< October 15	October 17 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrogate Town 3rd XI[edit]

Sunday league football team; apparently affiliated with Harrogate Town F.C. but can find no evidence at official website or on Google—totally non-notable anyway. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Harrogate Town are notable, their reserve team is not notable in its own right, and their 3rds certainly aren't.... ChrisTheDude 07:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:ChrisTheDude above. - fchd 08:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Third XI certainly not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per ChrisTheDude. GiantSnowman 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per ChrisTheDude. Simon KHFC 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Designing And The Career[edit]

Article Fashion design already exists. Unsourced. Unwiki... This appears to be a cut and paste High School report. Toddstreat1 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original ((prod))der. Doesn't seem to be any way a viable article could be extracted from the OR, and it content-forks from Fashion design. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS=OR. the_undertow ^talk 00:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and The undertow. Also, the cut-and-paste format might indicate a copyright violation. Bearian 21:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 11:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Road[edit]

Advert, NN Toddstreat1 23:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Torc2 00:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, reads like a publisher placed advertisement. Wildhartlivie 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, AGF edit but smacks of advertising. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Still smacks of advertising! Have a look at WP:N. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Modifications have been made - attempting to use the Wikipedia guidelines. Other suggestions are welcome. Thanks,Rebeccalrepp —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made some fixes, and added a conflict tag due to Rebeccalrepp, an editor of the magazine, editing the article. Bearian 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Journalism.-- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The input in favor of deletion emphasizes content matters, which are not suitable rationale for deletion per se. I've placed on the article talk page two secondary sources, one of which I consider reliable, which focus on the magazine. The References in the article itself which are not self-referential are not sufficient as secondary sources as they do not report information on the magazine as the primary topic. My 'weak keep' is based on the single in-depth magazine review found. (see permalink of my talk page contribution). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the magazine is not a primary subject of most of the sources so they remain insufficient to meet WP:N. Eluchil404 07:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was bold redirect (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perturb[edit]

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Toddstreat1 23:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. WP:NOT. Tiptoety 23:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Perturbation disambiguation page. Confusing Manifestation 02:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Perturbation disambiguation page. Tiptoety 02:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Perturbation disamb. page Happyme22 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to disambig and/or wikitionary. --Hdt83 ^Chat 02:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as notable and a sourced biography. Bearian 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Antonioli[edit]

A good man and activist, but notability is not established IMO. Mukadderat 23:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete-WP:BIO & WP:NOTE, does have the possibility to be turned into a good article though [1]. Tiptoety 23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What exactly are you citing in WP:BIO & WP:NOTE? Pointing us to a large web page is useless unless you can cite the chapter and verse. Also by voting for deletion you are voting that the topic can NEVER be useful here. Not that it needs improvement, for that you add an improvement tag. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author Note keep As the writer: It is well referenced, and he is well quoted by the press when they need an expert on green buildings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a STRONG urging to rewrite the article with some/most of the info in the notes to be incorporated into the body of the article. There's more text in the footnotes than in the article at this point. It needs expanding. More information needs to be added to better establish this person's notability. If he's widely quoted, incorporate evidence of that. Wildhartlivie 04:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per User:Wildhartlivie. This is an excellent early article with adequate sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO & WP:NOTE. Alansohn 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, cited, BLP. Bearian 23:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see one local newspaper source only, and it only mentions him. The article from Terrain (listed as Ecology Center, is a interview where he talks about himself. . The other two references are his own statements about himself on his own web pages. He's a member of a number of trade organizations, and he is building some projects. There is no outside evidence that anyone outside the immediate area thinks either they or he important. Change to a keep of course, it anything substantial is added. DGG (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Shopping Center[edit]

A non notable local mall, no references Chris! _ct 22:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability requirements. Useight 00:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a non-article and has no reference of notability. Wildhartlivie 04:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one line stub is not notable. --Gavin Collins 09:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doubt it's notable but even if it were, there's nothing in the article to even start searching from and it's misnamed.Wikidemo 13:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fundies Say the Darndest Things[edit]

This page is more another venue for promoting and slamming the webpage. It self-references the page, has no outside references and does not appear notable in any way. Wildhartlivie 22:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB notability. Although it's about as good an article as could be crafted using only primary sources, NPOV included, it's not notable enough for inclusion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability? JJL 00:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN per WP:WEB --ImmortalGoddezz 00:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also violates WP:RS and WP:POV. Bearian 21:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maryse Casol[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was deleted via AFD last year (see here). Though this version attempts to provide some sources, I'm still not convinced that this artist meets artist notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because (a) evidence for notability is very weak and (b) this is a poorly-translated article overflowing with inappropriately florid language. No prejudice against a proper article, since it's the article that is the issue here, per the care required to ensure good sourcing as expressed in WP:BLP, as much as the notability of the subject. The article as written is borderline spam. Actually not very borderline, at that. Cruftbane 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. No news archives mentioning this artist, and most G-hits are her wordpress blog, her blip.tv, her youtube.com, her (insert web self-upload tool here)... --Sc straker 13:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sc straker. A nice touch though with "museum-like solo exhibition." It's almost in a museum because it's "museum-like." Gives me some ideas. Freshacconci | Talk 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Modernist 02:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 23:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piss proud[edit]

Yes, a real slang term, albeit a little-used one these days. But Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. We currently have three or four articles on this concept under various ill-referenced colloquial names. It's almost as if we have a lot of juvenile male editors. Spooky. Cruftbane 21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to nocturnal penile tumescence, where there's already an inch or so on the topic. Also, I don't count "three or four" unless you include the disambiguation page morning wood, and that's just #3. Care to be more specific? Your allusion was all too brief. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. JJL 00:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Transwikied: [2] --victor falk 09:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Saint Christopher Salmon Boyd[edit]

No relevant Ghits for search "Salmon Boyd", all non-WP pages do not have Salmon Boyd as a single name, only reference given links to the Rammstein news page. Jeodesic 21:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If not a hoax then certainly unverifiable. Most likely the former. Cruftbane 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original architect of Chartres Cathedral is officially unknown.[3] --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Factual nonsense. --Mark (Mschel) 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above and as spam. Bearian 21:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 just don't see the reliable sources here for an article. If they do exist, I will consider undeletion. Note that this just applies for now to Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy, as the AFD notice was never put on the other articles. W.marsh 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy[edit]

Not a notable report. Having looked this up, if you do a simple Wikipedia search excluding both the words Wikipedia and blog, to exclude ourselves and unacceptable sources, we end up with just the NY Times referencing the report (once) and a lone university reference. See here. A news search with the same parameters reveals nothing. We have nothing, in essence, besides it's own self as a primary source, and the lone NY Times trivial reference. Delete as non-notable. • Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect kinda, the source itself could be used on an appropriate page. Speciate 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where...? • Lawrence Cohen 21:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:N. No significant discussion by multiple independent reliable sources. -- But|seriously|folks 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. I suspect this exists only to support Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cruftbane 22:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request that the following articles be nominated together:

Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy
Currently nominated for deletion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda
A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data
June 10th Suicides at Guantanamo: Government Words and Deeds Compared
No-hearing hearings
Mark Denbeaux

My opinion: that they be merged, per not forking content of articles, into Seton Hall reports, currently a disambiguation page to articles above, which is the the name under which their subject meets WP:N:

this request also posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda--victor falk 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. Mr. Denbeaux might be notable enough for his own article however. Steve Dufour 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The findings reported in the report should be cited in another article. However the report itself is not notable. Steve Dufour 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Seton Hall reports. Not notable on it's own, and could probably be shortened to fit into the main article per WP:CFORK Bfigura ^(talk) 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 11:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything into ~~Seton Hall report per victor falk and Bfigura ^(talk). Only then is it possible to discuss its notability --Brewcrewer 17:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Mark Denbeaux. Everything branches out of him. --Brewcrewer 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or only a partial-merge: You're mistaken about the Google search. Search for "Denbeaux study" and you'll see that it was notable enough that West Point did their own version to debunk it. I could see a partial merge of the lesser ones, but the main Denbeaux study deserves its own article. It was once a popular topic for a few leftist blogs. I strongly recommend naming that back to "Denbeaux study" (the original name), and putting "Denbeaux" in the names of the companion articles. Please DO NOT call any of them "Seton Hall Report." They're best known under the name Denbeaux, and some at Seton Hall probably don't deserve to be associated with the Denbeauxs. -- Randy2063 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, you need to adjust your search to this version, and click through to the end. Exclude all Wikipedia sites, all other Wikis, and all blogs, as they are unacceptable sources, click through to the last page for a true-ish count, which leaves us 20 hits. • Lawrence Cohen 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the shame is really on me. I see that "Seton Hall study" finds more. That said, I will still shamelessly prefer calling it the "Denbeaux study." As for blogs, they're not good for sources but I think they should count in determining notablility. -- Randy2063 22:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they really shouldn't. Anyone can go out and start any number of blogs and fill them with any kind of content. They don't do anything to establish notability.--Crossmr 04:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, "Denbeaux report" finds hundreds more. -- Randy2063 23:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Mark Denbeaux takes the cake!--Brewcrewer 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but we could also just file everything under "Guantanamo" if we wanted to. -- Randy2063 21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. I thought the question was to which one of the three aforementioned articles should the other two be merged into?--Brewcrewer 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being facetious to make a point. -- Randy2063 18:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if from Mark Denbeaux, Seton Hall study, and Denbeaux study, Mark Denbeaux gets the most ghits and everything under discussion originates from him, so why not make him the main page??--Brewcrewer 07:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, strong merge into [[[Seton Hall reports]]. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge -- today I opt for merge. Geo Swan 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seton Hall report. Merge the other spin-offs as well. The article is borderline notable, so reluctant to delete, but the article contains insufficient context. Perhaps with improvement, especially the addition of sourced commentary, the article might be split off again. --SmokeyJoe 13:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per G7 and also consensus. Daniel 07:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conference of the Americas: Atlanta[edit]

As much as I want to go to this event, I find its inclusion debatable at best. Its only references are from its own site, and I simply cannot see how it meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. Majorly (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was thinking about this as well, it does not meet our own criteria for inclusion. Cbrown1023 talk 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As head organizer of this event, I'm having hard enough trouble convincing press and a big number of sponsors that this is a notable event. Maybe after we actually HAVE the event, it would be worthy of inclusion, but definitely not now. Delete. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a conference organizer, I also agree with Mike. Notability might exist after the event occurs. Until then, there's nothing much to go on yet. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike and Swatjester. Raul654 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this. Go ahead and speedy it. It does not meet current notability standards. When it does, resurrect it. WAS 4.250 04:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Prefreshman Engineering Program[edit]

Summer school to prepare high schoolers for "scientific and engineering career paths". Non-notable academic programme. Keb25 21:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedily if possible. A program with no assertion of notability. Cruftbane 22:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cruftbane. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This program doesn't seem to have been sufficiently notable to warrant a line in the couple of articles for the associated schools that I checked; if someone's feeling energetic, they might ensure that the appropriate articles contain a line and perhaps an external link. But this program neither asserts nor has notability sufficient to warrant a separate article. Accounting4Taste 00:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Axl 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. Marlith ^T/C 00:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) as nonsense. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skrilla[edit]

This is non-notable, nonsense slang with no valid references, unrelated content (Bill Gates and Flava Flav?), and sock puppetry. You're My Juli e t 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted as it educated people about skrilla, a term steadily gaining popularity in today's culture. Casey5729 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence offered that it is "steadily gaining popularity in today's culture."--Bedivere 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the references are not validCasey5729 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find a Wikipedia page on it, but Urban Dictionary links are never considered valid references, because they are all user created. ---You're My Juli e t 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it has moved from "steadily gaining" to "has provably gained". Lacks a credible source, and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. And right now this article is complete bollocks, see the second para. Cruftbane, 22:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear as those posting above need to spend more time away from their computer and experience the world as this is truly a recognized word in the inner city culture. No reason to be bigots towards those of lesser economic status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Js240sx (talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as empty. Besides infobox and two weblinks, there was no text. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tatler (Lakeside School student newspaper)[edit]

Student newspaper. Article does not have any info except for external links and infobox. Keb25 20:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 are no sourced claims for notability and Ceyokey has shown that they are unlikely to exist. Eluchil404 07:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Johnny Douglas Turner and Rebuilding the Walls[edit]

A pastor and his first book. Written, I suspect, by the son (or grandson) of the preacher man. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It took a considerable effort to track down the publishing company, Word for Word Publishers. I believe I found it here and that it is a (defunct) vanity publisher, rendering this book self-published. Hence the book doesn't meet WP:Notable and neither, then, does its author. I should add that there are a number of other companies with a similar name including another vanity press in the UK; I may have been misled. However, the writer's second book is definitely from a vanity press found here. Accounting4Taste 00:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as passing music, but needs cleanup. Bearian 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dial (band)[edit]

No claim of notability per WP:MUSIC criteria. The article mentions that its debut album will be released in May 2008. Keb25 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search shows plenty of coverage by independent sources. I think the 2008 is a typo or some other mistake since there are reviews of the album up. Plenty to prove notability.Ridernyc 23:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Unable to find any sources on google. Fails WP:NOTE & WP:MUSIC. Tiptoety 23:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not sure how you can miss it, combine Dial with Kristoffer Gildenlöw and you find [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].

Ridernyc 00:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of references added. Band easily passes WP:Music. Article needs to rather be tagged for cleanup. ♫ Cricket02 13:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, though I'm assuming good faith on the nom's part. Non-admin closure. Snowman 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed XF-104[edit]

AFD being withdrawn by nominator. It appears that the article has sufficient detail that there is some reason for keep. On the other hand, I haven't seen a clear policy reason yet to withdraw the AFD. Perhaps a solution might be to give the article a few months for it to develop. If it's a substantial article by then, the reasons for keep would be clear. Note that I don't intend to monitor the article and nominate for AFD at that time. Chergles 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call for WP:SNOWBALL. FWIW Bzuk 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is a prototype of the Lockheed F-104, not sufficiently different to get another article. Suggest merge and redirect (better) or merge and delete (not as good). Both planes have the same wing and height. No explanation to why they are totally different planes because they probably are not. Lockheed F-104 article is not too long so breaking it up into the XF-104 is not needed. Chergles 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page was created by a new user. He extensively researched his data, and spent some time putting it togetehr. From the beginning, I've expressed my concerns at WT:AIR about the necessity of a separate page for the XF-104, but agreed to give it some time to pan out, and then perhps consider a merger. Give the fact that you recommend merger, would not a merge proposal be the better and less drastic course? Also, AFDs are not intended to be a first resort, nor a means of initial discussion of an article. It is much more helpful to engage in discussion about your concerns than going directly to an AFD with no attempt at prior communication. I hope you would give serious consideration to withrawing the AFD, and perhaps proposing a merge directly instead. - BillCJ 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a shame after I spent a lot of time on it. The F-104 page has editing problems already. There is a list of 'XF' fighters with their own articles, The XF-104 was missing. Will you tag F-104S, CF-104 and CL1200 for deletion also, you have to by the same thinking? I would be genuinely interested to hear what others think.Nimbus227 19:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge and redirect. Nimbus227 points out precedent in keeping, so good point, but I'm inclined to merge on the grounds that the protos, in my understanding, don't differ terribly much from the actual plane that comes out. Nimbus, as for the issue with the F-104 article having problems, remember, you can always fix them. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to get involved in the current F-104 article although I would like to, it is mentioned in the WP Aviation project as a page needing attention. I am certain that any edits I made to it would be reverted whether they were factual and referenced or not. Other editors are struggling in there. Nimbus227 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- C'mon, man, don't be afraid, be bold! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Sufficient material to warrant it's own article, I would have thought. As mentioned above there is a prescedent for prototypes having their own articles. Artw 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely notable enough in its own right; helpful to users to have a separate article.--Bedivere 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I think that article is barely a week old so it has hardly had a chance to mature. Dennis, I have been bold a couple of times and there were no reversions probably because I used known facts, thanks for the encouragement. It is probably easy in here to slash edit without explanation but I have always explained my edits, I believe in the idea of getting to the truth through consensus (hope I spelt that right). Is it a question of limited webspace or an individuals idea of tidiness? Nimbus227 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although most "XF" articles are on prototypes that never went into production and so that comparison is false, articles on sub-types are plentiful, including several on sub-types of the F-104. I don't know why some people think that this one and the main F-104 article are short enough to be comfortably merged - I would hate to have to try. It is well researched, relevant, well written and long enough to stand on its own. I wish more articles were this in-depth and this polished. Well done. (BTW, "consensus" is correct, though "spelled" is what you did right with it). -- Steelpillow 21:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spelt/Spelled is a US/UK spelling difference so either form is spelt (grin) correctly, although per WP:MOS when used in articles the variant that matches the rest of the article's usage should be selected, even if one is accustomed to the other variant in normal daily life (just as with center/centre, color/colour, and so forth) ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 14:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my secondary school English teacher from many moons ago lives just over the road so I have to try my best with spelling and grammar or I will be in trouble! Nimbus227 21:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Strongly Oppose this move which was not discussed on the talk page even though the primary editor made a sincere effort to involve others in the creation of the article and it represents his first attempt at crafting a Wikipedia article. This flies in the face of "don't bite the newcomers." I question the use of an Afd when a merge tag was sufficient. What meagre evidence that was presented also does not coincide with what is now a well written and well researched article on a prototype aircraft that had been featured as a separate chapter in Steve Pace's book, "X-Fighters..." FWIW I am also calling for a Speedy conclusion under the WP:SNOWBALL clause. Bzuk 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep: I was really for merging before. But the XF-104 is a good article and has testing info that would be lost on a merge. I do think it'd help a lot to copy any and all development and design info to the F-104 article. It has only a few paragraphs covering it's development history and nothing after it entered service (some is in variants and elsewhere I guess). -Fnlayson 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's perfectly legitimate to have an article on a prototype and new users should be encouraged when they produce such good work. Deleting it because 'both aircraft have the same wing and height' is silly. Nick mallory 00:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Actually, the XF-104 is notable in its own right. It was built in part to test out Lockheed's novel and innovative trapezoidal wing on a supersonic aircraft – the first attempt ever on this design approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Askari Mark (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article offers a rewarding amount of detail. I don't think it could be merged while retaining the current level of readability. Binksternet 02:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per editors at F-104:

I find it all a bit strange really. By the proposers reason the F-104S (basically an F-104 with different avionics and missiles), the CF-104 (admittedly an F-104G for Canada) and the CL-1200 Lancer (F-104 with a high wing/low tail) should all also be tagged. Merging the XF-104 in to the main article would lose links to Tony LeVier etc, and make the article longer where it is already struggling. Several articles now link to the XF-104 where they did not before.

I notice the F-4 Phantom has its own page for variants and that is fairly cluttered.

Intrigued to see what happens but thanks to those who support the article remaining anyway.Nimbus227 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::Strongly Oppose the merge and question the reasoning behind the merge/afd. The editor who proposed the merge is not a regular submitter and has recently emerged from an indefinite ban as a sockpuppet. FWIW Bzuk 04:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

--victor falk 04:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the nominator should just have proposed a merge, as others say AFD is a last resort and if a merge is desired, propose that. In this case though I don't even think a merge is necessarily warranted. On the other hand I also don't think a snowball is called for either, there is enough discussion here to merit letting the AfD run... (using Larbot for arcane IE related reasons) ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 14:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article/ Oppose mergeLanceBarber 16:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article is an extremely good start for a new editor, and a lot better than many I could mention. OK, so there is a certain amount of information carried over from the main F-104 article, but IMHO there is sufficient new and well researched material to let it stand on its own. I certainly don't think it deserves an AfD; and at the very worst it should have been recommended for a merge, which I also oppose. --Red Sunset 19:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason for deletion, it might be merged, or not, but not deleted. The NF-104 deserves an article also. 132.205.99.122 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orban space[edit]

Author contested PROD. NN subject of the article. Rjd0060 19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly written and no attempt to establish notability. -- RHaworth 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, possibly speedy - but I'm debating between an A1 and a G1, and I can't bring myself to do either. Article was not written in such a way as to suitably explain what this is all about, and there is no coherent explanation of what this is, what it does, how it works, or even what color, shape, or size it comes in. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article of unclear subject. Keb25 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...and if it was nom'ed for speedy under no context, I'd jump on that. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huuh? I predict a bright future for the creator of this article as a political speechwriter, since I can't figure out what the heck it's trying to say. Clarityfiend 23:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although confusingly written is not a criteria for deletion, I am having trouble finding anything which references a concept of "orban space." On a side note, something's funky with the "what links here" function... I see lots of links, but can't find the links on the page. --TeaDrinker 05:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete context free -- Whpq 21:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reading it, I still don't know what it's about. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Demos[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable local television personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 00:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 07:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Treanor[edit]

Fails WP:BIO as non-notable local television personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker 12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. merger to Rathfarnham#Amenities can still happen but it's an editorial decision that doesn't require AFD. W.marsh 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutgrove Shopping Centre[edit]

Delete. The article contains no evidence of notability or assertion of notability; it has no references other than a link to the shopping centre's own website, despite having been tagged since Feb 2007 with ((primarysources)). -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Rathfarnham#Amenities. The one notable thing about the shopping centre is its having the first McDonald's drive through in Europe [14], so merge that information into Rathfarnham#Amenities, and "Nutgrove Shopping Centre" is a plausible search term. Bláthnaid 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bláthnaid--victor falk 20:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does every shopping centre deserve its own article?--Bedivere 20:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not how notability works. Every shopping centre can have an article if it can demonstrate notability per WP:NOTE. Merely asserting or proving a place's existence is not enough, but even a small corner store can be notable if the references exist. The problem in this case is that no evidence has been provided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Severe Delete - Non-notable shopping centre. --Letterkennyboi 16:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe this citation provides notability... First social welfare office within a Shopping Centre Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins 12:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW/Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Watch (fourth nomination)[edit]

This website is only being used as an attack site, propaganda site and rant against wikipedia, and it is continuing to grow aswell as the list of sysops real identities. The website in question fails two wikipedia policies, WP:ATTACK, and WP:BADSITES (Even though it was rejected). The site risks the real life identities of wikipedians, and the wikipedia website in general. Also I don't think it is that notable as a website with only 32,000 google hits, we have removed articles on wikipedia attack sites before, such as Encyclopedia Dramatica which basically did the same purpose with its articles on admins. I think we should take it into consideration what this website is doing and what it aims to do. The sunder king 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be WP:NOTE. Despite being what appears to be a not very nice website, if it notable, I think it should be kept. Otherwise, would it not be considered censorship? Allthough, perhaps the link should be removed from the article, per thisTiddly-Tom 18:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tiddly Tom. The article is well-referenced, and clearly meets WP:NOTE. That fact that it is used as a rant-site about wikipedia should not be relevant to whether it gets an article her. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable website. The purpose of Ecyclopedia Dramatica was to offend, this just intends to keep an eye on us. I was against the deletion of Daniel Brandt- let's not lose this too. J Milburn 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main rationale for deletion here is an attempt to remove a website that criticizes Wikipedia, which has never been a reason for deletion. WP:ATTACK has nothing to do with this page (maybe the nom means WP:ATP, although that has no relevance either). And how can an article fail a "policy" (WP:BADSITES), when it doesn't even exist as a policy, or even a guideline? This is a typical tactic of Scientology, a website criticizes them, so they try and close the website. Crazysuit 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't call it an attack site, like "WikiTruth". It's proof that Wikipedia has become so far-reaching and relied upon that it gets the same type of scrutiny that the press receives (such as F.A.I.R. does for fairness and accuracy in reporting). Mandsford 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources clearly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. For an effort to build a free and open encyclopedia we sure seem to be overwhelmed with rather Big Brotherish efforts at censorship. Alansohn 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Burn heretic at the stake~~ ~~Send dissident to deletion Gulag~~ ...err, maybe Mandsford has a point after all. Seriously, I think such sites help improve wikipedia. ""Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"."--victor falk 20:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder he created the site! read the nomination! I mentioned that it is putting peoples lives in danger and it is by the hivemind, I don't think you understand!. The sunder king 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable, I don't see how deleting this article will change anything, that website will still exist. Basil Richards 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely "I don't like it" is no grounds for deletion. Would we delete the article on someone we dislike but who was undoubtedly notable?--Bedivere 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn- lets wait for a admin to nominate it then every one will vote Delete in favour. The sunder king 21:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, noting that the later keep arguments accommodate some of the concerns expressed in the earlier delete opinions. --Tikiwont 13:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Feder[edit]

This article on a losing candidate in the 2006 US elections looks very much like a coatrack on which to hang a story about how she really would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling ~~kids~~ pollsters.

As a losing candidate, this is a news story, to be avoided in the case of living individuals, unless there are more sources about her life outside of this unsuccessful campaign. Cruftbane 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO unless she has accomplishments that are unlisted. I don't think this qualifies as COATRACK as all the links to pertain to her campaign; it's just simple WP:POV. COATRACK would be if the article were "she lost to her opponent, a known sexual deviant who has been convicted of securities fraud in Patalunia, where he has mob connections and a second wife." You know, introducing material primarily about something else. In any case, notability grounds are sufficient for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Documenting everyone who ever ran for public office and didn't win is outside the reasonable scope of a general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Bedivere 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least through 2008. She is running again, so this may get extended if she wins and becomes a public official. She currently has a cash on hand advantage over her opponent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.244.214.30 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following also looks like a Keep opinion although the person who wrote it didn't begin with the bolded word keep. I fear anyone counting these may miss it if I don't point this out. Michael Hardy 01:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judy Feder is one of the nation's leaders in health policy, particularly in efforts to improve the nation's health insurance system. According to her c.v., http://ihcrp.georgetown.edu/pdfs/judycv.pdf, she is an elected member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Social Insurance. She worked in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the William Clinton health reform debate, and served as staff director of the U.S. Bipartisan Commission on Comprehensive Health Care (the so-called Pepper Commission) of the U.S. Congress in 1989-1991. She has more accomplishments, which are indeed unlisted in the article. She's coming to deliver a lecture on health policy at Syracuse University in two days, http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/lourie_lecture/lourie.htm. As soon as her visit is over, I will be glad to devote time to expanding this article, including providing references. In the meantime, considering that health care reform is a major topic in the 2008 presidential campaign, please hold off on deletion. MWBONNEY, brand new user, 10/17/2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwbonney (talk • contribs) 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Google Archive[15] and Google Books[16] search indicates that she is a notable Democratic health care advisor, even excluding the Frank Wolf race. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and reorganize. She is apparently Professor at Georgetown, and Dean of their Georgetown Public Policy Institute, apparently the author of a number of publications -- as one would expect from the position. . As such, she is very likely notable. She is a member of the Institute of Medicine, along with the better known National Academy of Science and National Academy of engineering one of the 3 parts of the US National Academies. All members of the US NAS have always without exception been considered notable at Wikipedia, just as with the Royal Society and other national academies. Due to the limited interests of WP editors, few articles have yet been written about the member of the IoM and the NAE, but they too should certainly be considered intrinsically notable. Her related public policy activities will add to it, and her political campaign is significant enough to at least be some part of the article, though probably not enough to justify it alone. I will rewrite the article accordingly. Whoever wrote the article didn't realise what constitutes WP notability, and apparently was only interested in her politics. I'm glad I noticed this one. DGG (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just rewritten it.DGG (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently this is one of those cases where AfD nomination is what was needed to get the article into proper shape. Michael Hardy 16:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to DGG for their rewrite I think the subject of this article very clearly merits coverage in the wikipedia. Geo Swan 17:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Feder was mentioned in the Syracuse Post-Dispatch on October 16 2007, earlier on the day this nomination was made. Feder had been invited to come to Syracuse, from Washington, to give the memorial lecture for a charitable foundation. The Post-Dispatch wrote: "Feder is one of the nation's leaders in health policy, with expertise in the uninsured, Medicare and long-term care."
- I am concerned this nomination, and some of the comments here, were made by wikipedians who didn't may not have made the effort to reach an informed opinion on the merits for an article on this subject. -- Geo Swan 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rape B1atv 23:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)[reply]

Non statutory female on male rape[edit]

All content thus far has been Original Research. Hopeless article. Etafly 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to rape. Lugnuts 18:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure OR and a dump for random fictional instances. Nothing here to merge and I don't see any utility in a redirect, either. This concept is far too pigeonholed to ever really be an article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say merge, but there is nothing to merge. There are no reliable sources on this "topic". It is akin to an article on Weaponless mugging of males by females. We might be able to find articles describing isolated incidents or parts of the description, but it is not a thing of its own in any notable way. - Mdbrownmsw 18:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not surprised that there's nothing to merge, or that Mdbrownmsw wants to see it deleted. Looking at the history of this article, it was fairly substantial back on September 7, with nine different citations; the social worker posting above seems to have edited it down (20+ edits) quite a bit to its present form, and may even be in an edit war with someone else named Kyle. Mandsford 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" in question were not for the content they were cited for. I invite you to address the individual cites if you disagree. - Mdbrownmsw 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Version 13:34, 7 September 2007 Page created on 02:46, 8 March 2007--victor falk 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides speculation, isolated instances, and fictional occurences, there is really nothing that can be done with this article. There isn't even anything to merge. Too bad such an interesting subject lacks information. --Kyle112 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge. Since this does in fact happen, it deserves some recognition. Regarding mdbrown's remark: there are no articles regarding mugging from the perpective of the sex of the attacker and victim, and since this is irrelavent to the character of the mugging, the comparison to rape is unfounded. BillMasen 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is really nothing in the article to merge, an added section with links to real life instances in the standard rape page would be fine though. --Kyle112 23:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article looks like it use to be OK [17] but for some reason it was stubified. Can anyone give the background as to what happened? If there was no reason for stubification then I would have to say keep the non-stub version as it looks OK and was sourced. Pocopocopocopoco 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That does look much better, however a lot of it is misleadingly or badly sourced, such as the rape case in the sperm wars section was statutory rape and not female on male non-statutory rape. And a lot of the links claim research but show none, and the entertainment section is obscenely unsourced. But Mdbrownmsw, I take your challenge, and would like you to explain how this was a bad source.^[1] --Kyle112 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one was missleading. It does not refer to men being raped by women directly, and frequently points out aspects of the attacks that make it quite clear it is men raping men that is being discussed. - Mdbrownmsw 04:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one actually goes through the sources given on that previous version, one would find the following:

Discusses male rape almost exclusively in the form of males raped by other males.
This article is about unwanted sexual contact and does not address forcible rape.
This source is more geared toward male rape of males. The one mention it makes of female rape of males says that it is rare.
This article is about female sex offenders, and makes no mention of females raping adult males.
This article again is about unwanted sexual contact, not forcible rape.
Links back to article #4, has been given a fake title including the word "rape".
Talks about a paternity case involving a sperm donor.
News story of a woman who performed oral sex on a sleeping man.
Article about alleged female "rape gangs" in South Africa. From a Nigerian publisher, unsure of how trustworthy a source.

The fact that of 9 sources used, only 4 talk about males being forcibly raped, only 3 mention women as the aggressors, 2 are substantially about the topic and only 1 is from a well known, trustworthy source. An attempt to string together these loosely related topics and deem this a sourced article is a classical case of synthesis and is still a form of original research. That females raping males exists is not doubted here - but aside from that fact, the article was never more than original research. As the sources themselves admit, instances of females forcibly raping adult males is so rare (or at least unreported) as to make it a very niche crime subject and not an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:HOAX. In virtually every jurisdiction in North America, rape and statutory rape applies to both genders. Rubbish that can not be rescued. Bearian 21:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Citing WP:HOAX is a bit harsh, don't you think? I don't think there's any bad faith in this article. It's simply a classic case of WP:OR. -Etafly 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "sexual abuse of men by women", of which rape is a form. The sources do confer notability for that. The present title invites to ambiguousness and controversy as to the article's topic.--victor falk 00:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though I started this AFD, I'm not averse to redirecting to rape. That way, any semblance of useful information that we might have overlooked will still be preserved in the history and potentially used as a basis for inclusion as a section in another related article. I doubt the redirect would get many hits anyway, as the article name is pretty obscure. -Etafly 03:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, maybe you should redirect it to Male rape research#Non statutory rape of males by females or Rape by sex#Non statutory female on male rape. -79.179.180.125 00:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raisin' Hell 2: A Raisin Ultimatum[edit]

Violates WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not for fiction, essays or movies made up at school one day Mhking 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, may even be able to be prodded. Tiddly-Tom 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raisin' hell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal ballery of a series of projects that have yet to demonstrate notability. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this thing not speedy deleted in the first place? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raisin' hell[edit]

Violates WP:NOT; Wikipedia is NOT for personal essays, fiction or movies made at school one day Mhking 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, 'A note to dedicated "webmasters" is to please not delete or report this article, as it is merely being used to explain the series (and entertain students). You will find no lies hidden amongst these walls.' makes me feel this should be deleted even more ;) Tiddly-Tom 18:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wow. Silly and creative, but still has the distinct flavor of madeupinschoolitis. Gotta go. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per common sense. When the article begs you not to delete it, that's a great sign that it needs to go. Now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the very least, it's crystal balling the reception of this "award-winning trilology" that consists of two parts out of a planned 7(?) ◄Zahakiel ► 20:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Axl 18:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per complete lack of notability. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: In fifteen minutes this page will explode with the rage virus infecting all of wikipedia and laying the foundation for the plot of raisin' hell 2 and 3. In Raisin' Hell 3: (An unknown zombie/300 flick/parody/remake) An evil corporation (wikipedia/Sunmaid raisins which are almost the same thing) turn the dark world of Satan upon Robert McFarland and the Raisin. Wikipedia must be blocked and deleted. However, three hundred raisins stand in their way. Who will he strike next, nobody knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisinhell (talk • contribs) 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Placebo Effect 06:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aporia cross-media entertainment[edit]

Non-notable game company. No reliable sources. The claim that genre insiders proclaimed had the best puzzle is sourced with the comment section of a blog. Google comes up with virtually nothing. IrishGuy ^talk 17:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research.--Bedivere 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "genre insiders proclaimed had the best puzzle" is now sourced directly to the podcast itself rather than the discussion page related to the podcast (which had, also, linked to the podcast). The article now contains more sources related to various aspects of the group and the games developed by the group. With the "behind the curtain" atmosphere related to alternate reality games (part of the "This is not a game" principle see alternate reality games) it is important to consider the works of the group as well (which has had a name change) when searching for notability. A thorough search will find this group and/or their work located on numerous blogs, forum discussions, genre specific websites, and other places throughout numerous countries worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voodoojas0n (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourced assertion of notability. Despite ARGs being awesome. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 12:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I feel as though two of the sources within the article are very reliable. Christy Dena was used as one source and she is huge contributor to cross-media entertainment (hence the name of her site) and is used numerous times as a source for the alternate reality games article. ARGN - alternate reality gaming network - while it is not independant of the ARG genre, it is independent of Aporia Cross-Media Entertainment and the largest news site for ARGs. I do concede, however, that the sources used in this article are most directly related to the game this company produced rather than the company itself. Perhaps the article should have been more on the game versus the company? Voodoojas0n 03:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable bordering on trivia. Bearian 01:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Parman[edit]

Non notable artist. No sources. Search for "James Parman" abstract returns 3 unique ghits...none related to this person. When first created, the article was a blatant copyvio mixture of statements about 2 other artists. (see Talk:James Parman). Prod removed by original author. --Onorem♠Dil 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No sources to back up the article's claims. Non-notable--even the article says he's "up and coming".--Sethacus 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possible speedy delete. Freshacconci | Talk 16:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources, notability. JNW 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair Flight 296[edit]

A non-notable airline incident. Inflight engine fires are not that uncommon, and neither are stuff ups with emergencies. Russavia 16:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no specific guideline but my own rule of thumb starts roughly at multiple fatalities on a scheduled commercial flight. This was just an incident with fatalities or even injuries. --Dhartung | Talk 18:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- significant incident in Ryanair's history- and exposed their poor safety training. Astrotrain 19:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Ryanair#Accidents and incidents. Merge not necessary as incident is already covered there in sufficient detail. Espresso Addict 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Astrotrain. Important event that received lots of media attention due to exposing problems with Ryanair's safety training. There's too much topic specific content to merge to Criticism of Ryanair#Accidents and incidents. --Oakshade 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Fails to meet the wikiprojects definition of a notable incident. This seems to be part of a series of articles critical of Ryanair. So maybe it is a POV fork or an attack page designed to look like an encyclopedic article. Vegaswikian 03:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notable incident with coverage, and consequences from the follow up investigation. Could do with more sources Thunderwing 13:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per astrotrain and oakshade Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article seems factual informative and has references. Although perhaps the airline might like it suppressed it seems reasonable to keep it, I see there are 15 other articles in this category. --Gibnews 17:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gibnews, but needs much more source material. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 13:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starair[edit]

An aircraft operator with one business jet and one helicopter, but with no sources which would afford this operator notability, thereby failing WP:V. The existence of an ICAO code and callsign should not be considered to give notability as these codes can be given to freight agents, aircraft brokers, and other non-notable entities. Russavia 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 20:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and expand, meets the notability. [18] [19]. There is also another news and articles here. Carlosguitar 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Forbes article is for Starair (an Indonesian company, not the Irish one). The DEFRA page doesn't give it notability. And Google news finds a single article which comes up with a 404 erorr when viewed, so we have no idea if it is trivial coverage or substantial --Russavia 12:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, I will be neutral now. Carlosguitar 21:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Bedivere 21:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as per Carlosguitar. There is enough secondary coverage of this company to demonstrate notability. --Oakshade 23:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC). Change to Neutral as the Forbes article is about a different company. --Oakshade 21:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 23:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sd3[edit]

wikipedia not a crystal ball Phgao 16:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As unprofessional as your reason was you are correct in one aspect. In the other, the page would be Scooby Doo 3 or Scooby DOo Three. -Sox207 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete reads like gibberish (rabies?) also per this AFD a few days ago. Possibly a sock? Someone another 02:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aircraft livery. Hut 8.5 10:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheatline[edit]

Fails WP:V. The article describes, basically, a line running down the fuselage of an aircraft, but no sources can be found which establish WP:N. Russavia 16:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:V easily, just try googling it. Notability is a different issue; I cannot see that the topic is notable. (Also, the article has been copied to Wiktionary which is where it belogs imo). I would therefore go for ~~delete~~ Redirect to aircraft livery as Dhartung below. Springnuts 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to aircraft livery, which already has information on the term. --Dhartung | Talk 19:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable; deserves its own entry.--Bedivere 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is now about notability, not verifiability. Springnuts 23:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 21:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: despite being verifiable, this is not notable and is properly covered in the other article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition. Has apparently already been transwikied to Wiktionary. As an article subject, there are no sources and no assertion of notability. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 10:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken by God?[edit]

Does not assert notability, and likely cannot because of its newness (it was released yesterday according to Amazon). Several of the book's contributors are notable, but not all works by notable authors are worthy of articles. Additionally, the page appears to have been created by one of the book's editors (see WP:COI). Flex (talk/contribs) 15:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Book doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria listed here: Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria Cogswobble talk 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete First, the reason suggested for the deletion of this article is mentioned as a criterion to be avoided on Wikipedia's "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions":

"Much like just a policy or guideline, simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. Therefore, try to explain to other editors why the subject of an article may not be notable. Instead of saying, "Non-notable," consider using "No reliable sources found to establish notability," or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability". Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that establish or confirm the subject's notability. The mirror of "Just not notable" is the assertion that something is notable, but fails to provide an explanation or source for the claim of notability. Notability requires an explanation so that other editors may be able to verify the claim as well as seek sources. An explanation is also helpful in deciding whether or not the subject of an article meets existing policies and guidelines that may cover the subject."

Even if this argument is found wanting, there can be no qualms over the notoriety of its contributors (NT Wright [Bishop of Durham], Rowan Williams [Archbishop of Canterbury], CFD Moule, Miroslav Volf, Richard Rohr, Marcus Borg, etc.), and the collaboration of such an elite group is indeed noteworthy.

Additionally, the person responsible for requesting the deletion of this article is clearly merely in opposition to the opinions expressed in the book, as can be determined by the items he or she typical writes about: i.e. limited atonement, Calvinism, irresistible grace, and total depravity. In this sense, the aforementioned person merely wishes to restrict the book's exposure and the promulgation of its viewpoint. Therefore, this person's real reason for wanting the deletion of this article actually falls under another unacceptable reason for deleting an article, namely "I just don't like it."

Notwithstanding these arguments, the reason of lack of notability is nullified by the book's academic nature as per Wikipedia's policy on Notability (Books):

Academic books: "Academic books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In that case, notability should rely on the reputation of the academic press publishing it,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[9] how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions."

The book is published by one of the most reputable Christian publications (Eerdmans) and is soon going to be evaluated by a panel at the next American Academy of Religion (the largest and most prestigious religious society in the world) annual meeting in San Diego in November, 2007. Furthermore, the endorsements on the back and inside first few pages attest to its wide reception by very reputable scholars in the field.

Also, even if the article was added by one of the editors, which is at any rate mere speculation, the article itself does not provide a glowing review of its content to any degree, but instead outlines the content of the book in a very dispassionate manner. Certainly there is no need to delete the article based on such a criterion, and if there is a conflict of interest here, it lies with the person requesting the deletion of this article as demonstrated above.

There is no reason to delete this article other than that the content of the book's material is in opposition to a certain strain of Christian thought, and the continued marketing of this book therefore threatens said strain of Christian thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexorandi81 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand both the "Arguments to Avoid" and the intentions of the other editors. Neither of the editors that argued for deletion simply said it was "not notable" and left it at that. Flex explicitly stated the reasons he thinks it's not notable. I simply used the guidelines at WP:BK and noted that this book doesn't meet any of the criteria there. Even if I look at WP:BK#Academic books, I don't see a reason to keep this article. This article should be deleted because the book isn't notable (yet) according to any guidelines that Wikipedia has. Cogswobble talk 00:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, please assume good faith. I strive to make the Wikipedia balanced and neutral by including all significant points of view. I most certainly don't want to delete this article because of a disagreement with the some of the book's ideas (otherwise, I'd be trying to delete a goodly number of other articles like unlimited atonement, Christus Victor, Islam, etc.). Rather, I think it should be deleted because the book -- not the idea of a non-violent atonement -- doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion. (BTW, endorsements on the book jacket and publishing house don't establish notability, though they may lend credence to it.) As far as the editor who created it, his/her user name is the same as one editor of this book and his/her other edits are nearly all related to inserting this book in the Wikipedia (sometimes helpfully, sometimes not, IMHO), and I merely said there appears to be a potential conflict of interest. The content itself is neutral, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promotion of the newest book or anything else and the editor would have a vested interest in free promotion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Cap'n Walker 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this is published by a respected academic publisher in the subject, most collections of scholarly essays are not really notable. Some few are, but it has to be proved by reviews and references. It would be a very exceptional work indeed that would be so recognized immediately after publication. I am certainly sympathetic to the insertion of articles of academic subjects, especially in the humanities. But this is not very likely to be notable ever, and certainly to have an article at this point would be inappropriate. I think Flex well understands the factors involved, and I endorse his view. DGG (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The threshold for inclusion is whether or not the topic has been covered by reliable third-party sources. And it appears this hasn't. 17Drew 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may all be right. I have yet to find another comparable book on Wikipedia; for instance, no other work by NT Wright or Rowan Williams is given its own Wikipedia article (while only their contributions to Stricken by God? are given an internal link). Perhaps this book would do well to garner a mention as a reference on 'Recent Controversies' in the Penal Substitution article and the like. Lexorandi81 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Roadkill cafe[edit]

This is a local radio program. There are no reliable sources cited that would show notability, and my google search did not reveal any sources that I could add. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should not be deleted, it's a fair article. and it's also a good one. --Onondagan opossum 15:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? You say "delete", then instantly say "should not be deleted". Make up your mind! Grutness...wha? 00:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that he changed his vote here after voting 'delete' below, being a new user and not familiar with our strikeout convention. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Normally my first instinct would be to redirect to KBZU, where it's also mentioned, but being from Pennsylvania I know there's an actual restaurant by that name (although the restaurant is actually two words: Road Kill) which is something of a minor tourist attraction and probably could have an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the mention in KBZU was added by the creator of this article today. I didn't find any sources that would even verify that this radio program ever existed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's interesting. I note that on Google News a search for KBZU +roadkill comes up with nothing at all... you'd think any real radio show in a major city area would have been mentioned at least once, even if just in the local paper. Nothing on the main Google either. That's weird. Maybe this is some kind of hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No evidence of notability from reliable sources. "Brief" mention at KBZU would be fine if this is verifiable (and if not it should be removed from that article as well) but there doesn't seem to be much case for a standalone article here.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability asserted. Cogswobble talk 16:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete"The Roadkill cafe" was even in the kbzu wikipedia article prior to KBZU's format change, people. I'm sorry if I've offended any of you, and delete if you wish. I was just making my opinion known. It is not a "hoax", either.--Onondagan opossum 17:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm presuming that the station management at KBZU removed the mention of The Roadkill Cafe (and Leo Cage) after it changed its format and cancelled the show. You have the right to edit that article to discuss former programming, although they have the same right to take it back out. In the radio business, there's always an emphasis on the programming being "new", even if it's an "oldies" station. Mandsford 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is a local radio station programme notable? And surely we can't quote Wikipedia, especially material deleted from Wikipedia, as a reference.--Bedivere 21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, non-notable, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. —Verrai 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Darby[edit]

person famous for one event, wikipedia not news, nothing notable came from the case etc Phgao 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO not notable TonyBallioni 15:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, not wiki notable. Springnuts 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the police blotter. People escape from prison all the time. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Carter | Talk to me 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person. Carlosguitar 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jbeach ^sup 20:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Fremont High School[edit]

little context, wikipedia not a directory Phgao 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It is a high school article that was just created today give the article author some time to create the article TonyBallioni 15:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering AfDs last for around 5 days, the closing admin will see then, I guess. Phgao 15:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Schools are usually kept. This article was created about twenty minutes ago and since it is a high school should be kept to let the author create the article. If it were an middle or elementary school it would be different case. TonyBallioni 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of high school pages with very little data, (example Firth High School) and as such, I see no reason to delete it. If you feel so compelled, you could delete it, but I see no reason why. If I had access to more information, I would put it in there. In addition, the main reason I added it is because I live here, and there were some other pages that would link to it. Lord Kyler 16:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Lord Kyler Could you possibly add more information that will add to the notability, from reliable sources? I have to say, though, eight minutes is the fastest I've seen from creation to Afd.--Sethacus 17:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you see the problem: with so many non-notable schools having their articles, ones who do have a reason to get included might get deleted. So, we have to inforce the same standards as for other articles. Failing that, we should allow every school in the world to be on wikipedia, like towns and villages.--victor falk 17:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CSD/A7: no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of yellow pages entries about schools. That goes for high schools too. --victor falk 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we should let the article's authors work on it more before we can conclude anything about the subject's notability. — Ksero 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Keep — AfD-ing a potentially legitimate article on the same day it was created is absurd. Virtually every article would fail notability requirements under those conditions. — RJH (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give it time to grow. Almost all mainstream American public high schools can be proven notable with a little research. South Fremont caught the attention of the ACLU in 1992 for displaying a nativity scene. It also raised a few eyebrows in 1993 for holding its graduation ceremony at a Mormon college. Plus, the school is the alma mater of Outland Trophy winner and NFL player Jason Buck. [20] Zagalejo^^^ 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Zagalejo^^^ 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DIR Carter | Talk to me 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need an article on every school in America. Just because a thousand similar articles haven't been deleted yet is no reason to keep.--Bedivere 21:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I intended just to start this article and let it expand, perhaps people like Zagalejo could help expand it. I also believe that he's right, but, if you want to delete, go ahead, I don't mind. And to Bedivere, maybe we don't, but maybe somebody is looking for information on some school in America. Lord Kyler 21:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The recently-added controversy section establishes a degree of notability. Cosmo0 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep based on precedent that large public high schools are notable per se, and per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian 21:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I agree with TonyBallioni and RJHall that, with rare exceptions, articles should not be nominated for deletion on the day they were written. When they are, the response should be different, hence my vote to speedy keep. Zagalejo has already shown that this high school is notable. I also think it's fine to have articles on many high schools, just as paper encyclopedias have articles on many countries. Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia and isn't bound by the space limitations of most encyclopedias. Valerius 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost all high schools are probably notable if sufficient work is done, and thus would justify us in simply saying they all are, and avoiding these debates. This article is one of those that shows it--the two separate religious controversies are sufficient for notability. And one clearly notable alumnus. Probably more to say if they keep at it.DGG (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result of the discussion: I've redirected the article to Warner Robins, Georgia--JForget 23:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Robins Middle School[edit]

nn school, per wikipedia not a directory Phgao 15:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable middle school TonyBallioni 15:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertions of notability in the article. Cogswobble talk 16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Won the Georgia School of Excellence Award in 2001.[21]--Sethacus 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a school that has not won an award at some time or other would be more notable.--victor falk 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the diference is, this is a statewide award.--Sethacus 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our own sources, there are 143 schools in Georgia. Statistically, a school will win an award every 143 years. Will Warner Robins Middle School be notable in 2144 for having won an award in 2001? If not, why is it notable now? Remember that "notability is permanent". Or else, we'd have to delete schools, in 2011, if we said that winning an award ten years ago. Winning several years in a row, on the other hand, would probably confer permanent notability.--victor falk 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is a list of such schools (Georgian schools which have not ever won the GSoE). CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CSD/A7: no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of yellow pages entries about schools. --victor falk 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DIR Carter | Talk to me 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need an article on every school in America. Just because a thousand similar articles haven't been deleted yet is no reason to keep.--Bedivere 21:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-notability in relation to category-specific guidelines can be a reason to delete, but this doesn't seem to be the issue here. It isn't clear that the topic fails the criteria found in WP:CORP, such as organizational characteristics (e. g., longevity, size) and coverage in secondary sources. The article already mentions an award. It has been suggested that the award is won frequently, but no actual evidence for this has been given. Finally, membership in a category, in this case schools, is not a basis for delete decisions. See WP:ALLORNOTHING. Valerius 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it should be kept because it just might be notable. Hmm. As far as the Georgia Schools of Excellence award, it's given out to many schools each year. [22] shows that in the last two decades it was given to around 20 schools in the Atlanta area alone. It's not a big deal to win. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 13:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Brockington[edit]

Non-notable bio of local television personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 20:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO & per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This July 2, 2006 article covers her in depth. Her claim to fame might be that she was the second African-American to reach the top anchor chair at Central Florida News 13. Her career movements are noted by news sources. (e.g., 1987, Brockington filling in for Andrea Coudriet, who is on maternity leave) (1988, Mora will appear with noon anchor Jackie Brockington), (1989, "WESH-Channel 2's 5:30 entry, Central Florida Live, which has languished in the ratings with John McIntire and Jackie Brockington as co-hosts" and "co-anchor Jackie Brockington announced her resignation (effective Sept. 29) by mutual agreement with station management."), (1991, "From TV's WESH to WMFE Jackie Brockington, former news anchor at WESH-Channel 2, has joined WMFE-FM (90.7)"), (1996, Orlando, Flordia new events coordinator), (1998, "the town's public relations coordinator and events manager."), (1999 - chairwoman The African American Chamber of Commerce of Central Florida), (2001, "bravo to Central Florida News 13 for hiring 52-year-old Jackie Brockington as its new weekend evening anchor."). -- Jreferee t/c 23:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Second A-A anchor at one TV station is not a claim to uniqueness let alone notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Middle School[edit]

nn school, per wikipedia not a directory Phgao 15:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable TonyBallioni 15:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD/A7: no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of yellow pages entries about schools. --victor falk 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, but, hey, Oprah's boyfriend visited once.--Sethacus 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DIR Carter | Talk to me 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my comments above.--Bedivere 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another non notable school. --Stormbay 20:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mossy Creek Middle School[edit]

nn school, per wikipedia not a directory Phgao 15:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable middle school TonyBallioni 15:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD/A7: no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of yellow pages entries about schools. --victor falk 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.--Sethacus 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my comments above.--Bedivere 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another non notable school. --Stormbay 20:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaire Middle School[edit]

nn school, per wikipedia not a directory Phgao 15:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD/A7: no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of yellow pages entries about schools. --victor falk 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sethacus 17:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 20:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my comments above.--Bedivere 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another non notable school. --Stormbay 20:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Elementary School[edit]

nn primary school Phgao 15:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable elementary school TonyBallioni 15:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD/A7: no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of yellow pages entries about schools. --victor falk 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 20:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my comments above.--Bedivere 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another non notable school. We need a better process for these probable removals. --Stormbay 20:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Arthur Elementary School[edit]

nn primary school Phgao 15:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable elementary school TonyBallioni 15:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD/A7: no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of yellow pages entries about schools. --victor falk 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my comments above.--Bedivere 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Victor. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaire Elementary School[edit]

nn primary school Phgao 15:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable in the least bit TonyBallioni 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD/A7: no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of yellow pages entries about schools. --victor falk 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my comments above.--Bedivere 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another non notable school. --Stormbay 20:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (defaulting to keep). While the keep arguments are affected by the lack of reliable sources, and possible single purpose accounts, most who argued for deletion or merely commented were also open to a merge in which case a redirect with the edit history should remain in place. Interested editors may want to continue looking for editorial solutions. --Tikiwont 12:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwaz territory[edit]

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

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

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

Delete This territory does not actually exist (WP:HOAX) in a political sense - it is not recognized by any authority. If you note these maps: [23] [24] [25] you can clearly see this. Rather, the article is discussing a non-autonomous ethnic group within Iran, not a region or territory nor group of territories that are officially acknolwledged.[26] Since the minority group (not the territory) does exist, however, it might be prudent or advisable to ~~create a new article for them on Ahwazi people by merging~~ merge whatever information can be cited by reliable sources to Iranian Arabs. Strothra 15:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

m per nom. Carter | Talk to me 20:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted". This is not the place to discuss editorial decisions like renaming or merging. Pax:Vobiscum 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually merge/redirect is an appropriate suggestion to be discussed at AfD. Gnan garra 08:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merging can be advised for an article nominated for deletion, but it is not appropriate to nominate an article for merging using AfD (which is what was done here since "Delete and Merge" in reality equals "Merge"). The nominator obviously thinks that the article contains information worth merging, and in that case the issue should have be solved on the talk page (and I see no attempts to do that). However, the article is obviously in very bad shape (in terms of language and sourcing) so I'm going to withdraw my suggestion to keep it. Pax:Vobiscum 14:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my position. My point is that the article about the region should be deleted, but the article brings up the potential for a new article on an ethnic minority that does exist in reality. So what little information in the article that exists concerning the minority group should be salvaged, but that is a minor point when compared to the fact that the article itself is about a territory which does not exist. An AfD is appropriate in this case. --Strothra 18:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It's a distinct territory and is an encyclopedic topic. AfDs are not for discussions for merging. --Oakshade 23:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Neutral - I just don't know right now. --Oakshade 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

er, perhaps I wasn't clear. The territory doesn't actually exist (see the maps provided above - note that there is, in fact, a city named Ahvaz) - ie WP:HOAX, but the ethnic minority does.--Strothra 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly redirect and merge anything appropriate to a new article like Ahwazi people, per nom. But the additional problem with this article, for me at least, is that I understand very little of what it says. I would start copyediting it but I really don't understand it and so don't know how to fix it. Sarah 06:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I dont see it as a complete hoax it reads more like a legend created from possibly factual information to support the political organisation AL-Ahwaz Revolutionary Council. It fails notability as sourcing is only from the a primary source. LookingAL-Ahwaz Revolutionary Council website which even if it could be considered WP:RS its still into sources for Khūzestān Province which is said "to be a part of the territory" I'd expect to find referencing to support the existence(even historically) of Ahwaz territory. Gnan garra 08:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is premature.There is no attempt at talk page discussion.There seems to be some sourcing available such as [27] and [28]. Israel was not on official maps for many years yet the territory existed. Meganslaw 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is the user's first and only contribution to Wiki. Also, neither of those are reliable sources. All they prove is that the Ahwazi ethnic group allegedly exists. There is, however, no Ahwazi territory. Such an article suggests some form of official recognition or autonomy when in fact there is none. Further, those sources are not reliable per WP:RS. --Strothra 21:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the edit checking comment? I edited often on indigenous peoples in the past but just felt like a new user name; good grief. Meganslaw 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization qualifies as WP:RS I think and they show the territory on a map here. Meganslaw 22:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming your not a WP:SOCK can you please identify your old user name so that it can be blocked from editing. 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note The Nom. should explain why he feels that the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization is not WP:RS (as he states above) and if he accepts them as WP:RS then that clearly proves WP:HOAX does not apply so that inference should be dropped. The article's originator clearly worked hard on the beginning of the article and it seems to me the rest of us could help get it into shape. Meganslaw 16:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNPRO would be a primary source as all the information is supplied by its members, additionally its fails WP:RS as the information isnt peer reviewed the information on unpro is sourced from AL-Ahwaz Revolutionary Council. Gnan garra 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'll just accept that then. Thanks for the response. Meganslaw 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough information here that a retitle and re-emphasis would be simpler than a deletion. DGG (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the information in the article is verifiable from reliable sources since the territory does not actually exist. --Strothra 12:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments If the nom's position was strong he wouldn't need to repeat it every time someone votes to "keep" the article. Also, he quotes WP:RS as if it is set in stone but that is not the case at all as can be clearly seen from the banner at the top of WP:RS"However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Is the nom saying his only objection is the lack of what he considers 1 reliable source? Here's one right here;"Ahwaz was an autonomous Arab territory" And is the nom. an expert on this subject wherein he can declare that "the territory does not actually exist"? Two people voted "keep" and backed off that position but it still shows more weight toward "keep". An anon in Australia has loaded up the article with tags [29] yet done no work on the article and the only 2 people who voted to delete are in Australia; you'd think the article is worth trying to fix if it's worth tagging. There definitely is a territory which seems to be called Ahwaz or Khuzestan[30] and there definitely is the Ahwaz people and many references to Ahwaz territory [31]Michael2314 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second account to be created and then make their first edit to this AfD. account creation and contibs. Gnan garra 01:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to focus on the content of the edits rather than who makes them. However, if you wish to analyze where the extreme lobbying is coming from; there are 21 edits in this AFD; 5 by the nom.; 5 by you; and 2 by me. 8 Users have edited and 2(25%) of them (the nom and yourself) have 50% of the edits. Also, do you know who the anon in Australia is who loaded up the article with tags after this AFD ran into trouble? Michael2314 16:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another anon added the tags before I added the AfD [32]. I actually removed the tags accidentally in the redirect and AfD processes. The previous anon simply restored them. Further, your edit history is not tangential to this discussion. The opinions of established editors weighs far more heavily than new users and anons, particularly single-purpose accounts, during an AfD discussion. --Strothra 16:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you square that with Ad hominem? Actually, drawing attention to the characteristic of an Editor being new or anon seems to me to be a perfect example of an Ad hominem argument: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claims is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject." Michael2314 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "argument" was addressed in addition to pointing out the fact that you are new editor with no previous edit history. Simply making an observation does not constitute an attack. --Strothra 17:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand; I am saying that you and Gnangarra are using a classic ad-hominem argument, I am not making any such argument, and I italics the part about "characteristic" not the part about attack. Also, the big negative Banner you put over this AFD seems distractive to constructive discussion as well. Maybe we can take this discussion to the talk page? Michael2314 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Micheal my comment is only in response to your "ad-hominem" comment about where people live diff. lets look at your diffs the one marked 7 is only about an editor adding maintenance tags so it offers nothing to verify the existence of the region. The one marked 8 is from encyclopedia britannica it abouts Khuzestan not Ahwaz territory it doesnt even refer to Ahwaz in any form, we already have a corresponding article called Khūzestān Province. Number 9 a yahoo search with 22 hits but when you add "-wikipedia" it gets reduced to 12 and these are from al-ahwaz.com in various langauges. Therefore all you diffs show is that the article is a Legend to created by al-ahwaz revolutionary council to it some political credibility/legitimacy. The other article you referred to is an advertisement piece for Nir Boms from Benador Associates which supplies speakers for events, radio and television. Most interesting piece in the "article" is that he claims Al-Jazeera has reported about Ahwez yet I'm unable to find anything about them independent of Al-ahwez.com this only goes to further indicate that the actual claimed territory based on this legend is not notable with the historical legend itself being a hoax. Gnan garra 06:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete: As already proposed both here and on article's page I think merging it to other articles (particularly Al Ahwaz) is the proper action. Article as its own seems better to be deleted per above reasons.Farmanesh 01:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Perdue Primary School[edit]

nn primary school Phgao 15:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable elementary school TonyBallioni 15:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD/A7: no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of yellow pages entries about schools. --victor falk 17:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my comments above.--Bedivere 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another non notable school. We need a better process for these probable removals. --Stormbay 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 07:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coomacka Island[edit]

An article on a series of books published through the vanity press Trafford Publishing. References are limited to customer reviews, the the series website, and Trafford itself, otherwise no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BK. Victoriagirl 15:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, self published books that don't meet WP:BK. Bláthnaid 19:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilltop Elementary School[edit]

nn school Phgao 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this school even exists - (see this refined Google search). Although I tend not to support the deletion of school articles (because most are naturally notable due to media coverage and books) I can't find any backup even on the internet for this one. Lra drama 15:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it may exist on closer looking at the results, but it's definately non-notable as of yet. Lra drama 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable elementary school TonyBallioni 15:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD/A7: no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of yellow pages entries about schools. --victor falk 17:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N Carter | Talk to me 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my comments above.--Bedivere 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another non notable school. We need a better process for these probable removals. --Stormbay 20:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 14:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Brewer[edit]

Unsourced article on a non-notable local journalist. --Finngall ^talk 15:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even the newspaper he writes for doesn't have an article. This journalist completely fails WP:BIO. He's only a local writer for what seems to be a non-notable paper. Lra drama 15:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N Carter | Talk to me 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Games featured on Code Monkeys[edit]

Delete - prod removed by anon without explanation, which IMHO should be considered an invalid edit but that's neither here nor there. This fails WP:N as there are no sources that are about the various games that are mentioned in passing as jokes in the course of an episode of the show. If any of these games have any actual significance as opposed to being throwaway gags then they should be covered in the episode section in the main article, which is hardly so lengthy as to warrant anything being split off it. No justification for a separate article to record trivial sight gags. Otto4711 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see how this list could be notable enough for inclusion in the Code Monkeys article, let alone for its own article. Also, the article doesn't have much potential for treating its topic from a real-world perspective, which means it can't meet the fiction style guideline. EALacey 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This show is not notable enough plus has not had a long enough to tun require multiple articles. Ridernyc 23:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Paragon Software GmbH[edit]

The result was Delete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable software company per WP:CORP. Article has had no independent sources nor secondary coverage to show notability since its creation in Jan 2007. A search throws up mainly hits for free downloads of its disk management products; the most popular one, Paragon Partition Manager, was twice speedied and recreated back in March and is now salted as a result. Thomjakobsen 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. -- Satori Son 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articleis quite normal, why delete? didn't notice any kind of advertising there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.68.2 (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. --Karnesky 15:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP and above. If "Paragon Software effectively responds...and supports growth in product development" is not advertising I'm not sure what is. shoeofdeath 17:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 21:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kay.K.BayZ[edit]

Blatant self-promotion but the guy is protesting notability so let us give him the consesus view. -- RHaworth 14:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No external sources present, fails WP:MUSIC.--Rise Above The Vile 14:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definately fails WP:MUSIC. Very few hits on Google, most of them coming from Myspace. Infact, with MySpace being the top external link, it is an ominous sign of this artist being completely non-notable. It looks like an article written by the subject of its content too (i.e. the artist himself). Lra drama 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD's G4 and A7. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost nothing outside myspace, except a profile on the website for "Australia's premier award for unsigned artists", but that event doesn't take place until next month.Obviously promotional. Should be speedied if it is, indeed, a true recreation of deleted material.--Sethacus 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't say A7 here because there's assertion of notability, but no demonstration - thus the delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Keb25 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4 Carter | Talk to me 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BLP and WP:MUSIC, which is sad, because he might be good. Bearian 21:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your concerns. Thanks for allowing the opportunity to prove he is notable. Kay.K.BayZ is notable through his work with 6hr Sundae. His real name is Kudret(Kudy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KayKBayZ (talk • contribs) 08:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Just some background info: 6hr Sundae is a popular rock band in Turkey and have released video clips, done TV interviews with big stations and played at major concerts. Kay.K is a lead singer, producer, songwriter and drummer of the band. Notability of 6hr Sundae: Due to the continually updating nature of the music industry, songs don't stay in the charts for long and websites are updated to reflect the new changes. The 6hr Sundae (known as 6 Saat overseas) album was released early this year and has already placed and been removed from the charts. Therefore it's extremely difficult to find currently live links. However, we have attached a few from a radio station and some screen dumps to prove the success of the band:

Radio Charts: http://www.radiooscar.net/muzik_haber_detaylari.asp?haber=847 http://www.radiooscar.net/top20.asp?gelen=148 http://www.radiooscar.net/top20.asp?gelen=146
Billboard Magazine: http://www.6hrsundae.com/media/billboard.jpg
Dream TV Website Screen Dump: http://www.6hrsundae.com/media/dreamTv.jpg
Rock Fest 2007: http://www.zeytinlirockfest.com/ (navigate to "Gruplar" then "6 Saat")

I understand that YouTube and the bands website are not considered as solid evidence, however there are many video clips and TV interviews posted there proving the popularity and success, hence notability, of the band. Kay.K.BayZ is the producer of the album, a songwriter, lead singer and drummer in the band. I have read through the Wikipedia criteria ("composers and lyricists" and "musician and artist") and believe that Kay.K qualifies under each/any of these:

-Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria
-Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.
-Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list.
-Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.

The Kay.K.BayZ website is new. Kay.K is more a record producer than an artist...And this should also explain why most links are to and from MySpace. I am prepared to remove any part of the article that may sound like advertising/spam to make sure we are providing information about Kay.K and not advertising him. Regards, Kudret KayKBayZ 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, feel free to create an article for that band and mention your name there. As for yourself, on wikipedia, notability is not inherited. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the prompt response. As you suggested, there will soon be an article about 6hr Sundae on Wikipedia as well. And ofcourse as you mentioned, notability is not inherited and none of the other 6hr Sundae members will have a Wikipedia entry just yet. Kay.K however, according to the criteria for "composers and lyricists" is notable (see above). And if you feel any part of the article is self-promotion and does not fit in with the Wikipedia Encyclopedia format please let me know so we can make the required alterations. Kind Regards, Kudret KayKBayZ 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find any statement to assist your claim, could you specify? Thanks. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 16:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - tack on WP:COI. Major self promotion here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Firstly, I'd like to point out that this is meant to be an informative article and if in any way it comes across as self promotion please let me know which sections so we can fix them immediately. I think we agree that 6hr Sundae is notable due to their popularity and success overseas? Well my interpretation of the WP:MUSIC Criteria for composers and lyricists is that Kay.K is notable because he:

-Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist for 6hr Sundae
-Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by 6hr Sundae
-Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer fir 6hr Sundae
-Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist for 6hr Sundae

I can send you a copy of the CD Cover with the credits to prove this if it will help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KayKBayZ (talk • contribs) 03:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if the article was re-angled to clarify that Kay.K.BayZ is a Composer and Lyricist instead of taking the angle of artist?

Kind Regards,

Kudret KayKBayZ 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. i don't think that would particularly help. tomasz. 19:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still no notability. Cap'n Walker 16:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things that I am having trouble understanding. Can you please clarify to me why this article doesn't qualify in a little more detail than "sounds like self promotion" or "still no notability"?

To my understanding and interpretation of the Wikipedia criteria Kay.K.BayZ qualifies. We already agree that 6hr Sundae is notable right? Well under the criteria for composers and lyricists Kay.K is notable. I think my interpretation of that section is accurate.

I have explained why web presence for key terms "Kay.K.BayZ" is small at the moment but have told you that under his real name "6 Sundae Kudret" there are a couple of pages of links. Perhaps I should include that in the main article so people know who it's about?

I appreciate the work you are doing to keep Wikipedia advertising free. I hope you don't misunderstand my tone in these discussions... :) Kudret KayKBayZ 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this building per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. John254 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westbourne Studios[edit]

I do not believe that this meets notability standards. This "office building" doesn't seem to be important at all. The only way the article may assert its importance, is saying that "a highly intelligent use of an awkward site, and a way of looking at property development afresh" and "one of Britain's most imaginative new office complexes", however, I don't think that makes this building notable. Rjd0060 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article is sourced to The Guardian, it's pretty rare for architecture to make its way into the mainstream press in the first place, so this in itself perhaps suggests a degree of notability. A very quick Google news archive search] suggests taht additional press coverage is also available (not all directed at the arhitecture I'll grant). I've brought the article and this afd to the attention of WP:Architecture as they are probably better placed to judge the importance of this building. David Underdown 15:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below for additional sourcing. David Underdown 20:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as interesting isn't the same thing as notable. Maybe if it wins a UK architecture award, then it's not just innovative but recognized by peers. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article in a major national newspaper establishes notability. There is no requirement to have it recognized by peers.--Bedivere 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What? I had an article in the Detroit Free Press, which is a very notable newspaper, however that article then became published in USA Today, so since those are both notable national (USA Today is more notable on a national level) newspapers, I should have an article about myself? - Rjd0060 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should. Who are you? --Oakshade 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely not a notable person. I was just involved in a certain project, however the article was more about me and my involvement. - Rjd0060 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a couple more sources via http://www.newsuk.co.uk and added them to the article. This is a subscription service, but most UK library members will probably find that they have access to this or a similar service via their council library service. It seems to me that the building is becoming a notable arts venue if nothing else, there were 98 hits in total (including the three used as sources), most of which referred to it as a venue. You will probably find the first paras of the two new stories via the Google link I gave above. This would seem to make it pass the "multiple independent sources" required for notability (and which are not present in your case, since it was the same article re-printed by the sound of it). Would you like to re-consider this nomination now? I appreciate that Portobello Film Festival is a horrible substub at the moment, but it returns over 70,000 ghits, so I think that's probably notable too. David Underdown 20:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rjd0060, the reason I asked was because I was involved in an AfD debate where the nom made a similar comparison to himself ("I've been written about, but do I deserve an aritlce?") and I later learned that guy actually did have a Wikipedia article about him. Not only has he made no efforts to delete it, he's made edits/improvements on it. Not saying you're guilty of the same double standard, but it's curious when editors who qualify for Wikipedia article inclusion make the argument that they're not for the purpose of deleting articles. --Oakshade 20:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, that is really unfair. Most people I recall who have made that argument and who probably are qualified for inclusion are simply modest or have very high inclusion standards. There has been at least one case where the person was sufficiently notable that such an article was written and kept in spite of his/her initial objections. But this can only be done if they use their real name--it's not right to ask anybody to do that. (Incidentally, one article reprinted in another paper is not really 2 reliable sources)DGG (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Guardian article is very in depth and it's a very reliable source. --Oakshade 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Phgao 04:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic Commando 2[edit]

~~per wikipedia not a crystal ball Phgao 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)~~ I admit a mistake, I apologise. But when I tagged it was like this [33], but I still should have checked. Speedy Keep. Closed. Phgao 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRYSTAL BALL?! IT HAS AN OFFICIAL SITE! JAF1970 18:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The games is official announced in almost all gaming sites. --SkyWalker 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't remove templates. Phgao 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not remove the templates. --SkyWalker 10:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as announced game in production. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - it's a major announcement from Capcom, it has an official site. How much more do you NEED?! SHEESH. JAF1970 18:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. It very clearly exists. Rebochan 18:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Its pretty obvious this game exists. It has its own official website for petes sake! DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though I do suggest the name be changed as the game does not appear to be called Bionic Commando 2. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - because Bionic Commando 2 redirects to Bionic Commando (remake). JAF1970 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is there no other article this could possibly go into? Keep it fine, but is this really very encyclopedic? Carter | Talk to me 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not a platformer like the original. Merge? Why not merge Ninja Gaiden II and Ninja Gaiden 2 while you're at it? (laugh) Furthermore, this is being done by a completely new developer (GRIN). JAF1970 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even having this discussion?

The game has just been announced. It has an official site, to boot.
This is not a platformer at all. It is already vastly different than the NES game, just from screenshots alone. Let's not ignore that a notable first person shooter developer is working on it. Honestly, does THIS seem remotely like a platformer?
You're going to have to create this page again if you delete it.
Phgao's entire reason for this was "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Hello? It's a real game.

This is a waste of time, seriously. Onanistic, to be frank. From Phgao's reason for speedy deletion - he thought the game didn't exist - remove the speedy deletion tag. Sheesh. JAF1970 21:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per above. This is the type of Afd that makes deletionists look bad. Be responsible for what you nominate next time ok? (Google search, talk first to the creator or the involved Wikiproject, and have at least an idea on what you are nominating first)--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 10:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Field[edit]

Unnotable, unsourced high school football stadium and WP:CRYSTAL mentions of future construction VegitaU 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it's real, or will someday be real, it's a high-school football field. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Notability. Non-notable, local stadium. Lra drama 15:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete I added this article. This link will take you to proof that Bruce Field exists (7th paragraph):[[34]]; and this link will take you to proof that Pickens High is getting a new stadium: [[35]]. Plus their is Picture of the stadium on the article, and a section of Wikipedia that is made for high school football stadiums, so this article has credibility and is allowed on this website even if it is only well-known in Upstate South Carolina. C. Gerstle 18:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can fit very well in the article about the school. DGG (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This is verifiable information, so it can be posted, plus I added a link to the article on the high school itself. C. Gerstle 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You don't need to voice your opposition twice. Obviously, as you are the only article contributor, you don't want it deleted, but clearly, this article is unnotable and unnecessary. -- VegitaU 22:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling David Allan[edit]

No clear notability is presented. Article appears to be written as an advertisement for this individual's groups, businesses and political/religious views, none of which show any amount of notability. Only political office this individual has held was "County Chair of the Independent American Party from 1990 to 1991," a party that, as far as I can discern, was founded in 1998. Individual's writings appear to be self-published and the majority of the information present is sourced by websites owned by the individual or groups the individual founded. Only third-party source provided (this) only confirms that he was a speaker at an internet blogging conference. I must also point out that the vast majority of the article was written by Sterling David Allan himself. Rise Above The Vile 13:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete (if not speedy delete) - non notable anti-wikipedia spammer whose entry seems purely designed to create false credibiity. B1atv 13:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well short of WP:BIO -- unless his fringe theories have been written about in independent and credible sources. --Dhartung | Talk 13:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanispamcruftification.--victor falk 14:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitials[edit]

Extremely limited notability. G-hits = 38. Currently lacks WP:RS or WP:V for the info. My opinion is that it's not notable enough but I will bow to other opinions. Pig^man 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Radio Times (it's their in-house competition). No outside notability, but a potential search term. --Dhartung | Talk 14:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Wayne Hall[edit]

Minor actor with a number of small roles. I can't see notability here with only 17 small parts to his career. "Tree in neck" character is nice though. Almost did a speedy on him but I decided to get more opinions. Pig^man 00:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability to come. The two appearances on Carnivale were enticing, but our Characters of Carnivàle article doesn't list him at all, by which I infer it was not an important role. --Dhartung | Talk 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re-create when and if he's notable.--Bedivere 21:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hall won critical acclaim for his performance in a play called Three Lefts and co-starred in the hit series Desperate Housewives. This is already covered in the article and is clear evidence for notability, albeit modest notability. Hall is notable, and this article should be kept. Valerius 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a bunch of small parts. His appearance on Desparate Housewives was just that, an appearance and not "co-starring". -- Whpq 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspar Põlluäär[edit]

Fictional page, very likely created by Kaspar Põlluäär himself. No information whatsoever about him playing football - and A/C Milan bit is a pure fantasy, of course. Should be speedy deleted. -- Sander Säde 03:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the bit about playing for Milan is true, which is doubtful and hard to confirm anyway, playing for a notable club's youth team at the age of 14 does not confer notability ChrisTheDude 07:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable! Hasn't played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 08:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably a hoax, even if a real player he is non-notable. GiantSnowman 18:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:BIO plus I tagged it up Carter | Talk to me 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:V and probable hoax. --Sc straker 11:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no appearances in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO, even if the player is at Milan, which can't be verified, another reason for deletion. robwingfield ^«T•C» 08:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert T. Johnson[edit]

NN, Wikipedia is not a memorial Toddstreat1 22:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:BIO. Very few Google hits it seems too. Lra drama 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well below WP:BIO. This slightly reworded obituary comes from a familiar source. --Dhartung | Talk 14:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a non-notable person, but it is better to delete per WP:NOT. Carlosguitar 21:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will reconsider if sources are found. W.marsh 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanakuk Kamps[edit]

This was a contested PROD brought to DRV and restored automatically. The article has no reliable sources currently, fails WP:CORP, and sounds slightly promotional in tone. Delete. Xoloz 13:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - They are pretty large, and they operate throughout the United States. It sounds slightly promotional, I agree, but it has also been around for a long time. I give it a weak keep for now...it just needs some independent sources. It also doesn't completely fail WP:CORP. Mike6271 02:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, until or unless, independent reliable sources are found. Everything I saw in a quick google search was either related, a blog type source, or a directory entry. No substantial coverage. Eluchil404 07:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 not notable. Formatting also suggests a copypaste. Bearian 22:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Rawat[edit]

Looks non-notable to me, reads like an ad Calliopejen1 12:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 292 unique Google hits when I searched for "Rajeev Rawat"; this figure includes others with that name. This mention in an article is the closest I came to a notability proof and I don't think several paragraphs is sufficient, especially as they are not discussing Rawat but rather Microsoft's PerformancePoint Server. There's not enough stuff about Mr. Rawat to write an article that meets WP:RS and WP:V. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Bedivere 21:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BT Home Hub[edit]

It's a completely non-special wireless router undeserving of its own encyclopedia entry. Propose to redirect to wireless router/residential gateway KelleyCook 12:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are millions of these routers in use. BT used to be called British Telecom and its the largest telco in the UK. They send out this router to all new customers and its featured on loads of TV commercials. The customers will wish they didn't get it of course because its an awful one. Mine is in the cupboard and that is where its staying! Operating 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its a pity the router itself can't be deleted ;) Operating 13:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect. Completely undistinguished bit of electronics. BT is no gateway to notability. -- BPMullins | Talk 13:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not really, BT has spent millions developing this 'undistinguished bit of electronics'. It lets you make VOIP telephone calls, watch TV on demand, gives wireless internet access and interchanges with your mobile phone. Operating 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable because of its dominance in the UK market where it is positioned as a hub for a variety of services - it's not just another router. References in mainstream media are thus easy to find (found a mention in the Telegraph in seconds.) Colonel Warden 14:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- From that very first google reference[36]. "BT Home Hub is actually a re-branded version of the Thomson Speedtouch 7G broadband router." It is nothing special. -- KelleyCook 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You appear to be in the USA and so not a relevant reader of this article. You seem to find parochial matters such as your home state and its highways to be notable when others might consider them to be 'nothing special'. Colonel Warden 14:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Googling BT Home Hub returns 2 million hits. Which is what you'd expect for a router in millions of homes. Its not just notable because of that, it is also lets you make VOIP telephone calls, with a second number and bill. It also infuriates lots of people and the article is needed for people to grasp its difficulty/stupidity. Operating 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's more coverage in a major newspaper. Colonel Warden 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment We already have your opinion, though I feel you've added nothing to prove this hubs notability. Smarter Wikieditors also can see that one third of your short edit history [37] has been devoted to voting "KEEP" for various AFDs. -- KelleyCook 15:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You say that like it's a bad thing. Got your number. Colonel Warden 15:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. A smart wikieditor wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion. Operating 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment He's pointing out national newspaper coverage of the "revolutionary broadband package" built around this router. "Smarter wikieditors" will see this as a helpful contribution to the discussion — roughly how many edits are required before you consider a user's arguments worth paying attention to? Thomjakobsen 23:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of evidence for notability.--Bedivere 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to its market dominance, there's been a notable controversy with the Free Software Foundation over its alleged breach of the GPL. Coverage at The Register, a major IT news site: [38] [39], and more coverage on the discovery by two researchers of a major security flaw which is exposing users of "one of the UK's most popular home routers" (2 million homes according to the second link): [40] [41] Thomjakobsen 22:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are thousands of ISPs in this world. If they all have a router page, then WikiPedia will become overloaded with useless info. What is the point of a page for the specific router anyway? It's not like that WikiPedia is here to provide technical support for the routers. RASR 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal Even if this were happening, which I doubt, Wikipedia is not paper. Colonel Warden 07:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This router is notable in the UK. Axl 18:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why destroy the information. Wikipedia is not running out of space. If you do not wish to read the article then don't, but there is no reason to prevent those who do wish to read it from doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.134.215 (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please keep this piece of junk listed - just to warn people not to get sucked in to buying it. It is the worst and most troublesome piece of kit out there. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.142.36 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable router in UK market. According to November 2007 Which?, BT is now Britain's leading broadband provider. Gandalf61 17:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy Sparks[edit]

Article on fictional character that has absolutely no impact on gameplay (its one of several "skins" for the players avatar), likely to never have notability and written solely in-universe; article written as a real person's bio. MASEM 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Non-notable and completely original research. As mentioned above, the only purpose of the characters in the game is like having a different "skin" for your guitar. Honestly, if you took out the OR, all you could really say is "He's the blonde guy with the codpiece". This isn't like some RPG character or even a normal videogame character...it's just the person you select to mimic the player. The characters in Guitar Hero do not have unique personalities (or any...they are just on screen to give the appearance of a band), abilities or backstory. Smashville 15:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Forgive me if this isn't the proper way to post in this disscussion, I'm relativly new)

The information aquired about the character in question is not from original research and is taken from the game's manuals and contained text. The characters do have a backing story in the game and are notable enough for wikipedia as the main articles about the game contain no information on said characters. I changed the article from a short spam-like article into one that actually contained useful details if you'll look back in the logs. -- Ragehammer

Even if it's not original research, it is a fictional article primarily written in an in-universe manner (that is, using only primary sources with no secondary sources for support) about a non-notable aspect of the Guitar Hero games. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. --MASEM 12:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely based on original research (apparent in the Appearance section; "He slightly resembles David Bowie in the face" ... "It has also been presumed he was based off of Alice Cooper or the White Stripes.", etc), does not follow WP:WAF. Not enough out-of-universe context to warrant an article. Marasmusine 12:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No obvious notability or out-of-universe context. OR throughout. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For the reasons above. --Ouzo 13:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 07:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Bunnskog[edit]

This is a self-evident autobiography by Mangebunna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka Ligetissan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), per the caption of Image:M bunnskog.jpg. A Google search turns up fewer than 100 unique hits, mainly his own words (e.g. a comment in a BBC feedback forum), the main source of information seems to be Wikipedia (in a couple of languages). Nothing on Google News, nothing in Google Scholar, nothing in Google Books. I know from personal experience that sourcing classical musicians is difficult; in this case not even the subject himself appears to be able to provide any reliable sources, unfortunately. Cruftbane 12:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Bedivere 21:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, blatant spam. —Verrai 21:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Indian[edit]

This looked to me like a clear candidate for ((db-spam)) and ((db-web)). But someone disagrees so we have to drag it here. "Feels like a real newspaper" indeed - the pixels rub off on to your fingers if you touch the screen presumably? -- RHaworth 12:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam is right. And it's not the first to feel like a real newspaper: The Framley Examiner has been around for years. Cruftbane 12:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam, OR. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 13:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an advert. Lra drama 13:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd never heard of it, but now I'm thinking that it's "the only genuine e-newspaper that looks, reads and feels like an actual newspaper." The WP:SPAM must be working. --Evb-wiki 14:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete: evidently spam page. Martial BACQUET 14:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mats hedberg[edit]

Previously deleted (by the proposed deletion process) due to insufficient notability - the reason was "Not notable. Most probably created by the subject of the article himself, created similar article on svwiki." - Mike Rosoft 11:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. All Google hits are non-reliable and don't really help to establish anything. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How major are the labels "Emme, "pagina 3" and "S3L" in Italy? Are these just vanity imprints? Torc2 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The hits are indeed unreliable. It appears non notable. --Stormbay 20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pixilang[edit]

This software fails WP:PRODUCT; no independent sources are cited (all sources are project web pages). PROD was contested per comment on the talk page. Note that the article was created apparently in WP:COI by User:NightRadio, who seems to be the creator of the software. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:PRODUCT. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough, COI as mentioned. • Lawrence Cohen 14:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut ghose[edit]

You'd think someone with a resume like this could muster more than 2 ghits. But no, which leads me to think that this either is an unverifiable and non-notable biography or a hoax. MER-C 10:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HeadCount Corporation[edit]

Spammy article that fails WP:CORP. Article is unverifiable with about 62 unique ghits and zero third party reliable sources. MER-C 10:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of secondary source indicates this company is not notable.--Gavin Collins 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The What Ifs[edit]

NN band. Ridernyc 10:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pizza War should also be included in this nomination.Ridernyc 10:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if they are not notable? Delete per nom. Neither the band's article or their 27-minute rock opera is supported by WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 07:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Speck[edit]

No reason this should have it own article. It's covered in the main Hedwig and the Angry Inch article. Ridernyc 10:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Searching for a character in the play is not implausible. Everything important about the plot appears to be adequately covered in the main article already. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sjakkalle.--Bedivere 21:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 07:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HoMosaic[edit]

Non-notable festival, being created only last year is a red flag. Article is unverifiable, with about 67 unique ghits and no third-party reliable sources. MER-C 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources, not verifiable, no evidence of notability. The hosting organisation (Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center) seems to be notable, though, so perhaps some information in this article could be merged into that article. Melsaran (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable, not sourced. Neozoon 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Parlato[edit]

I will start by listing the numerous policies/guidelines that this article fails to meet: 1) WP:AUTO and WP:COI--the article was created by its subject. 2) WP:NPOV, specifically WP:PEACOCK and WP:COATRACK--the first sentence: Frank Parlato (b. 1955) is considered to be one of, if not the world’s leading authority..., an obvious use of peacock words. Also, a majority of the article is not about the subject, thereby making the article a coatrack. 3) WP:OR--the article is comprised entirely of original research. 4) WP:BIO--while minimal notability is asserted, I see no evidence that this person has been the subject of any third-party, reliable sources.

I recognize that the first three reasons I have listed for deleting this article are, individually, not generally considered to be reasons to delete an article. However, as a whole, these three problems have made the article completely unsalvageable and it should therefore be deleted. The fourth problem I have with the article (failure to meet WP:BIO), alone, is another reason to delete this article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Claim of notability seems to be that he is the leading authority on Swami Vivekananda but Google shows three hits with both Frank and Swami Vivekanandas names. one is his wikipedia entry and the other two are his personal websites. No reliable sources. Worldfamousdirector 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PortableApps.com[edit]

Speedy deleted after having been knocked down to a tenth its size (a two-sentence stub); I undeleted and thought I'd bring it here for opinions. I really don't care which way or the other it goes. Shimgray | talk | 09:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - To me, seems just about notable enough. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Darrelljon 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Creates portable versions of well-known open-source programs. Has multiple mentions in major technology magazines, including Wired and PC Magazine. [42] --Trekkie4christ 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Same as what Trekkie4Christ said. Haseo9999 18:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Agreed with Trekkie4Christ. I'm updating the page to add more information and to make it read less like an advertisement. Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser realm[edit]

Unreferenced gamecruft neologism with no references beyond a couple of forum posts to support it. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the unsourced image and forum spam. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly neologism in nature. The use of neologism should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. There is also concerns over notability and verifiability as well in this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a cultural phenomenon and is very real, how do you prove a cultural phenomenon so fresh it can not be tracked back to anything but community discussions to ignorant people like you? Stop deleting information you do not understand, the world does go beyond your noses. [43] See for yourselves. Pangbulle 11:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand it, and while WoW is indeed a cultural phenomenon, the term this article describes appears to be made up one day, unsupported by reliable sources, and lacking any evidence of widespread usage[44] to support a even brief mention in the Realm (World of Warcraft) section of the main article, let alone an article on its own. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Article also seems to exist only to boast the one game realm mentioned, which is kind of POV. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Possibly Transwiki If any reliable sources can be found (unlikely as that may be) Transwiki to Wiktionary. If no sources can be provided delete per WP:NEO TonyBallioni 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Transwiki~~ Done. [45] Delete--victor falk 20:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO.--Bedivere 21:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense, probably a term (neologism) coined by one guild that isn't in widespread use, let alone verifiable. Melsaran (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this one line stub has insufficient content.--Gavin Collins 09:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete - although this really does need to be sourced and cleaned up. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanson clarinets[edit]

Spammy article that fails WP:CORP. Article is unverifiable, with about 59 unique ghits and zero third-party reliable coverage. MER-C 09:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article clearly fails WP:CORP. This company has not been the subject of coverage in any secondary sources which are reliable in nature. Moreover, it is difficult to verify the contents of this article, which is a very important policy of this project as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We're being too hasty with a new article. If the article's claim is true that Hanson is the largest woodwind manufacturer in the UK that's moderately notable. I could only find a few thousand google hits ([46] [47] [48]) and didn't quickly find significant independent coverage. However, it's obvious that it's a real company and that lots of people own these clarinets, saxophones, etc. It's likely that classical instrument manufactuers are along with other classical music subjects, a field with more notability than newspaper/Internet coverage. It would be a little perverse that a company sits so long on "articles to be created" (Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-06-23#Hanson Clarinet Company) then as soon as it does it's on AFD.Wikidemo 13:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wikidemo makes a good case. Miles Naismith 17:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 07:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coruans[edit]

Generally messy and incomplete, unedited for 12 days. And if it were in a finished form, I still don't think the content is appropriate because the list is an arbitrary intersection. No sources. MER-C 09:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked over the article three times and I still have absolutely no idea what the hell I was reading. The article provides no context and consists solely of a messed up template. Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of an article I read once in a music magazine where they translated the lyrics from the Japanese releases of various Western CDs back into English with much hilarity ensuing. Having said that I can see absolutely no point to this article whatsoever, so delete ChrisTheDude 10:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up acronym for something that may have a real term associated with it. Might be a good linguistics (is that the right field?) article (if it's not original research) with some work in userspace, though possibly just trivia. Katr67 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Even though one comment doesn't really make a consensus, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they essentially fall under A7 rather than relist the AfD for more comments. Eluchil404 07:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local hero (Band)[edit]

This band fails WP:MUSIC. The only claim to notability is a contest they did not win. PROD contested without comment. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I'm closing this one as a keep - it seems to be the preferred solution of the vast majority of respondents, despite the occasionally aggressive discussion. Rebecca 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White privilege (sociology)[edit]

Note: This article was previously nominated for deletion (March 8, 2005). The result of the debate was KEEP.

Note 2: Article was tagged for proposed deletion, on April 12th, 2007. This tag was the subject of an edit war, and a discussion about deletion took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.1.139 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3: WP:SNOW

Delete An OR-ladden POV-pushing mess. Violations of WP:SYNT and WP:RS abound. Jtrainor 08:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- response i think the OR argument has been pretty well shot down. and if there is a POV problem (and i'm not granting that), then do the work and and find counterpoint arguments to balance the article. you can look stuff up on jstor, web of knowledge, or other academic search engines. but you'll find most of the articles and research that are peer reviewed do not differ significantly from the salient points of the entry. --Stoneself 19:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- response for somebody who started this you're not saying much that supports deletion... you can't just state your conclusion. you gotta show how you got there. saying the problems are "abound" isn't saying much. it takes a lot to show that an article with lots of citations is a "mess". the onus is on you. danthrax 12:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - I'm normally a strict inclusionist, and this article has a lot of sources and follows proper format, but one need only take a look at the references section to comprehend that this is an inherently POV subject. As is, I don't think this article can be salvaged - the vast majority of its supporting evidence is gleaned from sources pushing an agenda, and we're here to create an encyclopedia, not showcase individual social platforms with broad support from similar groups and organizations. I didn't even know there was a specific policy against this sort of thing (WP:SYN); just thought it was common sense. Oh well. If you take a good look at it, I'd say it fails on WP:SOAP as well. MalikCarr 11:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The wikipedia should have an article that explains this powerful social force. The article is well sourced with many foot notes. This nomination has no basis. Last time we decided to keep it. This nomination should be withdrawn. futurebird 15:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd examine those sources more closely. The vast majority of them violate WP:RS, and in addition, the further reading section makes it all the more blatantly clear that the intent of this article is to push a POV. Jtrainor 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What POV is it pushing? Can you be more specific? futurebird 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jtrainor, there is no such thing as an "intention of an article". Articles don't have intentions. People do. This article is the product of research found by various wikipedians at various times, with no single mastermind or consistent team. The "Further Reading Section" cannot be used to impugn the whole article. 95% of the books and articles from the "Further Reading Section" were added before the last PROD dispute, in April. The article was admittedly flawed back then, but it was preserved because of its clear notability. In a few short months, the article has come a long way, with much better references to support it. If the "Further Reading" section is biased, you are welcome to add or remove any reading material you wish, and then see if anyone objects/reverts. But the Further Reading Section was clearly created by a completely separate group of people than the rest of the article. Your argument, that the Further Reading Section indicates this entire article is a POV exercise, has at least one faulty premise. 67.71.1.139 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In a word, lol. Of course articles can have intentions - that's what we have WP:NPOV for. You may wish to familiarize yourself with policy a little further. That's just my advice, however. MalikCarr 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a valid construct in the social sciences and should be maintained and upgraded. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 15:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Malik Carr's reasons. Chris Buckey 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of neutrality can be improved; whether one agrees or doesn't that there is still a "white privilege", there are sociologists who argue that the same is supported by the data gathered. Mandsford 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as the only reasons given for deletion could be applied to almost any controversial article, such as Christianity. If there are problems with WP:SYN,, or POV, fix them. Murderbike 20:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn't appear possible to me. There aren't problems with WP:SYN or POV, the entire article effectively flunks both. I doubt you could find reliable sources with a NPOV to really support this very well, but if they do exist, it would be better to scrap the article entirely and start over. MalikCarr 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Jtrainor 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced article. If it is POV, such problems should be fixed; deletion isn't warrented in this case. Yahel Guhan 00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I strongly agree with Kukini. This is a valid topic that is discussed in great depth in sociological texts. Deleting, rather than keeping, the article seems to be pushing a POV instead. Danadocus 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps the above editors may wish to review the nominating text and complaints in question. Sources that exist to make a point are not reliable (WP:SYN, WP:RS), and this entire article represents a highly controversial point of view that is not at all neutral (WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP). This is an encyclopedia, not a stage for POV-ridden treatises on society.

As my membership in the AIW should indicate, I only believe in deleting an article when no information would be lost as a result; in other words, only the most rubbish of articles. This one satisfies those criterion just dandy. There are a handful of government studies cited that show some anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, but by and large all sourced references exist to push a specific political point. "Rootsie.com", "Southern Poverty Law Center," "American Mosaic Project," and a variety of op-ed pieces are by no means any sort of reliable sources for information pertinent to a neutral, or maybe even verifiable article, and these are POLICIES that must be upheld. If, as some editors suggest, this is a valid topic that has been widely discussed in sociological texts, perhaps some could be cited that are also from a neutral POV?

At any rate, AfDs are closed based on the merits of the arguments presented, and I've yet to see a good one presented. I mean, we're already going into accusations of POV by the nom and supporters of deletion (see article talk page; how about we use WP:AGF too?) - how long until Godwin's Law is invoked in this discussion, I wonder? MalikCarr 01:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you that those sources fail to meet the standard. But, even if they don't, you're saying that none of these are good enough either?

Harvard Law Review
Association of American Geographers
U.S. Department of Justice, (Bureau of Justice Statistics)
The Urban Institute
Adult Education Quarterly
U.S. Census Bureau
ABC News

futurebird 01:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with some of those sources, futurebird, because they have nothing to say about white skin privilege.

For example, the DOJ statistics are raw data concerning "Contacts Between Police and the Public", accurately summarized by a WP editor as "Black and Latino American males are three times more likely than white males to have their vehicles stopped and searched by police." But when that sentence is inserted as evidence of white skin privilege, the WP editor is engaging in WP:OR unless she or he can cite a reference that explicitly ties the DOJ data to the concept of white skin privilege. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a whole lot of new info from peer reviewed journals. This subject is HUGE there are so many great sources to choose from. If you have a problem with any sources or how they are represented in a given article, that is more of an issue for the talk page. Not a deletion debate. futurebird 02:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Southern Poverty Law Center" and "American Mosaic Project" are both pretty reliable sources. The only criticism of SPLC has come from actual hate sites. The American Mosaic Project is the Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. As for "Rootsie.com", I took the liberty of removing it. Something much easier than having a lengthy debate about deleting an entire article. 67.71.1.139 02:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The term "hate site" isn't even well defined. If you'd care to examine some prior AfDs involving racial or social issues such as these, I've seen everything from JPFO to Dr. Ron Paul's presidential campaign site labelled a "hate site" for one reason or other. See my reference to Godwin's Law - the principle is the same in theory. At any rate, with an article that supports the existence of white privilege as fact, how can sources that are rather prominent advocates of multiculturalist and minority empowerment theories and politics possibly be neutral (and thus reliable?). Answer: they can't. MalikCarr 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a fundamental misunderstanding that may explain your advocacy of this AFD. Sources don't have to be "neutral"; they simply have to be reliable, verifiable, notable, etc. (In fact, ascertaining the "neutrality" of a source would be WP:OR, WP:SYN, etc.) While the wikipedia article has to present the information neutrally, the sources need not be neutral themselves. Just reliable, verifiable, etc. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (WP:SYN - Verifiability). --lquilter 18:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "hate site" like some wikipedian called it a hate site. But hate site like David Duke. Just because a concept is difficult to define, it doesn't make the concept a work of fiction. At any rate, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a reliable source that has not been contested by any reasonable person or argument. 67.71.1.139 02:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Sociology Department of the University of Minnesota are "advocates of multiculturalist and minority empowerment theories and politics"? Who's got the POV problem? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Bcholmes 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Care to add a reason? AFD is not a vote. Jtrainor 02:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article could use improvements to neutrality and sourcing, but the existence of it is valid and necessary. Saradanger 01:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article describes a subject of serious sociological research. Is it "an inherently POV subject", as MalikCarr asserts? It needn't be. I think this article could avoid perceived POV problems by becoming similar to "new antisemitism", which also discusses a phenomenon whose existence is the subject of debate. The article describes what people mean when they use the phrase "new antisemitism" and it presents the arguments of people who believe that it does or doesn't exist. There's no reason that a similar article couldn't be written about white skin privilege. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cute, they don't even provide rationales anymore. At any rate...

To the issue of sourcing: I cannot find the sources cited for the Association of American Geographers or the Adult Education Quarterly; you'll have to point them out to me. The ABC News citation was to a discussion between highly POV representatives of both sides of the issue, and could hardly be considered reliable. I've made alotments for the cited Federal sources - these are perfectly legitimate, but the findings therein are presented in a fashion that suggests the existence of the "white privilege", which the reports do not - ergo, WP:OR. As far as the Harvard Law Review is concerned, the referenced article (or book, or periodical, or whatever it is - we don't know) merely makes a claim about an unknown name supporting one facet of this article. We can't even peruse it ourselves for the purposes of verifiability, which is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm not buying it, sorry.

Moving right along, I have still yet to see much in the way for a sensible reason to include this guideline-and-policy-violation-ridden mess. Furthermore, here's a fun fact to consider: reviewing the userpages and contributions of many of those supporting a Keep vote reveals an interesting trend. It would seem to me that the majority of keep voting editors, based on their project memberships and stated views, would have a vested interest in keeping a page like this in existence, regardless of how well it adheres to policy. Now I'm not going to make any accusations - that would be violating WP:AGF, and I like to keep myself well within the bounds of policy - but considering that there is precedent for editors involved with similar articles to have less weight placed on their contributions to the AfD process... Furthermore, the proposed "User Bill of Rights", which, among other things, guaranteed that editors would have an equal say in matters of determining consensus regardless of affiliation with the subject material was defeated, namely because of that provision. I understand this was done due to Lyndon LaRouche supporters using Wikipedia as a soapbox or something to that effect. Now, I was in favor of the User Bill of Rights, but it seems the project as a whole was not. Food for thought as we continue this debate and examine new voters.

If anyone would like to address further points I have provided, please do. MalikCarr 02:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Harvard Law Review is concerned ... We can't even peruse it ourselves for the purposes of verifiability, which is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Here again is another fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. You appear to be confused between material that can be included in and by Wikipedia (freely available, no copyright restrictions, etc.), and material that may be used as a reference for Wikipedia. The criteria for references is "published in a reliable source", not "published in a freely available source". If you, yourself, cannot find Harvard Law Review in a local law depository, that does not mean that it is not a perfectly valid reference. --lquilter 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you responding to me? I provided a perfectly good rationale of why to keep the article. And remember to WP:AGF or I'll have your ass at WP:ANI so fast you won't know what hit you. Have I made myself clear, cutie pie? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you've taken the name of the current leader of the Black Panther Party doesn't mean you can intimidate me. If anything, you should be the one concerned about good faith, not I. I've reviewed your rationale, and I don't find it convincing. As is, this article doesn't "suggest" that there may or may not be an existence of this social condition, it simply posits that it is, that some people disagree with it, and that twenty highly-POV sources agree. Garbage. MalikCarr 02:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "taken the name of the current leader of the Black Panther Party" (something you'd know if you knew how to read), nor am I trying to intimidate you. Why would I bother intimidating an editor with 220 mainspace edits, 85% of which are related to anime? When it comes to garbage, you obviously know what you're talking about. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, now we see the true colors of certain editors... in any case, regardless of what your intention was behind the naming contrivance, it still stands that it's the name of the current leader of the Black Panther Party - there's a disambiguation page and everything. Giving the rather notable visibility of this Shabazz today (I often see him providing commentary on cable news to issues pertinent to his party), I'm surprised he doesn't have his own article yet. At any rate, thanks for remaining civil through all this - usually, the purveyors of defeated arguments would start challenging the legitimacy of my contributions or reading comprehension at this point. Oh wait... MalikCarr 02:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is in much better shape than it was 6 months ago when I first came across it. I purged large amounts of the article then (both sides of the argument) because of how bad it was. It was actually an essay written by a student that they put on Wikipedia. Because the article has been making progress, though it may be doing so at a slow pace, I feel that it should be kept. Also, can we please act mature here and not accuse each other of being racist or ignorant. Remember, Wikipedia isn't here to pitch one side or the other, it is here to explain that the term "white privilege" exists and present basic, reproduceable facts and explain each side of the argument. As far as Wikipedia goes, the article isn't supposed to argue for or against any ideology. Chris01720 03:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(random) Section break A[edit]

Strong keep. While WP:SYNT is a problem as written, it's a fixable problem. Moreover, much text refers to the use of WP as a sociological and historical concept, notably by Cheryl Harris, George Lipsitz, Noel Ignatiev, Peggy McIntosh, the American Mosaic Project, and Karen Brodkin. They, of course, are perfectly free to advance a POV which should be described here, with due balance for opposing POVs. Despite the presence of synthetic material, little of it goes beyond the arguments put forward by the cited authors (and the uncited W.E.B. DuBois, whose concept of "the wages of whiteness" is formative for the later White Privilege). So the real problem is appending the attribution above to POV social scientists above the supporting data which they themselves have synthesized at length.--Carwil 02:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is that virtually all of the article is based on those highly POV sources. There comes a point where an article is unsalvageable, and this point has been reached in spades. If I could find twenty published secondary sources that suggested that the Armenian genocide never occurred, would I be entitled to make an article to that? Of course not. Now, perhaps I could contribute to the greater article as a whole, and show that there is a breadth of persons in academic fields that are opposed to the commonly-held viewpoint, but that's another story entirely, and I'm rambling again. MalikCarr 03:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian genocide deniers have problems with being reputable published sources. POV is not necessarily the same thing as reputability. From some people's perspective, the NYT is neutral; to others, it is wildly biased to the right; to others, wildly biased to the left. Whatever its bias may or may not be, it is widely considered to be reputable. This is a fundamental distinction that you fail to appreciate in your comments here. --lquilter 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Malik Shabazz and Carwil. I appreciate your good faith efforts to improve this article. If there is one constructive thing that has come out of this deletion debate, it's that it's attracted new wikipedians offering constructive criticism. Should this article be kept, I would appreciate you listing your concerns about the article on the article talk page. As many as possible would be the most helpful. Over the coming weeks, if no one should do anything about those grievances, I will do my best to address them personally. (Starting with your concern that the statistical reports such as the DOJ report do not carry out the final step of asserting "this data supports that white privilege exists".) 67.71.1.139 02:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme see if I can find some sources that talk about "the wages of whiteness" -- I didn't know about that one. futurebird 02:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a needed article. Fix it, but don't delete it. natalieannettemears 21:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)— natalieannettemears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep. Article should be improved through regular editing. Just because a subject is a magnet for POV-pushing, vandalism or non-sense doesn't make it any less a notable subject. Sadly, edit warring is likely to repel the qualified researchers, writers and experts who would fix concerns. I have no magic wand solution to address those issues but deleting an article about a notable subject is hardly a step in the right direction. If needed admin should freeze last stable version and hopefully (sigh) protracted discussion will net more neutral version or at least slow the POV-pushing (from whatever directions). Benjiboi 03:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it notable, though? The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and given the vast majority of sources cited exist to push a specific POV, they're not exactly verifiable. MalikCarr 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there are way too many sources to even being to bring up the issue of notability. futurebird 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. You can't establish notability with so few reliable sources. MalikCarr 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when were peer reviewed journals not reliable sources? futurebird 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took a look at the journal you linked to. You'll have to forgive me if I don't think that the experimental group of college undergraduate students was very representative of the much more widespread social validity of the paragraph you've added. Hell, a majority of the students where I'm enrolled are economic socialists; if the economics department were to have an experiment to determine the economic leanings of students, and then pass it off as being indicative of general social opinions, we'd have a problem. That particular journal might pass the WP:RS test, but the support you're claiming exists from it is both against WP:SYN and WP:OR. And, again, it's just one source against many others. MalikCarr 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Notability (in Re: NPOV Sources) Agree that verifiability not truth is important. Google Scholar turns up 5,490 hits and Google Books has 927 of which 27 seem the be titled on the subject. Benjiboi 03:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to debate how the sources are use here. I'll be glad to do that on the talk page of the article. futurebird 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is clearly a concept/belief that is recognized within the social sciences and in particular sociology whatever one's take on it is. We ought to be able to write about it to describe it without necessarily endorsing it the same way we can explain other concepts/beliefs (Marxism, Christianity, etc) that may be susceptible to POV problems. One area to work on with this entry, imo, is to give it a better historical grounding in terms of the history of the idea/term for it. How did this concept come to be used, by who, to encapsulate what beliefs? This likely requires no original research. I believe right now that this move for deletion is inspired by a desire to suppress the idea and knowledge of it. The article clearly needs more work but it's a notable subject that can be written about without POV User:Decepticon —Preceding comment was added at 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Suppressing the idea and knowledge thereof? Oh, wonderful. I suppose this makes me and User:Jtrainor the Ministry of Truth now? MalikCarr 03:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment isn't really helpful, please stay civil.futurebird 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so not in a position to make a remark like that. JTrainor and I aren't making threats at other users or calling their academic integrity into question. MalikCarr 03:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did I make a threat? futurebird 03:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When did I say you did? MalikCarr 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was what you meant... Well, ok, then why do you think I'm not in a position to make a remark about civility? futurebird 03:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Perhaps I've overstepped myself. I should have said "your side", e.g. the keep voters, were not in a position to talk about civility. You specifically haven't really said anything particularly uncivil (though I don't like your language on the talk page). However, since you haven't made any mention to those on your side of the argument with blatant WP:CIVIL and AGF problems, it looks like a tacit approval or support. I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. MalikCarr 06:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Please don't blanket accuse some non-existant 'keep camp' for actions of specific individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the several arguments already offered. I wouldn't accept any of the criticisms as reasons for deletion. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So all the flagrant disregarding of policy and guidelines about making neutral, verifiable articles aren't acceptable reasons for deletion? This is sure a wonderful development. MalikCarr 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he/she is saying that the flaws in the article are situational, at most. That is, not big enough to support napalming the whole thing. I'd tend to agree. 64.231.195.228 03:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)— 64.231.195.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If less of the article was so heavily rooted in horribly POV-pushing and unverifiable sources, perhaps it could be fixable. As is, the page has been covered by templates since day one of its existence, and I see no reason why it would magically clean itself up at the current iteration. It would be better to torch the whole thing and start over with a fresh set of verifiable, neutral sources. MalikCarr 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, once again, you might take the opportunity to stay cool. Suggesting to "torch" a page regarding a topic such as this is unnecessarily combative. Regarding your point, the AfD page itself says 'The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.' Perhaps you can supply evidence to verify your expertise at identifying pages that are beyond such salvaging.MatthewDaly 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this phenomenon exists, and the article is well-sourced, deleting it would worsen Wikipedia's systemic bias. --166.121.36.10 03:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. MalikCarr 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this policy is relevant. The article isn't about events in the future. Can you explain please? futurebird 04:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not Wikipedia's position to speculate on the possible existence of things, as User:166.121.36.10 is suggesting. I realize it's kind of a stretch, but I believe the spirit of that policy is applicable. MalikCarr 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying hard to understand your point of view. What is the article "speculating on the possible existence" of? futurebird 04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: User:166.121.36.10 has described the existence of "white privilege", as currently iterated, to be hypothetical. So, I decide to play by that train of thought and cite the policy on Wikipedia dealing with speculative subjects. If they don't actually exist, Wikipedia isn't supposed to have articles on them that suggest that they do, thus the Crystallball citation. I haven't seen anyone denounce this vote's justification, so I presume that it is supported by other keep-minded voters. MalikCarr 06:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: MalikCarr, have you ever heard the phrase "pick and choose your battles"? I am not arguing for or against your stance on this article, but if I was your life coach right now I would recommend that you back down a little, for the sake of your own reputation. Though you don't mean to (nor do I think you are), you seem to be coming across as an asshole; and whether or not you are correct, it may be wise to just sit this one out. But that's just my opinion. Chris01720 04:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I appreciate your advice and concern, but I don't really believe my reputation has anything to do with it. I've been various denounced as a troll, vandal, leftist, rightist, inclusionist, deletionist, fascist, socialist, and any other bevy of pejorative "-ist" you can imagine. I'll wager this is because I tend to support unpopular positions all across the spectrum of issues - call me a devil's advocate if you will. In any case, I've argued for keeping articles in much worse condition than this one because they show a potential to be workable. The reason why I'm coming down on this one so hard is because I see absolutely none of that. I'm no stranger to this subject, and from what I can tell, it's going to be next to impossible to write a neutral, verifiable article on this subject. As I've mentioned before, this article has been tagged and templated with all sorts of complaints since its inception, and nothing has improved. At this point, it would be better to toast the whole thing than try to fix it (not that anyone has - review the article history if you'd like to examine things more closely). Now, if my take on neutral and reliable sources is incorrect, then I imagine you could draft up a new article to argue the points presented from a neutral perspective. As it is, there's nothing worth salvaging from this article. MalikCarr 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a major subject of academic research. There are voluminous published reliable sources on this topic.--Pharos 04:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I contest both of these points. Would you care to elaborate for us? MalikCarr 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, there are links to peer reviewed journal articles and many books with this as the title. I don't know what more you want. Other users have answered this question and you have not explained why their answer was not sufficient. (And could you please answer the questions I asked you in other posts here?)futurebird 04:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5,500 references for "white privilege" on Google Scholar, for one. That's a lot of academic papers, if you ask me.--Pharos 05:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: WP:GHITS. Moving right along... MalikCarr 05:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar measures published academic papers, not web traffic. Try again.--Pharos 05:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's nice. It's still an electronic search engine that displays articles relevant to your search criterion; it doesn't show anything as to the content or merit of those works, just that exist with some relevance to what you've put in. Let's have a little fun with this, shall we? Google Scholar has 142,000 references for "affirmative action," but only 3,930 for "Armenian genocide". Does that make either event more or less important? More or less legitimate? No, it just shows that some areas are more interesting for academics than others. All you've proven by showing a Ghits link is that the topic of "white privilege" has been discussed in academia. Woo hoo. MalikCarr 05:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it has proven the exact points that I made: that this is a major subject of academic research and there are voluminous published reliable sources on this topic. That's the whole basis of our Wikipedia:Notability guideline. The concept of an "inherently POV subject" is not a part of that guideline at all. Whatever is interesting to academics is indeed a topic of significance to the encyclopedia.--Pharos 06:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That still doesn't have any implication on the neutrality or verifiability of the sources in question, which is my chief argument for the destruction of this article. Can't have a NPOV article with POV sources. MalikCarr 06:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, I feel that that your tone here is a bit sarcastic. Could you please assume good faith and try to remain civil? futurebird 06:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Perhaps I wouldn't be so confrontational if I felt that these attitudes were being respected by some members of the Keep camp. Why don't you ask them to remain civil while you're at it? I feel the more grievous breaches of civility have come from them by a long shot. You know the ones. MalikCarr 06:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that other one was worse, but that confrontation seems to have bunt itself out. Also, could you please respond to my questions? futurebird 06:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've kind of lost track of them in all the flamewarring back and forth. Would you mind recalling them for me? I'll get right on it. MalikCarr 06:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are in bold now. futurebird 06:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There we are. Can we debate these questions further down here? It's getting annoying to sift through the edit box for the exact areas, and I worry I'm going to write over someone else's edits. MalikCarr 06:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(random) Section break B[edit]

Strong Keep. I could offer a lengthy critique on the constructed nature of "neutrality" and its representation of a pervasive POV within a community that wishes itself to be seen as scholarly and scientific, but I'll just say that much and that this article is well-documented and describes a well-known sociological concept with plenty of peer-reviewed references. Those parts which aren't documented as well could stand to be improved, perhaps, but overall the article is well-supported by reliable sources. Consider the possibility that the appearance of an "egregious" POV may be the effect of the POV of the reader. Eriktrips 15:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)— Eriktrips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep. nobody has attacked the notability of this article. even the critics agree that this article should be here so that's not the dispute. it sounds like the pro-deletion camp is saying that the only way to improve this article is to start over. this doesn't fit with what ive seen over the past year. over time the opinion piece was scrapped, the WP:NPOV fight stopped, the article got some proper footnotes, and there were only a few uncited facts left. it's still not perfect. citing everything wouldn't make it perfect. but deleting it ain't gonna fix it. one attack on this article is that the sources aren’t neutral or reliable. the most questionable stuff seems to be the oldest. flag that or edit that if you gotta. but stats from universities, newspapers, and government are solid. i agree that some parts only quote stats without conclusions, and so there’s some WP:SYN and WP:OR going on. but it doesn't take much for somebody to find a book that takes those stats and explains them using white privilege. and if the stats lead to a different conclusion, then somebody should put that other conclusion in the criticism. isn't that gonna work better than killing this article? the last criticism is that anyone who says “white privilege exists” has a POV and so the article will always violate WP:NPOV. but we can’t slash every concept that a few people say doesn’t exist. a study from the “panel on climate change” isn’t too biased for wikipedia just because they want to show that the climate is changing. if the science is there you can’t deny it. critics can only offer new data or new conclusions. that’s why we got articles on global warming and the bell curve, with criticism for both... oh, i guess I see just one more criticism... supposedly everybody voting “keep” is part of a vast conspiracy! when the debate gets to that level then you know it’s time to give it up. danthrax 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the Aboves: Oh, that's wonderful, I guess JTrainor and I (and the other guy who voted for Delete) had best go get our tinfoil hats and hang out with our friends in the LaRouche groups. Look, the fact that this article has been tagged as NPOV and violating other policies and guidelines since forever doesn't hold any weight with you? I don't believe it can be improved because there's nothing -to- improve. I have never voted to delete an article I didn't think was worth saving, or had at least some redeeming merit. It's what being an inclusionist is all about.

As it is now, there are no mitigating factors to justify keeping this article up and running. The vast majority of its sources are totally POV-ridden (and thusly unverifiable), and the ones that don't inherently push their own agenda have their findings presented in a terribly OR fashion to support the arguments of the article as presented. Simply put, to "rewrite" this article to make it neutral and verifiable, you'd have to blank the entire page. So, while we're at it, why not crunch the whole damn thing, article history included, wash our hands of it, and move on? I highly doubt one could make a neutral and verifiable article on this subject, giving the current nature of race relations in the United States and points beyond, but I'd be open to see if anyone felt up to the task.

Are you seeing where I'm coming from here? I don't think I've ever gone after an article this vigorously before, because I haven't seen an article that needs to die this badly before. Can we stop with all the fingerpointing and accusations and debate this like gentlemen? MalikCarr 18:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "the fact that this article has been tagged as NPOV ... since forever" provides no evidence whatsoever for whether the article actually is NPOV or any other determination based on alleged NPOV-ness. Any article that covers a controversial subject is likely to pick up a lot of harassment and negative commentary, whether founded or not. So the mere fact that something has been tagged for violating a policy does not mean that it violates the policy; only that one editor has thought so and it is therefore going through wikipedia process. --lquilter 20:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct you. There is no NPOV tag on this article, only an OR tag. I don't think administrators will buy the "I'm an expert on what should be kept or deleted" argument either. And for your third strike, you pretty much failed to show "the vast majority of sources are POV-ridden". The burden of proof is pretty high when it comes to showing that a well-cited article about a notable concept should be deleted altogether. You've failed miserably. 64.231.195.228 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)— 64.231.195.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Ah, excuse me, it seems someone's removed the NPOV tag. Given the flurry of edits since this article was nominated for deletion, you'd be surprised at how many editors have forgotten that you're not supposed to edit an article that's been put up as an AfD until the process is over... oh well. MalikCarr 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Point of Information Dude, the AfD tag clearly says 'You may keep editing this article' - please don't make up 'rules') — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.39 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, your language is nice, but there's little value to it. Places like the Southern Poverty Law Center, American Mosaic Project, Rootise.com, and a whole smattering of op-ed pieces in newspapers and books dealing with issues of racial contention are totally POV subjects. Why is this even being debated? If I wanted to support an article about, oh, Turkish atrocities committed against Armenians and Cypriots, I wouldn't use Greek or Armenian sources to establish verifiability and NPOV, now would I? It just doesn't make sense. To show something exists, we're going to cite a bunch of people who have a political interest in showing it exists. Now that's some reliable souring logic there! Gah. MalikCarr 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the American Mosaic Project appears to be a foundation-funded research project of the University of Minnesota Sociology department, with no obvious agenda in its self-description. What's your evidence to the contrary?--Carwil 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been a NPOV tag on this article for a long time, nor has there been a dispute about POV for a long time. As for the OR tag, it's because there still remains a few uncited statements in the "Self-image" section. I've taken the liberty of removing Rootsie.com (much easier than deleting the whole article), but I fail to see how SPLC or the University of Minnesota are unreliable sources. I also fail to see the similarity between them and holocaust deniers. Where'd you come up with that one? 64.231.195.228 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)— 64.231.195.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I wasn't making any reference to "holocaust deniers" with my previous comments. For what it's worth, my comparison was more existential in nature than material: you can't make a neutral, verifiable article if your main sources are pushing a POV, and that POV is synthesized in the article (WP:SYN). MalikCarr 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response to your response: hate it or love it you haven't showed any POV problems. the article ain't even tagged for POV. it hasn't been for a while. and even if it was tagged it wouldn't explain your stance. you say the sources are clearly pushing a POV but haven't offered much to justify that. the sources look good to me. lots of VERIFIABLE research gets done to support some kind of agenda like the bell curve or global warming... if there are problems with the way data got collected or problems with conclusions drawn then that belongs in the criticism. it doesn't mean we delete all those articles. danthrax 12:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article discusses privilege - an issue which is, by its nature, non-neutral (or, if you prefer, "unfair" or "biased"). However, it does not logically follow that the article itself cannot be fair and neutral in its treatment of the subject. The subject is inherently notable and has been the subject of much academic discussion (5,490 articles listed on Google Scholar). As for concerns about policy/guideline violation, that is only a reason for deletion if it would be more productive to start the article again from scratch than to improve the existing article, and based on the current state of the article, that doesn't seem to apply. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, that's why we want to delete it. There's no better way to start from scratch than to totally torch the existing article. As an inclusionist, I've experienced this firsthand - articles that I've argued to be kept have been deleted anyway, but then remade in a much more compatible form, and the project was better for it. At any rate, neutrality and verifiability are the cornerstones for inclusion into Wikipedia. If a neutral article can't be made, the project shouldn't have one on that subject. And this isn't just me talking here; review the policies for yourself.

I believe I've already raised concerns about Google Scholar being some sort of litmus test for notability that have yet to be addressed, as well. MalikCarr 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I do not think the state of this article is so bad that it needs to be deleted. Also, the preceding comment seems ambiguous given MalikCarr's initial post which said, essentially, delete since this subject is inherently POV. It's not clear whether the intent is to delete the current article and replace it with a better one (assuming that such would be easier than improving the existing text), or just delete it since it cannot be neutral.

Here is a source which states: "In the last decade, the study of white privilege has reached currency in the educational and social science literature. In April 2002, the city of Pella, Iowa, hosted the Third Annual Conference on White Privilege..." which makes a good case for notability. And given the number of academic papers easily obtainable, a neutral article can be written on the subject. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 00:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:Civilty please. Let's all chill a bit and instead of building up opposing sides or viewpoints stick to discussing the article and best ways to proceed. Any real or perceived attacks or personal jabs should cease, consider striking out your own comments (perhaps they were made out of frustration?) and let's go forward so that all who read this archived document will note that we were able to work together despite differences in style, process and opinion. Benjiboi 20:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is an widely discussed sociological theory, definitely worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. More detail and citations could improve the article, but it should not be deleted. In response to the originally posted reasons for deletion, White Privelege is NOT a synthasis of orignal ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You don't agree with one aspect of the AfD nomination, therefore we should keep it? Whatever you say, Mr. Anonymous IP. MalikCarr 01:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Thanks for your insightful discussion, Mr. Snide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:The nominator cited 2 reasons for deletion. The claim of RS sources had already been thoroghly debunked and I saw no reason to further comment. If you wish, I will add my voice on that aspect now: The article cites many reliable references and claim of RS violations are utter baloney. The claim of Synth for the topic of the article had also been addressed and debunked, but I added my voice to that portion of the reasoning. There. Are you happy now?

Keep. I confess that my views on the existence and importance of white privilege would land me under the "criticism" section of the article. Nonetheless, I found that I was able to read the page without feeling like my viewpoint was insulted or threatened, and particularly found that the criticism section fairly expressed my point of view. It is clearly a notable subject, and I don't believe that any quibbles about the prestige of the scholarship is justified. One might look at articles such as humorism, which are quite alive despite the fact that their theories are wholly discredited and any living proponents would not be thought of as reliable sources. The evidence that white privilege is an observable phenomenon is significantly stronger, and therefore far more worthy of wiki-existence. Several writers on this page have suggested that the page has grown more mature over the past six months since its last AfD, so I suggest that the argument that this article be removed and replaced by a fresh effort should be rejected as counter-productive. MatthewDaly 00:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep white privilege is a well documented phenomena in sociological, psychological, and cultural academic fields in major universities across the united states. this documentation is also attested to by the various citation. the notion of White privilege has informed other areas of study wrt Male privilege, Heterosexual privilege, and other privileges in their respective fields of academic study. --Stoneself 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC) — Stoneself (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. While some people may believe the concept itself is not POV, surely all would agree that a NPOV article can be written about a POV. White privilege is no more "inherently POV" than racism: it's a theoretical model. White privilege is unquestionably a notable topic in a number of discourses, and the concept has significantly influenced activism and a wide variety of anti-oppression theories. --lquilter 20:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I agree with lquilter's comments directly above. It's a sociological term, people -- there's certainly room for presenting other sociological terms/theories that discount it, but it's silly to pretend it doesn't exist or that it can't be presented in a NPOV article. ivan 05:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to admin: This should be closed under WP:SNOW. It's unfortunate that articles on controversial topics arouse such ire and misunderstanding, but there is just no question that this is a prominent, notable, influential academic topic. One editor has reiterated his issues multiple times, but that is not enough to make a fruitful AFD discussion. He has added no new points that have not been made and refuted on the talk page of the article in question. (And I note that he added a notaballot template to this article without explaining why he would think that this *was* a ballot. It seems to me that a lot of people are simply expressing their honest confusion that such a notable topic would have to undergo this process.) --lquilter 13:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice try, but virtually all of the keep arguments have focused on the purported noteability of this subject and glossed over the many problems with the article mentioned by the nom. Those problems are why this article needs to be burnt to the ground, not it's noteability or lack thereof. Jtrainor 13:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. Most of the arguments here have focused on the abundance of reliable research. You haven't put forth ANY argument, other than asserting the POV and OR is "blatantly clear". The problems with this article are neither clear nor blatant, and thus the article should be improved with incremental edits. At best, MalikCarr managed to shed doubt on one source -- Rootsie.com -- which was removed promptly, and wasn't relied upon for research purposes anyway (it was part of the further reading section). Deletion of the entire article is clearly unnecessary, because the argument that this entire article is POV ridden has not been supported with any substance. 64.231.195.228 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "trying" anything. WP:AFD clearly states that "for problems that do not require deletion, including ... POV problems". See WP:DEL which further lists reasons for deletion, none of which have been cited here. The arguments cited thus far, taken in the light most favorable to the proposers of deletion, are insufficient according to wikipedia policy for deletion. While that can work if nobody is paying attention, the proliferation of people cogently pointing out that this is a significant scholarly concept makes it clear that people are paying attention. So, WP:SNOW. --lquilter 17:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am against MalikCarr in that I'm for keeping the article. However, I agree with him that from time to time this article has had some sketchy sources. About 6 months ago I had made some major edits (purging primarily) because of how terrible the article was. It was 10x worse than it's condition now and some sections just had to go. I remember one source was a socialist faction newsletter. Another sources was a survey done by the Department of Residential Life at the University of New Hampshire; but it wasn't the results of the survey that were referenced, it was the PDF of the survey itself (the thing students fill out and submit). One could argue that it's from a university, so it must be good. However, this article is so much better than it was then that it has shown great improvement on both sides of the white privilege controversy. Chris01720 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I mean it was 10x worse 6 months ago I mean in terms of content, sources, and style. If you think this article doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines (which it does clearly violate, but most articles don't keep to them perfectly) then you should have checked it out 6 months ago. I said a few days ago that when I came across it the article was nothing more than a high school student's english/social studies essay. It fit the cookie-cutter high school paper with a clear thesis at the end of the first paragraph and then the 3rd paragraph being the one with counter arguments. And like I said in my above post, it's sources were crap. I salvaged what I could of that, but when it's a high school essay, there's not much that can be done. Since doing that the article has made such great improvement and by this time there are so many people interested in editing this that I think the article is slowly getting better. When I made those major purges (to both sides of the white privilege controversy) not one person contested them. That is how bad it used to be. Chris01720 02:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(random) Section break C[edit]

Comment: Oh great, we're going after WP:SNOW now? Christ, leave the debate for a day to handle some extracurricular affairs and they're trying to close down the debate because a mob of like-minded editors and single-purpose accounts have come by to smother opposition. The character assassinations are fun, too... so far I've had assumptions made of my ethnicity and motivations, political background, and I'm somehow held to account for applying a template to a page STATING A POLICY SECTION IN AN EASILY VIEWABLE FASHION that is currently infiltrated by multiple suspected SPAs? Why do I even bother with this, my fully reasonable observations have been "debunked" by people repeating the same line about how "this has been covered in sources and is notable, bad faith nomination". I posted that template in the (apparently vain) hope that people who have been asked to vote, or have stumbled across this on their own and feel like regurgitating the same tired statements and ad hominem will respect policy that AfDs are decided on the merits of arguments presented (for which the Keep side, for all its volume, has yet to produce much in the way of), not the quantity of people piling in on either side. Wikipedia is not a mob rule. MalikCarr 07:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everyone here has given substantive responses. Describing a large number of editors who disagree as "a mob ... come to smother opposition" is not helpful language. I'm not going to touch your implications of sock-puppetry ("single-purpose accounts") or over-inflated commentary about personal attacks. WP:SNOW is not an attack; it's an observation that this discussion is wasting Wikipedia editors' time and it's clear that, despite your ardent disagreement, the article will not be deleted (or if it were, it would be speedily reversed on appeal). By far most discussion here has been reasonable, albeit in strong disagreement with you. If you are in an extreme minority and people are not persuaded of your arguments, the best thing to do is to sit back, take stock of what everyone is saying, and consider why your arguments are unpersuasive. --lquilter 12:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have now looked at the contributions history of virtually all the people posting here and I do not think the sock-puppetry accusation is warranted. Almost all of the redlinked and IP accounts actually have an edit history that extends before this debate and beyond this article. (Only one did not.) --lquilter 12:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the conspiracy theories. Could it be that you just haven't done a very good job of supporting your argument that these sources are unreliable? Could it be that everyone but you thinks the article is not half bad, let alone decent? 64.231.195.228 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Jtrainor seem to be frustrated at the lack of specific commentary by the keep-supporters. This seems natural to me, as the deletion proposal contains no specific charges to rebut. The claim is that the article is "OR-ladden"[sic], and that violations of reliable sources and NPOV "abound". There isn't really much to say to counter that other than I have read the article and don't see the problems to the degree that you do, and many seem to have reached the same conclusion. Now, you can claim that we are all sock puppets -- which emotionalizes the debate, inviting a further degradation in discourse, and doesn't advance your case -- or you can assume that enough of us are acting in good faith that perhaps our perceptions are worth noting. You don't have to call WP:SNOW at that point, although it would save some of us from coming back twice a day to see whether the discussion has progressed. But at least please consider that if you want people to see what you see regarding this article's flaws, you're going to have to enumerate them, and at the same time demonstrate that it wouldn't take less effort to fix those flaws individually than to rewrite the entire article.MatthewDaly 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of... tell you what, my arguments have been so utterly blown out of proportion in both intent and interpretation, I don't even see any reason to continue with this farce. I'm tired of trying to make a comprehensive argument and having it reduced to gross simplifications, generalizations and outright slander. You can have your rubbish article; I'll be back when it inevitably degenerates into an even more horrendous form than it's already in. MalikCarr 07:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually hoping you'd start by putting forth an argument. So far, all I've heard is that "the sources are *obviously* POV". Sorry if the Southern Poverty Law Center is a respectable academic institution that produces reliable research. 64.231.195.228 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid sociological construct. --Strothra 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 07:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocked recordings[edit]

obscure neologism - only 1 or 2 non-wikipedia google hits on exact term; prod removed NeilN 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced neologism. Not one of the four external pages linked to contains the word unlocked. Deor 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by WP:SNOW. Bearian 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karate Monkey[edit]

Unremarkable, fails notability - Wisdom89 08:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kesu (Subtitle: Delete) - Partly due to my disappointment that this isn't about a trained monkey at all. Mostly because it appears to be entirely non-notable and is completely unreferenced. May be a candidate for speedy due to lack of any significant claims. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the bicycle company. Unless some independent reviews can be found, this is just a product catalogue.-Wafulz 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Surly Bikes due to notability reasons and because it is not an ass kicking chimp. By the way, the parent article looks like it needs cleanup.--Lenticel ^(talk) 21:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zahakiel; however, disappointment that you misunderstood the title is no reason to delete!--Bedivere 21:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, man... I was pretty disappointed :) But that part was the humor. The rest of it was the rationale. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Francis Horn[edit]

Delete - Alexander Horn is a virtually unknown playwriter with no relevance to Wikipedia Mfantoni 08:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is referenced on the Fellowship of Friends page and is an author. His books were published by Element Books, an established New Age/esoteric publisher. Waspidistra 09:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is tagged for deletion as part of an ongoing edit dispute and COI dispute on the Fellowship of Friends page, it's deletion should be viewed as vandalismWantthetruth? 17:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are debates on the fof page on whether Alex Horn's biography is relevant to the fof article, so having this article as the place for that kind of info would help end the disputes. Aeuio 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Worth keeping on its own merits; disputes elsewhere should be irrelevant.--Bedivere 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since Robert Burton abandoned him as a teacher, it would be useful to know why. Baby Dove 06:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing in this article that passes WP:N. Torc2 07:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Torc2 - there's nothing in the article that passes WP:N. A google search doesn't come up with anything related. That's a pretty strong argument for absence of notability.--Moon Rising 23:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Alexander Horn is a controversial esoteric teacher and book writer and he still has groups in New York, so people may want to know more about him. Robertozz 01:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - then they can find out more about him on his own website. Wikipedia is not intended to be Who's who. --Sc straker 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:BIO- no independent news articles found. --Sc straker 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How do you know he has a group in NY? I'm not questioning that you know this, I'm just wondering how someone else might find it. I've searched for info about him on various search engines and couldn't find anything. If you prefer, you can answer on my talk page.--Moon Rising 18:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyone who wants to check his Google notability should search for alex horn gurdjieff and alex horn fourth way. Waspidistra 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes please try that search on Google News, not Google Web, and you will find no hits. --Sc straker 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Info about Sharon Ganz' and Alex Horn's groups in New York can be found here. Robertozz 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed unsourced, possibly problematic content. No !vote (yet). Bearian 20:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Fantoni[edit]

Delete Mario Fantoni is the owner of a small company with no relevance to Wikipedia Mfantoni 08:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this one line stup has insufficient content. --Gavin Collins 09:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Fellowship of Friends (actually a plain redirect, since everything was already there). Fram 11:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Earl Burton[edit]

Delete Rober Earl Burton is the founder of a church in California with no relevance to Wikipedia Mfantoni 08:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is referenced on the Fellowship of Friends page and is an author.Waspidistra 09:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is tagged for deletion as part of an ongoing edit dispute and COI dispute on the Fellowship of Friends page, it's deletion should be viewed as vandalismWantthetruth? 17:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading the article on Fellowship of Friends, which purports to have "60 centers" in 40 different nations, I think that calling him the "founder of a church in California" is like calling Ray Kroc "a guy who opened a restaurant in Illinois" Mandsford 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no secondary sources that point to any notability distinct from the FoF. There's nothing in this article that warrants it being separate from Fellowship of Friends. Torc2 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Fellowship of Friends. The church is notable, but based on the lack of refernces, Burton isn't. Crazysuit 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the FOF article - He is the founder of the Fellowshipof Friends, he can deserve his own article, but a new article would mean more places where the same things could be discussed; a single article is enough. Baby Dove 06:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fellowship of Friends per Crazysuit. --Slarti (19 92) 15:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Burton has done one thing of note in his life, starting a church, including publishing church doctrine. The church's article already includes biographical info on this person and the same external links as his bio. Read that article and see if it makes sense to have a separate article for Burton.--Moon Rising 23:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Robert Burton information is already included in the Fellowship of Friends article (the church that he founded). Robertozz 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram 11:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Vincent Randazzo[edit]

Delete - James Randazzo is a convicted criminal with no relevance for Wikipedia Mfantoni 07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was also the leader of a new religious movement and the information on the page is neutral and factual. Waspidistra 09:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is tagged for deletion as part of an ongoing edit dispute and COI dispute on the Fellowship of Friends page, it's deletion should be viewed as vandalism. Wantthetruth? 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how this meets WP:N. Torc2 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who is Randazzo. Baby Dove 06:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto Torc2 and mfantoni - not notable; WP can't list all convicts. --Moon Rising 00:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person doesn't deserve a wiki page, he is a nobody. Robertozz 01:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No one is proposing that we list all convicts. The significance of Randazzo is that he was the leader of a new religious movement. Waspidistra 10:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And this is important - Why? He is a nobody. The only people interested in him in this discussion are those that want to discredit the group that Randazzo was briefly associated with, thinking that this prior association somehow hurts the FOF. Why not stick with the FOF's talk page to express your displeasure.--Moon Rising 19:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Anonymous_Dissident (CSD A7). Non-admin close. --Bongwarrior 08:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drink the Beer[edit]

Tried to speedy this drinking game made up today, speedy was contested. Speciate 07:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - a contested speedy isn't an unsucessful speedy - an administrator has yet to review the article under speedy deletion criteria. I have re-flagged the article for speedy deletion as I do not believe there is sufficient substance in the article for a full-blown afd to be worked through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B1atv (talk • contribs) 07:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - apologies for forgetting to sign. B1atv 07:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I don't know all these rules, just want the dang thing deleted somehow. The author claims on the talk page that the game is "a serious topic". Speciate 07:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - he states that on the talk page, but on the article page he claims that the "game" was "invented" on the 16th October by three blokes in a bar. That takes precedent, as far as I'm concerned, over any claims to the contrary on the talk page.

For reference, an editor can remove ((prod)) tags from their articles and the article won't be deleted by the Proposed Deletion criteria; but they can't remove ((db)) tags. They can contest it and an administrator will review their reasons; but the decision remains with the administrator. B1atv 07:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AHOY[edit]

A bootleg album.. No sources cited, and none jump out at me from a Google search, which seems to bring up blogs and forums and not a lot else. Bootlegs are not usually covered by reliable independent sources, so that's not a big surprise. Cruftbane 06:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, a Google search for "Pink Floyd" bootlegs Ahoy finds several different Pink Floyd discography sites mentioning this record, but with little more than in the article here. Nothing that says this particular bootleg is noticable enough for inclusion here though. --Martin Wisse 07:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But those aren't reliable independent sources, I think. Cruftbane 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this article and i think it should be deleted. I think its of poor quality and i created it when i didnt really know what i was doing. I dont think its of any worth really. Ummagumma23 09:57 16 October 2007 (UTC).
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. We are not a catalog for Bootleg discs. Bearian 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, main rationale for deletion "It lacks notability, it is a neologism and is OR" is adequately refuted by sourcing. The consensus below seems clear that it should be kept. Although, as it stands it is little more than a dictionary definition and should be expanded or it may be a candidate for tranwiki-ing in the future. Eluchil404 07:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egosurfing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

After some contemplation, I have decided to honor this request. Nominator states that he takes issue with "the notability of this page (among other things)". Hopefully he will add a more detailed rationale. Page was nominated for deletion in June, the result of the discussion was keep. /Blaxthos 06:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Update - Apparently this article was speedily deleted as a dictdef in August 2005. /Blaxthos 07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure - I voted delete in the last AFD. /Blaxthos 06:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain with advice of keep -- stare decisis et non quieta movere. /Blaxthos 06:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Nominator)- I don't agree with the outcome of the previous AfD (which I did not vote in), and I think no consensus would have been the more appropriate decision. I am mainly nominating it for the reasons originally given. It lacks notability, it is a neologism and is OR. The term is just too vague, and used too interchangeably, to be encyclopaedic. I don't think any of the previous reasons were rebuffed, there was just some assertion to the contrary.JJJ999 06:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is just too vague, and used too interchangeably, to be encyclopaedic I don't understand this. The concept of egosurfing is perfectly clear to me. Could you elaborate? And I don't see how NEO applies, since, as I showed last time, egosurfing is included at least one mainstream dictionary. Zagalejo^^^ 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And no one explained why the New Scientist article (actually titled "Egosurfing" and comprising several paragraphs) shouldn't count towards notability. (link to preview) Zagalejo^^^ 07:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Allthough they are not very good sources, they are sources never the less. There are enough of them in my opiton and therefore should be kept. Tiddly-Tom 06:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment- some of the remarks from the last AfD that I don't feel got dealt with- All of these keep votes are kind of surprising. WP:NEO clearly requires multiple sources on the topic of the neologism, not merely sources that reference it. - Chardish 14:24, 10 June 2007, (UTC). I also think it lacks notability. Maybe it could be renamed as a sub-article, but the opening sentence, which lists about 10 different ways this is defined, highlights the total lack of definitiveness. I should clarify, the last AfD probably had enough votes to justify a Keep, but I don't feel it was the right decision, or that enough views on it were discussed. Some of the sources are blogs, others are merely citations (but no online link), which confirm my doubts about the existence of any definitive term for thisJJJ999 06:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which lists about 10 different ways this is defined No it doesn't. To keep it simple, egosurfing is the practice of searching for yourself online. There are different ways your name might be listed online, but the general concept is clearly defined. Zagalejo^^^ 07:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these might be worth tracking down: [49], [50], [51], [52] Zagalejo^^^ 07:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
put the last one in inverted coma's, and that's 9 hits... nice try though.JJJ999 08:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not posting those results to make a point about the number of hits. Browse through the article previews (or full articles, when available). Some of those individual articles should count towards notability. Zagalejo^^^ 08:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to Google (verb). Przepla 12:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personnally I would prefer the article to be at ego searching, as there are more serious privacy and security issues involved also. The very fact that there are so many synonyms is a strong hint to it notability. I've added a couple of sources also.--victor falk 15:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I stand by my statement in the previous AFD to this article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There doesn't seem to be much scope for expansion beyond a definition. Clarityfiend 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As discussed in the previous AfD, it is not a neologism, since it is in mainstream dictionaries, and there are independent publications talking about the concept and using the term. --Itub 11:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough information and references for an article. DGG (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth College student groups[edit]

Per WP:ORG, none of these groups are notable in their own right. The topic itself also has not established notability, particularly by not including any verifiable references nor any reason for us to believe it is notable. If Dartmouth student groups are notable, then all universities should have similar pages and that seems to be a bad idea. Although the Dartmouth College page and related pages have become featured articles, it is not a good idea to split every single subtopic into its own article. Noetic Sage 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a directory.—Noetic Sage 06:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Split having a quick look at the article, it appears that at least several of the groups are notable (they have won awards of something). It does not appear to be a simple list as the groups each have a nice description, enough to be a stub-like article in them selves. So I think it should either be kept, or split into other articles Tiddly-Tom 06:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wikipedia:Summary style may be of intrest, this content could be part of the main article, but due to lenth, should be kept Tiddly-Tom 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selectively merge into the main article. A couple of these might be notable, but the vast majority are not, and finding non-trivial independent sourcing for the whole thing would be impossible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Those that are notable by a reasonably uncontroversial standard (Dartmouth Outing Club, The Dartmouth, The Dartmouth Review) are all already mentioned in the main article. Kane5187 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as the original creator of this article, let me explain how it came about. It seems that some professor at Dartmouth encourages (or perhaps assigns) his students, every semester, to contribute a new article to the Wikipedia. As you might expect, many students create articles describing some Dartmouth student group. These inevitably get AfD'd, the result of which, back in the day, was usually a decision to merge into Dartmouth College. This created huge problems for that page's quality: there was too much of this stuff, and it had little sense of coherency or comprehensiveness of coverage. Accordingly, I spun it off; it was all an attempt to make Dartmouth College a better article. Noeticsage says above that keeping this article would suggest that "all universities should have similar pages"; but of course not all universities have, semester after semester, a sudden influx of new Wikipedia editors (thanks to a professor's assignment) whom we want to encourage and whose work we need to integrate as smoothly as possible into the Wikipedia. Doops | talk 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure why we want to encourage this influx of writers and contributors to continually add content that is not notable. If anything, I would say we should keep a closer watch of Dartmouth-related articles at the beginning of every semester since we know that new students will probably add things that are both unreferenced and not notable. If this professor is encouraging participation in Wikipedia s/he should encourage students to add things in congruence with our policies and methodologies. This is similar to when Stephen Colbert encourages viewers to edit Wikipedia. I laud you for your removal of this information of the Dartmouth article (which has subsequently been promoted to featured status), but I don't think we should encourage this influx of new editors every semester to do this kind of editing.—Noetic Sage 19:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard about that class, but just anecdotally. Which professor/class is that, out of interest? Kane5187 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a lot of conflicting ideas on the outcome of this AfD, so I'll reflect on it and give an opinion soon. In the meantime, I recommend that you add Dartmouth College publications to this AfD, as it is substantially the same kind of article and of approximately equal quality. Should probably be both or nothing. Kane5187 16:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, screw it, delete. It's not a well-written article, and it's not worth covering the not-notable groups. (For the record, a handful are notable -- Dartmouth Outing Club, The Dartmouth, The Dartmouth Review, and the Dartmouth Jack-O-Lantern.) Most importantly, I think, is that is, as you said, a directory -- this doesn't address Dartmouth groups as a whole, but just summarizes each one. In this respect, it doesn't do anything more than Category:Dartmouth College student groups, other than covering those not notable enough to have their own articles. Kane5187 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment - it might be worth adding the Undergraduate and Secret Societies sections at the end to Dartmouth College Greek organizations (which is an integrated and well-written article). It might require tweaking the title and scope, but they're kind of in the same arena. Kane5187 16:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Individually, not a single one is notable. As a collection they may be notable, and having an article for them discourages creation of the individual ones. I could go either way, but I'll keep by default. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, by that logic, an article about a class of kindergarten kids would be kept: they're not notable, but keeping an article on all of them discourages individual articles? That makes no sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man analogy. the correct one is that individual academic departments are almost never notable, but the college or major division of the university generally is. DGG (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Indeed. By Wikipedia's notability guidelines an article is inherently not notable until its reason for inclusion is given.—Noetic Sage 01:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Student activities at a major university are in general collectively notable, though the individual clubs almost never are. It is much better having such an article than trying to cope with deleting and merging articles on the individual groups. A few are probably notable enough for individual articles, but then this can act as a summary for those articles. A commendable way to do it. Very definitely, all major universities & colleges should indeed have just such an article. Smaller schools may better have the material integrated. DGG (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As noted, the wealth of information here is a very useful resource, especially since Dartmouth is a featured article, I think the more appropriate information on this page, the better it will serve those looking to learn more about it. It simply wouldn't be practical (or smart) to try and incorporate everything here into other articles.-DMCer 13:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd also like to point out that there is potential conflict of interest with regard to comments made by DMCer and Kane5187, as both are current students at Dartmouth and both are active members in WikiProject Dartmouth. I'm not sure if that qualifies as COI or not, but I figured I'd point it out to be safe. As far as my own belief, the article is more of a list than an article. —Noetic Sage 16:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not disclosing this explicitly. I personally don't consider it a conflict of interest per se (in the WP:COI definition as promoting one's own interest -- we are students, but the list of articles doesn't really promote our own interest, even if we were members of a particular group listed), but I can see how it's a grey enough area to be of some concern. I've found that university articles around Wikipedia are almost universally edited at least in part by their alumni, simply because they're often the ones most familiar and most interested in them, and if such is an instance of a COI, I think it's become an accepted exception. At any rate, if you feel it would be best for the project, I would be willing to recuse myself and strike my recommendation. I don't want to give the impression of impartiality (even though, after all, I recommended this article's deletion, which would be against my "interest" in this case). Tell me what you think; I will leave it up to you and the recommendation of others. Kane5187 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll make the crass assumption that not all of these groups are notable enough. Those that are, it seems, already have forked articles. A special thanks to the editor above who gave some background information, by the way. And as far as the notion that all universities should have a similar article, I strongly disagree, even at major universities! What's next, articles on restrooms for individual colleges? :) --Midnightdreary 16:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not all the groups are not notable enough for separate articles-- they dont have to be--WP:N applied to the whole article, not individual pieces of content. Most paragraphs in individual articles arent notable by themselves. Just as we can have an article about an author listing the books, we can have an article listing the student groups. . If anyone writes an article on Restrooms at Dartmouth, I promise to support deletion of it. DGG (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete0- per above. All these groups unlikely to be notable, and not satifsied with the cruft here.JJJ999 04:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and whittle it down. There are too many totally non-notable organizations in there (Dartmouth Union of Bogglers, Dartmouth Billiards Club, etc) - and we don't want all 300+ organizations on campus in this article. However, there are too many semi-notable organizations in here to warrant deletion. For example, most of the senior societies are notable in their histories and such, if individual Greek organizations are notable enough then I think Amarna and Panarchy probably are notable enough to be in a summary article at least, Dartmouth Outing Club, Native Americans at Dartmouth, The Dartmouth Aires (which have an individual article up for deletion, which I'd support, but they have published several CDs, won a few awards, and are decently well-known, so they deserve at least a paragraph somewhere). I will note that, as per User:Noeticsage's statement, I am also a current undergrad and a member of Wikiproject Dartmouth, but I agree with Dylan in that I don't think that's a huge conflict of interest. I've done mostly organizational work on the Dartmouth pages (including getting a lot of cruft articles deleted/merged). I don't think this article is cruft, however. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 03:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whittling down would probably be a good idea. Do you suppose this content might lend itself to list form? Kane5187 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing I was thinking is condensing it so that every group doesn't necessarily have its own section. You could have, for instance, a section for a cappella groups: "Dartmouth has X number a capella groups. The oldest is the Dartmouth Aires, who do this and that. There are also the Rockapellas, who do social justice songs, and the blah blah blah..." It would probably help integrate the content of what right now is a piece-by-piece summary of each individual group. Kane5187 03:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of the notability of each group, the article itself has not established notability. Why is the topic of Dartmouth College student groups notable? Specific groups that are notable are either included on other pages (like the Dartmouth Greek system article) or have their own article. I still don't see why the subject of student groups at Dartmouth is notable. —Noetic Sage 03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently well referenced. Is appropriate to exist to avoid excessive material in Dartmouth College. --SmokeyJoe 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non- Admin Closure :: maelgwn - talk 10:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple J Hottest 100, 1997[edit]

Delete the community has come out differently on whether these top 100 lists are copyvios or not, but even if you come down on the non-copyvio side, is this encyclopedic? no. It's one station's views of things. We have all the various chart lists, what does this really add? There are a bunch more at Category:Triple J Hottest 100 but let's float a test balloon here, first. Carlossuarez46 05:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge all years These albums are a notable annual event in Australia, Bobsbasement 06:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge all years OH SNAP. It is very well-known in Australia. I can't think of a better way to explain my views, but if we have a lot of 'delete' votes I will further explainDarkcraft 06:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; The chart itself may be notable, that's why there is an article for it at Triple J Hottest 100. That doesn't mean every individual yearly chart needs a separate article, and the top 5 from each year is already listed at Triple J Hottest 100 which is enough. Masaruemoto 07:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article itself should be based around the CD Release - As that would satisfy notability, I.E. the new one each yeah. I would not however be adversed against the full list of the 100 being included on the page. Regarding the nomination, no this is not "one station's views of things", it is however one station's audience's view of things, the difference is paramount. The article and indeed the chart itself reflects part of the music culture of Australian in different years. Fosnez 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, I am trialling a new rescue template after it was suggested it should be placed on the AfD page in it's TfD. Please place comments about the template on it's talk page.Fosnez 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-encyclopaedic.--Bedivere 21:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's argument. Keb25 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unless there are independent sources, this should redirect to Triple J Hottest 100. Capitalistroadster 03:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite as per Foznez. The compilation makes the charts each year so it is a notable record. Capitalistroadster 03:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Masaruemoto above. The chart itself is most definitely notable, but the 1997 edition of it is not. Lankiveil 09:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per Foznez. The CD based on the list is certainly notable. The topic itself is notable in my mind as a very well known listing, produced annually and always released amid a reasonable amount of media coverage. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the CD is notable, but if the article is about the CD only, then we'd have to get rid of the full #1 to #100 list as well, since not all 100 songs are included. Lankiveil 04:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, none of this is a bit notable; it is a collection of music. Phgao 06:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Foznez. Notable long running album series. 203.220.107.23 07:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Foznez's reasoning. The article should be about the CD/DVD itself, and perhaps an external link to the page on the Triple J website with the full 100. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Foznez's reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.106.95 (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with no prejudice against recreation if better sourcing can be found. JoshuaZ 00:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Insanity[edit]

NN, troupe that performs Rocky Horror live. Ridernyc 05:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc 05:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability asserted by guest appearances on mainstream TV shows, and news article in refs. Rob T Firefly 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simple guest shots on TV series are not sufficient to get an individual past WP:BIO and ought not to be enough for a performance troupe. The single newspaper story linked in the article does not IMHO establish the notability of the group. I've searched previously to try to source this article and was never able to find anything. Worth at best a name-check in the article about the film's cult following. Otto4711 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets general notability, needs citations. --Buridan 05:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in seeing the multiple independent reliable sources in which this troupe has received significant coverage. That is what it means to "meet general notability." Otto4711 13:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i suspect you would be interested in finding anything... google might help. give it a shot. --Buridan 05:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, which you of all people given how closely you scrutinize my activities should have noticed, I have searched--on more than one occasion in fact--for sourcing for this article. So do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim that this group is in any way notable? Because you're the one asserting that it meets the guideline. Otto4711 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midnight_Insanity&oldid=77760185 seems notable. --Buridan 23:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss as to how you can think that linking to an old version of the page that is "sourced" by IMDB and the group's website helps in your quest to demonstrate that there are independent reliable sources. Otto4711 00:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shows it is notable, if you have this, then you can go through the newspaper archives and dig it out the secondary and tertiary sources. the question here is 'notability', this list and its capacity to be cited, provides adequate and citable notability. if on the other hand, you over time remove all basic facts about the group, then sure, it can't be notable, but if you deal with actually available knowledge about the group as demonstrated on the imdb import that was deleted because no one went through and re-cited it. --Buridan 15:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset indent IMDB basically lists everything, it's almost like listing the phonebook as a source.Ridernyc 10:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete User:Otto4711 is correct - the article doesn't have third party non trivial sources, and I can't find any via google either. On the other hand they are undoubtedly famous to a point. I therefore think that they just fail WP:N but would change my mind if sources were added before the end of this AfD. A1octopus 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because although I am getting sick of Rocky Horror, this troupe is reasonably notable, and the article now has 3 reliable sources, enough for a stub. Bearian 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources verify two specific details in the article but they are not substantially about the troupe. They are the Hollywood Bowl's website and the Queen Mary's website announcing the troupe's appearance. They are ads, which do not establish notability under WP:N. Otto4711 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Field artillery in the American Civil War. Page will be linked to on the talk page of the target. The Placebo Effect 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artillery Advantages the North had in the American Civil War[edit]

deletion nom Prod was removed without comment. This article is not an encyclopedia article. It reads like someone's term paper. Even the title seems to indicate as such. Possible WP:OR as well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- saveable, even if bad POV and formatting.JJJ999 06:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - noticable topic that deserves some attention, though perhaps not under current title. --Martin Wisse 07:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article reads like an essay written by a junior high school student. If someone can somehow improve this article, I'd be happy to change my stance, but I currently see the article as hopelessly unsalvageable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - salvageable Przepla 12:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject definitely seems noteworthy to me, and there are several sources mentioned. — Ksero 15:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely having sources does not make this article keepable. This article may warrent a section in the American Civil War article, but just look at the title? Wikipedia is not a publishing service for your thesis paper. Its an encyclopedia... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article states, "I believe the Union’s ability to inflict a much higher percentage of casualties is directly related to their ability to manufacture much more accurate weapons, and in greater quantities." In other words, the claim of notability made for "Artillery Advantages the North had" depends on the article author's own opinion. Differences between Northern and Southern equipment can be treated at Field artillery in the American Civil War, but but there's no need to preserve this original research essay. EALacey 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvageable to Field artillery in the American Civil War. People talk about improving articles during Afd, but it rarely happens. I know because I do it too. Katr67 20:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary article and not suitable for Wikipedia.--Bedivere 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Katr67. Most of it is WP:OR. The only thing I can see worth saving is the time it took to field comparable artillery pieces. Clarityfiend 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Katr67. Torc2 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename Either merge or rename to compariosn of civil war artillery and then clean up foreverDEAD 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Merging and redirecting seems reasonable, given that an appropriately titled and written article already exists and covers the exact same information. There ARE a few good sources in this article, and there may be a nugget or two of good information in it that could be used in the Field artillery in the American Civil War article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Katr67. Cleaned up, this could make a good subheading in Field artillery in the American Civil War. Thatcher131 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, clean up, rm WP:OR per Katr67 & others Carlossuarez46 04:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - there is already an article on the basic topic (Field artillery in the American Civil War). Redirect is pointless. Springnuts 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep salvageable; rename and heavily edit. JJL 13:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a few cleanup tags is all. Viperix 20:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (minimal independent sources that go beyond directory listing). Espresso Addict 01:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labour india[edit]

This page has been repeatedly recreated and deleted as spam under this title and Labour India. The current version is not spam, in my opinion. The issue remains of whether the publishing company is truly notable under Wikipedia standards. I think there's enough about a school (which is a special case for notability) that this article asserts notability, but I don't know if it establishes it. There is no notability guideline on schools, but I think traditionally we don't keep small private boarding schools like this. This is the only press coverage I could find. chaser - t 05:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as original speedy tagger) unless we can establish notability via references. So far we only have self-published sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the [Labour India Gurukulam Public Shool http://www.gurukulam.com/], [Labour India International Gurukulam School http://www.labourindiahrd.com/] --Avinesh Jose 05:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, these are self-published sources. Do you have any references that show anyone NOT associated with this group has published extensive information about them?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check this also, I am trying to get more and more also. --Avinesh Jose 05:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Press releases are items written by the organization itself and released to the press. This is still written by Labour India and still does not show that anyone unassociated with it has cared enough to make them notable--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then what about [this], [this] and this]do you know the first link belongs to Government of India? Avinesh Jose 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
- All of these sites establish that the group exists. Merely existing is not enough to warrent a Wikipedia article. They amount to a telephone directory. Again, please read the guidelines such as WP:N and WP:CORP; they ask for non-trivial information. The first site you link seems to be the results of a track meet, the second and third are merely directory information. In WP:CORP, for example, the following items can NOT be used to establish notability: Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people and Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. are NOT considered enough to establish that a group is NOTABLE. They merely establish that a group EXISTS, which is not the minimum threshold for a Wikipedia article. What we need are EXTENSIVE and INDEPENDANT evidence that this group is notable enough that people unassociated with the group have written about it. I still don't see any of that.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pls Dont Delete. atleast pay respect to this, this one is an Educational Research Center.that too No.1 in Kerala. --Avinesh Jose 09:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam for nn company. Carlossuarez46 04:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The individual secondary schools it runs are probably notable, as almost all high schools are. Possibly the center is. The publishing company publishes exam reviews and the like--its "journals" do not seem to be true periodicals, but student diaries or portfolios or course guides. I doubt it is notable. The company as a whole? Probably not, for it has to be judged among other such companies and it seems rather small for that--at least we need some evidence otherwise. DGG (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and clean-up. --Tikiwont 14:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mellow Mushroom[edit]

Pure advertisement, no sources. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it exists for sure, is a small but good pizza chain, sources will be found. AfD is not for cleanup issues. Speciate 07:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one source; a favorable featured review in Charlotte, NC.[53] Speciate 07:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable medium-sized restaurant chain. Google news has a ton of major newspaper sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article just needs expansion and sources (which are available) added. The chain is growing steadily. AUTiger » talk 14:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment statements like this from the article: The Mellow Mushroom seeks to project itself as a healthier, more natural alternative to other restaurants. For instance, they state that they use spring water to make the dough used in their pizza. They also require the use of part skim Cheese, which is lower in fat. There is also nothing fried at Mellow Mushroom. The current website was designed several years ago by Atlantans Mike and Matt Chapman, creators of Homestar Runner. A new website is currently being designed.

That's pure public relations, especially the part about the web site's designers. "Healthier, more natural alternative to other restaurants"?? Source? This article is full of that. Giving the article the benefit of the doubt on copyvio. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The fact that web animation pioneers The Brothers Chaps did their website is a point of notability. It was (and still is) the one and only commercial website the Chapmans have ever done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The current entry is spammy, but there is demonstration of notability out there. Needs to be added and the spammishness removed. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Mr. Lenahan and Rawr JuJube 02:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello, thanks for insight. The listing was full of incorrect information before the edits i made. However, some of the statements that are objected to were on the site for a long time and were typical of what was deleted. For instance "seeks to project itself" and "perceived quality" were not my brainchild. I understand and respect the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and edit this listing again with these comments in mind. Your thoughts on what qualifies as sourced material and how it should be referenced are appreciated. - Give Pizza Change 13:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources/references would be links to things online that prove the statements. The article says, The Mellow Mushroom's menu states that they use spring water to make the dough used in their pizza. The menu also states that the company uses cheese which is lower in fat. There is also nothing fried at Mellow Mushroom. OK, a good example. Got a link to the menu that shows these statements of fact? Got a source that proves there is nothing fried at Mellow Mushroom? I have eaten at Mellow Mushroom, specifically the one in the picture in Flowood, Mississippi - so I am well aware of some of the statements of fact made in the article, yet I'm sure there are millions that haven't ate there and that's why we require sources/references/proof on Wikipedia. Keep in mind, that's not the only statement of fact in the article, I just used it as an example. There are many in the article that need sourcing. Also understand that my AfD nomination wasn't because I don't like Mellow Mushroom but more because of it's advertisement/no sources form. Thanks.-- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regrettably. It's a noteworthy local/regional chain. The article needs cleaning up. (Oh, did I mention their pizza is overrated?) Majoreditor 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of multiple secondary sources indicates this piazza chain fails WP:CORP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.collins (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Among other reasons, I got to this AfD page because I went to Wikipedia to look for info on the chain. It's an interesting subject and please remember that WP:NOT. I don't see a single one of the WP:5 that suggests that it should be chopped (deletionist stuff aside). As an added (and irrelevant) bonus, it's kick-*** pizza.Kevin/Last1in 01:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was you don't need AFD (articles for deletion) to merge two articles. Propose it on the talk page or do it yourself. Melsaran (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!Hero (album)[edit]

merge and redirect to the article !Hero Ridernyc 04:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Placebo Effect 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rock operas[edit]

Unsourced list of a topic that is already covered by a category. This list has the same problems that the other articles like Concept Album have had. people add things that are not truly rock operas, for example the Bat Out Of Hell albums. Many items are also concept albums and not rock operas. Musicals like Evita are also listed for some reason. I think this much better covered by the catagory and much easier to police that way. Ridernyc 04:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, use categories. lists seems to get incorrect entries fairly regularly. MarsRover —Preceding comment was added at 04:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nom. Przepla 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not already covered by categories, it would make a good category. As a list, it's a textbook example of "indiscriminate information". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Bedivere 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not fix it instead of simply erasing it? - The list has rock operas in it. The solution proposed above seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than simply deciding whether or not to delete it, perhaps the focus of the discussion should be how to fix it, retaining what is valuable and removing the rest. That would be a lot more productive than undoing all the good work done on this list. It wouldn't take too much effort to contact the contributors of the article. They'd probably be motivated to clean it up. We know there are rock operas in the world, and there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have a list of them. An unreferenced tag and a clean up tag probably would have been more appropriate than a AfD nom. The Transhumanist 04:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why even have this list (clean or not)? it looks just like a category page. A bunch of links organized alphabetically. Except this one has errors and needs regular maintainance. Same links don't even send you to the correct article (ex. Zoid) you wouldn't have that problem with categories. MarsRover 05:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query - By the way, what good is posting to an AfD "discussion" if the "discussers" merely vote and not check back in? Without a back and forth exchange, can we really call this a discussion? If the discussers don't check the page for replies, they have no opportunity to change their minds in response to replies. Does that actually produce a consensus? The Transhumanist 04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy lookup: - Going straight to AfD may not be the appropriate way to handle unverified material. According to the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the ((fact)) template, or tag the article by adding ((refimprove)) or ((unreferenced)). Leave an invisible HTML comment, a note on the talk page, or an edit summary explaining what you have done." The editors were never given a chance in this case, and I doubt any of them know about this AfD, which I believe was premature. The Transhumanist 04:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the most part a procedural clean up AFD. A list like this should be a category. As far as letting the editors know, Take a look at the contributors, basically nothing but hit and run ip's. Why clean this up and the category up. Why do we need redundant info. Trust me I Know what I'm doing. Ive spent the last 2-3 months cleaning up the concept album article. Also list of concept albums has been deleted multiple times, so why should list of rock operas still be around. Ridernyc 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists are not redundant with categories. AfD is not cleanup. AndyJones 19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect. 150.101.162.94 07:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate NJ![edit]

Does a campaign like this have notability? I can't decide. Because it is, at base, a publicity campaign, there are quite a few G-hits but few seem to be WP:RS or WP:V. Pig^man 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Crossroads of the American Revolution Association, as this program does not to be notable on its own, and should be listed under the parent organization. Alansohn 05:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Alansohn.--Bedivere 21:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was a controversial nomination, and I had to weigh this one carefully. The high presence of WP:ILIKEIT-style comments made me wonder if discounting them could show consensus to delete. In the end, though, I found that even without them, I couldn't find any consensus to delete on this one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American philosophers[edit]

Seems to be the exact same type of lists as List of Jewish American social and politicial scientists which has recently been deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American social and political scientists. Lists are essentially just more specific subdivisions of the deleted list. Has been unsourced or sourced with partisan and questionable sources for over a year. Is subject to much vandalism that is not reverted (for example, adding Sean Connery to the lists). Provides no real content or information or use. And seems to violate "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" of WP:NOT. Bulldog123 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - these are part of a set: Lists of American Jews, an expansion of Lists of Americans and Lists of Jews, which are expansions of Lists of people by nationality, which is an expansion of Lists of people. While the nominated lists appear to be cross-categorizations, what they really are in essence are subdivisions of a huge list which had to be subdivided into further lists (there are a lot of American Jews). Subdividing by occupation is superior to merely chopping it up alphabetically. Deleting any of these lists will simply put irrational holes in the system of people lists. Please browse the links provided here to get a feel for the whole system before deciding to delete part of the system. Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most ethnicity-American lists don't attempt to list everybody, but rather the ones known more for their Other Americanness (so to speak). But on the occasion we do get cross-categorizations or overloaded lists, they get deleted based on individual merit (like List of Norwegian Americans). In fact, there was a discussion on what to do with these ethnicity-American lists and the conclusion was to just judge each individually on how it's presented. So merely because we have a system, doesn't mean everything has to stay in that system. Dividing by occupation, though, has to be notable (say, African-American writers) and better be loaded with a really good source to prove why it is. That's definitely not happening in any of these lists. They're just a bunch of names, related, in some cases, very loosely. Bulldog123 23:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain which of the speedy keep reasons this meets. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for exact same reasons. I noticed that some of the categories have been deleted too. When the categories were deleted they didn't always provide a substitute, so the people lost their Jewish Category. The only way to find them now is in the lists. Peek at a few such as Paul Benacerraf, and he isn't in a Jewish category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Benacerraf is French so I don't see how this is related to Jewish Americans. Add Category:French Jews then. Bulldog123 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume he becomes American when he moves to the United States, as he did in 1960, and receives US citizenship. Why do you find that hard to understand? My point is that he is not in any Jewish category, because the Jewish categories were deleted too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please explain which of the speedy keep reasons this meets. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nothing While two consecutive comments labelled "speedy keep" looks impressive, I don't know where the idea comes about that the label "List of Jewish American _____" is entitled to a speedy keep. The only reason I don't say "delete all" is that I think that a list of "Jewish American philosophers" actually is relevant, since their philosophical speculations may be in accordance with, or in spite of, an upbringing in the Jewish faith. On the other hand, what's the purpose for a list of Jewish American psychologists? Should someone treat with or avoid a psychologist because of his religious background? Do we assume that a Jewish linguist is going to know more Yiddish or Hebrew than a Methodist linguist? How is a Jewish economist different from a gentile economist...? (No, I don't know the punchline) Mandsford 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Secular Jewish philosophers, which this essentially is, was deleted based on non-notability and is a staple for overcategorization. Bulldog123 23:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate Delete — The same logic applies here as was the consensus for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American musicians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians in entertainment and media. So deleting these is consistent with part 4, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. The entire Category:Lists of people by belief tree should be checked. Examples include List of Muslim scientists and List of Hindu soldiers. — RJH (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Firstly, the last two lists above seem to be referenced so they shouldn't be lumped in with the others. Secondly, if you spot vandalism, please revert it not bring the article to AfD. (I can't actually find Sean Connery in any of the lists.) Thirdly, we should consider each AfD on its merits, so deletion of another list is irrelevant. Otherwise, I agree with the keep arguments above.--Bedivere 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain which of the speedy keep reasons this meets. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, first of all, straight lists are more appropriately addressed in categories, yet in this case these shouldn't even be categories as they involve non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. --MPerel 05:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this violation of Wikipedia:Listcruft. See also related Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Thank you, IZAK 09:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I dont see any thing bad about this lists, truely- you are going too far friends.--Gilisa 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain which of the speedy keep reasons this meets. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For clarity, Gilisa subsequently changed this from a speedy keep to a regular keep. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how is a list of people connected by a intersection of religion, nationality and profession encyclopaedic? - fchd 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge If these lists were deleted, the names would all have to be moved to the List of American Jews, which would then get very big. Isn't it sensible to split up a big list? If not by occupation, then how? Alphabetically? The last list is not by nationality so the comments by fchd are irrelevant.--Habashia 11:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)— Habashia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep as a reasonable subdivision and a notable intersection--the number of people there shows it. This would only be deletable if all ethnic lists were, which is very much not the policy, though some seem to want to change it so it is. Repeatedly saying "'nonotable intersection" doesnt make it so. Perhaps the previous deletions of similar lists should be revisited. Fortunately, we're not bound by precedent, and can correct our errors. DGG (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been deemed non-notable long ago: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_31#Category:Secular_Jewish_philosophers. Bulldog123 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Many anti-Semitists and quasi anti-Semitists do not like Jews and try to hide their significant role in culture. So, we see a policy to delete or redirect lists of Jewish artists and scientists. It is not a good way. Being human, we must have a satisfactory presentation of every set of facts. - Mibelz 13:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failing which renominate as separate lists. Most of these are non-notable intersections. The people on the lists are probably notable, but the list concepts themselves are not. Wikipedia is not a directory, and beware overcategorization. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the interest of full disclosure I was solicited to come to this AFD by User:Bulldog123 on the grounds that I closed previous deletion discussions involving lists of (foo) (bar) (gazonk)s. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Keep these articles and put this issue to bed. These are clear and well-defined lists that are completely in character with the criteria defined by WP:LIST. The suggestion that deletionists should take a second crack at deletion on a one-by-one basis after this AfD fails is a clear cut case of trying to take two bites of the apple. Alansohn 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep philosophers who are from a certain minority are different than other philisophers and we need them as a separate issue in an encyclopedia.--יודל 13:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- And how does this list help us understand why they are different? Bulldog123 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That they are Jews.--יודל 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a plain list of secular Jewish philosophers helps us understand why a secular Jewish philosopher is different from a secular Anglican philosopher? Bulldog123 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i don't see the word secular--יודל 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the title: Jewish American. An American Jew is not defined only by his or her religion. If you were looking for exclusively religious Jews, it would then be in the form of Category:Philosophers of Judaism. Bulldog123 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Americans may be secular but they are Jewish and and their tradition plays a unique role in their Philosophy.--יודל 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please explain which of the speedy keep reasons this meets. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first one: there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, The nominator of this discussion declares that Philosophers are the same as Scientists, and since there was a consensus to delete Jewish scientists we must therefore also delete Jewish philosophers. this argument is in my view a rationale for deletion for the sake of process, which is a speedy keep since this subject in of itself has great merit to exist and not be deleted.--יודל 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, the nominator specifically said it looks like a vilation of " "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" of WP:NOT". This is why we lack List of Asian American philosophers, List of Asian American linguists, List of African American linguists. What, there are none? Bulldog123 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument was that it should be like Jewish Scientists, and for that it is a speedy keep, for the other arguments it is a normal keep since a philosopher from Jewish decent is shaped and influenced by his ancestry and tradition unlike any other minority.--יודל 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below. Comparisons to other AfDs are not useful. About your second point, I don't think its very clear; as written, it seems vaguely absurd to me. (Unless you meant 'like'.) Relata refero 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I haven't yet seen an argument that convinces me that this is a notable intersection, as required by policy. Relata refero 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out what might well be obvious that policy enjoins us to keep notable intersections; clearly some intersections will be notable, and others not, so any claims that 'there are others' is not a sufficient argument, and should be disregarded by the closing admin. Relata refero 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jewish people are an ethnic diaspora like any other and we have plenty of other articles and categories for African-Americans, Asian-Americans etc. If necessary they could be merged to Lists of American Jews and List of Jews as these articles are not overly long. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better as categories. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and in particular The Transhumanist - This seems to me to be a group of notable and valuable lists worth keeping. Modernist 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikiepdia is is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory. There is no need to catagoriseevryone on the planets into lists by their nationality/ethnicity/religeon/proffession/whatever. These lists do not belong in an encyclopaedia. [[Guest9999 17:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
keep Very notable intersection. Yidisher and others make compelling arguments. Miles Naismith 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)— Miles Naismith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The speedy keep !votes above might validly have been based on nominating them all together appearing like WP:POINT. That's not what I said myself, though--I said keep, meaning keep all. Lists are not categories, and prior afds otherwise are ripe for overthrow. I hope there is consensus for meaning groupings like these. DGG (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent contributor and an admin, I'm sure you know what is and what isn't a WP:POINT contribution, so it doesn't behoove you to use it incorrectly in these circumstances to try to justify the speedy keeps. Since this clearly isn't a hoax or a fillibuster, you're claiming that this nomination can be seen as Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system by those who voted speedy keep. From the list of examples of gaming the system, I'd really love to see one that applies to nominating several related lists together. The truth is, all speedy keeps are coming from people who either take this issue too personally (noting the anti-semitic accusations) or from people who simply haven't been paying attention to recent discussions on what to do with List of Foo Americans. If they don't realize this doesn't apply to the criteria for speedy delete, User:Stifle gave them the opportunity to overturn their !votes. Only Gilisa appears to have overturned his. There is no need for you to "guess" at what they meant by it, or to try to cover for them. I'm sure if there was a valid speedy keep reason, they would list it themselves. Linguists, economists, and philosophers are all generally seen as social or political scientists, and it would be foolish to not nominate these together, especially since WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a favored argument for retention over deletion. On the other hand, biologists are not as closely related, and so they are not nominated together with these others.
That said, for everyone who did put "Keep becuase notable" --- if Jewish American philosophers are supposedly notable, why is the deletion discussion of the secular Jewish philosopher category an example of a non-notable intersection on WP:OCAT? These is no indication any of the Jewish American philosophers listed are religious and if they are then they belong in a different list/category. Bulldog123 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Notable categorization, which assists our users in obtaining the information they need. There's no reason to make it nearly impossible for our users to utilize this list. Editor proposing deletion is well known for his/her profusion of WP:POINT nominations without merit (in this case, an extreme view that wishes our users not to have any way, except in looking through the individual articles of every American philosopher, to have a list of philosophers of Jewish heritage). Badagnani 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user who doesn't understand WP:POINT. Bulldog123 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 15:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norval Marley[edit]

Contested prod. There is no indication in this article of any importance whatsoever beyond having a famous son, and notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository. Fails WP:BIO. Dhartung | Talk 03:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say KEEP not delete

Bob's ethnicity is tied to the meaning in his music. So him coming from an Anglo Jamaican who abandoned him is worth knowing(for those who want delve into his music's meanings). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.81.199 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that removing the AFD template from the article, as you did here, does not halt the discussion or prevent the article from being deleted. --Dhartung | Talk 19:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, Marley's ancestry is interesting and can be discussed in his own article.--Bedivere 22:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bob Marley as the content is useful, but the subject is plainly not notable for his own article per the requriements of WP:BIO. Bearian 21:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say KEEP not delete Bob's ethnicity is tied to the meaning in his music. So him coming from an Anglo Jamaican who abandoned him is worth knowing(for those who want delve into his music's meanings). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.81.199 (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bob Marley. The only aparent aspect of notability is that fact that he is father of someone who is notable, and that does not qualify for article of his own.207.69.137.27 17:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 participants excluding the creator agree that the article should be deleted. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter Anniversary Collection Stratey Guide[edit]

I'm not entirely sure this passes WP:N, even though it's well-written! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wait, somebody thought a strategy guide for a video game needs an article? It could possible be speedy deleted for A7 (no assertion of notability) or possibly G11 (blatant advertising). The section on the authors also is not neutral and sounds like it might be from the strategy guide itself. TJ Spyke 05:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is very relative. In the Street Fighter community this guide is well known and highly praised. Before this guide came out, no serious tournament player would even look at a guide, especially one from BradyGames. They were written by writers who not only had no real tournament experience, no actual experience with the game. If anything, tournament players would purchase the Japanese guides even though they could not read the strategy information, solely because of the technical frame data.

The Anniversary guide set a new standard for what an American strategy guide could be. It was the first to include frame data, proven tournament strategy, and was written by actual tournament players. The profile of the players is part of what gives this guide its legitimacy as an accurate source of information. It was well received and highly praised amount Street Fighter players. The book itself is an encyclopedia of tournament knowledge.

How is notability defined in Wikipedia? There are entries for obscure and rare video games for instance. Many of those are not notable other than that they were published at one point. However, they still contain knowledge and are probably of interest to some people. This guide is notable in the Street Fighter community. Mopreme 13:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with some reluctance. The relevant notability guideline would appear to be for books, and it does not appear that it meets any of the criteria for per se inclusion. The claim that this guide was much better received than other BradyGames guides would appear to need sourcing from reliable sources, although IMO gaming websites might be reliable on these matters. Without that, it's just an article about a game guide. If kept, it should move to a properly spelled title. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Move to new title to correct spelling error. Mopreme 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Placebo Effect 21:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Foy[edit]

Delete - does not pass WP:BIO. No independent reliable sources. No indication of a large fan base or significant cult following. He has appeared on a couple of reality shows, but by way of comparison an article on another model from the same show, John Stallings, was deleted despite his being on multiple reality shows and having multiple reliable sources. Of course every article should be judged independently but still. Otto4711 03:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those times where I do not mind a delete set forth by you, Otto. This article was an absolute mess before I got a hold of it, and, well, after that it was obviously only lowered to a Number 9-mess. I am still working on the Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney article in my Word document, as luckily, but not surprisingly, they have been written about extensively in more than a few books, and I didn't need another article on my need-to-improve list at this time, such as this one, when the subject of the article is not as notable as Tila Tequila, when it comes to Reality TV-star fame. Sure, this reality-television star should be based on his own merit, and that's what I'm also doing. It just doesn't appear as though much can be applied to this article in the way of note-worthiness. Flyer22 03:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just said "delete per nom"... ;-) Otto4711 18:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but I wanted to explain, just as CrazyRob926 did. I'm not usually about simply stating one line in a deletion debate. I was also being a little humorous (though it wasn't funny) in stating that this is one of those times where I don't object to a deletion nomination by you, Otto. I didn't mean it as anything negative, of course. Flyer22 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Bedivere 22:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, there are no reliable sources, just because someone is seen on TV does not mean they are encyclopedic worthy. Plus the article still reads more like a resume then an article even after the hard work Flyer22 did, since there are no real good sources to use to write this article up to wikipedia standards. It needs to go. CrazyRob926 00:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD nom was removed by user Ldinchetns which I reverted. --Sc straker 13:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 13:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I feel that that user should be warned about having done that to a deletion debate, though Ldinchetns surely already knows that it was wrong to do. Flyer22 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS accessories[edit]

Wikipedia is not a shopping guide or CNET Marlith ^T/C 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge page into Nintendo DS#Accessories. Some of the information seems to be repeated between the two articles, so it would make more sense to merge the articles. -- Imperator3733 05:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was about to say 'Merge' but the DS page is a bit too cluttered already so perhaps it would be better if the article was kept, and the accessories section was deleted from the main DS article.Darkcraft 06:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Judging by the amount of stuff on here, there seems to be an entire industry around providing accessories for the DS. If it was merged into Nintendo DS#Accessories it would completely dominate the article. The Accessories section in the latter article should probably be trimmed down, with a link to Nintendo DS accessories as the main article. Cosmo0 18:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Keep. I agree largely with Cosmo0. The DS has a booming accessories market, which couldn't be done justice in the original DS article (it would be too long. The accessories section of the DS article should be merged into this, and instead of the long thing in the current article, something like this:The Nintendo DS has a large accessories market, with a large number of official accessories by Nintendo and many third party accessories. As far as some editing down of the article, I'd be keen on that- some of the sections are written more like advertisements, and rather than describing each of the homebrew kits in general, describe "flash cart" and put examples. However, I believe strongly that this article should be kept. --JDCMAN 01:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main article is already too cluttered, and there is a booming market. --Fowl2 06:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does contain alot of useful information and a nice overview of the accessories on the market. If entries read like adverts, that should obviously be adressed. Deletion seems a bit extreme for what seems to be a POV-problem. Granted, removing a problem is more efficient than fixing it;) --Stardreamer 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Ally Magazine - Interested editors may want to check if anything still remains to be merged. --Tikiwont 12:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queer magazine[edit]

Now known as Ally Magazine per Amos Palm Publications, the owner. Ally Magazine has its own article too. Not sure how to go about preserving the history of Queer magazine, if it even needs to be. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I brought over info from Queer magazine to Ally Magazine, although some of the details between the 2 contradict each other. I sense someone related to the magazine is doing the editing since User:Hemstrong created both articles, Queer magazine in December 2006 and Ally magazine October 9, 2007 and many of the details look like cut and paste the way they are worded such as "our magazine". -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. If it's got that history, it's the only logical solution. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge and redirect. Seems like the only reasonable course of action. --Queerudite 21:56, October 15, 2007 (UTC)
Speedy redirect to preserve history. Since sole author prodded this article, I suggest leaving content merge issues to author to figure out along with sourcing and notability issues on Ally magazine. • Gene93k 07:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:CORP--JForget 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Thornton International[edit]

Obvious advertising, unreferenced, fails WP:CORP, created by a user whose sole contributions are for this article. Biruitorul 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Per nomination. Renee 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete spam. --victor falk 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fifth largest public accounting firm worldwide, with sources provided, more than satisfying anyone's definition of the Wikipedia:Notability standard, and passes WP:CORP with flying colors. The fact that the individual who created this article did not edit any other Wikipedia article is completely and utterly irrelevant to determining the notability of this article. If there are those among us who had never heard of the firm and who think that this article truly is (or was) spam, there are a wide variety of tags that should have been applied to this tag before the stampede to AfD. This is yet another example of a violation of Wikipedia:deletion policy, which mandates that nominators perform the due diligence to research, edit and improve articles before starting an AfD. Alansohn 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's relevant to the encyclopedic value of the article in this form that it was largely created by a probable spammer. It could be deleted and re-created in NPOV form, though. This AfD was made in good faith, by the way. Biruitorul 12:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. As per Alansohn, this easily passes WP:CORP, e.g. 1000ds of google news hits with many articles focusing on GTI. But I think merging with Grant Thornton LLP (and cleaning up advertising) is enough. --Allefant 09:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:CORP and WP:N standards easily. Cleanup the article and it will be fine. TonyBallioni 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fifth or sixth largest accountancy firm in the world I believe (depending on what basis you measure) cf BDO International. David Underdown 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above and it also has about 30 or 40 backlinks, at least 20 of which are in the article namespace - definite notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonymorris (talk • contribs) 08:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 5th largest accountancy firm easily meets notability criterion. Cosmo0 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very obvious keep. AndyJones 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep. One of the more important companies in the world. Odd nomination. Wikidemo 14:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. POV issues in corporate articles (i.e. WP:SPAM) are an independent reason for deletion even for a notable company. Eluchil404 08:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecofys[edit]

Possibly notable, but in its current form - unreferenced and horribly POV - undeserving of retention. Mainly the work of a user most of whose contributions are on this article and its images, which incidentally also smack of advertising. Biruitorul 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising. Renee 02:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, this reads like an ad and has no sources. meshach 02:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Potentially acceptable article, but needs a complete rewrite. Silverchemist 03:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not familiar with wp:corp and I usually don't participate in such afd's unless it's a blatant keep or delete, but judging from what google smells it seems notable. I've tagged it ((ad))--victor falk 03:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Bad article on notable subject.--Bedivere 22:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's apparently notable (50K + hits, international company, sources are out there), and other than being unencyclopedic in tone (though calling it advertising or spam is stretching the concept), something for which we ought not delete, it's well written. Leave as is but keep clean-up tags. Wikidemo 13:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with a reminder to include some of the found sources into the article itself. --Tikiwont 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watson Wyatt Worldwide[edit]

No references; the fact that a parent company is old doesn't transmit notability to it, either. Created by, in all likelihood, a spammer. Biruitorul 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently reads like it's from a company brochure. Needs secondary references. Renee 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are no inline references, but the article is sourced to the company's annual report and 10-K filings. The article may have been created by a spammer, and I know that it has been edited by an employee who cut and pasted from the company's website (I reverted her edits), but the company is notable. On October 13, The New York Times called it "one of the country’s leading compensation consulting firms".
They were in the middle of a scandal of sorts regarding executive compensation Pressing for Independent Advice From Consultants Panel to Look at Conflicts in Consulting Subpoena for Advisers on Salariesand pension consulting Actuaries Under Scrutiny On Pension Fund Pacts.
It's a little hard finding articles about the firm per se, but their research and surveys are widely cited. I'll find some substantial news coverage about the firm itself.
Full disclosure: I'm a former employee. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More coverage in secondary sources:
  - Thao Hua, Watson Wyatt retools amid staff exodus, industry shift, Pensions & Investments, 2006-02-20.
  - SARAH VEYSEY, Watson Wyatt sued for alleged negligence, Business Insurance, March 2005.
  - Watson Wyatt and the ABCs of going public, Consulting Magazine, April 2001.
  - Watson Wyatt plans an IPO; A first among benefit advisers, Business Insurance, November 1999. (This may be a press release; I can't tell.)
  - Jerry Geisel, WATSON WYATT ABANDONS WELLSPRING: STATE STREET OWNS OUTSOURCING UNIT, Pensions & Investments, 1998-03-09.
  - Joel Chernoff, WYATT, WATSON JOIN FORCES; ALLIANCE SEES PROSPECTS FROM MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES, Pensions & Investments, [[1995-04-03].
  - Watson Wyatt Worldwide at Answers.com has the names of more articles, some of which are not available on the web
- Most of these are trade journals, but as the bylines indicate, they are not reprints of press releases. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes clear claims of notability (oldest actuarial firm, etc.) and provides sources, albeit not inline, to support an article that passes the Wikipedia:Notability standard. This AfD seems to have been created by a spammer. Alansohn 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Was that comment a joke? Because if not, I'd ask you to keep WP:CIV in mind, and bring proof of my ever having spammed Wikipedia, or else withdraw your insult. Biruitorul 12:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't call people spammers, you do. But in retrospect, creating a laundry list of AfDs with no apparent research done on the article's subjects (in violation of the mandate in Wikipedia:deletion policy to edit and improve articles before starting AfDs) seems a great deal like spam. Alansohn 05:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously someone who makes four contributions to Wikipedia, of which three are an advertisement and one a link to that advertisement, is a spammer, so your attempt to insinuate that I have made unjustified insults is reprehensible. I used my well-considered judgment to nominate for deletion a group of articles I believed to be spam. If you can show how I -- I, who am trying to delete spam -- am a spammer (per WP:SPAM, not your own definition), please go ahead. Otherwise I ask that you withdraw your insult. Biruitorul 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Look at the content of the article, without trying to read into the intent of its creator, and you'll be far better off. Try to learn about your responsibilities under Wikipedia:deletion policy that requires you to perform due diligence to improve an article before the mad dash to AfD. Try doing a search in Google and in some of the news databases before jumping to conclusions on notability. Research the myriad of tags that can be applied to request others to improve an article, if you are unable to fulfill your obligations as an editor. No matter how poorly-written an article is, an AfD should be the absolute last step in the process, not a dumping ground for a series of articles you don't like. Alansohn 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        First, you're treating this as if I'm a head of state about to commit troops to war, or a judge about to sentence a convict to death. This isn't such a momentous occasion: at worst, a couple of pages about some random enterprises filled with expense-account-fed masters of the universe get deleted off a website, and recreated when they're ready to be. The world doesn't stop spinning. Of course, I'm quite committed to the Wikipedia project, but do let's keep some perspective. Second, I see you've dropped the "spammer" claim. Good. I am, at worst, being disruptive, but I'd strongly contest that too. Third, the identity of the creator does matter a great deal if it's a company promoting itself, which is not allowed here. Finally: I trust the AfD process. If an article turns out to be favoured for retention, so be it, but it's not the end of the world my nominating it. Biruitorul 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The AfD process is inherently disruptive. As you have described yourself, many nominators just throw articles up for AfD to see what sticks, after all "it's no big deal". That's why Wikipedia:deletion policy exists, to make clear to folks such as yourself -- who are indifferent to the process of building consensus -- that you have an obligation to perform due diligence to improve an article before the mad dash to AfD. You have failed on that front. To so cavalierly acknowledge that you just might be violating WP:POINT through your actions demonstrates that this may very well not be a good faith effort to improve this encyclopedia, but simply an effort to punish and disrupt. Alansohn 16:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the AfD process is not inherently disruptive, provided nominations are made in good faith, as all mine are. I'm quite familiar with consensus-building, so I'd rather not be tarred with that brush ("indifferent to the process of building consensus"), thank you very much. You keep pushing this notion of a "mad dash". It's not - none of these articles, to my recollection, is newer than May 2007. Since I contend that the subjects of these articles are inherently non-encyclopedic, I am under no obligation to improve them, only to call for their deletion. (Note the policy says "If the page can be improved...") And no, I never admitted to being disruptive (in any case I'm not accountable to you) - I said that at worst I might be accused of disruption, a charge I'd vigorously contest. But I'm not being disruptive, just making an effort to cleanse Wikipedia of what I see as spam. These continued baseless accusations have grown tiring. Biruitorul 21:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The AfD process is inherently disruptive, particularly when it is abused by individuals who fail to exercise their basic responsibilities under Wikipedia:deletion policy to research an article, and edit it to improve it, before considering an AfD. You violated this policy when you failed to fulfill your obligation. It is clear that you have no support for your baseless and false claim that is "spam" and I have more than grown tired of such abuse of Wikipedia policy . Alansohn 06:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        For the AfD process, an officially-sanctioned method, to inherently disruptive, it would have to be in violation of WP:POINT. That's obviously illogical: the community wouldn't endorse a process, used dozens of times a day, that violates one of its own guidelines. Because I consider the articles I nominate to be unsalvageable, I have no responsibility to improve them, as per the "If the page can be improved..." clause. I absolutely believe this article, for instance, is spam, based on its tone and referencing problems, though reasonable men like Malik Shabazz may disagree. Please stop attempting to put me on trial: if you think I've committed a policy violation, report me to WP:ANI and get it over with. Biruitorul 14:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator has indeed made a bunch of questionable nominations, and has been liberal in applying the words "spam" and "advertising" to full-fledged articles about obviously notable companies; also insinuations that articles written by newbies are likely to be spam. Not all of the nominations are bad but many are and they deserve scrutiny. Many AFD cases get very little real discussion so there's a fairly high error rate of rubber stamp deletions of articles simply because they're nominated. For that reason excessive creations uf unwarranted AFDs can cause a lot of damage on Wikipedia. No need to name call or assume anything but good faith, though. Wikidemo 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) If my nominations are indeed "questionable", "excessive" and "unwarranted", and if they deserve "scrutiny", you are free to bring me up before ANI or the relevant disciplinary forum. I stand on my clean record of making good-faith deletion nominations.

b) The fact that a company is notable does not preclude the possibility of spam being written about it; per WP:CSD, spam may be deleted on sight. Such deletion does not prejudice against the recreation of an article in NPOV form.

c) No, not all articles written by one-hit editors (as opposed to newbies) are spam, but it's much harder to write spam about a mountain, a turtle species or a long-dead bishop than it is about a present-day large corporation whose main purpose it it to make money, especially as such enterprises are known to advertise here. And that is the case with this and other articles I've nominated. Biruitorul 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since reliable sources telling of notability are easily found - no reason to delete. --Allefant 08:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as company is listed on a public stock exchange, and there is substantial secondary sources out there. Comments by Alansohn are not supported by any evidence, as article is defective as nominated.--Gavin Collins 10:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYSE and large business. this does seem in fact to be the actual continuation of the oldest accounting firm. Personally, I'd solve some of these debates by including all the 2700-odd NYSE listed companies. WP has room enough. DGG (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That does sound like a good idea. Maybe a new category for those? Biruitorul 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Wikidemo 14:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 B1atv 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC) {non admin closure)[reply]

Oliver Wyman[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, no assertion of notability, no references, heavily edited by User:Oliverwyman. Advertising, in other words. Biruitorul 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently reads like it's from a company brochure. Needs secondary references. Renee 02:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be rewritten with some references, but the company itself is noteworthy if the claim of having 2500 professional employees is true. Silverchemist 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Oliver Wyman Group --MarsRover 04:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes explicit claims of notability within its industry. Any content or tone issues are properly addressed using appropriate tags. Using the AfD process to clean up articles is at best, abusive. Alansohn 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes explicit claims of notability within its industry -- ie, it's a PR piece, from my perspective. And by the way, that's the third time today you've accused me of abuse/spam/policy violation. My actions are in good faith, so please stop. Biruitorul 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a boatload of tags that should have been used if the genuine concern was that the article needed to be reworded, just in case you did not want to exercise your responsibility under Wikipedia:deletion policy to improve the article yourself. And though the claim that your AfD barrage qualifies as spam was not made here, submitting multiple AfDs with no evidence whatsoever that any effort was made to investigate notability as required, certainly qualifies as spam. What was this "good faith" action intended to accomplish? Alansohn 04:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough.--Bedivere 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviosly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 14:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any secondary sources to back that up? Biruitorul 03:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire piece is not sourced. Also seems OR to me. Notability alone doesn't cut it. Chris! _ct 04:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources were already included at the bottom of the article. The lack of inline references does make it harder to attribute claims of notability for those who didn't make it to the Sources section at teh bottom of the article, and several of these sources were converted into references inline in the text. Besides, notability is what it's all about; I sourcing was truly the issue, there are a plethora of tags (such as "fact") that should have been added to the article. AfD is an extremely poor excuse for cleanup, if that's what was intended. Alansohn 05:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Often editors will not even attempt to improve article unless they are pressured to. That is what I believed. Chris! _ct 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Often delete voters won't bother reading the entire article. Neither you nor the nominator seem to have gotten to that part of the article. That is what I believe. The "no references" claim only holds water if you mean that you can't see a source next to each claim. Unfortunately, there simply is not any requirement to place sources right next to the associated statements. They were always there in the article. Alansohn 05:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Certainly there is no requirement to place sources next to statements. But not doing so will also cause editors like me to nominate articles for deletion. So it is up the creator or contributor of the article. Chris! _ct 05:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I withdrew my previous statement as it sounds like a threat. What I mean is that editors are responsible to use inline references. It takes too much work to review every link to see if materials are sources. Chris! _ct 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly doesn't take much to put an article through the AfD gauntlet, and a valid justification is often not provided nor are any of the obligations imposed on the nominator at Wikipedia:deletion policy to edit and improve the article before considering AfD ever followed. Wikipedia:Verifiability mandates inline sources solely for "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Furthermore, WP:V also describes some of the smörgåsbord of available tags -- such as "fact", "refimprove" and "unreferenced" -- which, if used, might be more likely construed as a good faith effort to address sourcing in a collaborative fashion. In contrast, AfD is often abused as a means to address these issues in far more disruptive fashion. Alansohn 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on my experience, tags like "fact" or "unreferenced" are not effective to get editors moving. Most of the time, they just ignore the tags. Though I think that AfD is effective to get editors moving, I rarely use it (if you check, my mainspace edits are more than my Wikipedia spaces edits) unless I think it should be deleted right away. Sorry if your position is different from mine, but my position is always leaning to deletionism. Chris! _ct 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're acknowledging that you go straight to AfD because you can't be bothered to observe Wikipedia:deletion policy, which requires you to improve articles and use those tags that you find too burdensome to use, you're admitting that you shamelessly violate Wikipedia policy. What you're describing is not a difference in opinion, but a refusal to abide by the basic tenets of Wikipedia. With an abject refusal to work on a collaborative basis to build and improve this encyclopedia, it's no wonder that deletionists are looked on with such disdain. Alansohn 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please stop attacking my position even if you disagree with it. Last time I check, the deletion policy allows me to AfD article if "content [is] not suitable for an encyclopedia." So I don't see how I am "shamelessly violating policy." Chris! _ct 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not attacking your position, I'm pointing out that you only read half of the policy. The problem is that you fail to observe the part that says "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion", which is the other half of the Wikipedia:deletion policy equation. You can't pick and choose only those parts that allow AfDs to be created, without teh corresponding obligation to make a legitimate effort to improve articles before nomination. As part of building an encyclopedia, collaboration requires that good faith efforts be made to assess notability and availability of material before an AfD is initiated. It is this due diligence obligation that you refuse to exercise here and that is disruptive. Alansohn 22:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I see you've found another person to put on trial. If I may speak in my own defence (and as much of this as applies to Chris): AfD should not be used solely as an article-improvement mechanism. However, articles I nominate I consider to be unencyclopedic, at least in their nominated form. Yes, there may be room for abuse in that, but I suggest you stop targeting reliable editors like Chris and me for such trifling reasons, if for nothing else than per WP:DICK. Biruitorul 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's nice to have you all in one place. My response to articles -- as required by Wikipedia policy -- is to add content and sources to improve them. Your collective response is to delete. I more than fulfilled your obligation on your behalf, adding multiple sources inline as no one seems to have read the Sources section at the bottom of the article. Even with the improvements to address the claims both of you have made, there seems to be no acknowledgment that the issues have been addressed and that votes should be changed and the AfD withdrawn. If only there were some sense from either of you that there is a genuine good faith effort to improve articles, and not just an effort to get rid of what you don't like. And the trifling gratuitous remark is a perfect example of this Wikipedia essay. Alansohn 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I will not even brother to answer an editor who blatantly disregard other fundamental Wikipedia policies: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Chris! _ct 23:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Has many good sources now in the article. Miles Naismith 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Management Consulting International[edit]

No references, no assertion of notability, advertising. Its creator's sole contribution. Biruitorul 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently reads like it's from a company brochure. Needs secondary references. Renee 02:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims of notability.--victor falk 03:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads lke an ad, no obvious claim to notability. Silverchemist 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam.--Bedivere 22:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable, can't find on web and it doesn't claim its own notability. Wikidemo 13:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of independent sources is a serious problem. Chick Bowen 03:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parson Consulting[edit]

No third-party references; no assertion of notability; fails WP:CORP; created by a user whose only other contributions are on another management consulting firm. Biruitorul 01:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently reads like it's from a company brochure. Needs secondary references. Renee 02:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly obviously notable, publicly traded company with 500 employees. If there's a problem with tone or content it can always be pruned - list of alliances, for example, is not appropriate.Wikidemo 14:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's things like unbiased secondary sources, not having 500 pen-pushers, that make a company notable. Biruitorul 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find non-trivial, independent reliable sources.-Wafulz 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising. I'm surprised this survived for so long. —Verrai 21:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proudfoot Consulting[edit]

No third-party references; no assertion of notability; fails WP:CORP; created by a user whose only other contributions are on another management consulting firm. Biruitorul 01:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently reads like it's from a company brochure. Needs secondary references. Renee 02:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Advert. Operating 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collinson Grant[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. No assertion of notability beyond one rather unimportant (or at least not earth-shattering) report they wrote for a client. Biruitorul 01:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently reads like it's from a company brochure. Needs secondary references. Renee 02:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 10:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rider[edit]

Apparently non-notable author whose books are published through vanity press PublishAmerica. Apparently they are due to be republished by Bellissima Publishing, which while not a vanity press does not appear to be very notable, judging by its lack of Google hits and their self description as "small" and "new." This guy is also apparently editor-in-chief of a magazine called Mountain Bike Tales Digital Magazine, which has practically no web presence, and has made contributions of an unknown nature to atvsource.com. A Google search for "jason rider" and his book character "tucker o'doyle" returns only 14 Google hits. Article has a couple claims of notability, but none seem to stand up. -Elmer Clark 01:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. No secondary references. Renee 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability.--Bedivere 22:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Lee Sanders[edit]

Apparently non-notable author who has published three books through vanity press iUniverse. Neither her page nor the pages for her books indicate any sort of notability, critical reception, etc for any of her work. Her name produces only 35 Google hits. Nothing at all to indicate that she or her work meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). -Elmer Clark 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in this nomination:

Three's A Crowd: The Beginning
The Sky Is Falling (2006 novel)
Bittersweet: The Diary of Brandy Morgan

Retain all mentioned above. Notable author in Phoenix. Starting up and working on getting reviews and media attention to her literary works. Articles should be retained for future research and reference to author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.51.150 (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all mentioned above. Non-notable, vanity postings. Renee 02:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Failure to meet WP:N. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO and WP:V. --Sc straker 12:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all nn. JJL 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Definitely needs more sources and a clear establishment of notability, though; a future nomination (as conceded by the "keep" proponents) is likely without them. Chick Bowen 02:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Wrestling Federation[edit]

A non-notable professional wrestling promotion. Despite valiant attempts, the authors of the article have been unable to provide independent reliable sources asserting the notability of the organisation. The promotion has no mainstream media coverage in Australia. Mattinbgn\^talk 01:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Twenty Years 01:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organization. Keb25 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. But only if additional secondary sources can be added. Renee 02:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into another larger wrestling article?JJJ999 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick response to the concerns I have expressed, but in it's present form I agree with Mattinbgn !! Justa Punk !! 02:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 03:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - "the authors" haven't been given any time to establish notability. We were told that we would have 2 months, and here it is not even a week later and it's up for deletion. The original author, no offense to him, had no idea what he was doing, so he took some good advice and came to WP:PW for help, and we haven't had like any time to help him out and establish that this indeed passes WP:ORG, WP:N, and the rest of the policies. I was already planning to nominate this article for WP:PWCOTW in a couple of weeks to jump-start the progress being made. Give us the two months that we were promised in the beginning, and we won't let you down. The Hybrid T/C 05:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Point taken about the original author. I did mean contributors to the article. Regardless of what may have been said by others, I have not given any undertaking to give you any set time period. I have been watching the ongoing discussion on the article talk page for a few days now, came to the conclusion that the article was unlikely to meet notability requirements and it would be best to put this before the community now for a decision one way or the other. There is always the option to userfy and restore to the article namespace if and when notability is established. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, because you didn't promise us time yourself, and you have a hunch that we won't be able to pull it off, you think that it should be deleted now, and not even give us a chance? Gee, thanks. Userfy is a crappy deal, because it dramatically limits how much exposure you can give it. For example, I had already planned to nominate this for WP:PWCOTW, but if it is userfied I can't do that. All I can do is spam people for help, which will annoy people, and probably won't get it back into article space anyway. Just let us have the time we were promised. The Hybrid T/C 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note that I have only just discovered. This article has a deletion history. It was deleted in July according to the deletion log. I don't know how long the previous page was in existence for so maybe there was a longer period of time to establish notability than we previously thought? !! Justa Punk !! 00:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever that article was around, I know for a fact that WP:PW wasn't working on it. This isn't about how much time it has had; this is about the fact that people who know what they are doing and haven't been given a chance to succeed are asking for a fair shot at saving this article. The Hybrid T/C 06:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I don't think you will be able to demonstrate notability, in the next week or in the next two months, hence my nomination. Personally, with new articles, I attempt to demonstrate notability first before creating the article. I know you didn't create it, but I don't see why that should absolve this article from the need to demonstrate the notability of the subject, not at some future time, but now. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as someone showed down below with Google news, we know that the sources exist; we just need to track them down. I know this sounds completely retarded, but I ask you to keep an open mind for my explanation. This is an Australian company. When a term like Australian Wrestling Federation is typed into Google, the most common terms to come up are American terms since most wrestling takes place here, and many companies have hired Australian wrestlers. This buries the sources behind thousands of results. We also don't know of anything more specific to type in since we are not Australian, and the original author can't really do anything to help us. We need time to dig through them, and we will need a fair number of people, which is why userfying won't work. The Hybrid T/C 06:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Allow for expansion Bobsbasement 06:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Expansion is not the issue. Notability is. I would be happy to keep a stub on a topic that demonstrates notability, which this article signally fails to do. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Hybrid that the authors should have more time to establish, with sources, the notability of the organization. If it's operating in Sydney, Australia, notability would depend on whether the matches take place in a major arena, or in a school gymnasium. Mandsford 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, that would be a good place to start. I suspect the answer is significantly towards the lower end of the scale, otherwise finding sources would not be as difficult as it has been. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google News Archive search indicates that the matches take place in clubs around Sydney. There is some coverage in suburban newspapers for its events. [54]. Capitalistroadster 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the locals are not notable sources and have been removed (as in Blacktown and Campbelltown). Newcastle and Wollongong are better though. However as Mattinbgn pointed out, they aren't major venues. There have been some improvements, but the article is still in trouble IMO. !! Justa Punk !! 08:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and let the Wikiproject work on it. What do contributors lose when their article gets deleted? An hour/day/week of work. What do deletionists lose when the article gets kept? Nothing (ok a bruised ego but that's about it). Besides you can always nominate it later and the Wikiproject might even do it for you if they found out that the article is really non-notable. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does WP lose if a non-notable article is kept is the question you should be asking. And the answer is credibility. The WP rules are there for a reason. !! Justa Punk !! 08:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be the thing deletionist will lose if they keep on arguing and judging without even lifting a finger to help. WP policies isn't used as a license to put the contributor under the thumb of the deletionist. As I said earlier, you can always re-Afd the article after the Wikiproject been through researching.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You assume that I haven't tried to help. I have. And I failed to find evidence that was notable. Does that make me a deletionist simply because it's assumed I haven't tried to help? Assumptions aren't exactly a good idea here. Might be an idea to note the latest edit on the AWF talk page, and (I've said this before) review the rules of notability. Basically the question is, "Why is the Australian Wrestling Federation notable?", and in answering that question there needs to be third party objective evidence that can be checked from a reliable source. Simple isn't it? I'm starting to lean towards Mattinbgn's view and against giving the two months - because if it's notable, sources should be easy to find. I couldn't, and what was added the other day didn't really help enough IMO. Stay away from local papers and fansites - they aren't reliable. !! Justa Punk !! 01:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall quote myself from above, "When a term like Australian Wrestling Federation is typed into Google, the most common terms to come up are American terms since most wrestling takes place here, and many companies have hired Australian wrestlers. This buries the sources behind thousands of results. We also don't know of anything more specific to type in since we are not Australian, and the original author can't really do anything to help us. We need time to dig through them." There is nothing in the notability policy stating that the source has to be easy to find; it just says the source must be reputable. The community obviously understands this, and is willing to work with us and give us time. The Hybrid T/C 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the notability policy stating that the source has to be easy to find. I never said that, Hybrid. I'm saying that the fact that the sources are not easy to find reflects on the notability. The less notable it is, the harder sources are to find. The key to it all is an Australian based news website, much like WON in the US. There isn't one - it's all fansites from what I can tell. I noticed an edit on the Professional wrestling in Australia talk page where someone made a comment about the Australian scene being "fragmented". That certainly makes the locating of sources not only difficult, but it may partly explain why that is the case. !! Justa Punk !! 09:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty doesn't reflect on notability when we are talking about a non-American or European market for a mostly American or European product. The AWF may very well be covered by such a news website, but when the population of that continent is only 21,110,000, while America and the UK's populations total 363,230,300, it is very possible that a news site that easily passes WP:RS has less links to it that a fansite that doesn't pass WP:RS. I'm afraid that you are entirely mistaken in your conceptions of what portrays notability. The Hybrid T/C 12:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what the consensus is about that, Hybrid. I don't agree with you. Notability isn't a rule that alters based on population. I think you'll find that major newspapers like the Sydney Morning Herald would stack up quite well to most of the major dailes in your area. I challenge you to make the case for notability for this article under the rules point for point - and I would suggest that when you do you may well see that I am correct. Then again....maybe not. I don't know. !! Justa Punk !! 13:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that notability alters, I said that google results alter, which they do. The reliable sources are buried, and they are buried simply because of population. The Hybrid T/C 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you bury sources? If they're there, they're there. If they aren't, they aren't. !! Justa Punk !! 01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with the way Google's search engine runs. It doesn't run on the notability of a page. The Hybrid T/C 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's not showing up early in a Google search, that surely reflects badly on it's notability? !! Justa Punk !! 07:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, actually. It gages hyperlinks to a page to determine its placement, not how reliable or notable it is. As I've pointed out before, due to the different market sizes a reliable Australian source can show up buried behind non-notable American fansites that are linked to by countless other non-notable fansites. It is a strange situation, and one that is very uncommon. The Hybrid T/C 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's buried behind such websites - it's not notable. It is impossible for a promotion that can pass the notability test to be dropped behind such sites. Not strange or uncommon - impossible. How many reliable US based websites have "Australian Wrestling Federation" on them? (Not AWF - Australian Wrestling Federation) Only one has been found (WON). I have searched for Australian sources and only found fansites and of course the official site. This promotion is not notable. I have nothing further to say. The prosecution rests. !! Justa Punk !! 10:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response, the prosecution doesn't understand how google search results are organized. The Hybrid T/C 15:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN --Endless Dan 13:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to me to establish notability. Multiple sources from print and international web media. Nosleep1234 14:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source. Makes much more sense than deleting everything. I have no doubt that notability can be sufficiently established (especially if Justa Punk stops removing references). GaryColemanFan 20:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have only removed references that are not permitted under WP rules. There is nothing wrong with that. !! Justa Punk !! 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Five pages of Live Search reveals nothing but the official site, this site and a mirror (answers.com), back street newspapers and garbage sites bar one mention from Wrestling Observer on a show in Minto (where?) GetDumb 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minto, New South Wales, a neighbourhood in the far south west of Sydney. -- Mattinbgn\^talk —Preceding comment was added at 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep allow for ~~expansion~~notability to be established. If nothing is done, in say a month time, AFD again. Davnel03 08:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As above, expansion is not the issue. Notability is. I would be happy to keep a stub on a topic that demonstrates notability, which this article signally fails to do. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Even, so this article was only created three weeks ago, I think we should give it more time. Davnel03 12:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for specific action, can (and probably should) be merged at editorial discretion. Chick Bowen 02:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in American football[edit]

Mostly WP:NOR. This article uncomfortable jams together a couple different topics with very little ref material. Torc2 01:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename and merge - The injury section of this can go into American_Football#Physicality (or can be renamed to Health issues in American Football or something similar. The bottom paragraph is specifically about the NFL and has nothing to do with health or the sport itself. It should be merged to National Football League. Torc2 01:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesn't have to just cover NFL but also college and high school football. ThHere could be a good article here... this stuff is certainly written about all the time. Need for cleanup isn't a reason to delete. --W.marsh 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to other articles and delete. The title is just too general and vague. Part of it could go to start up Steroids in football (following the example of Steroids in baseball), and the rest per Torc2. Clarityfiend 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't merge and delete... per Help:Merge "Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from." Deleting after a merge would violate the GFDL. --W.marsh 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We cannot do that though, per the GFDL, the edit history must be preserved. --W.marsh 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's for a full article merger. We're just talking about the information contained within the article. It's more acurate to say "delete the article and move the stuff worth saving to other articles." Torc2 04:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we cannot do that. Moving implies copying over the text, if we do that, we have to preserve the article history. --W.marsh 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do you redirect if it is proposed that it be merged into multiple articles? Clarityfiend 23:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename the "health" part and merge the remainder as suggested above. Obviously this is an issue important enough to warrant its own wikipedia entry. Afasmit 05:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate game articles. Speciate 07:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I tend to agree with the nominator that this article seems to cram in too many things, combining health issues with a totally unrelated matter about the monopoly the NFL has on its broadcasting rights. There seems to be a good start on what the author describes as "health issues". Mandsford 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on American football.--Bedivere 22:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty large article already... merging would cause people to have "issues", creating a paradox of some sort Mandsford 15:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Clube Ramalho[edit]

Another apparent hoax by User:Machiavellian93 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machiavellian(Hip-Hop artist) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Ramalho). A supposed Cape Verdean soccer team with eight players (all but one surnamed Ramalho, and the remaining player lacking a surname), including—surprise!—Danny Ramalho himself, who must find it difficult to break off his career as an American hip-hop artist whenever he has to travel to appear in a match. Googling for "Sport Clube Ramalho" and "SC Ramalho" turns up nothing. Deor 01:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom and block this dude (the article creator). Nothing but fantastic bullshit.--Sethacus 01:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 06:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax and block the user for creating multiple hoax articles ChrisTheDude 08:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. GiantSnowman 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give user final warning. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 06:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wearisome HOECS. tomasz. 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very speedy strong delete with that final warning Peanut4 20:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N regardless of whether it is a hoax. After all, the most common surnames in Cape Verde are Soares, Silva, Braga, and Ramalho. Bearian 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 12:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Momphelio[edit]

I'm of the opinion that this chap doesn't meet WP:N. IMDB shows only one movie, independently released, and he's only 21 so he can't have done more than a Bachelors degree, and can't have had more than a fleeting time in the industry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - restore if he becomes notable.--Bedivere 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a resume, no sorces cited.207.69.137.10 16:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.-Wafulz 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Carman[edit]

nn author; his books rank 37,309th (Into the Mist), 53,593rd (Tenth City), 109,590th (Beyond the Valley of Thorns), 55,554th (House of Power), and 367,520th (Dark Hills Divide) in sales at Amazon.com

I am also nominating his books:

The Land of Elyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Tenth City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 01:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of them. A NY Times best-selling author. Are ya sure you wanna go through with this? Amazon is not a good place to judge notabiity as it only gauges what Amazon customers buy. Article needs improvement, though.--Sethacus 02:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what the press release of an organization getting his freebies claims, but I cannot find anything from NYT to confirm that. If someone can find that I'll gladly withdraw this, although it's unclear whether the books meet WP:BK even if the author is notable. Carlossuarez46 05:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm glad you asked. [55] (scroll down to chapter books) [56] (this time, scroll down to series books). And from "About the author" in Amazon:"Patrick Carman's first book, The Dark Hills Divide (Land of Elyon series) spent over 20 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethacus (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author has his own category on Amazon. Smashville 05:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Remember that Amazon has millions of books... rankings anywhere in five digits aren't all that low. Pinball22 15:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.-Wafulz 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian government requests for peace talks[edit]

I'm nominating this not because it's a terrible article (which it is), but because any useful content can easily be merged into something like Foreign relations of Syria. In case this is kept, it should also be moved to something more specific like Syrian government requests for peace talks in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but you see, that's just the issue: it does have a far too specific focus and a merge is the best recourse in this case. Biruitorul 01:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have a fork in my eyes if I said it isn't one--victor falk 03:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the word I was looking for! Biruitorul 11:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful or non-redundant content into Foreign relations of Syria Mandsford 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POINT violation.--Bedivere 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to have this as a separate article, and, thank God, not all headlines should turn into independent articles. Dahn 22:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford. Majoreditor 02:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Monroe[edit]

Apparently non-notable author. Has one novel self-published through vanity press AuthorHouse, and his other work consists of chapbooks and such through such suspect presses as Fingerprint Press, Rank Stranger Press, and Thunder Sandwich Press, none of which have Wikipedia articles or much Google presence. The man himself produces only 203 hits, many of which are irrelevant. There simply isn't any indication that this guy meets Wikipedia:Notability (books) at all. -Elmer Clark 00:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity-press authors tend to be non-notable pretty much by definition, and even the article admits his one and only vanity novel didn't sell well. No reliable sources either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. It doesn't even say what the person's real name is (where Monroe is the pseudonym). tomasz. 11:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – written only one novel which does clearly not pass WP:BK, article cites no sources, is not verifiable, and there is no indication of notability. Melsaran (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PicoFIREWALL[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Votes for deletion/Picofirewall

Articles for deletion/PicoFIREWALL (2nd nomination)

Non-notable open source software. A search for "picofirewall -wikipedia" first seems promising, returning "about 13,000 hits", but when you click through the results pages, Google gets to around 30 before deciding that the others are "similar to the ones already displayed". The remaining 30 consist chiefly of forum posts and the official project page. I've listed it here because it's already been kept at VfD back in 2005, but the keep arguments back then probably look a bit "unconvincing" by recent standards.. Thomjakobsen 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn software MarsRover 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Allthough i feel sympathy for the swiss countrymen of mine who have made this, i can't find any reliable sources to assert any notability for that piece of software. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 09:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasdelete, as WP:CSD#A1/A3 if nothing else--one sentence stub without assertion of notability. If someone wants this content for an article I will undelete it without a deletion review, but I think it could just as easily be recreated. No prejudice against a sourced future version with citations of reliable sources. Chick Bowen 02:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grail, The Psalms[edit]

I can't assess the importance or significance of this book. Low G-hits (3) but that's not unusual for an apparently out-of-print book first published in 1963. This is a listing I found for it: "The Grail, The Psalms: A New Translation from the Hebrew Arranged for Singing to the Psalmody of Joseph Gelineau. Ramsey, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1963" I think it's non-notable but this isn't really an area of interest for me. Pig^man 00:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Grail Psalter is indeed a very important work for the Anglican and Roman catholic churches in the 20th century, and is EXTENSIVELY used. You can buy the 1993 version here: http://www.giamusic.com/search_details.cfm?title_id=3618 More additions to this article are to come. The Grail Psalter was a very integral effort in liturigical renewal, and involved the work of several well known translators and poets (T.S. Eliot). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarkf (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the '93 version have an ISBN? - Che Nuevara 19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are umpteen translations of the Psalms and I'm unaware that this is a particularly significant one; if it were, there would be more ghits.--Bedivere 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as possibly notable, needs more cites. The argument about Ghits for a book from 1963 lacks common sense, as Google wasn't invented until the 1990's. Bearian 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nomination withdrawn). Non-admin closure. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Rudolph Crew[edit]

This is a page about a non-notable person. It is extremely POV and is a hidden attack page of Rudy Giuliani. It is basically claiming that Giuliani is a racist. An article about a non-notable person that was only created just to place Giuliani in a bad light should not be here.--Southern Texas 00:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G10 only purpose is to attack Rudy GiulianiChange to Keep article has been edited so it is no longer an attack page on Giuliani TonyBallioni 14:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parties are POV themselves

Giuliani did not appear out of thin air. You have a problem with critical comments by his former administrators. If so, then raise your points on the Talk Page of the article.

Giuliani had a history before 2001. He took many actions that were of note. You need to keep in mind that some of his actions were controversial. Raising truths is not creating an attack page.

The quotes that are upsetting to you are from established commerical newspapers.
Your actions are POV in and of themselves. Dogru144 02:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but wikipedia is not the attack Giuliani site. Its hard for me to imagine hating somebody enough that all you can do with you time is edit wikipedia to disparage the individual. This time you have gone to far. Everything you added to Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 was biased and luckily I was there to fix it everytime. This time you create an attack page hidden as an article about a non-notable person. You need to think about what you are doing here on wikipedia. Reading WP:NPOV will be a good start.--Southern Texas 02:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I have no opinion on the notability yet, but this plainly isn't an attack page. If we start deleting pages just because they contain sourced criticism of politicians we'll have to delete most politician articles on Wikipedia. Better start with Controversies of Rudy Giuliani. Masaruemoto 02:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the attack on Giuliani, calling him a racist.--Southern Texas 03:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sourced quote of this person saying ""I find [Giuliani's] policies to be so racist" isn't an attack, it's sourced criticism. Masaruemoto 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, User:Dogru144 is now Canvassing. This is against the wikipedia policy, WP:CANVASS.--Southern Texas 03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work in two areas: (a) its discussion of Crew's relationship with Giuliani, which was much more complex than the article currently describes and (b) its discussion of Crew's career, which is deeper than his battle with Giuliani over school vouchers. But if, after the article is improved and better sourced, it still makes Giuliani look like a racist — well, you can't delete articles because of the way they reflect on other people.
Note: I was contacted by Dogru144 and asked to "help defend" this article. I probably wouldn't have known about this AfD without Dogru144's comment, but his message hasn't influenced my opinion of this article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note, Southern Texas, that I brought WP:CANVASS to Dogru144's attention: User talk:Dogru144#Rudy Crew. I was also writing that I had been canvassed, but you posted your comment before me. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google search and it appears that he is more notable than I thought. However in its present state I believe it is an attack page and so we must follow the guidelines for this type of page and it shall be deleted and rewritten as a NPOV stub.--Southern Texas 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages". This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary (CSD G10)

Comment You can't say on the one hand that Crew is notable and on the other that the article "serve[s] no purpose but to disparage" Giuliani. This article is not "entirely negative in tone and unsourced". If you're so bothered by the article's allegation of Giuliani's racism, delete the offensive sentence and withdraw this nomination. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what happens. If Dogru removes the content I already pointed out and promises to write with a more neutral tone when he edits articles about Rudy Giuliani I will pull the nomination. I understand that it is hard to be neutral when writing about someone you hate so my advice is that maybe he shouldn't edit Giuliani articles. I dislike Hillary Clinton so I stay away from her pages.--Southern Texas 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you say "If Dogru ... promises to write with a more neutral tone when he edits articles about Rudy Giuliani I will pull the nomination", it sounds like you're using this AfD as part of a larger agenda. Please read WP:POINT. If the two of you have POV problems, this isn't the appropriate forum to resolve them. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please directly address the controversial parts Where are the controversial parts? The parts that reflect on Giuliani and race are a minor part of the article. The main part deals with Crew's own education and work.

Really, I only created the page to write a bio on Rudy Crew. I happened to notice his comments on Giuliani. He actually criticized Giuliani on the latter's character, not only on the race issue.

I think that the opposing editors should just edit the article itself, raise your points on the Talk Page, or communicate with an editor that has supposedly written controversial edits. Just because there is something negative on Giuliani does not mean that the edits are done in an unprofessional or libelous manner. Dogru144 03:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Crew was a major figure in NYC's school system in the 1990s. Without question, he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Eleemosynary 04:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just deleted the section that discussed Crew's allegations concerning Giuliani's views concerning race and class. In such a short article, they were clearly given WP:UNDUE weight, especially when one sentence had a heading of its own.
Southern Texas, you seem to agree that Crew is notable. Please consider whether you still think that the article, with a promise of future improvements, is "an article about a non-notable person that was only created just to place Giuliani in a bad light", and think about withdrawing this nomination. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Public figure, holder of a significant official post, involved in notable controversy. Could use some trimming, though. Do we really need to know that his father was a stern taskmaster? It seems that some editors have gone overboard to demonstrate that it isn't a coatrack to hang criticism of Giuliani on. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't look like an attack page in its current state, and wasn't much of an attack page when the nom posted this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep; I suspected this was a bad faith nomination when I made my earlier comment, after noticing the nom had been involved in content disputes with other editors (where he had been removing sourced criticisms of Giuliani from articles). But Southern Texas's above comment; "If Dogru removes the content I already pointed out and promises to write with a more neutral tone when he edits articles about Rudy Giuliani I will pull the nomination" is unacceptable, and an abuse of AFD. AFD should not be used to win a content dispute, so this should be closed. (Also, this person is clearly notable, and there is significant coverage in reliable sources about him.) Masaruemoto 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A noted school administrator who has run two of the nation's largest public school systems, including the nation's largest, in NYC. This search for "Rudy Crew" in The New York Times archive found 1,645 articles, though I must admit that there are a few duplicates. Any genuine POV issues should be addressed by editing or applying appropriate tags, not by AfD. There are more than enough reliable and verifiable sources to support an article that clearly passes the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, the motivation for this nomination was not a good-faith belief that the subject was nonnotable. The real objection to the article was that it revealed some unfavorable information about Giuliani. JamesMLane t c 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability as nominator later admitted. Appears to be using AfD to make a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorshowj (talk • contribs) 09:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I was wrong to bring this here. I should've just removed the content myself.--Southern Texas 17:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to the large number of sources over the last twenty years, as well as the existence of a major movie on the topic. The recent coverage in the New York Times makes it unquestionable. This close should not be construed as a keep for Jennifer Levin, and a merge to Robert Chambers (killer) is strongly recommended. JoshuaZ 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Chambers (killer)[edit]

This is part of a multiple nomination, following discussion of a number of pages at AN/I. Per Wikipedia is not a memorial, a page on this subject should be about the case and not the victim. However, tragic as the case may have been for those connected to it, it is not necessarily clear that the case is notable enough (among the 500+ murders in New York City every year) to warrant its own article.

This is not a "typical" AfD; a few points:

There has already been a very lengthy discussion of these articles (archived - please don't modify it) which I'd urge anyone commenting on these articles to read, as many of the potential "keep" and "delete" arguments have already been raised there;
Although this is one of a multiple nomination, could I request that anyone voting/commenting consider each of these cases on its own merits and not vote "keep all"/"delete all" — while these are similar articles, they are about very different cases, some of which may well be more notable than others. The articles are all being nominated separately and not as a single bulk-nom for this reason;
I know you all know it, but just a reminder that AfD is about the validity of the topic and not about problems with the writing style of the articles; some of these articles are very poorly written, but vote on whether the article is worth keeping & cleaning up, not on its current stylistic problems;
WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not prohibit the writing of articles about victims per se. WP:BIO does, however, demand that article subjects be the subject of widespread coverage over time in the media.

And please try to keep this discussion WP:CIVIL whichever result you lean towards. As you can see from the AN/I discussion, the debate got a little heated — remember this is a discussion of the content of, not the contributors to, the article. Also, MurderWatcher1 (talk · contribs) has stated that he's planning to contact the family of at least one of the subjects of these articles, so — while it shouldn't affect your decision — bear in mind when discussing that persons directly affected by this article may well be reading it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very long introduction, and there doesn't seem to be any actual discussion of a reason for deletion in it. You're asking if a murder case that is the subject of two books and a movie is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? It seems to me that if you're nominating an article for deletion, you should detail your reasoning, because in this case it certainly isn't self-evident. If what you are suggesting is that the Jennifer Levin and Robert Chambers articles be combined into a single article on the Preppie Murder Case, no deletion is required, so your intentions are unclear. - Nunh-huh 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - reply is to Nunh-huh) As I say above, the discussions on this issue have already taken place - at great length - here, and rather than go into great detail again have provided a link to the initial debate. These are truly procedural nominations and may well all result in "keeps". This may well be the subject of two books and a movie, but if so the article makes no mention of it; I see nothing in the article that makes this look any more notable than any other manslaughter case. It also seems to contain some serious BLP violations - it treats him as a murderer, but specifically says he was not convicted of murder. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking people to read thru vast reams of discussion really isn't an appropriate alternative to setting forth your reasoning concisely on the actual deletion request. Both books and the movie are cited in the article. So count this as a keep, with or without a merger. - Nunh-huh 00:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article about the killing of the victim. This is a famous and much written-about case. The killer was non-notable before the killing, and is known only for it. Per WP:BLP a stand-alone article is probably not warranted. My problem with the article is that it violates WP:BLP by making many derogatory stateements which lack direct in-line citations. It also says he was convicted of manslaughter, a lesser ofense than murder, but calls him a murderer (I revised the intro to say he was "convicted of manslaughter" to replace the previous statement that he is a murderer. We do not necessarily report "truth," we just report well-referenced facts, especially in cases involving living persons. The opinions of editors matter less than the findings of the trial court. The article can be improved by the addition of inline references for any controversial or derogatory statements, which are numerous. Edison 00:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jennifer Levin, rename Jennifer Levin manslaughter case. I'm not sure what to make of a statement like it is not necessarily clear that the case is notable enough (among the 500+ murders in New York City every year) to warrant its own article, as very few of the 500+ murders in NYC each year have television movies made about them, so I'm left with the impression that the nominator hasn't done any homework. I do, however, agree with the general point that in the case of a crime you have a criminal and a victim but a) the crime cannot make both of them notable and b) making one of them the focus of the article is inappropriate. There is no general rule, though, about which one gets to have their name in the article title, and I hate unwieldy titles. --Dhartung | Talk 02:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it may be the case that neither victim nor criminal winds up in the title; this was nearly universally described as "The Preppie Murder Case", and I'd argue that that should be the article title (by the "use the most common name" principle). - Nunh-huh 02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "The preppie murder case" is the best title, since it was used often in the press, even without a murder conviction per se. Edison 16:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, merge the articles and title it "The preppie murder case" since this murder is about more than just the killing of an innocent woman; it's about the dissolution of family, rich and irresposnsible kids raised by irresponsible parents, and the downward spiral of society, all of which is something that affects all people today.Maa 09:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.242.10.254 (talk) [reply]

Merge killer and victim articles to an article about the crime. DCEdwards1966 14:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep ~~into one article on the event (or under this name) and redirect the others~~Seeing the news article on him today makes it clear to me that he is now notable, regardless of the reason [57]. JJL 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' and either merge or remove duplicative content. According to precedent, we de-emphasize the victim's name, and this is therefore the article to merge the others into. The 500 murders in NYC are probably not all notable, but are most certainly not all un-notable. Using a deletion reason that would indicate plans to remove all such articles seems a little absurd--some murders are notable, even in NYC. Of the ones in the last few decades, this is probably one of the most memorable./ However, the title is POINTy. He was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. Although it is killing, certainly, the correct phrase is (criminal) as in other articles. We'd only need to specify the crime if there were multiple articles on criminals of that name. DGG (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came to the article today via a New York Times article about crime victims. 20 years later Chambers is still notable for this murder. To address the "stand alone" BLP issue someone above mentioned: if you're going to delete this article, you might as well delete Mark David Chapman or John Hinkley. They are both only famous for one particular crime. The only difference I see is that the latter two's victims were famous and Levin was not.
As to the issue of references and inline cites, it is true the article lacks inline cites for the contentious material. However, it does give voluminous references to the New York Times, the authoritative source in this case. The articles are still freely available online to registered users of the Times, and can easily be embedded.
As a quick aside before I close, I had to laugh at the hair splitting about not calling Chambers a murderer. Of course he is. Since manslaughter in the first degree is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being, in every land but Alice's Wonderland (and Wikiland, of course, which is often stranger than Wonderland) he would be classified as a murderer. Jeffpw 08:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Manslaughter is a legally distinct crime from murder. It is not a subset of murder. So murder is a distinctly different--and worse--crime than what Chambers was convicted of. I don't think the hair-splitting is laughable, or a symptom of "Alice-in-Wikiland" syndrome. By publicly stating that the man is a murderer when he hasn't been convicted of murder, Wikipedia and the article editors could very likely be commiting libel. Chambers killed someone, but he still has the power to sue y'all. --Bibliophylax 11:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that The New York Times found it fit to write an article about him today for a drug charge, seems notable to me. (Bjorn Tipling 06:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The nimrod has made himself (in)famous again due to being busted for dealin in October of '07. Hes turning into the Paris Hilton of crime.64.85.245.43 06:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the NYTimes is reporting today that he and his GF have been arrested fro dealing, and that this isn't the first arrest or conviction since he was released. Now NYC is filled with scuzzy low life criminals, but when one particular scuzzy low life criminal comes from a privileged background, goes to jail for ~~murder~~ manslaughter in the first degree, and learns nothing while he is incarcerated, then he continues to be notable enough for our purposes. Jeffpw 07:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have noted, this man has made front-page news again. If major media thinks he is notable enough to warrant such coverage, it would be unwarranted to delete the article. I also think that the value of previous comments/votes suggesting merge or deletion should be heavily discounted, since they predate the latest news about this notable subject. --Bibliophylax 11:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I live in the UK and I've heard of him. This is a well known case and the page really should be kept. I can't really understand the rationale for nominating the page for deletion.Alberon 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article could definitely use more source references. That just takes work but does not necessarily mean the entire article should be deleted. It is a valuable and factual resource which needs to be cited more.
Just exactly how long does “over time” coverage in the media mean? For the particular length of time this case was prevalent in the media (the time it took to cover arrest & trial, & write books & film movies), the media coverage was widespread. I clearly remember it being on the news and in the papers daily, but of course I cannot provide those references at this time without research.
In any case, this is not an article about the victim, instead it is about the perpetrator making it a WP:BIO and not WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. There is nothing I’ve found in Wiki that says when the victim is mentioned, it makes the article a memorial. The main subject of THIS article clearly is the perpetrator. The main subject of the Jennifer Levin article should be the victim.
Regarldess of WHY it was famous, that fact remains that this particular crime WAS very famous in the 1980’s. A revisionist view on history can’t change that because it may or may not fit into the current “notability” guidelines. It is true that there may be more than 500 other murders committed in NYC every year. But THIS one got the coverage, therefore THIS one should be included in the encyclopedia. In order to support this, would one need to see a majority of the sources cited from all of the media coverage from that timeframe? Or would common sense prevail? If it was not worthy of inclusion, why then were there books and movies based on this very event and not one of the other 500 murders that year? And if these facts were not referenced or cited, they need to be.
By the way iridescent, in reference to your comment above, manslaughter (which Chambers was convicted of) is still murder, it is just that the killing was committed in the heat of passion or by mistake and was not premeditated. Being convicted of manslaughter IS a bit different than being convicted of murder, but the perpetrator is still considered a killer. In the world today, common usage of “killer” is synonomous with “murderer”.
Murder is distasteful. Many people would prefer not to read about it. But that should not be a reason for deletion. Where do we draw the line? Nachtmuzic 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep very notable murderer. Achieved extensive press coverage both immediately after and in the years following. Just look at how many sources there are. This isn't a one-off event that got media coverage but a very major crime that achieved lasting notoriety. Notice how once user above isn't even from the US and was familiar with the case. Miles Naismith 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Picaroon (t) 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the tree[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Church of the tree

Apparently a hoax. I can't find anything on Google, Google news, etc., to bear out any of these claims, searching on a number of keywords including the location. Also reads like a very unreligious religion... Accounting4Taste 00:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I, too, am unable to find anything related on Google, and it just kind of reads like a hoax. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 00:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Hoax TonyBallioni 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. I also found nothing with Google. PrimeHunter 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Here's a link assholes: http://hs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4440679812 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkstancil (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC) — Clarkstancil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per Clarkstancil - a high school facebook group is WP:NOT. Hal peridol 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
facebook as a source... funnyJJJ999 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: This is very much a legitimate religion. As a student in Jasper, where the Church is located, I have observed an extremely tight collective of followers exhibit by way of actions the teachings of the Tree and practice its pillars ascetically with excruciating attention to detail. Deletion would be a front of the authority of the Tree. Shnoobies 02:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Shnoobies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, and stop making sockpuppets, we're not that easily fooled. --Dhartung | Talk 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So just because we don't have our own website or news articles we're not a ligitamate religious sect? Facebook is how we members communicate outside of our personal get-togethers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkstancil (talk • contribs) 02:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. (edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Whether or not it's a hoax, it's unsuitable for Wikipedia. PrimeHunter 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's because you don't demonstrate notability, and facebook is not a reliable source - it is a social networking site. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No notability, no ghits, no information other than Facebook - which is about as unreliable as it gets. To Clarkstancil, or whatever you're calling yourself at this moment, calling us "assholes" (your words, not mine) will not only fail to win you any converts, it will fail to change our minds. If you want to change our minds, look for reliable sources that verifiably demonstrate notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a hoax. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a hoax, but even if not, a church with 40 members wouldn't be notable enough for an article anyway. Besides, no reliable sources = no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. To the creator(s) of this article: Please stop making personal attacks, such as calling people "assholes". szyslak 11:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Wiki not being for 'hilarious' stuff made up in school, sole reference Gheybook, etc. tomasz. 11:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per eveything above. Katiebug's mom is saying, "Oh, what has my little , Katiebug up to now?" Mandsford 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the obvious: it's a hoax. Should we put it in WP:BJAODN or just delete it? And, sockpuppet creator: it's pretty obvious this article's a hoax, so stop trying to convince us that deleting this article will be "taking front to the authority of the tree" or insulting people. --Slarti (1992) 20:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not all that funny, really - I wouldn't even give it grace to immortalize in BJAODN. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I asked. --Slarti (19 92) 21:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the AfD message was removed by TCrunk; I've just returned it. And I agree, this isn't funny enough for BJAODN. Accounting4Taste 00:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section and the external links section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. John254 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Levin[edit]

This is part of a multiple nomination, following discussion of a number of pages at AN/I. Per Wikipedia is not a memorial, a page on this subject should be about the case and not the victim. However, tragic as the case may have been for those connected to it, it is not necessarily clear that the case is notable enough (among the 500+ murders in New York City every year) to warrant its own article.

This is not a "typical" AfD; a few points:

There has already been a very lengthy discussion of these articles (archived - please don't modify it) which I'd urge anyone commenting on these articles to read, as many of the potential "keep" and "delete" arguments have already been raised there;
Although this is one of a multiple nomination, could I request that anyone voting/commenting consider each of these cases on its own merits and not vote "keep all"/"delete all" — while these are similar articles, they are about very different cases, some of which may well be more notable than others. The articles are all being nominated separately and not as a single bulk-nom for this reason;
I know you all know it, but just a reminder that AfD is about the validity of the topic and not about problems with the writing style of the articles; some of these articles are very poorly written, but vote on whether the article is worth keeping & cleaning up, not on its current stylistic problems;
WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not prohibit the writing of articles about victims per se. WP:BIO does, however, demand that article subjects be the subject of widespread coverage over time in the media.

And please try to keep this discussion WP:CIVIL whichever result you lean towards. As you can see from the AN/I discussion, the debate got a little heated — remember this is a discussion of the content of, not the contributors to, the article. Also, MurderWatcher1 (talk · contribs) has stated that he's planning to contact the family of at least one of the subjects of these articles, so — while it shouldn't affect your decision — bear in mind when discussing that persons directly affected by this article may well be reading it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Jennifer Levin manslaughter case, with Robert Chambers (killer) merged into it. As noted in the other AFD the nom seems unaware of the obvious notability (books and a TV movie about the case). If that does not pass the "over time" test, I'm not sure what will (there are lead times for publishing and production). --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since this seems to be keep or delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable murder case that was highlighted in the media for years. The New York Times archive lists 233 separate articles alone covering the 20+ years since her sensational murder, which would seem to clearly distinguish this particular victim from your ordinary run-of-the-mill murder case. WP:NOT is the most abused and deliberately misinterpreted element of official policy, but what WP:NOT#MEMORIAL actually says is that "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives." and no rational person can claim that this article is a memorial. The Wikipedia:Notability standard is clearly satisfied. Alansohn 05:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge killer and victim articles to an article about the crime. DCEdwards1966 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge killer and victim articles to "The Preppie Murder Case." The victim and killer were non-notable before the crime. The crime was quite well covered and continues to be notable decades later. Edison 16:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article about the murderer without prejudice for the result being considered for deletion. The work User:MurderWatcher1 has put into this is noted and appreciated by me and others. Nevertheless, this article is just about a woman who was murdered - a statistic, if you like. The world/country/state was unaware that she lived in the first place; her death seems to have made temporary headlines and then faded from view; the fate of her killer is of but passing interest; the world has moved on without her. Shocking, harsh judgement from me, and I know I sound heartless. But Wikipedia is not a memorial. For transparency, iridescent and I have discussed this in the past and directly before I commented; I previously agreed with this AfD and spoke about it on the WP:ANI discussion which was started to try to avoid offending the author before this came to AfD. Some of this text appears elsewhere; this is because it applies elsewhere too and this is convenient for me. No summary judgement has been made. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge). JJL 00:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a high emphasis on merge. Seems best suited in an article that encompasses both the people involved and the situation. --ImmortalGoddezz 00:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; merge if motivated. - Nunh-huh 17:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Cordy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Justin Cordy

I don't believe that strength and conditioning coach are notable, however elite. Grahamec 03:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete- they could be... this guy isn't though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and no claim of notability. tomasz. 11:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JJJ999 is spot on.--Bedivere 22:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Iron[edit]

The content of this article was replaced with a redirect to two deleted targets. Was proposed for deletion by an IP user. Should this article be kept or deleted anyway? EVC1016 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as gamecruft. Clarityfiend 23:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has no notability on its own. --Stormbay 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no verifiable references, is not notable207.69.137.36 16:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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