Music is today considered the first and foremost unique resource of Classical Sheet Music Download in the world by:

- Yahoo! (VSM is listed among the top popular websites)

- Safe Shopping Network


and it is at the first place in the results on the major search engines if you search for "Virtual Sheet Music":

- Yahoo!

- Google

- AltaVista

- Lycos

- MSN

- AOL

- Netscape


4. Virtual Sheet Music advertise regularly on the major classical music magazines and publications since 1999 such as:

- The Strad (over 100,000 readers internationally)

- Classical Music (over 30,000 readers internationally)

- Music Teacher (over 20,000 readers internationally)

- Zone magazine (over 20,000 readers internationally)

- Muso magazine (over 20,000 readers internationally)

- Sheet Music magazine (over 10,000 readers internationally)

- International Musician (over 100,000 readers internationally)

- Strings (over 100,000 readers internationally)

- Making Music (over 60,000 readers internationally)

- SBO (over 50,000 readers internationally)

- BBC Magazine (over 50,000 readers internationally)

and many others. It is yearly included in The British & International Music Yearbook as the TOP resource of Classical Sheet Music Download on the web.


5. Virtual Sheet Music regularly sponsors and supports various musical organizations as:

- BBC Orchestra (UK)

- Lyric Opera of Los Angeles (USA)

- The Seattle Symphony Orchestra (USA)


6. Virtual Sheet Music has been also reviewed on several music magazines such as:

- MUSO magazine Spring 2004

- Making Music July-August 2006


7. Virtual Sheet Music® began in December 2004 its own affiliate program and as today it has over 400 affiliates on the web and growing. They help to develop and distribute the concept of Virtual Sheet Music® that is having such a great success among the international musical community.--Fablau 22:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the PDF you supplied, and am not convinced VSM is notable enough to warrant an article dedicated to it. The PDF provides evidence of only two reviews: "MUSO magazine Spring 2004, page 20" and "Making Music July-August 2006, p38" -- neither of these are in depth reviews, but they are a good start. If you can provide a few more reviews like that, I will change my opinion to keep. John Vandenberg 05:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide more reviews, but please do consider the Apple's review as well. Also, please, consider the maturity of our company (over 8 years old which is pretty much for a web company) as well the user base and reach we have, notability should be also based on the "popularity" of a company, right? One further question: are you the only person to decide the destiny of my article? Shouldn't be a "commission" or group of people? Just wondering... thank you for you consideration and time though.--Fablau 16:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you're missing the whole point of Wikipedia. I suggest you read up on the following: WP:5P, WP:NOT and especially WP:V. WP:COI might apply here too. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reminder, I already read those pages and know very well the Wikipedia philosophy. I think we shouldn't be distracted, the point here is to discuss about the notability of Virtual Sheet Music to understand if it deserve an article. That's it.--Fablau 20:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I don't understand what the problem is. Is the opinion that the company isn't notable enough? Temperalxy 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is just one; others are free to add their opinion too, but ultimately the opinions of the majority are in the Wikipedia notability guideline. In short, most things on Wikipedia must have been significantly reviewed by two authoritative sources. So far we have evidence of two minor reviews by authoritative sources, so it is approaching our threshold. The Apple review could count as a third, but reviews from software Vendors are not generally considered to be impartial. I have no problem with VSM having an article if evidence is provided of more critical analysis of the website; I look forward to Fablau providing details about more reviews. John Vandenberg 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypermiler[edit]

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

Original research, unverified claims, Neologism. Madcoverboy 18:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. One of the sources indicates it is a recent neologism.[54] Appears to be a lack of sufficient sources to build an article. Vassyana 04:57, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odette Bancilhon[edit]

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

I can't find any sources that would verify this information or help me expand the article. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:54, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rj vilayvong[edit]

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

Fails notablility test. Would be perfect for Facebook or Myspace. I recommend a Speedy Delete Clerks. 19:02, 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. The requested merge is a bit complicated and should be done by someone familiar with the two articles. Chick Bowen 22:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakhill Brewery[edit]

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

The brewery is closed. It achieved nothing distinctive when it was open. While we do have closed breweries on the site, and open local breweries of little distinction, the combination of closed and local needs to be tested. Even though I am putting this forward for discussion, I am not putting forward an argument at this stage for the brewery to be either kept or deleted. I am looking for the views and opinions of others. SilkTork 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books produces some intriguing snippets, such as this about it specialising in stout, and the output being 2000-2500 barrels a week in its heyday. Important brewery. Tearlach 00:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do any sources prove it's notability, or simply that it existed and produced beer? That the brewery once existed is not in doubt, the discussion is about whether a defunct local brewery can be considered notable enough for it to have an article to itself in an encyclopedia, rather than as a mention in an article on the local area. SilkTork 07:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Noting that those notability criteria for brweries are in an essay, not any official guideline) it appears in a number of books [59], a couple describing it as "famous" (the output makes it more than local). Having its own narrow-gauge railway looks quite unusual. BTW, are you the SilkTork who wrote the description at ratebeer.com? If you have sources for what was said there - "The original Oakhill Brewery was formed in 1767 and became a huge success, building its own railway line to deliver beers throughout Wales and the West Country - that looks pretty good claim to notability. CAMRA Bristol described its Invalid Stout as "nationally famous". Tearlach 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did write that about Oakhill in 2003. I'll take a look for the sources of my information.
The article has changed slightly. It is now about the older Oakhill brewery rather than the new Oakhill Brewery. The article I put up for discussion was the one about the company which operated from 1984 to 2004. It has been adjusted to be about the one which operated from 1767 to 1938 - a different brewery, a different article, a different debate. The article had originally been called New Oakhill Brewery [60], and I was interested to hear people's views on the notability of a local brewery which had only been open for 20 years, and had closed 3 years ago (and which is about to become a housing estate [61]. The ground has changed so that the discussion may no longer bring forward views that could be used in future debates about small breweries (as we are now talking about a substantial brewery with a number of references - noted for its 'Invalid Stout' - a top selling brand during the 19th century), so I don't think this discussion is worth continuing. Keep and push for an early close. SilkTork 19:27, 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 redirect to Union Local School District. MastCell Talk 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union Local High School (Belmont, Ohio)[edit]

Union Local High School (Belmont, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's a high school in Ohio, with no articles about it, no notable alumni. They should probably form a group in Facebook and give up on encyclopedia articles Clerks. 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.F. Houck[edit]

N.F. Houck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Absolutely not notable... only published book is through LuLu.com, which means it's self-published. Links to the "author" and book have also been relentlessly spammed to a large number of articles (which I removed, but earlier the author was putting them back), so existence is also self-promotional vanity cruft. See also Herald (novel), which should be included for consideration in this vote. DreamGuy 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Din[edit]

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

I have been watching Nazir117 struggle to create this article for over a week. Now that Nazir has actually put something together, I fear that we have to say: sorry, chairman of a bus company is not quite notable enough for Wikipedia. But does the same hold in Pakistan? -- RHaworth 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get accused of biting the newbies but "OR. No RS" is about as unwelcoming as one can get. Nazir, to translate it: "Please add some references (preferably as external links) to indicate that the person meets one of the notability criteria". -- RHaworth 13:35, 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, without prejudice against making alterations as argued for below. Consensus should be worked out at the article talk page. Chick Bowen 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Utopia[edit]

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

If this nomination results in at outcome of "delete", it should also cover New Utopia and (!!!) "Principality of New Utopia", which is now a redirect, and that should be salted if recreation becomes a problem.

This is a peculiar nomination, as I'm nominating an article I have just spent a considerable amount of time working on, to bring it in line with what the sources provided actually say (my version). This was previously an article entitled Principality of New Utopia, about a so-called "micronation". However, the article before I moved and edited it presented this entity as a country, with information about the "head of state" and the "number of citizens". That in itself was woefully non neutral given that the sources provide no justification whatsoever for referring to this as anything other than a scam (please see Talk:Lazarus_Long_(micronationalist)#NPOV for my comments on this, and Wikipedia:Micronations#Principles for some guidelines I have proposed). New Utopia was twice before nominated for deletion: once in 2004, and once earlier this year.

I've refactored the article into a biography/article about the scam. However, I believe this person and his project is barely notable (WP:WPBIO) from the sources (WP:RS) provided. Most of the cited mentions are trivial. He was in trouble with the SEC to the tune of a mere $24,000. By all accounts his "micronation" is pure fantasy.

Now, if folks think I've done such a wonderful job here the article should be kept, fine, I'll take it as a compliment. I do however recommend that we delete this article. --kingboyk 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If the result of the debate is to Keep, please ensure you note that it's to be Kept as an article on the scam. At the time of writing consensus isn't clear between deletion and keeping as an article on the scam, there seems to be no consensus at all to keep as an article on a micronation. --kingboyk 12:12, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Pale Horse[edit]

Project Pale Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although this closely resembles the Phoenix Program and claims to have been its precursor, I can find no credible sources for what the article claims is a program that remains entirely classified. The primary personality has been separately nominated for similar reasons. I suspect both of these are hoaxes; in any case they fail verifiability. Dhartung | Talk 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Grueter[edit]

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

doesn't seem to meet notability criteria for journalists Babajobu 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to University of Wales, Bangor. The university article already mentions the radio station. The page history remains available, and any additional notable information from this article can be merged into the university article. MastCell Talk 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storm FM[edit]

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

Unsourced article on non-notable student radio station set up in 2001 with no notability asserted. Apparently nominated for some student media awards, which don't add up to much in my book, even if they had won. In any case, they have won nothing. Reads like a vanity page Ohconfucius 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted. Hornplease 08:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Morris[edit]

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

non-notable person C5mjohn 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Page (wrestler)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure, but I'm now thinking definite hoax. His own site is quite revealing as well. One Night In Hackney303 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you read it is WWA, not WAA. WWA being Westworld Wrestling Association which was based out of Memphis. Perhaps one should not jump to delete when they have not even read the article correctly.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equity Milling[edit]

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

Advertorial article on real estate scam. It reads like a how to get rich quick scheme, does not reference any sources, and claims that the speculation method is the proprietary intellectual property of one C. Rick Koerber. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:46, 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 delete. Sr13 10:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian artificial language[edit]

Siberian artificial language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A thorough original research on a new artificial language . The provided references, with the exception of author's are nothing but newspaper references. Not a single linguistic, i.e., peer reference. the whole content fails verifiabilty criteria. Mukadderat 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Can bits and pieces of subnotability in different areas add up to notability? Yes they can, but in this case the argument that they don't is not really refuted. Let me state this in a way that y'all will understand: if your Paladin of +1 NOTABILITY for MUSIC and +1 NOTABILITY for REALITY TV comes up against (say) another guy's Warrior of +2 NOTABILITY for WRITING, your guy's gonna get whacked. Herostratus 22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bradford[edit]

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

Delete - article nominated once previously, closed keep. Unfortunately, in the intervening months there has been no improvement to the article. The subject does not as an actor pass WP:BIO, as he has not had significant roles in notable productions. He does not as a musician pass WP:MUSIC. The article is "sourced" by IMDB and various self-promotional music sites. The arguments advanced in the last AFD boiled down to "people edited his article so they're interested in him," not a valid argument, and "he's just notable enough," but his claims to notability are not supported by reliable sources. Otto4711 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The consensus on Wikipedia is that reality television show subjects who have other accomplishments which are notable are notable enough for their own Wikipedia entry. James Bradford has no less than five songs on the soundtrack to a major television series and stars in a reality television show which has aired continuously on the LOGO network for almost a solid year. A link at http://artofbleeding.com/gorydetails.html shows that he particpated in a well known performance art project. I feel you are mis-stating the conclusion of the last VFD: it was not decided that he was "just notable enough" but instead that although he may not have been part of one LARGELY NOTABLE thing, he has been involved in numerous MODERATELY NOTABLE things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.1.27.242 (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC). — 216.1.27.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment - whatever the consensus of Wikipedia may be (and I agree that such consensus about reality contestants exists), the policy of Wikipedia is that such accomplishments must be reliably sourced. I don't see how I can be mis-stating the previous consensus when all but one of the ""keep" opinion were qualified with the word "weak" and when one of then was based on "cobbling together just enough little bits of notability" and another said in all capital letters that his opinion was that the guy was "JUST NOTABLE ENOUGH." He is not the "star" of a reality television program. He appeared in a single episode of a 12-episode series. His participation in the Art of Bleeding project does not appear to be the subject of any independent sources and from what I can tell from your link it appears that the extent of his involvement was that he was interviewed for it, one of dozens of people who were so interviewed. The point still stands that he does not pass WP:BIO, he does not pass WP:MUSIC and since he is not the subject of multiple independent reliable sources he does not pass WP:N. Otto4711 23:56, 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 delete both. Sr13 10:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Str8 off tha Streetz of Compton City[edit]

Str8 off tha Streetz of Compton City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
It's On (Petey Pablo) 187um Killa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neither album seems to exist; even if they're not hoaxes, they're insignificant. Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete MastCell Talk 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVSS and PPaSP[edit]

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

Unsourced. Looks like original research. Seemingly nonsense title. There is no clear reason for having this article. There are already pages for Which Prue Is It, Anyway?, It's a Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad World (Part 1), and It's a Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad World (Part 2). I don't know that I agree the specific personalities need to be mentioned, but if they should, it should happen on the character articles. Prod removed by original author. OnoremDil 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 10:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sioux Falls Christian High School[edit]

I don't like tagging high schools for deletion, but when I saw this up as questionable notability since July 2006, I had to send it here. There's really nothing here other than "I exist". Fails WP:N and would fail WP:SCHOOL if it were still policy. Wizardman 23:00, 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 Jeffrey Nyquist, which already contains all the information in this article. WjBscribe 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the Fourth World War[edit]

Origins of the Fourth World War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Book by a conspiracy theorist. 217.134.228.61 (talk · contribs · count) started an AfD for this but (since anonymous users can't create articles) couldn't create the AfD page. No !vote from me yet. -- Eastmain 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Might be merged with article World War IV.Biophys 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not appropriate as per WP:Fringe theories and WP:Undue weight. Merge into Nyquist article. 217.134.225.56 15:38, 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. We do not, as a general rule, maintain many articles on cardboard cutouts of persons. Herostratus 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlatHicks[edit]

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

Original nominator's comments: Not notable. A cardboard cutout used at a conference. Probably qualifies for speedy delete. --SueHay 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question I've been noticing that with other articles on obscure subjects. Why does it happen? Google seems to get skewed when an article is created in Wikipedia, but I don't know why. Can you help me understand this? --SueHay 01:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the numerous sites that mirror Wikipedia's contents. Since there's so many of them, it skews a subject's number of Google hits. Speaking of which...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Quandt[edit]

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

non-notable person - no sources, not likely to provide any. Selket Talk 00:00, 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. WjBscribe 07:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punk 'n' Roll[edit]

Punk 'n' Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is all uncited opinion, otherwise known as original research. Spylab 23:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen/Ladies, just Google the genre, you’ll see more than enough references.Shoessss 16:31, 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 speedy deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matsui 1409T[edit]

Matsui 1409T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Comment - the above user doesn't like me for some reason. Gordo of the Press Club 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm commenting on the article and not you. Comment on content, not editors. DarkSaber2k 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even stronger comment - I note it's appeared on there now. But it's yesterday's page. Those who may have wished to comment won't be checking yesterday's AfD page. May I suggest it be relisted afresh in the proper manner? Gordo of the Press Club 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered to read about what you're trying to criticise you'd know that AfDs are always listed on the day they are STARTED. It has been listed in the proper manner. DarkSaber2k 10:15, 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.
More