< September 5	September 7 >

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decisional analysis of complex systems[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete this was nominated a few days ago but the discovery of a copyvio truncated that debate. The copyvio has now been resolved (the source page is now licensed under GFDL - see this. The problems initially identified with the article remain, described by that nominator as: "This bizarrely vague (cf WP:BOLLOCKS) article references only papers by one author and fails WP:RS. It may also be redundant to decision analysis" seems to me rather apt. Carlossuarez46 23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like an essay ("In the current highly complex, changing, and exacting environment, we need more efficient approaches..."). Not enough reliable, third-party sources to verify the information. If the main website used as a reference is owned by the author, then the source is not valid, as it is not third-party. The author should be advised that Wikipedia is not the place to publish his personal findings unless they receive independent coverage. --Boricuæddie 00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1/ decisional analysis of complex systems is not redundant as Decision analysis subject is information and decisional analysis of complex systems sujects are decision making and complexity.
2/ The main website used as a reference is not owned by the originator of the method (Janusz Bucki) but by IEGD Institute. On request I can send to you the permission of the author.
3/ See External link that shows that the method BADSc is recognised and is belonging to the public domain. Therefore Sources are showing that BADSc method is recognised for more than ten years by french management school HEC (N°1 in France), scientific school as CNAM and by CNRS, which is a branch of the french Ministry of scientific research. Robertatum 08:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass notability test as it does not demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Links to sources authored by the originators of the theory are not independent, and non-English sources do not belong in English wiki. Gandalf61 09:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? non-English sources do not belong in English wiki. Where is that written? • Lawrence Cohen 13:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I paraphrased (and possibly oversimplified) WP:SOURCE, which says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources". Gandalf61 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you. Well, based on that, it's certainly valid enough for a stub-length article, if nothing else. So, discounting that discounting non-English sources is nothing more than a suggestion, I say... • Lawrence Cohen 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fine for a stub length article. • Lawrence Cohen 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What we're discussing here is not the article's length, but it's notability. Your comment has nothing to do with the discussion and the concerns raised by the nom and myself. --Boricuæddie 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~I meant that it seems notable enough for a stub-length article, with that sourcing. • Lawrence Cohen 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - Not really. I have created several stubs with more sourcing than that. Also, it's not actually a stub; it has enough sentences to be considered a Start-class article. Therefore, it is quite badly sourced for a Start-class article. --Boricuæddie 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Change to delete based on the above info. • Lawrence Cohen 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I edited decisional analysis of complex systems, I can help you to make fairly your "keep" and "delete" choices by giving some explanations:

1) Vocabulary and grammar: problem solved.
2) Copyright status: article under GFDL licence. On request, other prooves can be shown.
3) Third party: the originator (J. Bucki) is a party; English WP is a party, Robertatum is a party and sources mentioned are independant and are parties as well. So there is a third party. The author of the article is not the owner of the site where it is reproduced and where you can read it is under GFDL licence. The author is neither the owner of the site, neither a member (list mentioned at the bottom of the first page)[1]
4) Writer of the different sources : Of course, there is the originator of the approach but there are several writers: Sylvain Roth (DGA)and Y Pesqueux (HEC) for instance...
5) References and sources langage: "English-langages sources should be used in preference to foreign langages sources" don't mean that only english sources are available. French-langage sources are available too as french langage is recognised as an international langage as well as spanish.
6) Notability: sources show that the specific approach is published by CNRS, by HEC School of Management, ranked Number 1 in Europe, by the scientifique school École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris. A scientific great estabisment, the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers CNAM, is promoting this approach. ISBN and ISSN numbers are also mentioned.
Robertatum 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the current article. I think that an article on this topic is possible, but this article currently needs too much work to fix. I have emailed Robertatum to offer to mentor him for a few weeks. John Vandenberg 12:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I answered John Vandenberg that I agree his offer, even if there is no guarantee or promise that the future article will be validated by English Wikipedia. Up to your convenience, I am ready to be helped to work either on the above mentioned article in order to improve it, either on a new one. On the while, this article can be deleted or kept. Up to you according your interpretation of Wikipedia regulations.

You made the demonstration that Wikipedia is a "complex system" and we are "autonomous agents working together by different ways towards commmun objectives".Robertatum 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bertram[edit]

as he does not meet WP:BIO, i.e. he has not played in a fully professional league. He's not even in the first team squad according to the NUFC official site. Nufc2006 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, he is a core player of the Newcastle United professional football team. And contrary to a comment on the article's talk page, he is listed on the site and has played in games (frequently, too) - see e.g. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. Hence he does meet WP:BIO, which says that "[c]ompetitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis" are "generally notable." — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question is, has he played a game for the first team? Nick mallory 11:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No way is he a core player, the article only has a couple of sentances to back this, and no he hasnt played for the proper team (no squad number), only the academy/reserves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nufc2006 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No automatic notability till he's crossed the whitewash and appeared for the 1st XI. --Dweller 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO: Has not played in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the delete votes above. I've not checked every single one of the references to www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk above, but the ones I did check refer to reserve games, youth team games, and pre-season friendlies only. Fails WP:BIO. - fchd 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re add when part of first team squad for competitive game or assigned a first team squad number. Kingjamie 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Whilst the number of sources XDanielx has found, none of them are independent, nor do any of them make any real claim for notability outside of the game (which would be the only possible saving grace). Deletion without prejudice of recreation when/if he plays at a professional standard. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has NOT played in a fully professional league and is certainly NOT a core player (or even a fringe player) for the NUFC first team (as anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Premier League football would know). His non-notability is in fact proved by xDanielx's first link, which is a list of NUFC first team squad numbers, on which this player does NOT appear! All the linked articles refer to him playing in youth/reserve/friendly (i.e. NOT fully professional) matches ChrisTheDude 21:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not played in a fully professional league, i.e. the Premier League, Championship, League One or League Two, as demonstrated by xDanielx's links. Multiple references are shown above but these are to the club website which cannot be considered an independent source for the purpose of demonstrating notability. --Malcolmxl5 21:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple references are shown above but these are to the club website which cannot be considered an independent source for the purpose of demonstrating notability." In practice that is untrue. If there was a match report on Newcastle's website that said Bertram had played in a competitive first-team match, that would be enough to establish notability. ugen64 01:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, not a core player, not a professional league match. --Angelo 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject is not-yet-notable, and fails WP:BIO at this time. RFerreira 20:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (already deleted by User:Ugen64). John Vandenberg 12:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Doninger[edit]

Delete as he does not meet WP:BIO, i.e. he has not played in a fully professional league. He's not even in the first team squad according to the NUFC official site. Nufc2006 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete temporarily per nom.--JForget 02:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy and consensus. Not automatically notable till he's played for the first XI. WP:CRYSTAL also applies - he could decide to become a lawyer this afternoon and never play football again. --Dweller 14:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO: Has not played in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he has not yet played in a fully professional league, i.e. the Premier League, Championship, League One or League Two. --Malcolmxl5 21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been speedy deleted by User:ugen64. Woodym555 10:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete -- no assertion of notability, let alone proof. --Haemo 00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

51 Deep Productions[edit]

Prodded & removed. My original reason for prod included the fact that it was mainly a list of links to myspace users; these have been removed but the main problem is lack of notability and this remains: less than 10 non-MySpace or Wikipedia hits on Google. This videos they've produced have between zero and ten non-MySpace hits each. It's just promotional. Could be speedied under WP:CSD#G11 or WP:CSD#A7, but I'm assuming they contested the prod by removing it. Kateshort forbob 19:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Per Criteria for Speedy Deletion - Articles / #7. This article fails to assert notability of the group, and a cursory inspection of group to reduce article to a stub fails notability guidelines. --slakr^\ talk / 23:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Speedy deletion templates cannot be removed by the article's creator, while proposed deletion templates ( ((prod)) ) can. Removing ((prod)), however, does not disqualify the article from criteria for speedy deletion, but it does disqualify from further ((prod))'ing. --slakr^\ talk / 23:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Advert. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Walton^One 13:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian Americans[edit]

As with List of German Americans this list has a problem making legitimate criteria for why a ethnicity-nationality-occupation intersection such as the ones present on this list is notable. For quintessential examples of Hungarian-Americans who are known for their Hungarian-American-ness...Hungarian American. Further, half of these people hardly qualify as Hungarians by any definition...they may have been born in Hungarian-territory, which would make some refer to them mistakenly as Hungarians, but many are Jews and Germans who have no relationship to Hungary except chance birth-place. Bulldog123 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As with the other similar lists, without an explicit definition for inclusion, these lists are a mess. I would Delete unless strict definitions are required, with references. MarkBul 23:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would delete Category:Hungarian-Americans for the same reason? Kappa 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment From WP:LIST:

"Criteria for inclusion in lists

Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. This is particularly important in the case of difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit."

I would delete anything that does not fulfill the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion - that's what we're here for. MarkBul 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So.... you would delete Category:Hungarian-Americans for the same reason? or not? Kappa 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of Hungarian American is not a random "ethnicity-nationality-occupation intersection", as claimed in the nomination, but a list of notable Americans falling within the established United States Census Bureau ancestry category "Hungarian Americans"; USCB defines ancestry as "a person’s ethnic origin, heritage, descent, or 'roots,' which may reflect their place of birth, place of birth of parents or ancestors, and ethnic identities that have evolved within the United States."[32] This official definition is applicable to List of Hungarian American as well; the statement, "these people hardly qualify as Hungarians by any definition...they may have been born in Hungarian-territory, which would make some refer to them mistakenly as Hungarians" is therefore pointless and irrelevant. Pia 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems more appropriate to have category:Hungarian Americans, as the rationale of this article is better as a category (which is a list).Spevw 23:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - List is encyclopedic, well sourced (containing 39 footnotes), valuable to our project and, as with this user's other deletion proposals this is a highly disruptive, WP:POINT proposal. Bad faith is shown by the fact that the editor proposing the deletion states that the list is not sourced, and by the fact that earlier articles proposed by this editor, then deleted (many containing up to hundreds of references), often against consensus, were not merged but blanked from our project entirely. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this, and he other similar articles should have been kept as well. One incorrect deletion does not justify others. Lists offer an opportunity to say something about the individuals, and this facilitates browsing, an important function of an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial, arbitrary, OR, NPOV, and SYNTH, how Hungarian does one have to be to be a Hungarian American? And what WP:RSes tell us that the person is that much? Carlossuarez46 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You see very well from the dozens of footnotes! Or did you even look at the article before voting here? It seems that your vote is always the same at these pages, so maybe it doesn't matter to you. To answer your question, the sources include The New York Times, U.S. government agencies, and Hungarian government websites. Those are reliable. I'm not sure that any of these facts will matter to you, however, as it seems you're rather dead set on blanking this content (rather than merging, as seems to have happened each and every time in the against-consensus deletions of several of these types of pages in recent weeks) for our users. Badagnani 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliables sources exist both to demonstrate the notability of "Hungarian American" as a class, and whether particular individuals can be classified as a Hungarian American or not. Since WP:OR and WP:NPOV apply to categories as well as lists, it is not reasonable to simultaneously say that this list violates those policies but that a category would be better. The list is plainly manageable as it exists now, and if the list were to get too large to maintain, editorial discretion can be used to limit the inclusion criteria (or split the list), using one's brain and consensus among interested editors to arrive at that inclusion criteria (or how to split it), which can then be explicitly stated in the article per WP:LIST. Despite an aggressive, and occasionally successful, effort to delete lists of this type, no actual consensus has ever been demonstrated that these lists ought to be deleted. If anything, those deletions demonstrate that AfD and DRV are currently flawed mechanisms for implementing the deletion policy, which says that "If there is no consensus, the page is kept ..." DHowell 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on an absence of policy violations and based on the list's adherence to the quality criteria set for lists, including the verification guidelines, at WP:LIST and WP:CITE . Also "keep" based on the fact that the nomination does not focus on any short-coming of this particular article, but makes wide policy interpretation for such lists in general, without reference to any policy or guideline. The nomination does not show how this particular list may fail the quality criteria set for lists. (Not even Wikipedia:Featured list criteria) mentions the above grievances as a guideline to adhere to in order to control the quality of lists. It is not mentioned in the guideline for WP:LIST#Lists_content either.) There is no WP:NOR violation: The article has legitimate criteria to show why it is notable; its notability claim is established by the abundance of reliable published sources giving the intersection notice and performing similar groupings or listing of people who fall within this intersection. No WP:NPOV violation: The article has a stated inclusion criteria. It is not limitless or in any other way failing WP:NOT and WP:LIST guidelines. There is no WP:OVERCAT violation: obviously, this is not a category. In addition, the nominator uses faulty logic in asserting that an item's inclusion on one list (such as Jewish) must ensure its exlusion from another list (such as Hungarian American) or one list must be deleted. There is no such policy, as far as I know. The nominator attempts to introduce a novel, personal policy, which has so far never reached consensus: Lists of notable persons constructed on the basis of inclusion in a certain immigrant population or based on a country's ancestry classification are not inherently policy violations by reference to WP:NOT#DIR. ("Wikipedia is not a directory" proves equally problematic, without exception, for ALL lists on Wikipedia and could be used as a deletion criteria for every single one of them--lists are navigation aids, easing focused research of narrow topics, which would otherwise overload the system if transformed into categories; they are thus a form of "directories" by definition. The WP:NOT#DIR therefore lacks relevance in deletion discussions concerning individual lists and should be carried to the portal for all lists.) Pia 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DIR doesn't, and can't, apply to all lists. There is an WP:OCAT. It's just in an altered form than a category, but still has the exact same problems. WP:LIST says nothing about not deleting well-formed lists; I don't understand why everyone keeps citing a manual of style article. The article has no justification for notability. The existence of external references does not substitue as an explanation of relevance - which should be added to a three-way intersection list like this. Bulldog123 22:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, but I'd say your assertion that WP:OCAT applies to lists because "It's just in an altered form than a category", is a little bit premature. And your second claim, that the article lacks relevance, is also a personal opinion that may never be shared by the community here or the world around us. But in case "no explanation of relevance" or "no justification", rather than "policy violation", is your proposed deletion criteria, I will still spell it out then: The reason the majority of participants in the deletion discussions regarding "XXX Americans" may find lists such as List of notable Hungarian Americans/notable African Americans/notable Taiwanese Americans/etc., etc., valuable and relevant is that most immigrant groups or people connected by ancestry in the US value the contributions of their ancestors (for having overcome the hardships of migration, having rebuilt their lives from scratch, in many cases combined with the added hardship of indentured labour and/or enslavement). Lists of accomplished members of immigrant populations can therefore be a source of pride, a positive form of "collective memory of achievements" for younger generations; lists of role models offer people courage to face prejudice and to find hope, nourish dreams of success, and assurance of their intrinsic worth in moments of crisis, self-doubt, etc, etc. In my opinion, that is why so many, myself included, find your claim that these lists lack "relevance" both incomprehensible and arrogant. Pia 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:SYNTH and undue weight when one less-reliable source is used to justify inclusion in a list where notability is asserted by many strongly-reliable sources (such as those that define who a Hungarian-American is, while a journalist might accidently not define Hungarian-American in the same way). So yes, there is a policy violation, but as we all know, articles don't have to be kept just because they meet WP:V. I see no justification for occupational-divisions such as the ones on these list. Or any comment on them perhaps being WP:OCAT-like. There are plenty arguments for keeping Category:Hungarian-Americans, but few that apply equally to this list. Bulldog123 22:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:SYNTH is when you join A and B together to advance position C. This list does not "advance a position". It is a navigation aid, designed to give easier access to notable individuals in the population sector "Hungarian Americans". There is no policy violation: Like all non-trivial, useful and valuable Wikipedia lists, this one brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria (here the criteria is "person of verifiable Hungarian American ancestry with verifiable fame/notability"). It is factually accurate, verifiable against reliable sources that accurately presents published knowledge. It is well-constructed and easy to navigate (it is sorted into sub-sections, which you appear to confuse with "three-way intersections"). It has value as a research tool for people who are interested in the accomplishments of immigrants of this ancestry, and as a navigation aid in general for those interested in learning about famous individual contributors to the American society from this group. If it is the definition that concerns you, I would simply suggest including in the article the official United States Census Bureau definition of ancestry [33], against which journalists' definitions can be checked for accuracy. Pia 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As stated above (and promptly ignored), The New York Times, the U.S. government and Hungarian government websites are not unreliable sources on such matters. Your view that these lists are policy violations, against all evidence that they are well sourced and of great value to our users, represents a fringe position, probably motivated by POV that "everyone should just be American" and that national origins should be ignored. This POV, like all others, should be eschewed in the strongest terms here. Badagnani 01:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep for the comprehensive reasons shown by Pia and DHowell. Finally, we have WP experts providing analyses of the multitude of faults used in the current deletionist campaign against ethnic/national lists--which has resulted in the deletion of several valuable articles with their WP information being lost. Hmains 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another good reason for keeping Category:Hungarian-Americans only. Bulldog123 22:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see very well that the category is not broken down by occupation, all on a single page, with footnotes, in a very usable manner. The category serves a different purpose. Do not attempt to dismantle or disrupt Wikipedia, making obtaining necessary information impossible for our users. Your previous deletion rather than merging of huge amounts of similar data in several deleted articles (some of them deleted against consensus) shows bad faith. Badagnani 01:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability justifying why Hungarian-American by occupation are notable. Just because some of these people might write Hungary-oriented writing, doesn't mean everyone sourced as having Hungarian-American background is equally a "Hungarian-American writer." So it is WP:SYNTH-like. Bulldog123 11:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And a category can't do this? To me, voting "Strong Keep" on some List of _x_ Americans, while deleting others smacks of nationalism. Leuko 03:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: These lists often (or should) be referenced with birth and death dates, occupations, etc. Categories don't do that. ExRat 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I agree with ExRat and Badagnani. In addition, this mass nomination is too POINTY. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would suggest that interested editors join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans, as it concerns this article. Leuko 23:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple complain 07:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Renner[edit]

No notion of notability. Fails WP:V as there are no third party sources. All books are self-published. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Criteria for speedy deletion - Articles - #7. First half of article doesn't state notability for books, while the second half doesn't state person-based or academic-based notability. --slakr^\ talk / 23:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent notability asserted. Dean Wormer 22:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If his most notable book is self-published, that doesn't say much. Accounting4Taste 19:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, apparently a little reminder that we're not always on the top of the food chain. Carlossuarez46 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal cougar attacks in North America by decade[edit]

A list of non-notable people. A brief mention in the Cougar article about the numbers of fatal attacks adn their geographic distribution would be sufficient. Corvus cornix 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better with standard citations. The individuals are non-notable thats why they don't have individual article. Cougar attacks are important because they are used in the debate on their endangered status, and whether they should be hunted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a mini-merge to Cougar. Seems pretty indiscriminate to me. I agree with Corvus cornix in that a brief summarized version of these statistics on the Cougar page would serve the same purpose. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A one paragraph summary with numbers would do the job. The names and ages of individuals don't tell you anything a summary wouldn't. MarkBul 23:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the articles principal author, I think I should put in my two cents. First, this is the fifth article in a series of fatal animal attack lists in Wikipedia. There is a list of fatal shark attacks, wolf attacks, bear attacks and alligator attacks. I'm working currently on a list of fatal snake bite victims, and other users are currently working on other animals. Second, nationally recognized magazines like Field and Stream and Outdoor Life chronicle these events, why shouldn't Wikipedia. In order to address Mr. Richard Arthur Norton's concerns: I'm still working on the Notes and References, so you will see a dramatic improvement in this section that will address your concerns. (I thought it was important to put in the basic references contemporaneously.) --Hokeman 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification for this page. And Wikipedia is not a chronicle of everything. MarkBul 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Wikipedia is not a news archive, the large body of news stories over the years about cougar attacks (including a number of stories about cougar attacks in general rather than a particular single attack, show that this topic satisfies WP:N. I might not agree with an article about each attack which makes the newspapers, but collectively they are notable and a documented list is appropriate. See Google News archive with 28,900 news articles about either specific cougar attacks ot the attacks collectively. Since each gets news coverage each could get an inline reference, and general information could be referenced to the articles which discuss what causes the attacks, who the targets tend to be, etc. Edison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 03:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perfectly valid list criteria, there aren't that many cougar attacks, perhaps a name change to "documented" cougar attacks is in order. The phenomenon of cougars attacking humans is definitely notable. IvoShandor 08:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm really just a user of Wikipedia and I find an list of this type with the details like this to be worth it (I do have a concern as to why document this type of thing, must be another motive... but in general the list isn't a bad idea, combining it down to a summery just wouldn't be enough even though I think that also should be done in the cougar article. Strawberry Island 20:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of terms for multiraciality[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a deictionary, specifically states Wikipedia is not should not contain"Usage guides or slang and idiom guides." which I believe this falls under. I am not sure that a glossary page of this sort qualifies as an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 20:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While not an endorsement, there is precedence for a list of this type: List of ethnic slurs has been nominated four times for deletion, 3 with "Keep" consensus, and one with no consensus. I think that as long as the multiraciality list remained neutral, it could be helpful to some people, as there are many times it is asked what the "politically correct" term is for someone of multiple ethnicities. I'd like to see some references cited for the "historical" names mentioned, and it may be helpful to remove the red links, as not every term needs its own article. One problem I find with this article is the lack of references, which could lead to WP:OR addition of "terms" that may or may not be used, or common. If kept, I'd suggest perhaps it would be best if the list were trimmed of non-verifiable terms, and the terms included be properly sourced with references. ^Ariel♥Gold 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had a brilliant argument, but I either didn't save it or it got lost in editing, so this will have to do. There's no prohibition against glossaries, and it is important to keep track of ethnic slurs, particularly if if it's a case of not being aware that a word, new to us, is well-known and offensive to others. Mandsford 22:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please take a look at WP:NOT#DICT. A glossary is a list of definitions, which is specifically mentioned as not being suitable for an article. If the information belongs anywhere, it's in Wiktionary, where people can keep track of these terms by using the categories in there.--Michig 06:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or trim to remove original research per ArielGold. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The issue is not whether or not this information is useful, but rather whether the article should exist according to WP guidelines. It doesn't belong here, and neither for that matter does List of ethnic slurs for the same reason. If the information is sourced, perhaps it should be moved elsewhere rather than deleted.--Michig 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, I'd bet that a good portion of the non-Wikilinked terms are neologisms. Second, as the list is almost without sources, who decides whether a phrase is "generally considered offensive" or not? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 07:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep weather YOU personally consider the terms to be offensize or not i think not having this article would only be witholding information and sweeping it under the rug, if the human race did want for so many racial terms why do people use them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryliss (talk • contribs) 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't say that I found the terms offensive. The glossary itself divides the terms into those "generally considered offensive" and those "generally considered inoffensive". Since the article cites no sources, I questioned who makes the determination that a term is generally considered offensive or inoffensive? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmm, I dislike the inclusion of offensive terms in this list (remember that Wikipedia is an International encyclopedia so blabbering on about American free speech [or freedom to cause offense] are irrelevent). This list is a useful tool for people researching the 'multiracial' issue. I really wish people would stop quoting various Wikipedia policies (not a dictionary, etc.) and other pointless stuff. Wikipedia policy is decided by the very few Wiki nerds who have too much time on their hands. The vast majority of Wikipedia users dont have time to create such pointless policies and love this kind of article and other lists. Constantly nominating good articles for deletion and trying to sound important by quoting stupid Wikipedia policies just puts people off using Wikipeda. 213.230.130.54 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Please be civil, Wikipedia policies (apart from WP:5P) are meant to represent the consensus of the community if you feel that this is not the case you should probably being it up on the talk page for the policy/guideline - not here. Also your arguemnet for keep seems to be WP:USEFUL - everything is potentially useful to someone - that does not mean it should be included in an encyclopaedia. [[Guest9999 10:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Comment Stop quoting irrelevent policies. People who just quote policies in their replies really have no worthwhile opinions. Why should things which are useful not be part of an encyclopaedia? Encyclopaedias are about collecting knowledge and therefore everything is knowledge. People like you and those who like deleting things just because they think it's nonsense are why Wikipedia is not taken seriously and not considered as a "community" anymore. 213.230.130.54 19:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to deletion and closure - No concensus was achieved. Four voted for deletion and one voted against. I know that the number of votes isn't always important (this is so that Wikipedians who consider themselves to be more important get their own way) but given the arguements expressed above why was it closed? And DO NOT delete my comments from this page again.213.230.130.54 19:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Rapper Alive II[edit]

Non-notable, likely unofficial mixtapes. These have no in-depth coverage and can never expand beyond a track list. Spellcast 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete how much more non-notable can you be? Man It's So Loud In Here 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Track list is useful.--Moosh88 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires significant, in-depth coverage form multiple, reliable sources. If you can find sources that addresses the subject directly in detail, that would be great. I would gladly withdraw the nomination if they can be provided, but they do not exist. This can never expand from a track listing. Spellcast 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, so delete per WP:MUSIC. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps it is time we figured some sort of speedy deletion criterion for mix-tapes. RFerreira 20:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Jeezy & Lil Wayne - The Forecast[edit]

Non-notable, likely unofficial mixtapes. These have no in-depth coverage and can never expand beyond a track list. Spellcast 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like you've never deleted before (on account of the non-notability of the subjects)Man It's So Loud In Here 20:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable mix-tapes which have received nothing in the way of reliable, non-trivial coverage. RFerreira 20:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple complain 17:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Canterbury women's rugby union team haka controversy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2007 Canterbury women's rugby union team haka controversy

Extremely inconsequential, trivial event that briefly made a headline or two. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, with perhaps a passing reference at the All Blacks Haka page. Eusebeus 20:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any "historic notability" Corpx 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Man, the New Zealanders are prudes... --Agamemnon2 11:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the incident did not "make a headline or two", it was an international incident. The article already has four reputable sources from at least two continents, which is already more than is required by our notability guidelines. This was an important sporting event which has implications on cultural norms of behavior and social values. Johntex\^talk 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three of the references are news stories from the same two day period - the fourth no longer works, but is obviously from the same period given that it was added with the others a week later. No evidence of long term notability; Wikipedia is not news and a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. No more coverage seems likely, so the article will never grow beyond a stub. Iain99 17:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a news article. -- Whpq 16:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panayikulam[edit]

Non-notable villiage, violation of WP:N and WP:V SevereGape 20:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge to Kerala. Per AFD:Precedence: Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size. A previous similar discussion can be found here. Suggest: Add expand tag, and request additional references, if none can be found, merge to Kerala (Featured Article). Edit: I found this reference from India's national newspaper, [34] that is about the murder of two children who went to school in this village, and this report about a suspect's arrest in relation to the Tamil Nadu State Transport bus-burning. While tragic, they could possibly be added as notable events. ^Ariel♥Gold 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per ArielGold's plan. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Ariel. Villages and Cities are notable, regardless of their size. --Boricuæddie 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Places are notable wherever they are. Nick mallory 00:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All towns and villages are notable regardless of size, per long standing precedent as well as WP:OUTCOMES. --Oakshade 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:V should not be an issue as information can be found on Government of India sites (nic.in, gov.in). As for WP:N, this article can be moved to and merged with Alangad (since it is under Alangad Gram Panchayat), if it doesn't have a gram panchayat of its own. utcursch | talk 08:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio. --Haemo 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libertas solutions[edit]

Queried speedy delete for db-spam. Anthony Appleyard 19:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete copyvio [35] --Deusnoctum 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obvious copyvio, so tagged. --Boricuæddie 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Vandenberg 12:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisa Walton-Floyd[edit]

Delete basically unsourced BLP: under WP:BIO, athletes may be notable if: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." She fulfills the first part, but not the general criteria of secondary sourcing - a one liner in a website of former record holders really doesn't suffice. Furthermore, if she's so notable how come we don't even know her birth date or even year or any other of the basics one would expect in a biography? Carlossuarez46 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for nominating the article. It sure didn't contain many traces of notability. However, the name sounded familiar so I looked it up, and it turned out she competed at the World Championships - twice. Now that probably counts as "the highest level", so keep. By the way I got her birthday as well, and even something about her personal life. Punkmorten 19:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With multiple sources added by Punkmorten the improved article now demonstrates notability.Cube lurker 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepGood, reliable sources for competing at Athletics World Championships now added.Nigel Ish 21:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she participated in the World Championships. Corvus cornix 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per the Heymann job by Punkmorten, notability clearly established now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above.--JForget 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Twice a semi finalist in the 800m at the World Championships. Easily passes the notability guideline. The nominator should have checked for sources himself, and added them as they're easily found, before bringing this to AfD. It isn't a place to improve notable articles but to debate their notability. It might have been a good article for the Intensive Care Unit Nick mallory 11:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)¨[reply]
- Nah, just ask me to do it. Punkmorten 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - world class athlete in her day. - fchd 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability since established, complete with the required independent sources. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a keeper if there ever was one. Why not just leave achievers alone....crawl back into your tiny holes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckjav (talk • contribs) 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete JoshuaZ 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perinton Volunteer Ambulance Corps[edit]

Delete noble endeavor to be sure, but not notable group of volunteer group - similar to thousands of other volunteer ambulance corps, fire brigades, police auxiliaries, local red cross chapters and other generally good but not notable groups. Carlossuarez46 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per narrow scope of notability. Even if they may be notable, they only provide services to the local area Corpx 22:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Narrow and local scope of notability. Dean Wormer 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete JoshuaZ 02:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommandCenter NOC[edit]

Delete nn software that has been speedied in the past but keeps coming back. No 3rd party sources. No coverage. No assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reviews etc are found to establish notability Corpx 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 13:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete JoshuaZ 02:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Perry (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. There was a speedy delete tag on this back in June, but it was removed. No sources, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as non-notable, so tagged. Seems to be a walled garden involving Joshua Fit For Battle and Hot Cross, as well as just about everyone else on Level Plane Records. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding a lot of hits for these guys, including a number of reviews from various places that look non-trivial - but I don't think it's quite enough to slide them up into notability. I do see a lot of places use them as an example of "violent" screamo, however, so there may be some reliable sources I can't find in a quick search. I disagree with the speedy, but for the moment opine delete unless someone can turn up more information about the band. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is fails to meet the Music guidelines although it is not quite the A7.--JForget 02:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete JoshuaZ 02:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Fit For Battle[edit]

Band was deemed not notable in 2005, nothing has changed since. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Fit For Battle) No sources. Corvus cornix 18:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, non-notable band, no notability to be seen. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one as failing WP:MUSIC unless someone can source it appropriately. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what the 2005 version of this article was like, but if it wasn't substantially different from this one then this can just be speedily deleted under CSD G4.--P4k 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crickfacts[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)).

Non-notable website. The authors oppose the speedy deletion. Mushroom (Talk) 18:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 nonetheless, so tagged. Non-notable website. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found to get it past WP:WEB Corpx 22:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (unless reliable sources establish notability). --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources. Hal peridol 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gatoclass 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Freewebs hosted site, no evidence whatsoever of notability. Iain99 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable website, no independent sources - and possible COI issues as well. Nigel Ish 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' DO NOT DELETE - Need to given a chance. Has good information. Most likely cant afford a .com domain. Great Website 125.237.230.7 07:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)— 125.237.230.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete obscure website. (I'm a member of WP:CRICKET and I've never heard of it before this debate). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator has been directed to the notability guidelines but has been unable to add any sources that would show how this podcast meets that guideline; conflict of interest issues are secondary to the non-notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. When I looked at the site's main page yesterday, its news on the Indian tour was several weeks out of date. JH (talk page) 16:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't even really make an attempt at notability let alone prove anything. (As with Stephen Turner, as a member of WP:CRICKET, I'd not once heard of it until this.) Likely WP:COI at play, too. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per everyone, has not been notable as in worthy of attracting notice.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is not in violation of COI, just provides background to the site. Has a small but loyal community.--Realityisboring 02:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)— Realityisboring (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not meeting notability standards for now. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. Kevin Tumlinson[edit]

Not notable.

I admit, the reason I found this page was this wonderful discussion at AN/I that pointed out that someone at http://kevin.tumlinson.net was advertising on Craigslist to write Wikipedia articles for hire. That should not, in itself, be a reason to delete this particular article, but should probably to be mentioned.

What should be a reason to delete this particular article is that it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). J. Kevin Tumlinson seems to be a fine -- and ambitious! :-) -- writer, but so are ten million others. We should not be the vehicle through which a previously unknown writer finds fame. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Google can find the "Danny Lee Lawrence Award" on 6 pages, all of which happen to be the resume of J. Kevin Tumlinson. [36] --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet notability standards. Avi 18:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this lovely autobiography of a person whose encyclopaedic notability is simply not established. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very charming autobiography, but actual achievements and recognition appear limited. Delete. Moreschi ^Talk 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not currently notable. The article can be re-written when he Makes It Big^TM. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion. -Jmh123 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I admit to finding the Craigslist post, and agree that the ad should not be the reason to delete the article. That said, he's not notable. Deleted or kept, I'll certainly watchlist the page. KrakatoaKatie 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a big stick and mighty thwacking. Wikipedia doesn't need vanity press releases. ThuranX 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability standards. Hal peridol 22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not notable yet.--Sandahl 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per KrakatoaKatie's comment, the thread on AN/I and WP:NN. Neranei (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm more notable than that and there's no Wikipedia article on me, and at my current stage of notability, there shouldn't be. (Not really, sadly I only have 36 ghits, although I only checked one spelling of my usually misspelled name, half are from mainstream newspapers, and none were created by me.) KP Botany 03:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted, thing made up in the pub one day. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NINE-MINUTE KUGEL[edit]

Local game. No real assertion made of notability, and no references to establish notability. TexasAndroid 18:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Mushroom (Talk) 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, something made up at a drunken party one day. Corvus cornix 18:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple complain 07:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangle disco[edit]

I'll just copy my rationale for prodding it:

"joke article/internet meme. ~300 google hits. unverifiable." P4k 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like this term is used by a few people on Myspace, but hasn't yet achieved any notability beyond that.--Danaman5 18:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources covering the subject.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Mushroom (Talk) 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 20:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the article creator has left some comments on the talk page which I guess should be considered.--P4k 01:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Downtown Kansas City, Kansas[edit]

Consists entirely of a directory of places. Since the subject itself is notable, I nominate it for deletion with no prejudice against recreation. Nyttend 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contains no text, Wikipedia is not a phone book. Man It's So Loud In Here 17:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any relevant information can be added to the Kansas City, Kansas article, or this article can be recreated when a daughter article becomes necessary.--Danaman5 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR, doesn't seem to have relevant info worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IP198 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSD & appropriately tagged Corpx 22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom and other reasons given within above votes. Darkprincealain 22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY; also note that author has also been adding copyrighted text to the main Kansas City, Kansas article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete looks more like a test page unless you delete the content and redirect it to the Kansas City article.--JForget 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe speedily, because the article doesn't provide any context. The topic itself is notable, though, and I wouldn't mind seeing a proper article created in its place. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In the interests of full transparency, however, the situation is a little more complex than a simple deletion. During the AfD, there was basically a cut-and-paste move of this content to Ivan Dobsky, which is currently a redirect to Monkey Dust; it appears that nothing was ever merged to that article, so there are no GFDL issues with deletion, in that respect. Since consensus has clearly deemed the content unsuitable for Wikipedia, I am going to: (1) repair the cut-and-paste move by merging the edit histories into one place at Ivan Dobsky, so that other administrators can more easily find the full history if needed; and then (2) delete the merged history, except for the redirect to Monkey Dust. So, to recap:

List of Ivan Dobsky Tortures will be history-merged to Ivan Dobsky.
The then-combined history of Ivan Dobsky will be deleted, except for the existing redirect.

— TKD::Talk 01:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ivan Dobsky Tortures[edit]

Non-notable and unencyclopedic topic. This is a list of funny quotes from a character in a TV show. The show has a page, and the character a nice sized section of that page. This list, however, does not deserve its own page. It has a lot of references, but they are mainly web forums. Man It's So Loud In Here 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My reasons are listed above. Man It's So Loud In Here 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Artw 18:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge I didn't know anything about the character, and from reading both the page in question and the page for the show (which is fairly comprehensive) I'd like to suggest merging, if not the complete list, a portion of it to Ivan's section of the main show article. The list allowed me to get a firmer understanding of the humor of the character. It could be handy if there was some use of these quotes in the show article. --Torchwood Who? 22:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, now that the article is redirected maybe we should close the AFD? I was trying to find more sources of Ivan, but google is pretty dry... even google uk isn't flush with articles. I see the Ivan character IS popular based on the DVD box art, but it's hard to source the Ivan bio page.--Torchwood Who? 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that the redirect has been changed again to just the Ivan section of the monkey dust article, I say Delete.--Torchwood Who? 19:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless real world notability is established Corpx 22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zypher[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No assertion of notability or sources given to verify the rather detailed information in the article. As the article points out (!) Google isn't much help. MartinDK 17:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn. Trolling wins. Bye MartinDK 09:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, NN. Looks like a COI as well. Hut 8.5 19:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of any coverage? Is any of this even verifiable? Corpx 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources on the article. John Vandenberg 13:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article provides insufficient context to assess its encyclopaedic merit. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superiorman Red Nudist[edit]

I'm pretty convinced that this is a hoax. I cannot verify any of it and honestly it reads very much like a joke. Delete per WP:V and WP:N and thus WP:BIO since no assertion of notability is made. MartinDK 16:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't say if it is hoax for sure, but per WP:FICT there shouldn't be a separate page for a character who apparently appears in 2 pages of a book. I would say speedy redirect, but since I doubt this is a likely search term and we have hoax concerns I say delete it. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCF: Toronto Cybercide (film)[edit]

Likely a non notable amature film, one review on a cyberpunk website doesn't cut it in my mind. Clear COI issues as creator and only contributer StoyBoy720 is in fact Bryan Patrick Stoyle. I actually figured this out while searching for sources for the article and found that StoyBoy720 had posted a link to his Wikipedia article on a fan film site recommending Wikipedia as a good way to promote fan films "shameless plugging" [37]. In any case promotional issues aside, showing at a minor film festival and one review on a fan site should not be enough for an article. Daniel J. Leivick 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film, with only one main contributor. Only some minor reviews. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I can't picture many people looking this article up. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, non-notable film. Keb25 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel J. Leivick. --Truest blue 17:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple complain 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

System Shock 3[edit]

PRODded with the rationale: The phrases "a rumored game", "very little information is avalible [sic]" say it all, really; WP:CRYSTAL.. However, the article was previously deleted via prod; re-prodding is invalid, so to AfD we go. Nonetheless, I agree with the prodder's reasoning, and will add that a Google search turns up a lot of hits, but mostly unreliable sources or very trivial mentions of the rumor. Some sources describe BioShock as essentially a System Shock 3 (to the extent that it is a spiritual successor), but that designation is by no means official, and is meant in a different context from a direct sequel, so a redirect would be confusingly inappropriate. Can anyone find any reliable sources to substantiate the development of an actual System Shock 3? If not, delete per lack of reliable sources and the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — TKD::Talk 16:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With the release of BioShock, anything talking about System Shock 3 is tripping balls. TheLetterM 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to BioShock as a name used by some press and enthusiasts. 132.205.44.5 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Not enough info available Corpx 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. — TKD::Talk 12:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Virtually no new info beyond the rumor reported on various sites over a year ago.--Drat (Talk) 13:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect - until actually verifiable info comes in (which probably won't happen), this article is a waste of server space and blatently violates WP:CRYSTAL. On top of that, BioShock is almost a System Shock 3 anyway (anyone who's read the article or finished the game and played a SS title will understand), but it wouldn't make sense to redirect SS3 to BioShock (officially it's a SPIRITUAL successor). --L337 kybldmstr 05:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Marlith ^T/C 01:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zebramag[edit]

Delete nn comic book website, article primarily authored by a COI editor. Carlossuarez46 16:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another magazine with fails notability. -- Magioladitis 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Trip Steps[edit]

One of the many songs in the game, Sonic Adventure 2, this not notable at all. Articles like this one have been gradually filling up the Category:Sonic the Hedgehog series songs. I have redirected most of those to their respective albums. FMF 16:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC Corpx 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or merge, but there's not much there. All these non-notable Sonic songs would work as a list, but not as individual articles. -Rocket000 03:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Springfield[edit]

No reliable, wholly independent sources. Claim to fame is interviewing celebrities. Written by an apparent single-purpose account, whose edits consist solely of writing article and putting links to the subject's myspace site in various articles. Drat (Talk) 15:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to have been written by the person who is its subject. Parker Springfield birth name is given as Scott Antonivich. The article was created by an account user who goes by the name Santonivich. Other far more noted radio personalities have no Wiki article. The station he works for, WKNE (FM) has no entry and only serves a small area in Southwestern New Hampshire and Northcentral Massachusetts. While I can see an article about WKNE, which has been on the FM dial since the 1950s, an article about an employee of a station heard in such a small area seems incongruous.Consultant100 (Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultant100 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. -Flubeca^Talk 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in lacking any coverage from independent sources Corpx 22:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boonsock[edit]

17 Google hits disregarding misspellings of Boondock Saints, but the article says "oral tradition" so I wanted to bring it here. This article's been around since June with no content additions and the creator has made no edits other than to create this article. Zero results in GBooks and GScholar. Even if it's real, it's little more than a dicdef. kateshortforbob 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced and apparant dicdef. No sources forthcoming, so delete. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO unless sources prove otherwise Corpx 22:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Evans[edit]

Non-notable third-place finisher on Nashville Star. Doesn't seem to have accomplished anything more notable than that. No charting singles, nothing else that seems to pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - no notability outside reality show Corpx 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. --Caldorwards4 00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Meadows[edit]

Only claim to fame is a second place finish on Nashville Star. Has released two singles, but neither of them charted. (Shame, since I think "18 Video Tapes" was a great song.) I don't think that second place on a talent show is enough for WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least for now - lacks notability. The fact that the article is self-sourced doesn't help, either. Rklawton 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - no notability outside reality show Corpx 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REALTORS Association of Hamilton-Burlington[edit]

Non-Notable corp/association, as far as I can tell. Also, shaky on WP:DIRECTORY. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as local instantiation of the National Association of Realtors (which anyone using the term Realtor® must be a member of), per WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosguitar (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for failing WP:CSD#A7. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all, Hamilton-Burlington is in Canada; RAHB is not a local instantiation of NAR (U.S.). Outside of the Toronto Real Estate Board, the REALTORS Association of Hamilton-Burlington (RAHB) is a significant regional board in the Golden Horseshoe, and one of the oldest real estate boards in Canada. RAHB market reports are cited by the media, so how does it fail WP:ORG? Do Google News links count?[38]. -- Robocoder (t|c) 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as notability to come. --Gavin Collins 09:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would just note that this article has been extensively cleaned-up since the start of this debate. Bland assertions that it fails WP:ORG are no longer really relevant, given that Robocoder has added a number of sources which give it some marginal notability. There also appears to be press coverage [39], some distinctly non-trivial like an entire 2006 write-up in the Financial Post. Also, it's definitely not a local instance of the NAR. --Haemo 03:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightrider immortals[edit]

Cannot be verified. Unreferenced. A hoax? FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax (nothing found in a search of Google Books). It's worth noting that the Persian Immortals themselves are apparently apocryphal by way of Herodotus.[40] --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. User's only other contribution is to vandalize Pembroke Welsh Corgi with a similar ancient history "fact". VanTucky ^(talk) 03:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable hoax which we fortunately managed to catch within 48 hours. Has Berzerker666 (talk · contribs) created any others? RFerreira 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouple[edit]

This article reads as a personal essay, and in the couple of dozen source links I checked, none used the word "supercouple". Guy (Help!) 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, substantially OR, neologism, and so on. Please note the AfD for List of major supercouples and other supercouples for some related discussion on this topic. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but needs major trimming. It does seem to be pretty widely used in soap operas, as in this article. It seems to be a neologism (or at least rarely-used) as it applies to celebrities and fiction outside soaps though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had a feeling that this article would be nominated for deletion...since I knew that it would take me a while to get around to fixing it up further. The word Supercouple is not a neologism. It has existed since the 1980s. And is even widely used to describe celebrity power couples, as witnessed in this article. This article is also not completely original research. The parts that are will be sourced with valid references. To delete this article would be like deleting the Supermodel article, or the Superhero article, etc. If you check my user page, you will see that it states that I am working on fixing this article up even further, just as I've been working on fixing up several soap opera supercouple articles. And for the soap opera couples and the celebrity couples, the word Supercouple is most definitely used. Furthermore, the word Supercouple does not have to be used for couples that have influenced popular culture, which is the case for the primetime supercouples. The primetime supercouples are the only ones that don't exactly state "supercouple" all the time, because the word is not used all that often to describe primetime power couples, but is widely understood that they are supercouples. The list of soap opera supercouples and the list of celebrity supercouples definitely use the word. I really was not planning on fixing up this article right now, because I'm working on fixing up the Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney article right now, as in soon that article will be up to Wikipedia standards. The Supercouple article is well-served and well-needed. The Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone couple and other soap opera couples that are truly super are also well-served by this article, and the word...Supercouple...is most definitely notable. Flyer22 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, term had official usage at the Soap Opera Awards as early as the 1980s, and became slang for celebrity couples and yuppies in the early 1990s. Numerous Google News Archive citations for all three usages. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First official usage seems to have been at the 1986 awards.[41] --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just like deleting superhero and supermodel, eh? Let's see, superhero gets 3,180,000 ghits; supermodel gets 2,940,000; supercouple gets 36,200, including articles like "Be a Super Couple and Have a Successful Marriage" which cannot really be considered to be about the same thing. I'm also not sure about whether the statute of limitations on neologisms runs back to the 1980s or not, but the current opening sentence does say that the term is one. Is there a good article in there trying to get out, through the gossip, synthesis, and original resarch? I can't see it. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the term is also used to refer to modern high-stress marriages where both partners have high expectations. [42] This doesn't seem like a very well-defined subject area. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note, but what that proves is that the term spread from just being used to describe fictional power couples. Not that it is not well-defined. The term was still coined within the realm of soap opera due to the supercouple Luke Spencer and Laura Webber. And is mostly used to describe couples, fictional or not, seemingly super in union. Flyer22 20:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I see a good article not too far away when it comes to this article. The opening sentence of this article should have probably never used the word neologism. I put that word in there at the suggestion of an editor, and because, yes, back then...the word was a neologism. But to further address notability of the term Supercouple, I also want to state that the term is thoroughly used in scholarly. For example, this first reference here...[43]...is what I'm going to use, besides other references to source in the lead. Other scholarly references of the term Supercouple include these...[44][45] And it is widely studied in reference to film supercouples as well, such as in this reference...[46] (which is the same as the first reference that I listed in concerns to this, but this part is studying film supercouples even more specifically). Reliabe news outlets, such as The News & Advance, also use the term. [47] I will go ahead and alter the lead of this article soon, and change and source the wording of the first paragraph below that, and take care of better formatting of the references beside the couple names on the lists of this article later. The Primetime supercouples list and the Film supercouples list are supposed to provide references validating that those couples are important couples within popular culture; those references do not have to state the word Supercouple. If the reference beside the couple addresses their importance and significant impact on society, that is what is required for the listing of those two sections. Flyer22 20:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me for being blunt, but Google hits are not the be-all and end-all. I have to roll my eyes when people love to trot out Google search results, like nothing can come between that and actual citations. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I know that Google hits are not the be-all and end-all, Mike. Not sure if you were addressing me on that subject as well as others, but I felt that I'd answer. Right now, I'm organizing the supercouple lists of this article in my Word document on my computer, and soon I'll apply a neater version of these lists to this article. Flyer22 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was addressing SheffieldSteel, not you. You've been working very hard on sourcing these articles. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did not provide google hit information in order to make an argument about notability, but as a response to the argument "deleting supercouple would be like deleting superhero or supermodel". Say what you like about google ratings (and personally I do not believe they provide definitive proof of anything) but the relative values do, I think, give an indication of how ridiculous that argument was.Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not believe that argument was or is ridiculous at all. The term Supercouple is just as notable as the term Supermodel or the term Superhero. The term Supercouple is actually used more on television these days (and not just soap operas) than the word Supermodel or Superhero is, from what I've seen, and given how it is so widely used to describe notable celebrity couples as well, it seems to be used more so in the media than the word Supermodel or the word Superhero is these days. You can believe otherwise, of course, but, personally, I don't believe that the term Supermodel or the term Superhero is any more notable than the term Supercouple. And the articles of the name Supermodel and of the name Superhero here at Wikipedia aren't in that much better shape than this article (at least not at this time). As for this article, as I've stated before, I'm working on more sourcing for it, and better formatting of its lists, which will be done soon. I'll gather more information concerning what makes supercouples (also known as power couples) and add it to this article over time, but it certainly is not in extremely bad shape. I'll most definitely be tweaking out its problems for as long as I come back to Wikipedia. Flyer22 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have changed the lead of this article to better reflect the Supercouple term and I have added more sources to it, though I don't believe that a lead really needs a few references or several in it, as even Wikipedia guideline states. And the rest of this article is more of a matter of sourcing a few more instances, and better formatting the lists, which I will be doing during this deletion debate, and if this article is spared, further after that as well. Flyer22 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Popular and notable term in soap operas. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly re-evaluate after some much needed cleanup. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Flyer22, MikeH and Starblind/AndrewLenahan ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brangelina and Posh and Becks. I am sure this word is coined in an online article? Miranda 04:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard this term several times... Hello magazine syndrome. Notability is not in issue given the amount of gossip magazines who use the term and enough sources back this up. I suppose WP:RELY might be a difficulty to come over once the article has been beefed out a little, but this is manageable I think - current sources are overweighed with soap gossip magazines, but BBC and Washington Post also feature. When tidying it up, it would be nice to see it being a little less US centric? I'll keep an eye on the article and see if there is anything I can do to add some UK/European relevance... eg Jordan and Peter Andre! --manchesterstudent 12:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome, Manchesterstudent! I'll try to get the lists of this article better formatted today. I'd love you to work on this article with me. I've felt for a while now, that it is too U.S.-centric. Flyer22 13:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. — TKD::Talk 00:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omniglass[edit]

No notability asserted, possible advert Paulbrock 14:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Paulbrock 14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RS to indicate fulfillment of WP:CORP, promotional. Leuko 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both ... no WP:A to satisfy WP:CORP or WP:BIO ... vanispamcruftisement. —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs) 16:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both fails WP:N. Carlosguitar 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, a mini walled garden with no reliable sources. John Vandenberg 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). John Vandenberg 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lles Maria[edit]

Seems likely to be a hoax. "Lles maria"+ Cook -wikipedia returns no Google hits. While it's not impossible that an island in the Cook Islands would have a Welsh name (after all, one of the main islands is Penrhyn), it seems fairly unlikely, especially given the fact that all the islands that make up the Penrhyn Atoll have Cook Island Maori names, other than the hybrid-named Aucklandnui Grutness...wha? 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Changing original comments to a rename/rewording to reflect the place in French Polynesia, but without the current name as a redirect, since it's an unlikely typo (despite it being the original place for the article). Grutness...wha? 02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Hell, speedy delete under WP:CSD#A1... actually, don't because it does give some context.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, and source and create new article if people can do so.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and rename/rewrite. It's redlinked as Îles Maria in the Austral Islands article (on French Polynesia), and mentioned here. Wl219 16:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the bottom right above the box on this map, as "Maria".-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Îles Maria. It's an actual island that's part of French Polynesia (the current article seems to incorrectly state it's part of the Cook Islands.) --Oakshade 19:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note, h i s has the wrong "Maria", it's the one at the same latitude on the far LEFT (west) of the map. (Marked properly here, p. 58, presumably reliably.) The issue seems to be that it's geographically part of the Cook Islands but administratively part of French Polynesia. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article for the other, more easterly "Maria"?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, basis for AfD proposal turns out to be untrue and the article is now correctly spelled and sourced. —David Eppstein 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No information was added (either in this discussion or in the article) to suggest that the subject meets WP:PORNBIO. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Morgan[edit]

I don't think this woman's notable. Fails WP:PORNBIO. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PORNBIO. Xihr 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? I have doubts about whether this is a good faith comment. Epbr123 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: See [48]. Xihr 01:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again. How? Epbr123 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could a !vote explaining the reasoning for it possibly be in bad faith? You're being disingenuous here. Xihr 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't. But how does that argument apply to your !vote? Epbr123 23:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave precisely as much reasoning in my vote to keep as you gave in your nomination for the AfD above. By your logic, you're admitting your nomination was in bad faith. You can't really mean that, can you? This Socratic method you use to engage in debate isn't working out very well. Xihr 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced that she is prolific enough in the big-bust genre. If Voluptuous Model of the Year and two time Plumper of the Year, Kerry Marie, isn't notable, I'm afraid Lorna Morgan isn't. Epbr123 18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't know why. UnknownMan 22:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Vote recovered from unwarranted deletion by User:Picaroon. It is no one's place to remove other people's comments; the closing admin must take into consideration all votes. Higher quality votes with substance, of course, have more weight then non-quality votes, since AfD is not a vote. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it featured on the Wiki blog planet, it is interesting to see that it being considered for deletion :) GerardM 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to the blog entry that's featuring Lorna? Tabercil 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it is written does not provide sufficient details to prove notability. Tabercil 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Greves[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —R:128.40.76.3 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was speedily deleted. Now recreated with references, most of which do not mention the subject. The one that does tells us that the subject played Jason in a UCL student theatre production of Medea, perhaps something short of meeting the standards of WP:BIO. I'm not sure that this isn't a joke, or perhaps even an attack page, but it doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators.I am not sure if it serious or a hoax, or if it should be deleted, although I did add an orphaned image and cats as I found it lacking. R:128.40.76.3 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like a joke. Notability is not established either. --Crusio 16:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Non-notable, references do not work. Salt to prevent recreation.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete hoax, no such person seem to exist at UCL. The contributions of UCL IPs 144.82.106.65, & 144.82.106.58's to be scrubbed from First Alcibiades & Psychogeography (Claude Lévi-Strauss? and maybe more). I suspect that a WP:RCU for User:Mark1mark2 wouldn't show specific shared ips with the UCL sockpuppets Curious Gregor/User:A.J.1.5.2., User:R:128.40.76.3, etc, but... Pete.Hurd 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does R:128.40.76.3 (who says "I am not sure if it serious or a hoax") make these contributions to the article (adding e.g. the category "LGBT people from England") without being an active perpetrator of the hoax? I see nothing previously existing in the article to support such categorization. Pete.Hurd 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesus College is in Cambridge, not London. The website of the Department of Geography at Jesus College does not mention a chair of "Contemporary Geography", which does not really sound like a real scientific field anyway.--Crusio 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Hoax. Can find no evidence that this person (as described in the article) exists; even the citations in the article don't name him aside from one namecheck for a part in a student production. The style of the article, particularly the sections on "Early life" and "Academic career", is particularly hoax-like which when added to the factual inaccuracies detailed above make a pretty compelling case. • nancy • 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax of some sort. If the refs don't discuss him, they're pointless - and so is teh whole article. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an absurd bit of trolling. I also agree with Pete.Hurd; someone run the WP:RCU for User:Mark1mark2 vs R:128.40.76.3 and his gang of sockpuppets. --Jack Merridew 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the WP:RCU will be fruitful, I think that they will not be sharing IPs. R:128.40.76.3 has been associated with 128.40.76.3 (which is UCL), while Mark1mark2's edits are associated with other edits from 144.82.106.65 & 144.82.106.58 (which is also UCL, but most likely different physical locations). MadKemist/CurousGregor/R:128.40.76.3/etc. has been through two bouts of sock puppet trimming, and is presumably wise enough to game the system more intelligently than that. I think the fact that R:128.40.76.3 added novel material to the article is strong enough evidence that it's a WP:DUCK. (See AN/I archives here for summary of earlier R:128.40.76.3 and related sock behaviour). Pete.Hurd 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other people's comments --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all - gidonb 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX--AmerHisBuff 09:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angus McLellan --Truest blue 17:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all - SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pascal.Tesson 20:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomi Bar'el[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shlomi Bar'el

Non-notable singer. Came in 3rd place on Israeli Idol. No other assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Evb-wiki 12:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS - no notability outside reality show appearance Corpx 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think NOTNEWS is relevant since this isn't a news piece; it seems to me to be simply a matter of judging notability. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep precedent shows comparable achievers in comparable reality shows elsewhere have articles. While the article lacks sources, there is no reason that sources could not be added to support the explicit claim of notability. Alansohn 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the show has something like 40% rating, something that's pretty much unprecedented in Israel afaik. This piece on him, in addition to his mention in this article and this one constitute significant coverage by third party sources. Just like people who came in third place on American Idol are notable enough for an article, a person who came in third place on Israeli Idol is notable. Also, he has 47,000 results on Google (which is a lot for a Hebrew search, just for comparison, Ariel Sharon has 295,000 hits). 84.108.245.222 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding comment was made by me. Yonatan ^talk 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article seems to have been accepted by the 'heads' of the Hebrew WP, as well as the speculation that his career is already 'promised' some success in Israel. But I'm not sure if there's a rule saying that if it exists on one WP, then it is legitimate on all WP. Please correct me if I am wrong. Here, IMO, I would otherwise delete, the whole reality-show celebrities seems faddish and smack of 'WP:RECENTISM' that everyone will forget in ten years like Solid Gold (TV series). --Shuki 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Different language Wikipedias have different inclusion standards, so the existence of the article on one wiki is not an indicator of its appropriateness on another. However, I also don't think we should include/exclude articles based on pure personal speculation about whether they will or will not be remembered in X years. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure what to make of the Google hits comparison. On the one hand, I expect that many of the hits for Bar'el will be to blogs and forums that are not reliable sources; on the other, I expect the same to be true of the hits for Sharon (political blogs/forums). As I can't read Hebrew, I can't make a personal judgment on whether the three sources provided by Yonatan constitute 'significant coverage'. However, I'll take his word on it and am thus weakly inclined to believe that the topic is worthy of inclusion. However, whether it should be retained on the condition that it is improved (after all, sources have already been provided) or deleted without prejudice to sourced recreation is something I'm ambivalent about. I will place a notice on the talk page of WikiProject Israel, notifying them of the discussion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --GHcool 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tag for cleanup. We just need a Hebrew-speaking/reading editor who is willing to improve the article and can read the sources. If he has a record contract, there will only be more information coming. Mango juice^talk 19:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago: a Myth of the Far Future[edit]

This is a plot summary of a book without its notability asserted. PROD was contested with comment: "author is notable sci-fi author, book is well known in field. article may need cleanup, but that's specifically not a justification to delete an article" This is not a valid rationale for notability. While the author may be notable, that does not make his books automatically pass WP:BK. Also, it is unclear to me what else can be reported about this book beyond a simple plot summary. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extremely notable author, and a fairly notable book within its genre anyway. There was even a sequel, The Return of Santiago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As above - the book is highly notable; the author is extremely notable and award-winning (5 Hugo awards, 31 Hugo nominations), and it's one of the books everyone in the field recognizes by name. Georgewilliamherbert 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As above. Numerous reviews in Sci-fi circles.--Wynler | Talk 22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - one of Resnick's best known books. Hal peridol 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Changes to the article following the deletion nomination (particularly [49] and [50]) largely address the reasons for deletion. Kudos to Deon Steyn and The wub for their efforts. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ibanez players[edit]

Contested prod. Zero context or verification, permanently incomplete, inclusion criteria vague. Just another "intersection by location" bare list. Deiz talk 09:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - List appears to have been brought in line with list guidelines and the Telecaster featured list. I would not have nominated the list in its revised form, suggest disgregarding opinions voiced prior to 7 September. Deiz talk 03:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the page merely to remove clutter from the original Ibanez article so – if only technically – I am the author. There is an entire category of these pages Category:Lists of guitarists (players of brand x or y), including List of Telecaster players which was a Wikipedia:Featured lists. Should this list's content and intro only be improved to a similar standard as List of Telecaster players as it well can be, instead of deleted? Deon Steyn 09:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telecaster players is an excellent list, beyond being guitar related lists they have nothing in common. I've also split off bare lists from main articles and am happy to see them deleted if no-one cares to improve them. Is it possible to make a good list out of this? Sure.. clear inclusion criteria, intro, sources, context for each entry.. if your prod removal had alluded to any of that we might not be here. Deiz talk 10:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like I said earlier, I'm not too familiar with AfD arguments, hence the hamfisted "prod removal" edit comment :-) But my alternative was to do nothing and lose the list, which as it turns out as the potential to become something like the featured list. There are about 7 or 8 of these player/brand lists, half good like the Tele one and half bad. How now brown cow? put a "major edit" notice on top and hack it into shape like the Tele list? Deon Steyn 14:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List is completely unsourced / original research. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of Telecaster players is extensively sourced, has descriptions for every player and is well organized. This list has none of those characteristics- it's indiscriminate, unorganized, scantily detailed, and doesn't even have the model of guitars played by each player. TheLetterM 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay, the page has been completely revamped. It now looks exactly like the List of Telecaster players page and lists only those players that are notable and definitely associated by Ibanez (they all play signature models carrying their name) citing their notability and association to Ibanez. Deon Steyn 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really think its over categorization to have list of people who played <instrument>. Maybe categorize? Corpx 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the difference between "list of telecaster players" and "list of Ibanez players" is that the telecaster is a model of guitar whereas the Ibanez is a brand. There must surely be countless professionals who play Ibanez guitars so I think a list such as this violates WP:NOT#DIR. Also, the topic smacks somewhat of promotion. Update: On reflection, I note there is indeed a number of other articles of this type and if this list had more selective inclusion criteria such as that at List of Gibson players I think it might be viable. In any case, I see no reason to pick on this one article and leave the rest, IMO they should all be considered for deletion together as a group or not at all. Gatoclass 02:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 days ago I would have said delete as it was simply a POV favorites list. But the new format has change my vote to keep. Peter Fleet 02:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now it's been pruned, sourced and formatted like the similar lists. I would urge users who have previously !voted to delete to take another look at the article. the wub "?!" 11:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supazorb[edit]

Non-notable commercial product (and poorly written article). -- Alan Liefting talk 09:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable third-party sources with substantial coverage can be found. Jakew 10:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News finds one mention in something called Mining Weekly, and I don't think that's really enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Product and producer seem to the be the same, so fails WP:CORP too. --Gavin Collins 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, basic info is already in the BB-US article, nothing needs to be merged or kept. Fram 09:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Veto (Big Brother)[edit]

This article has a section labelled trivia - oh the irony! The whole thing is trivia. It either needs to be merged, or (much better) deleted. This is just a plot device used in the Big Brother franchise in one market, it really is staggeringly unimportant outside of that very restricted locus. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't even merge. In my opinion it's covered succinctly enough at Big Brother (US)#Format. •97198 talk 09:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does not require it's own article - no opportunity for expansion. Covered as per 97198 Pedro | Chat 10:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Just mention what "Power of veto" does in the main BB article, and that's enough. Wikipedia should not contain every little detail of everything that has ever happened. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 11:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's covered in the main Big Brother article in all the depth it deserves. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually I vote to keep the article. The "Power of Veto" is used in two different Big Brother versions not only the United States. The "Power of Veto" is mentioned in the Big Brother (US) page it does not go into detail about it. There is a small trivia section, oh wow small it can be either integrated into the main article or removed simple. And could someone tell me how it is covered enough in Big Brother (US)#Format? It only mentions the basic use of the Veto. I vote to keep this because it can be written in such a manner it is encyclopedic and informative. The trivia can be removed, plus the fact it is used in two different versions of Big Brother not only the US version. Granted right now it mainly is written for the US version that too can be fixed. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though I am a contributor to this, and most Big Brother pages, I am voting to delete this page, as most (if not all) of the information that this page contains is duplicate information already found on the main Big Brother (US) and/or the articles for the individual seasons of the show. Sorry. - Rjd0060 19:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely trivial information, and this "thing" is lacking any real world notability Corpx 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge there is very little here that couldn't be integrated into the BB US article. It's possible the subject is notable enough for it's own article, I don't have enough knowledge of Big Brother in the US, but the article doesn't establish that, and in it's current state adds very little to Wikipedia as a whole. John Hayes^talk 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, better to Merge to the BB US article. It's a very integral part of the US BB show, it deserves something, if not its own page, then merge it with the major artcile. - Jeeny ^Talk 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there are some things that can be merged into the actual Big Brother article such as the most vetoes a person won (not the whole list just people that won more then 1 maybe more then 2) and some other stuff.24.1.180.220 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The Power of Veto article on the Big Brother page does not adequately explain the rules of the POV. It doesn't explain how the rules have changed over the years, having major effects on each season. Example: For many years, all players competed. Then they changed it so three players were picked. Then they changed it to a random drawing for three. These rules changed the way the game was played. The Power of Veto doesn't need it's own page, it just needs to be explained properly on the Big Brother page -- right now, it is not properly explained. It is a major component of the game. I don't know whose job it is, but I'd gladly merge the info onto the main page and someone with authority can delete the other one.--Teehee11 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if at all. I'm a BB fan and even I can't see the need for this much information -- the rules, perhaps, and how they've changed over time could be in the article, but this is cruft. Accounting4Taste 19:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Strength of numbers below favors deletion; it is also worth noting that the limited sources are mostly not independent. Of the few that are, these mentions merely verify the existence of the group, and do not devote much time to it, or ascribe to it any great significance. A very limited mention of these folks in the 9/11 Truth article might be undertaken (one sourced sentence) without the need for the GFDL history here, if commenters at that talk page don't object. Xoloz 16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth

I'm nominating this because it's unsourced (apart from one unreliable source) and I think it's probably unverifiable. A cursory google search doesn't turn up any third-party reliable sources. P4k 08:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing this article, so I'm going to respond to each criticism.

Third-party "reliable" sources have been added by various people. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources for an unnotable "organisation". Nick mallory 09:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very notable organization. I'll explain below. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable unless reliable third-party sources can be found. Jakew 10:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, such sources have been added. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable; according to its own page, it has about 400 members only. This of course doesn't necessarily equate a lack of notability, but if it is small, it should at least assert some importance, which the article doesn't. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 11:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I'll add an assertion of importance. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a page for this, don't we? --Tarage 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to discuss this?

Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into the article 9/11 Truth Movement, of which this group apparently is involved. There are actually several websites associated with this group according to Yahoo!: Group's homepage: [51] Squad51 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The biggest difference is that the 9/11 Truth Movement

does not have official members or spokespeople. This group does.Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into the article 9/11 Truth Movement. bov 17:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll discuss this below. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge or delete. Keep, for such a non-notable organization, is clearly wrong. It could be notable by the Truthers, in which case it should be merged. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment noted. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX/WP:NONSENSE. [S]elf proclaimed ... professionals is a contradiction in terms. Peter Grey 18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a minute, please. The phrase "self proclaimed" was added by

a vandal. Professional members have to FAX in copies of their

credentials to be admitted. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was that vandal. I put in 'self proclaimed' because this organisation carries out NO background checks on the supposed qualifications of its members. Therefore they are exactly 'self proclaimed' in their professional status. Nick mallory 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 9/11 Truth Movement to minimise verifiability and notability concerns. I had no idea there were so many 9/11 conspiracy articles on wikipedia. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to what you have no idea of, it reflects society.

Released: September 06, 2007

Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney

Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous

collapse of World Trade Center 7

Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge appears to be the best course of action here.

--Haemo 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Including the fair bit of conspiracy theorizing in-article, there is nothing notable here. It seems to be a small group based exclusively in San Francisco, so merge would probably be a bad idea--otherwise the 9/11 Truth Movement article will be filled with sections on this group, Minneapolis Ironworkers for Truth, Butte Accountants for Truth, and any other group of a couple dozen people loosely associated with the larger group. --Deusnoctum 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please find "theorizing" in the article, and we will remove it.

Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no compelling reason to keep the article on this non-notable group. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability, and I oppose any merging because of this lack of notability Corpx 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep may need some more sourcing, but I recall this group running a fullpage an in Newsweek If nothing else, merge it with the other 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Mandsford 22:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional; non-notable; also per Jakew above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto 9/11 Truth Movement . Just not enough sources satisfying WP:RS to justify a stand-alone article. Edison 03:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various people are adding additional sources. Are you willing to wait

a few months for more sources? I'll have more comments shortly.Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability.--MONGO 06:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without merge - as per User:Corpx - fchd 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Vanispamcruftisement, and smacks strongly of an attempt to promote the WP:TRUTH. MortonDevonshire Yo · 05:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, hello, Mr. POV warrior! I see that you have quite a record of suppressing information about information you disagree with! :-) Wowest 11:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on edits, not on editors. See WP:NPA.--Strothra 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Geir 11:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More POV content forks. --DHeyward 16:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if any of these guys is actually a PE, then membership in an organization like this sould be grounds for termination of the liscens. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((POV)) Wowest 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability and reliable sources out there to merit an article. --Aude (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:RS, we need independent sources to warrant inclusion of an organization like this. Fringe groups are out there, but this one isn't notable enough. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources explaining notability. Very little (none?) of the information in the article is sourced from reliable sources. I can't spot anything that is sourced, so nothing there to merge. Not every web site is automatically notable, and conspiracy theory sites are no more an exception than Pokemon chat forums are. Weregerbil 09:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into the article Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Lack of notability and reliable sources out there to merit an article, there is already a link to the organization on the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center page and they are mainly concerned with the collapse of the buildings, from the "about us" section on their website:

"We call upon Congress for a truly independent investigation with subpoena power. We believe that there may be sufficient evidence to conclude that the World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47 story high-rise across Vessey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives."

--PTR 14:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and lacks reliable sources. --Strothra 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General reply[edit]

. O.K. I'm new around here, and I see that I have to write two articles, one for Wikipedia and one for critics. . The importance of this article is revealed, in part, by the amount of vandalism it has attracted. . The DVD Loose Change has its own article. The DVD from ae911truth is the new Loose Change. It has only been out for two days, but by the time it's as old as Loose Change, it will have a very long bibliography. . I discovered earlier that I cannot re-add an article which was previously deleted, no matter how much circumstances have changed since the earlier discussion, and apparently, I can't even read the earlier discussion. It just gets a quick removal. . This article will have several categories of opponents. It merely presents facts about an organization which merely presents evidence that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Therefore, there is no "conspiracy theory" involved. It has been asserted elsewhere that in any gathering where architects and engineers are present when Richard Gage makes his presentation, 90% of those people join his organization. Where do you imagine he got 150 professional members in a fairly short time? . Dr. Steven Jones has presented a chemical analysis of material retrieved from the WTC and of dust from the neighborhood along with his analysis of the physics of the falling structure. He was faulted for this by the engineering faculty at BYU because he is "only a physicist," and not an architect or structural engineer. ae911truth.org presents a list of 16 indicators that controlled demolition was used at the WTC. One of these indicators is the thermite/ thermate residue Dr. Jones identified in the formerly molten metal from the site and the "iron rich spheroids" retrieved from the dust. Formerly molten metal? Yes. Dozens of people, including the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. mentioned TONS of molten metal under each of the three high-rises that collapsed at the WTC more than a MONTH after the demolition. That cannot be explained by the theory of burning jet fuel (a/k/a "kerosene"). Very large quantities of thermate were apparently used in this demolition. There is easily enough evidence of arson here that an independent congressional investigation of the events of 9/11 is called for, which is the goal of ae911truth.org. Given all of that, within the historical context of the conversation, this organization is very significant. Wowest 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are new, you should stick around Wiki longer and observe before creating articles. You learn by making small edits and working your way up. Once you learn the policies and requirements concerning how to make a good article then you will be ready to write an article. --Strothra 16:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problem[edit]

Given the amount of vandalism this article has attracted, it should be protected at some level. It is, therefore, inappropriate to merge it into another article. Wowest 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional problem: some of the professional members of the Architects and Engineers organization do not wish to have their organization listed on Wikipedia due to the recent publicity given to defense contractors and other similar organizations hiring staffs to manipulate Wikipedia articles. The organization is still formulating a consensus on this issue, however. Other, less flattering, comments regarding Wikipedia were made by another architect in a recent email. If it is deleted, it should be deleted in such a way that it can be re-added in a few months when more "reliable" sources are available, without running into the "speedy delete" problem, which I don't have the foggiest idea how to handle. Wowest 04:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 'vandalism' you say this article has attracted was actually attempts to make it a balanced and NPOV article. The fact that you and your comrades removed such comments show why such articles have no place on wikipedia. This is not a place to push ludicrous conspiracy theories if you cannot handle the insertion of the occasional fact to counter your lurid and baseless accusations. 'In fact, the overwhelming majority of accredited engineers and architects have not considered the issue at all. Like most Americans, they accepted what they saw on the network news programs, which came from press releases of the Bush administration. Presumably all engineers and architects currently working for the Federal Government will agree with this assessment. Among retired governmental employees, whose pensions are no longer in danger, this is no longer the case." Nick mallory 10:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the insertion of "self-professed." This was cited as a reason to delete the article for "fraud" because there is no such thing as a self-professed professional. In fact, all professional members of the group are licensed professionals who must FAX in copies of their credentials to become members.

If you visit [www.patriotsquestion911.com], you will numerous examples of accomplished and high-ranking individuals, mostly retired, who seriously question the official conspiracy theory (OCT) laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report. Some now retired military personnel (mentioned elsewhere) have stated that they waited until they were retired to criticize unconscionable activities of several administrations, Democrat as well as Republican.

Let me see! What did you say?

"(1) This is not a place to push ludicrous conspiracy theories"

Actually, there is no "ludicrous conspiracy theory" mentioned here. This article is about a RAPIDLY GROWING group of professional architects and engineers (ten new members since we started this conversation) promoting the idea that WTC buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition and that there should be a congressional investigation. Nothing I have seen on their website alleges that the demolitions were carried out by Martians or anyone else.

Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks;

Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007

If fifty-one percent of Americans agree with the goals of the group, how can you call their position "ludicrous?" Most people would disagree.

Or, are you disagreeing with my objection? Let me try to edit the POV out.

And, by the way, (August, 2007) "James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11."

"(2) if you cannot handle the insertion of the occasional fact"

Apparently I should have used that {fact} thingie. Did I get it right? No, I didn't. Exactly what percentage of professional engineers and architects promote the OCT ?

"(3) to counter your lurid and baseless accusations."

Baseless? Kevin Ryan was fired for blowing the whistle about the quality of the steel used in the WTC. Military personnel have been court-martialed for expressing political opinions about 9/11 on their own time, "out of uniform."

Lurid? I'd welcome suggestions on how to fix that. I tend to over-react to certain kinds of troll-editing.

Wowest 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick mallory: Who deleted your last comment? I was just studying "Playing the Dozens for Dummies," getting ready to respond.... Wowest 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't removed my last comment and stand by it completely. In my opinion you are quite deranged. You believe in something which runs counter to all the available evidence. You are entirely at odds with reality. All the points you've made have been thoroughly debunked time and again and yet you still keep making them. Even the kids behind the ludicrous 'loose change' video aren't claiming there was any 'controlled demolition' in their latest version. Claiming that anyone who actually believes in what the evidence obviously shows is 'a troll' or 'a vandal' doesn't actually strengthen your argument. Nick mallory 07:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting bit of projection. You start out with an ad hominem argument -- I'm "deranged." So nobody should investigate what I say because if they agree with me, they'll be "deranged" as well?

I "believe in something which runs counter to all the available evidence?" You don't have a clue what I believe. Numerous witnesses, including the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. report seeing tons of molten metal under all three high-rises at the WTC more than a month after the 9/11 events. There is nothing about that in the OCT report from the 9/11 Commission. There is nothing there about building 7, at all, as a matter of fact.

"All the points you've made have been thoroughly debunked time and again" -- that's false. That's simply what Popular Mechanics claims, but that doesn't make it true. Popular Mechanics attacked a lot of minor points and brought in an irresponsible piece of anti-semitic "art," which has nothing to do with anything. That's called "guilt by association," and it's pretty desperate. When it came to Norman Minetta's testimony, the Popular Mechanics "expert" -- twenty-something Hearst Corporation employee Davin Coburn -- tried to argue that some OTHER plane was "50 miles out." 50 miles out from WHERE? "...and yet you still keep making them" -- that's true. We need a truly independent, possibly international, investigation that looks at ALL of the evidence.

Dr. Steven Jones did the first analysis of the formerly molten metal from the WTC and the first analysis of the black residue in the dust. His analysis has now been validated by several other scientists. It was molten iron which had never been steel.

"Even the kids behind the ludicrous 'loose change' video aren't claiming there was any 'controlled demolition' in their latest version." -- that's false as well. They have decided to focus on WTC-7 as a better use of time in their video. Let's see a recent news item:

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation — By Alan Miller

"James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

"'I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,' explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

Original Content at www.opednews.com August 21, 2007

(continuing)[edit]

This isn't a forum. Stop.--P4k 04:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

........ VOTING is UP THERE somewhere. ^ ..............................|

It's already 9/11 on the East Coast ........ Six years ago, I was sitting at my desk when MSNBC popped open a new window on my desktop, interrupting my work. What I saw was truly horrible. People were jumping out of windows, to their death, to avoid being burned to death. As I continued to watch these awful images over the next day or so, I accepted the messages that came with them, uncritically. Fanatical members of some extremist cult had crashed airliners into buildings. I believed every bit of it. I was very sad. Some human beings had grown up in a culture in which someone couldd come along and brainwash them into "dying for Allah." Then, as quickly as they had come, the awful images stopped appearing on television, but the conversation continued. A lot of people were angry. Some fastened American flags on their cars and went speeding up and down business streets as if their violating the law would somehow revenge America's honor. ( When something similar happened in Germany, ending on August 31, 1939, the government announced that the state sponsored terrorism from Poland would end, and the next morning WWII began. We learned about the deception at the Nuremberg trials. The Germans had been attacking themselves nearly thirty times, blaming it on Poland, and their troops rolled into Poland with 2,000 tanks certain that they were defending their country from terrorists. After the war, Americans called the German experience "mass hypnosis.") ......... A few years later, I came across other interpretations of the 9/11 events. I met an older woman who hadn't been hypnotized at all. She saw the buildings fall and thought "so that's why had to steal that election." She may or may not have been correct in her assessment, but it was her own assessment, rather than mindless repetition of something she had heard on television. I woke up. A few things definitely happened on 9/11. A few other things had to have happened as well, but we don't know exactly what they were. ......... A new study came out this week. Liberals and conservatives have brains that work in different ways. Conservatives are more tenacious in their thinking (liberals would call that bull-headedness). Liberals are more flexible (conservatives would call that wishy-washy). Conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity. Conservatives make more mistakes. (end of study) On the other hand, eighty percent of new businesses in this country fail within five years, usually from lack of capital. Along with that, the average successful businessman has been through four bankruptcies. (end of common knowledge) Some conservative business educators claim that successful people don't change their minds. Some liberals would say that trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, is a sign of insanity. (end of paraphrase) For every proverb there is an equal and opposite proverb. .......... People are different. I take exception to your coming in here and engaging in name-calling because someone disagrees with you. You haven't looked at all the evidence. There are pictures on the ae911truth website which you have never seen. They are NOT on the Popular Mechanics website. They are part of the slide show -- the Powerpoint presentation. Just look at it once, if you have time. .......... This is not supposed to be about whether the organization being discussed is "correct" in its opinions and goals or not. The article is about the organization. It exists. Historically, it is notable. This conversation is supposed to be about the article. Ten to fifteen new architectural and engineering professionals have been joining it every week. As soon as people start watching their new DVD, it will grow geometrically, all over the country. ..........

At the same time, 51 percent of the country already agrees with their goal: there should be a new, independent 9/11 investigation.

I suggest that we keep this conversation open for three months to see how large ae911truth is by then. Deleting it at this point would have the effect of CENSORING something which will be quite large in a few months. Then, what do we do? Claim that we've already reached a consensus when circumstances have changed?

It's 10:31 PM Pacific Time, on September 10th, 2007. Wowest 05:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how things work here. If the consensus is to keep the article, or if there's no consensus either way, the article is kept. If, at the end of the roughly five-day period, the consensus is to delete the article, it is deleted. If the organisation becomes "quite large" later on and is better able to meet the notability requirements, there's nothing wrong with writing the article again with sources demonstrating this notability. Consensus can and does change, and I don't think people are going to dispute that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

someone else's comments[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Paul Manuszewski[edit]

An unknown crafter of ginger bread houses, with very few sources to be found on him. Jmlk 1 7 08:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google shows nothing above Wikipedia and mirrors. Notability seems stretched at best and I doubt it's verifiable. Pedro | Chat 09:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pedro --Deusnoctum 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Winnipeg[edit]

Non-notable hotel property in the Canadian city of Winnepeg. In its current state, there is no claim to notability. In what notability that is claimed to is invalid. Article claims that this Winnepeg hotel property is the "highest-price[d] hotel in the city of Winnepeg...;" although this may be true during the insertion of the content into the article, hotel room rates are dynamic and are constantly changing. The source that is used to support this claim in the article is a rate search for this hotel property via hotels.com for a specific period of time. Being listed on hotels.com also does not confer notability. Additionally, being connected into the Winnipeg Walkway system also does not confer notability. At most, a mention on the Walkway article is most appropriate. Luke! 07:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that any hotel which has nearly 400 rooms should be notable in itself. Moreover, a google search shows up quite a number of hits for this hotel. It is also possible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is only a stub, and has plenty of room for expansion with verifiable information. OGLY 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sort of notability/coverage is established. I do not think hotels with more than X number of rooms is automatically notable Corpx 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability is established. The hotel scores 230 Ghits. Whilst counting google hits is not research, the vast majority of these hits appear to be for hotel booking sites, and there is a lack of independent reviews or other news coverage. Ohconfucius 09:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing to distinguish this hotel from any other hotel in the Delat chain, or other comparable chains. There's no articles I could find that was about the hotel. -- Whpq 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This article can be merged into another related one. Some articles I have written that were proposed for deletion are currently being merged. That should be done here too. Xyz7890 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you suggest where it might be merged? -- Whpq 15:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment It could be merged into one of the articles it links to, such as the Delta Hotels chain or the Winnipeg Walkway Xyz7890 20:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fram 10:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Halpern[edit]

Doesn't assert notability. I tagged it for notability on August 4th, and it hasn't helped. I'm guessing putting it up for AfD will have one of two outcomes: Either someone notices it and can establish its notability, or we gather consensus that the subject does not, infact, meet WP:BIO Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 07:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Doesn't meet WP:PROF. All academics publish-- there's nothing remarkable about that. In fact no notability is even asserted, so it even qualifies for SPEEDY under CSD A7. OfficeGirl 07:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. The subject in question has not published any significant and well-known academic work. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Notability is judged by citations, and Halpern is cited frequently enough. Cited, that is, in articles in scholarly journals, not on the internet. It's really frustrating trying to write about an esoteric academic subject like OT criticism while using a populist medium like the internet as your basic notability platform - a scholar has to be dead to be famous, or so close to death as to ready for the embalmers, before anyone's heard his name. So you'll find William Albright on the internet, (he's dead and famous, and, unfortunately for him, badly outdated), but hardly a word about contemporary living scholars in the prime of their career, like Halpern, Athas, and Rofe. Yet it's Halppern, Athas, Rofe, and others of that generation who are doing work and publishing books these days - Albright, as I said, is dead. Even Van Seters is treated in Wiki as if he's new and contemporary and a bit suss, when in fact he's been around for close on half a century. Anyway, please hold off on poor Mr Halpern till I have time to fill him out a bit. PiCo 08:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Am I allowed to vote twice, on opposite sides? Anyway, I've changed my mind. Not because I think he's not important, but because I have higher priorities than updating his entry. I'm trying to write profiles of major contemporary OT scholars, and there are people more important than Halpern to spend time on - I want to do the major minimalists first, and Halpern is an anti-mimialist, so I'm afraid I don't want him, although his "David's Secret Demons" is indeed an important book, both about the biblical David and as a shot in the minimalist-maximalist war. PiCo 08:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can "vote" twice, since this isn't a referendum per se, meaning that the opinion getting the majority of "votes" doesn't necessarily match the outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Soul (talk • contribs) 10:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you change your mind in the middle of an AfD discussion, it's best to strike out the part of your earlier recommendation you no longer espouse. Use the <s> ... </s> strikethru function to do this. For example, <s>Comment</s> displays as ~~Comment~~. --Metropolitan90 03:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 09:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Keb25. --Crusio 19:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 16:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One does not get to the position of chair of a major department (or major program,) at an important research university like Penn State, without having done notable work. The article needs merely to be expanded to show it more clearly. I note a totally inadmissible reason for deletion given above: " I want to do the major minimalists first, and Halpern is an anti-mimialist, so I'm afraid I don't want him," this is a frank admission of POV prejudice. DGG (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG - chairs of major departments are almost always notable - and per the excellent arguments made by PiCo. The arguments PiCo subsequently made for deletion are very poor - if you don't want to expand it yet, it can be left as a stub for now -no need to delete it. Iain99 09:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Miamite 08:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VERIFY, WP:PROF--AmerHisBuff 09:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator--Truest blue 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is a stub that needs more work, however the subject definitely meets WP:ACADEMIC which is easily demonstrable by looking up the publications listed on his web page and seeing the ample book reviews just on the latest book from The Jerusalem Post, U.S. News & World Report, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Shofar, Theological Studies, etc. --MPerel 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be arguments on the basis of whether his viewpoint is correct or not--surely it should be clear that this is entirely irrelevant--the question is whether he is notable, right or wrong. WP is not the judge of academic disputes. If his books are widely reviewed, i think that shows him notable.DGG (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:MPerel and it's only a stub and should be given time. IZAK 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Department chair at a major university with a significant publication record. Meets WP:PROF easily. I really don't see any problem here or reason for this AfD. --Shirahadasha 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the prior poster, the poor quality of the present article is enough reason for the nomination. It is severely lacking in article text - but is marked as a stub. I see in google searching more than enough evidence of notability. For a quick snippy quote of significance, this will do: "Yet Halpern, a scholar well known for his often brilliant and radically innovative views, was surprisingly conservative in his own conclusions." This quote is from page 131 of Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? by William G. Dever. It demonstrates notability in his field as assessed by an independent and reliable source. GRBerry 05:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant deletion policy criterion asserted is that "subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline", so incompleteness or poor quality of the present article is not a basis for deleting as long as the subject is notable. Poor quality articles can be improved. I'm not suggesting that the nom is bad-faith, merely that the subject is clearly notable per policy; a department chair of a major university is extremely likely to be regarded as a "significant expert" etc. per WP:PROF. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a decent source for building the article, just not from the online version as the middle 40%-50% of the content isn't available online. Google books partial replicaton of What Are They Saying About The Formation of Israel by John J. McDermott has about two pages on Halpern's theories on pages 61-63. There also are plenty of scholarly articles referencing his work, but I don't have free access to them myself. This wouldn't be a source for this article, but does show that Halpern is considered an important part of the current academic debate (link is to a writing by a person near one extreme of the current debate). This is a blog by a college professor showing one of Halpern's books was used as an academic textbook in his course at Xavier University of Louisiana. By now I've established that the subject meets at least points #2 and #3 in WP:PROF. But to ice, the cake, This shows that he has been one of the heads of the digs at Tel Megiddo (other sources show him still a leader of those digs through at least 2004), and work resulting from those digs will meet both criteria #3 and #4 in WP:PROF. GRBerry 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Rocks Fest[edit]

Non-notable scheduled tour of rock and roll bands in the U.S. and Canada. The performers are notable, but this is a one-time tour and notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. May be a masked advertisement. WP:ADVERT OfficeGirl 07:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Seemingly not notable. In the off chance that it actually is notable but just has a poorly written article, I would be more than willing to change my vote.Darkcraft 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody established notability for this event Corpx 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable event. Keb25 22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akamek[edit]

Unknown fictional character created by an unknown author. On google search it appears that the alleged author uses the name of his fictional character to participate in comic book forums where the participants concoct original stories, and these may be the only media in which the alleged fictional character has been published. Non-notable, unverifiable, hoax. OfficeGirl 06:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows up no reliable sources for this subject as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB - an article about one's own forum name is not good. User:Krator (t c) 08:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's a fictional character. Speedy delete under A7 if it's a forum username as stated above. Not notable or encyclopedic in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from my quick Google search for "Akamek" plus the creator's name, it does appear to be his own forum name.MorganaFiolett 15:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. COI may be a reason to look more closely at an article, but is in itself never a reason to delete an article. Sources can have any language. Subject is notable. 10:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahshid Moshiri[edit]

Conflict of interest article (username that created it is the same as the article name) and non-notable that doesn't meet the guidelines for academics. The only source is not in english, therefore is of little use to the english wikipedia as a primary source establishing notability. — Ocatecir ^T 05:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per precedents at AfD and DRV, (e.g. Kelvin Kwan), reliable sources in languages other than English are fine. (Non-reliable sources, of course, are discounted no matter what language they're in). The strongest policy statement in this regard is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English, which merely says that English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources if the English-language sources are of equal quality. Searching on the subject's name on Google in Persian gives some hits in reliable sources (newspapers in Iran, as well as BBC Persian); however many of these are just trivial mentions. [52] Will take me some time to read. Roman alphabet hits are mainly catalog listings of her books. cab 06:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conflict of interest and notability not established. --Crusio 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the page is written by me, not User:Mahshid Moshiri. BorzooB 18:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is established Corpx 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conflict of interest. Keb25 14:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has written several dictionaries for Persian language. As an example, one of her dictionaries is listed as a specialised dictionary for this course, in the University of London. BorzooB 18:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "editor-in-chief of The Great Persian Encyclopedia" if this work is as important as it sounds, she is certainly notable. I cant tell much about it though, as the ref. is in Persian.[53] BB, can you translate for us? DGG (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That page is an old page (on this Iranian academic website) for the contact info of that encyclopedia. It refers to her as معاون پژوهشي (Research Vice President) of that foundation. I guess she is not involved in that project anymore. Its current website is http://www.bdbf.org.ir, and its current trustee board mostly consists of political figures in the government. BorzooB 23:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the question then is whether she has an important editorial role in it. I think she'd have to be editor in chief or one of the principal editors--from what you say, there is not such evidence.DGG (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research Vice President was an important role in that foundation. That foudation publishes a series of specialized dictionaries and encyclopedias and she has been the editor-in-chief of some of them (including this one, first volume, letter آ). Nonetheless, my main argument for her notability is the long list of her publications and the fact that her publications are used in academic courses such as this. She is considered an expert in Persian lexicography and her collective body of work is significant and well-known. BorzooB 04:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN--AmerHisBuff 09:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the guidelines for academics. she has written several dictionaries and at least one of them is used as "required reading" for an academic course in a reputable university. BorzooB 23:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, long list of works in WorldCat[54]. Should it be renamed Mahshīd Mushīrī? John Vandenberg 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters such as "ī" are only used in the strict Perso-Arabic transliteration. The standard transliteration of her name is "Mahshid Moshiri". BorzooB 01:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Failing WP:PORNBIO. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almond tease[edit]

Subject fails to meet WP:PORNBIO non-notable porn model with website. OfficeGirl 05:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After extensive investigation, I must agree with nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO. --Evb-wiki 13:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evb-wiki, it's a fortunate thing that we have diligent editors like you to closely scrutinize the evidence in cases like these. OfficeGirl 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an thread at ANI wherein a specialized spa needs help from a motivated editor. Sounds like it's right up Evb-wiki's alley. ;-) - KrakatoaKatie 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7, no claim to notability even by our very low porn standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable porn model. Keb25 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO ♠P M C♠ 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article does claim importance ("Internet celebrity"), so A7 doesn't apply. A7 is separate from notability and sourcing, so an article's subject can have zero notability but assert importance. That's what this piece has done, so it has to go through AFD or prod. - KrakatoaKatie 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. One commenter contributed a few scholarly references to this discussion. Those might justify an article, but not this article, which is an unsourced list without sufficient context, and which overwhelming consensus clearly seeks to discard. Xoloz 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three wise monkeys in popular culture[edit]

Yet another cluttered, trivial and unsourced list. RobJ1981 04:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've seen some in pop culture articles which should be kept. Then I've seen ones like this. The article is useless - you may as well create a list of cultural depictions of "D'oh". Unsourced and has OR issues. Delete. Spawn Man 05:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. Gatoclass 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-sourced, a grab-bag for every trivial mention. Delete this before God destroys 40 days and nights of rain again. MarkBul 05:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator) - nomination appears poorly considered. In what way is the article "cluttered"? it seems neatly structured to me. As for "unsourced", the media mentioned in the list are sufficiently accessible sources. "Trivial", yes; but the point of creating the article was to stop the article Three wise monkeys being overwhelmed by these items. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the point of creating the article was to stop the article Three wise monkeys being overwhelmed by these items - that much is obvious, but the question is whether a subject like this deserves to exist on its own merits. "Stopping article x being overwhelmed by trivia" is not a good reason to create a new article, the proper solution IMO is simply to trim the amount of trivia so that it doesn't overwhelm the original article. Gatoclass 07:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, noted. At the time there were various similar pages within Wikipedia so it seemed to be acceptable & encyclopedic to create it. Let it go. Fayenatic (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The page has one WTF image on it of Faye Wong doing the "hear no evil..." thing - the above user (who created the page) is named after this Chinese musician and is a big fan, see userpage[55] - this is nothing but an obvious (yet oh so clever, I must give you that) fanpage.--Old Hoss 07:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least that's giving credit where credit's due! Actually, the mention of Faye Wong was only added recently, but I created the article months ago as part of the long-proposed merger of Three wise monkeys with See no evil.... Oh OK, you got me, I had in mind to add it eventually. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This clearly is not noteable as per WP:NOTE but it also doesn't meet the criteria for WP:LIST. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 11:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for clarification. OK, it's clearly going to go, on grounds of triviality. However, I don't understand the nominator's accusation of "unsourced", nor other commentators' suggestions about OR. The only conclusion one can draw from the list is that the image & proverb are notable & widespread in popular culture; hardly a "novel narrative or historical interpretation", so how does that breach WP:OR? Fayenatic (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia-pile. A couple of notable examples might be merged into the main article, but there's not much here that isn't completely trivial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of the talk page. As Andrew Lenahan points out, "a couple of notable examples might be merged into the main article", and it's up to the editors of that page to decide which ones might belong. Talk pages are for the retention of this sort of material that needs editing, as WP:SUBPAGE points out. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article opens in a good way by having a nice text paragraph. The subsequent list format helps show the extent of this topic's influence in popular culture and the two images help keep the article interesting. References, as always could help. Consider this and this. The latter is a scholarly article that discusses them "in the West and their truly astonishing impact on our popular culture." So, here we have a professionally published article that directly discusses their "impact on our popular culture." Please note that it took me less than a minute to find these kinds of sources on dogpile, which further increases my agreement with the essay User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not make a subpage of the Talk page, that's bizarre. Fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the article should stay, but I have read those and I don't think it fails any of them. Please demonstrate HOW the article breaches those policies & guidelines. If you mean the sub-page idea would fail them, how does it fail the first three? I don't mind rigorous editing, or deletions, but I do get fed up of lazy, empty assertions that articles fail this or that. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources, so it clearly fails WP:RS. References to movies, TV series, books, video games, etc., require that the viewer watch or play them, which is a violation of WP:OR, without reliable sources to prove that the things actually exist as the article says they exist, it fails WP:V. And why would we want a subpage of a Talk page for an article which fails so many policies and guidelines? Corvus cornix 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the articles in question fully, as there is at least one source from a scholarly journal that asserts that discusses the three wise monkeys' "truly astonishing impact on our popular culture," something I also posted a few posts above yours. I found that reference relatively easily and so I am sure more probably exist. The fact that a scholarly journal mentions their direct impact in popular culture additional indicates that any claims about original research or erroneous. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astonished reply: References to books requires the reader to read them, so is that a violation of WP:OR? No. I know that OR is a subtle policy to understand properly, but please quote me which statement in that policy supports your assertion. Films etc are primary sources; using these does not breach WP:OR, which requires simply that the editor make only descriptive claims, not analytical ones. The article completely fulfils this policy - indeed, that seems to be the source of complaint! Fayenatic (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equally astonished re-reply: So you're saying that, in order to verify that somebody's claim that such and such happens in a movie, it's acceptable to require the reader to go watch the movie? Please show me where this is acceptable sourcing. Corvus cornix 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You even said books, my friend! As for films: it is not a requirement of Wikipedia policies to quote films only from secondary sources e.g. film reviews. WP:PSTS says that films etc are primary sources, and that facts (but not interpretations) from primary sources can be stated in Wikipedia. Yes, you could verify it by watching. I suppose Wikipedia might add a requirement for references to state the h:mm:ss, similar to quoting page numbers in books, but even the latter is not a requirement at present. So, yes it's acceptable to give no more specific source than the film name. Thus, these claimed facts are verifiable within Wikipedia policy. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as most of it is original research, plus the rest is trivia Corpx 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research in the sense banned by Wikipedia policy WP:OR. See above. Fayenatic (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hear no evil, see no evil, keep no evil this can safely be deleted without anyone missing it. Many a family snapshot has been taken of three people imitating the three monkeys, with everyone thinking it's very original and clever. Ultimately, it's not any more interesting than three people imitating "The Spirit of '76", that painting of the three marching Revolutionary War soldiers. Mandsford 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep since the family snapshots you mention aren't of even minimal importance , then listing them in an article like this is unjustified. Since the cultural referents here are in material that is sufficiently important for an article, then the relationships are worth including. That's what makes the material encyclopedic--it is the relationship of one important thing to another. DGG (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I find myself in agreement with you; in this case, however, the whole concept of this is visual recreations of the 3 monkeys, and I think it's only a step above the snapshot. The Spirit of '76 might be a bad analogy... this seems more akin to holding two fingers behind someone's head. Mandsford 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

again, it depends on whether notable artists turn out to have used the work. DGG (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 10:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia, unencyclopedic. Keb25 10:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I see no harm in pop culture articles, this is just an unprosed, unsourced, list that consists of only trivia, which is a violation of WP:NOT. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unsourced - it quotes primary sources as permitted by WP:PSTS. Please read the above, and present arguments rather than mere assertions. Fayenatic (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If deleting, permit re-creation as a proper article. The trivia will be condensed or removed. Additional references have been added since the article was nominated for deletion, and these contain material of encyclopedic worth which has yet to be incorporated in the article. Fayenatic (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable pop culture phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep i think that we should keep this article because it shows how well known that the three wise monkeys are legaiamaster will warp your reality 14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUMMARY (by creator): The article contains trivia. WP:TRIVIA or WP:NOT may be enough to delete it, although the article includes evidence that notable artists have used the motif/proverb. Nominator has declined to justify his other allegations that it is cluttered and unsourced. Other allegations against the article are unsupported or disproved above, including WP:OR, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Fayenatic (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 'notability' argument for deletion is partly (not entirely because sources about the topic – as opposed to indidividual entries only – are still lacking) addressed by pointing out that jet packs are a "common element" in various genres. However, the WP:NOT#DIRECTORY argument has not been addressed, and the consensus is that the article does not contain any content worth preserving. I think a comparison with Spiders in culture (mentioned below), which was recently nominated for deletion and snowball kept because of a commendable improvement drive, may be useful. "[Subject] in popular culture" or "Cultural depictions of [subject]" can be a valid, encyclopedic topic (for many subjects there is ample scholarly literature to draw from), but there is a big difference between an article that provides sourced commentary and one that is little other than a directory of appearances. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jet pack in popular culture[edit]

Delete - another example of an editor splitting off an enormous list of trivia into its own dump article instead of just deleting it. As is pretty much always the end reuslt of such WP:BHTT splits, the resulting "popular culture" article is a directory of unassociated items. These things have absolutely nothing to do with one another beyond happening to have some sort of jet pack in them. This tells us nothing about jet packs, nothing about the fiction the jet packs appear in, nothing abot their relationships to each other (for there is none) and nothing about the real world. The instinct to clean this out of the main article was good and this should under no circumstances be merged back to it. In future let us hope that instead of saddling Wikipedia with these sorts of laundry lists editors will simply delete them. Until then, we'll have to settle for deleting this article. Otto4711 04:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This doesn't merit it's own article. There's hardly anything worth keeping and the remainder caneasily be merged into the Jet pack article. Other than James Bond, the Jet Pack hasn't been a focal point of anything in popular culture. Spawn Man 05:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable enough topic to merit its own article. Gatoclass 05:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete get rid of the trivial - nothing is left. MarkBul 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, and it is just a list of trivia.Darkcraft 13:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it contains nice introduction paragraph with the image before listing the items, but it does need references, too. For example, consider this article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it contains a nice intro paragraph, it should be merged then, Delete as unprosed trivia. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is all trivial information Corpx 22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sample reference given shows that references can be found for the individual items. Referenceable is the standard at WP. Things having the same theme or major plot element are of course related to each other, although apparently not everyone sees that as logical. DGG (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, no matter how many times you say it, the mere presence of an item in two pieces of fiction does not establish a close association between the two pieces. "It has a jet pack in it" is not a theme. Otto4711 18:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More culture cruft which violates WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA and many more.--JForget 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not violate WP:NOT, as the only advice that policy gives on trivia is to follow the WP:TRIVIA guideline, and citing that guideline as a reason to delete specifically contradicts WP:TRIVIA#What this guideline is not. There is no reason why this article cannot be cleaned up and made similar to Spiders in culture, which was just kept per WP:SNOW. DHowell 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable pop culture phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is a notable pop culture phenomenon. Jet packs are a very common element in comic books, cartoons, classic TV and film. The list that's currently up would help in writing an actual article, and in that regard it would be a shame to lose it.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
19:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to request that it be userfied to your page before deletion. Otto4711 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate sarcasm. I'm going to start wp:those who use sarcasm in arguments shall hereby be horsewhipped. To answer your snide remark though, my userspace won't accomplish nearly as much as a public article. Articles are constant works in progress that are meant to be improved by the community. Articles are not individual pet projects.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
22:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Are jet packs notable, sure. But this isn't the issue. The page is just a "I saw a jet pack" in this movie crap mention list. Dannycali 22:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary and excessive list of trivia. Enough valid, sourced points are covered under the "in popular culture" heading at the main article jet pack. Walton^One 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep. Circeus 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiders in culture[edit]

Unsourced, cluttered and trivial list. These "dumping ground" articles aren't useful. RobJ1981 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not trivial collection/loosely associated/original research. Corpx 05:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Not sure if "x in culture" sections generally deserve their own article, but if they do then this one, while poorly put together, would seem to have some potential. Otherwise, merge the best of the content here with the Spiders article. Gatoclass 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These "dumping ground" articles are useful.

I wouldn't say they were useful on the whole, but in this case, yes it is. Spawn Man 05:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This actually seems like a good topic for an article; there have been books and journal articles written about spiders in myth and folkore. I'll say Cleanup and keep. Zagalejo 05:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike the In pop culture AfD's above, this article deserves to stay. Spiders have been depicted in numerous cultural and mythological settings, including Greek mythology among numerous others. I'd suggest renaming to "Cultural depictions of spiders" as was done with both Cultural depictions of lions and Cultural depictions of dinosaurs. CDO Lions was in the same boat as this article, but I have no doubt that Spiders IPC can be edited to the same standard - Let me get the editor who helped save those articles from the chop and I can garuntee you we'll have a referenced, proper article within a few days. I'd suggest not to pile on delete votes right now so that you can reserve your judgement until after any editing is completed. Cheers Spawn Man 05:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article quality is not grounds for deletion. Agree wit hsuggested rename to Cultural depictions of spiders to more accurately describe what article would cover. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this looks slightly better than your average "X in popular culture" article. Also, spiders are much more notable than the Three Wise Monkeys or jetpacks, so there is more to write about them. JIP | Talk 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So you think the Itsy Bitsy Spider in the mythology section is a keeper? Why not just delete this crap and write the article you're suggesting? This one is largely pop culture and trivial mentions in TV, games and books. MarkBul 05:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment C'mon... it's not that bad. In it's present form, it's still a decent navigational page. In any case, we don't usually delete a notable topic just because it needs cleanup. Zagalejo 06:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a list disguised by OK formatting. Completely OR. the_undertow ^talk 06:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are books and scholarly articles about the spider in folklore. The subject of the article is notable, even if the article is messy. Zagalejo 06:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've begun working on the article - I've expanded the mythology sections and placed references as well as synthesising the whole section into a paragraphed text rather than bullet points. Hopefully the deletionists will see how great this article can become and that it is notable. Just because soething is poorly written, doesn't mean we should delete it. I'll try to add more refs and expand some more in regard to the bullet pointed lists below the mythology section. Any help or references are welcome - Spawn Man 09:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having watched debates about 'in popular culture' since the orang utan saga some time ago - there is indeed a place and time for such articles and I believe the current write up and process of improvement justify keeping this article. Knowing a few individuals with with severe arachnidphobia it seems even more fitting that such an article exists. Satu Suro 12:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep definately needs a rewrite, but I think the potential is there.Darkcraft 13:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily close as moot. The nominated title is now a redirect to Cultural depictions of spiders, which is good enough that few reasonable people would propose deleting it. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nomination is not really moot, since it concerns not the title but the article, which has jsut been moved / renamed. So you may want to spell out your implicit 'keep'. --Tikiwont 14:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, keep [Cultural depictions of spiders]]. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, because the new Cultural depictions of spiders article is not just a list and is actually organized quite well into text that describes the topic and their contexts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to Cultural depictions of spiders. shoy 15:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep particularly unjustified attempt to delete an "in popular culture" article. Artw 17:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every attempt to delete an "in popular culture" article is justified. Unencyclopedic list of barely related facts. Man It's So Loud In Here 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cultural depictions of spiders, keep the text (but delete the list!) Man It's So Loud In Here 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Don't worry, the list aspect isn't staying long. I was working on the article last night, but everyone has to go to sleep sometime... Spawn Man 23:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is different. It needs a lot of cleanup and removal of the bullet list, but the extensive text makes this different from the other triviacruft articles. Corvus cornix 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we can have I Got a Crush... on Obama, then we can have this as well.IP198 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some trimming, but spiders have fascinated mankind since at least 1920. Mandsford 22:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 per WP:NOT#IINFO. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of teen idols[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO and unsourced original research. Masaruemoto 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR - Did the article creator label them "teen idols" ? Corpx 05:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. One person's "teen idol" may be another's "teen idle" - I mean, Michael Jackson & Britney Spears are on there!? Who in their right mind would look up to Spears now unless you wanted to copy a road map to boozing, sex and umbrella fighting? There's undue weight given to the recent years; it's not as if teens have suddenly arrived, they've been around since the dawn of time. So why the shortage in the earlier years of the list? Basically, it's impossible for anyone to update this list without major major citation inclusions or by placing their own OR. It'll end up being "Oh, I look up to this person, I think I'll add them to the list..." and someone's bound to disagree. I don't think I need to say much else; this article is obviously one of those which get deleted without thinking too hard about why. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What kind of list is this? This list is a complete joke. How can you call someone a "teen idol"? RS1900 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - practically any young person who has made a record in the last 60 years could arguably be called a "teen idol". This list appears to be totally random and open-ended. Gatoclass 05:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources indicates original research. I'm not even convinced that it would belong if it were sourced (or indeed sourceable). Jakew 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When I was a teen I looked up to myself and I'm not on that list... Seriously as per nomination a perfect case for WP:NOT#IINFO. 1redrun ^Talk 11:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NOT#IINFO. Also the article is full of OR and POV statements. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You know a list is unfocused when it features Charlie Chaplin, Steve Urkel, and Kurt Cobain. The intro just states that any performer with an international or domestic teenage fan base qualifies. This would include nearly every musician, actor, sports star, and wrestler on the past century. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who decides if it's an "idol" idolised by teens, or an "idol" who is a teenager? --WebHamster 13:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the intro text, just being liked by teens is good enough. Quite a lot of those listed were well out of their teens at their time of popularity: Henry Winkler played the Fonz in his mid-30s, Hulk Hogan was about 35 at his height, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A snowball is rolling here... my grandfather had a pinup of Alice Roosevelt on his wall.

NOT! Mandsford 22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a indiscriminate list without clear inclusion criteria. And break out the snow shovel. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improve by using verifiable sources.71.92.70.77 03:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inkstorm[edit]

Google search turns up the software available for download when searching for the software or the company that makes it TrumpetSoft, Inc., but no links to anything that would give us a reliable source. In October 2006 the article's creator of article removed Expansion and Unreferenced tags without expanding or providing references. Notability is not asserted or established. It appears that this software was superseded by PictoChat about a year later, but the Pictochat software won a major award making it notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of software titles. OfficeGirl 03:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. Carlosguitar 03:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 05:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no references, looks like an advert.Darkcraft 13:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- John Reaves 19:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chapter in Your Life Entitled San Francisco[edit]

Delete music stub about non-notable track from indy band. Wryspy 03:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't assert notability - NN. Spawn Man 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable music track. JIP | Talk 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few Songs are notable. This is not an exception. Non-notable song from a non-notable band (though I rather like the name). faithless (^speak) 06:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You guys realize this article is about an EP, not a song, right? I posted some professional and non-professional reviews on the talk page, although I don't know if this should be kept or not.--P4k 08:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, speedy delete as copyvio:http://fractiondiscs.se/content/products.asp?formatid=5. I should have known better.--P4k 08:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Quidditch#Rules with the actual amount of merging left at the discretion and consensus of interested editors (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Quidditch[edit]

I think that the same information is sufficiently covered in Quidditch under the Rules section. Meaning that this page is pointless. ** ko2007 ** 03:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Quidditch and redirect. While Quidditch already contains most of this information, what is not there could be added from this article, and this one could redirect to Quidditch. Useight 03:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not game guide, as these are just rules of a fictional game & lacks notability Corpx 05:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per User:Useight. JIP | Talk 05:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge If there is any information here which is not in the Quidditch article, then it should be included (though this seems unlikely, as the Quidditch article appears to be quite comprehensive). Certainly not deserving of its own article. faithless (^speak) 06:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Not notable. Judgesurreal777 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Useight. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Quidditch.CheckeredFlag200 00:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article per above.--JForget 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Information from this article can be used to supplement the main article — 0612 (TALK); Posted: 03:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Quidditch. It's quite silly to have one page about a sport and then another page about the rules of that sport. Cdlw93 05:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially a fictional sport. :) faithless (^speak) 07:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Quidditch, merge is unnecessary. The target article already contains enough rules and a merge of the rules article will make the main article too detailed and unwieldy. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quidditch, where all the information is already given. Neville Longbottom 12:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern expressionism[edit]

This movement does not appear to have achieved any widespread recognition. There are only 44 google hits, including wikipedia ones.[56] Only one of the artists listed in it has their own wiki article (which does not mention the movement). The others have links to external sites, e.g. Chris Cook, where the wiki article is quoted.[57] The external links to museums do not reveal a mention of the movement. There are references given to three books, but no inline citations and no evidence the books contain any significant material about Southern expressionism. Tyrenius 03:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are artists of note who are from the South and who are expressionists they aren't connected to this article. Modernist 03:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No inline source citations for any of this, and at least one of the listed references at the end doesn't contain a word about this so-called "Southern Expressionism". I doubt the others do either. This is seemingly a contrived excuse to promote this Catherine Clark Ellis person. wikipediatrix 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. For some reason I thought this would be an article filled with phrases like "Kiss my grits" and "Happier than a dog up a bone tree". --Evb-wiki 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You might be a redneck if... --WebHamster 13:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Freshacconci 00:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart, perhaps, from this [58], all roads lead back to WP on the ghits, or to the German version, which could be referenced much better. Johnbod 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Desimator[edit]

Tagged as G3, but I don't see how it's vandalism. Does seem like a serious WP:CRYSTAL breaker, though Daniel Case 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourced and violates WP:CRYSTAL. Gatoclass 05:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. Nothing comes up with this name on google and nothing with the more correctly spelled "Chaotic Decimator" to confirm that such an item even exists or is planned. Could be a hoax. OfficeGirl 07:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OfficeGirl. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contributer is a vandal who has added plausible sounding, but fake information to Wikipedia more than once. Madlobster 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified, fancruft. Keb25 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. John Vandenberg 00:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Likely a hoax; ergo, failing WP:N and WP:V. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. To be completely clear, I am discounting somewhat the "numbers" argument here - I think that there is a reasonable consensus that the page should be deleted. Further, several users who expressed a "keep" opinion seem to have had little to no contributions outside this topic, and I have marked them as such besides their comments in this discussion, especially because of the possibility of sock puppetry. Nihiltres^(t.l) 16:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council[edit]

Unsourced (independant sources) unnoteable organazation. Google searches return scant WP mirror sites. Yeshivish 03:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC) *Delete per above. --Yeshivish 03:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Blocked sockpupetear.[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails to establish notability. Gatoclass 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there appears to be no reliable sources verifying this organization actually exists, much less showing it is notable enough to warrant an article. --MPerel 06:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a great number of small organizations like this one. None of them seem to agree with each other enough to join forces and make one large organization. They all seem to want to be leaders, and none of them want to risk giving leadership authority to anyone else. None of these organizations has had a significant impact on anyone outside their own small circles. That's why they tend to be non-notable, like this one. OfficeGirl 07:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The organization plays a vital role for what they do although they are not very well known to the general public. Their web site link is one the page. Contact them using the web form if you think they are not who they claim to be. I see no Messianic group coming here to refute their page. They themselves are the reliable source. They know who they are.IndependentConservative 18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC) — IndependentConservative (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It's not a question of whether or not the article is a hoax. It's a question of whether or not they meet this guideline for notability. They don't appear to. If you have reliable sources that suggest otherwise, please add them to the article. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guidelines are not "set in stone", as is noted within them. This organization should be listed.IndependentConservative 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC) — IndependentConservative (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Non-notable organisation. Keb25 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability and verifiability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This article is the target of an organized attempt to expunge all Messianic articles from Wikipedia by people who just don't like Messianics. RabbiAdam 23:00, 6 September 2007 — RabbiAdam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom. IZAK 06:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep if we would require external third party links from all the main stream Jewish articles, it would be fare to ask here as well for third party links. If this gets deleted simply because the main stream Jews r dismissing this article in our open POV agenda against Messianic articles how could we claim that we are a neutral encyclopedia?!--יודל 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^{(copied from the subject's talk page--יודל 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC) )} KEEP -- the organization is a watershed for the messianic movementGracieRuth 14:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC) — GracieRuth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Smokizzy (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources sufficient to verify basic information about articles and establish that the subject is notable. Let's not get distracted from these basic Wikipedia requirements. I believe these requirements are somewhat, but not completely, modified for religious organizations. We can rely on a religious organization's own sources for statements about matters such as what they believe and who their leadership is. But we can't rely on a religious organization's own sources for proof that the organization is itself notable. We need outside sources to show that. If, as GracieRuth says, "the organization is a watershed for the messianic movement", doubtless people will have talked about it and sources shouldn't be difficult to find. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom.--Miamite 08:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC) this user is the same as user yeshivish--יודל 13:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC) *Delete per Yeshivish--Truest blue 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC) this user is also user yeshivish--יודל 13:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, the parent organization. I don't find evidence of independent notability. GRBerry 03:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'd modify the standard a little further than Shirahadasha--the only way to avoid bias is to include any religious organisation with a real existence and any demonstration of notability--but there is no third party sources for this at all. Np bias against re-creation if something is found. DGG (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.207.45 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 is a rough consensus that this is not an appropriate article even if the sourcing problems can be fixed. Eluchil404 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of drugs known to cause paranoia[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO; all drugs can cause paranoia in some people. A comment in the edit history suggests this may be a bad faith creation as part of Wikipedia:Millionth topic pool. Or maybe they were just being paranoid. Masaruemoto 03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced indiscriminate information. --ZayZayEM 03:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks pointless. Gatoclass 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original research to determine the result Corpx 05:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided all the drugs listed have references supporting Paranoia as a published side effect (or significant research showing it as a possible side effect). --Darksun 12:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if reliable sources can be provided, otherwise delete -- Roleplayer 16:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT?? WHO WROTE THIS ARTICLE?? WHY IS IT BEING NOMINATED?? WHY ARE YOU PICKING ON THIS ARTICLE? I DON'T DO DRUGS. THIS IS A LIE! Mandsford 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a substanial cleanup (the list needs a clear inclusion guideline and cited references). I'll take a stab at the inclusion criteria and sourcing and see if this can be made into something worthwhile. (If not, I have no objections to deletion). --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment somewhat cleaned up and sourced. Comments? --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gatoclass - that can be mentionned in drugs or paranoia.--JForget 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not encyclopedic, and we are not a medical handbook. We should not want a series of articles on the side effects of each drugs organized by side effect: Drugs capable of causing headache, etc. etc., and there is no more reason for this than any other. its fairly obvious that any psychoactive drug can have psychiatric side effects. DGG (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason why Wikipedia should not index drugs by adverse effects in this fashion. Precise inclusion criteria need to be defined and references should be provided for each inclusion. Espresso Addict 17:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fram 11:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swedish Swimming Championships champions[edit]

Was prodded as "no context, encyclopedic". I felt it could use some discussion, so I carried it to AfD. There already appears to be relevant categories. Procedural nom, no opinion.UsaSatsui 03:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been split off into two sub-pages, those pages are being listed here:

--UsaSatsui 12:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The winners of national swimming titles are obviously notable sportsmen and women and this is linked to the article on the championships themselves. It's too large to be a part of that one though. The red links in a list allow editors to see which competitors currently lack an article, this is why they're better than categories. It also allows readers to see the years in which various people won, again something which categories can't do. If this goes we could always delete List of Super Bowl champions next. Nick mallory 05:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like a notable enough subject to me. Gatoclass 06:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other - Move to List of Swedish Swimming Championships champions (men) and List of Swedish Swimming Championships champions (women)? // SMARTSKAFT | ¿ 07:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. // SMARTSKAFT | ¿ 10:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, despite the list containing many notable names, national championships in individual sports are generally not notable, and not supported by WP:BIO. Punkmorten 08:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO says that sports people have to have competed at the highest level in their sport or in a fully professional league. I fail to see how being a national champion in a swimming event doesn't pass this hurdle. Nick mallory 11:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from which, this is not a WP:BIO article anyway, it's a list of national champions with links where appropriate to those who do qualify for their own article under WP:BIO. Gatoclass 21:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like a notable enough subject to me. I find the lists encyclopedic and necessary. What is the problem? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 09:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serves as a guide for navigation and is to long and unwieldy to live elsewhere. Notability is ok, but possibly some redlinks may need to be pruned. Pedro | Chat 11:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redlinks need to be 'pruned' by being turned into blue links by having articles written about them. Are you suggesting deleting random events from random years because no such article has been written yet? That seems to defeat the whole point of wikipedia, and indeed of an encyclopedia. Nick mallory 11:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nick, let me make that clearer. Clearly where someone in this list is notable then the red-link should remain and an article created. My concern was that some of the red-links may be non-notable people - One can't assumme de facto that being a Swedish Swimming Champion makes you notable (or though it would seem to make it fairly certain) - this is why is said "possibly". In addition one can't assume that we would be able to verify the notability (although again it would seem likely) My take on this is that if a list is in Wikipedia because it is better than using a category then in general the fewer red links the better. Resolving this by adding notable and verifiable content is the best way to remove red-links, of course. Pedro | Chat 11:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - (Could be a Keep with changes) When I first tagged this article the 2-sentence lead did not exist. I believe Wikipedia lists should have a lead paragraph telling the reader why the list is notable, explaining the categories (in this case perhaps a brief description of the strokes with wikilinks to articles about the strokes), some discussion about who can compete (is this amateur or professional?), and a sentence about what sources were used to compile the list. A list of names and years by itself is not encyclopedic. The addition of the "lead" as of today is a slight improvement, but I think the items I mentioned should be minimum requirements for a List article.--Appraiser 13:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could always add such a lead yourself. Not everyone who starts an article on wikipedia knows as much about its norms as you. As the AfD page says, an attempt to research and fix an article should be made before asking it to be deleted. Nick mallory 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some, and some humor - plus fixed the dates. Please correct anything I said about swimming that is incorrect.--Appraiser 03:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A valuable indexing page that provides both links to athletes, all of whom are presumptively notable by WP:BIO. Redlinks are there to provide suggestions for future editors. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I'd rather see this broken down into individual articles on each Championship, with a list of the winners in each article, but this is what we have. It's ugly, but it's encyclopedic. Weak keep, holding my nose. Corvus cornix 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 per WP:OR. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multism[edit]

Original research by PhD computer science student Eray Ozkural, whose brief essay, without any citations, is the only reference Anarchia 03:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Maralia 03:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Carlosguitar 04:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like a university student's school report - Completely OR. Spawn Man 05:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good job there's only one article! ;) --WebHamster 13:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per resemblance of an essay and some OR.--JForget 02:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 lack of reliable sources adds strength of argument to the consensus below. Xoloz 16:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RegCure[edit]

Non-notable; only references a self-published source. [Edited] Delete Alksub 02:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Registry cleaner - *~~Nothing there to establish the program's notability.)~~ There's already an article on Registry Cleaners and this one contains no additional information. Also, very little to establish notability. Gatoclass 05:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Jakew 10:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though it's somewhat redudant for me to be sayin' it. Bahustard 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "rogue malware" claims don't appear to be related to the product itself, but rather to bogus downloads of hacked demo versions offered on all sorts of dubious sites. Keep this in mind when making potentially libellous statements about the company. Thomjakobsen 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly have not put in the time and do not have the same credentials as most of those that have responded here but I do find it of interest that one anonymous user (Bahustard) can create AfD’s on all articles associated with one company based on dubious and defamatory allegations. Can anyone create an AfD and generate this kind of controversy? If you were to look at other registry cleaner articles you would likely find that this RegCure article is more neutral and is more notable than others that are not tagged in any way. I have contacted the company to see what their response is to these claims and allegations. Perhaps a response on the Discussion page would be of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.119.134 (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on general principle. When a "new" user with no past edit history comes out of the woodwork to plaster Wikipedia with deletion requests for the products of a single company, one must wonder how he came up to speed on Wikipedia policies so quickly (that is to say, has he made past edits under another id) , and what his motives are. It's absurd that wiki policy even allows such a thing. --CliffC 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per previous comments. I don't trust that the nominations are being made in good faith, and the articles have been the subject of unsupported slurs, one of which I reverted (see diff) only after the "delete" votes above. There may be grounds for deletion, but this discussion has been unfairly slanted. Thomjakobsen 18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get distracted by side issues. The nub of the issue here is that there is not a scintilla of evidence presented on the page in question to demonstrate the program's notability, and without that it doesn't belong on Wiki. Gatoclass 00:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the deletion proposal is agressively harsh but nonetheless, notability of this utility has not been proven. --Gavin Collins 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are independent reviews as sited on the article. Also, after corresponding to the company about allegations, a response was returned and has been added to the Discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.119.134 (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's now got a reference to a recommendation by the Financial Times, which is impressive for a registry cleaner. Add that to the Softpedia review, and I think there's a marginal case to be made for notability. Thomjakobsen 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

)Hmm, in that case maybe I'll cancel my vote for delete. With only one decent reference, I still can't bring myself to vote "Keep", but there's at least some evidence now that this program isn't just some random piece of crap. Gatoclass 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)) On second thoughts, I'm still not persuaded there is enough to establish notability. I don't think Wiki should be recording the existence of every useful computer program in existence, the article contains no information that cannot already be found at Registry cleaner, so at best I think it would earn a redirect, and I'm changing my vote to reflect that. Gatoclass 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Registry cleaner. I have supported keeping three other ParetoLogic articles despite their having started as marketing puffs, but this one really has nothing to add. However, I am concerned about the nominator's apparent animus against this software company, and some incautious statements. (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ParetoLogic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ParetoLogic Privacy Controls, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XOFTspy Portable Anti-Spyware, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XoftSpySE.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1 empty, Wikipedia is not for things made up at the office one day. NawlinWiki 02:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paulanese[edit]

Almost certain hoaxitude, or imaginary topic. — Coren ^(talk) 02:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as complete bollocks. --Evb-wiki 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G12. Xoloz 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greene County Daily World[edit]

Most of the content, and certainly all of the introductory description, is a copyright violation of [59]. Alksub 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Tagged with copyright violation. (CSD G12) -Flubeca^Talk 20:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemic Severity Index[edit]

I did a significant rewrite of this article in order to solve a POV/OR dispute with another editor, and as attempt to prove good faith. However, after doing the extensive reading on the topic, this does nt seem to be a noteworthy entity. The Index has not actually been implemented yet, or adopted on a widescale. It is essentially a PR exercise from the CDC that is in a sort of open-beta level stage of development. ZayZayEM 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amount of sourcing available should satisfy notability and WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Even notable failed legislation is worthy of an article, so if it's not implemented I don't think this is any different. Wl219 02:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Pandemic Severity Index was created by the US government after numerous flu pandemic simulations demonstrated the need for an easy to understand categorization of the level of response needed in case of an actual flu pandemic. Billions of dollars are being spent on flu pandemic preparation. This is an essential part of flu pandemic preparation. People who run the tests, participate in the tests, or God forbid - hear that a category 5 pandemic has been declared should be able to find out what that means from Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 04:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this really worries me. People thinking Wikipedia is a good source to use in interpreting governmental safety announcements.--ZayZayEM 04:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm more worried by the prospect of having no open-source apposite to a government safety announcement. "Kids! Stay away from that man with the long hair. He might have fleas, or ideas!" --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. A source such as USA Today is reliable. And why would a government agency's public relations effort be grounds for deletion? Canuckle 05:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Well sourced, and well written. Bad faith nomination over editing warring. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm. I wrote it. So thanks. But this is not a bad faith nomination. Please look at edit history. --ZayZayEM 07:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:CRYSTAL with flying colors (and let's hope that like another proposed government program, Mutual Assured Destruction, it is never used). --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TWA Flight 800 alternative theories[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Far too many controversy exist and it will be hard to make it neutral. I also fear the article will become a soapbox to people who have their own theories on the crash. Fighting for Justice 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possibly serves a function as part of the TWA Flight 800 article, but does need scrutiny.--ZayZayEM 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead without asking for consensus, and forked off this part of the main article mainly for two reasons: the main article was getting way too long, and invariably those who believe that TWA 800 was shot down by a missile try to push that POV in it. As for FfJ's concerns, I agree with him 100% that there will always be these problems that will constantly have to be dealt with. Lipsticked Pig 07:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for being so understanding LP. Fighting for Justice 07:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, and personally find this article questionable, but my personal standards are not what goes at Wikipedia. Given the extensive referencing, notability and reliable sources isn't an issue here. Whatever your opinion, the fact remains that there are a lot of theories, and they have received a lot of press coverage. Keeping them in this article is a good idea because we are now reporting on the existence - and the resulting media coverage - of the theories. Putting summaries back in the actual article makes it appear that we are reporting them as fact, and detracts from the factual text there. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Article does not currently appear to be a POV fork or soapbox, appears to be well source-documented, seems rational and balanced/neutral (the "alternative theories" are discussed largely from both sides, and some provide basis for dismissal). Deletion in possible anticipation of future soapboxing POV-creep is probably not an appropriate criteria for deletion, and WP:RPP is probably a better way to handle it if edit wars or other content disputes arise. But then of course we risk WP:WV coming in to play with WP:ROUGE admins. Ah well. // (own previous question/commentary follows...) But: Question: is (or should) the AfD nomination be based on whether the article constitutes a POV Fork of TWA Flight 800? Should the two "viewpoints" be cleaned up and re-merged as it were? I understand that the two may be overlong together, and splitting off "independant" sections may sometimes be a recommended remedy for that, but it can also often be fixed by simply condensing the "facts" down to the bare minimum and providing reference links to reliable established external sources for the reader to consult if desired. Mention the controversy, give a reference link or two, and move on to the next topic. Conspiracy theorists will always be around to tell the rest of us how wrong and stupid we are, ~~but my view is that we should avoid giving them a soapbox article that will almost by definition move us away from WP:NPOV~~, but as pointed out this can be dealt with as needed. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tragedy is the subject of many conspiracy theories, which have received a good deal of press, and article is well-sourced (and thus the topic is notable). 9/11 conspiracy theories have their own page; while this is not as extensive, it's still a large enough body to deserve its own page--particularly when the main page for Flight 800 is long enough. --Deusnoctum 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The point is not to argue that these theories are true, but that there are people who think there was a conspiracy. I see no problem with neutrality, and any soapbox addition would tend to be taken care of by our laissez faire system. Mandsford 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't agree with most theories out there these days (they are just theories, otherwise they'd be called facts) but I sure like to understand where they are coming from a bit more when I come across someone that does believe this. Strawberry Island 20:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it's clear that these are either alternate or conspiracy theories. When the original article is too long, then it makes no sense to merge into a huge article. E343ll 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Public Library[edit]

Library with no claim of notabilty Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article makes some claims of notability for the library, such as operating the first bookmobile service in Washington state, having two full-time historians on staff, having a building designed by a locally notable architect, and having a significant history dating back to 1893. Also, the 1904 Carnegie Library building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, though this article isn't really about the 1904 building. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No national notabilty though, just local notabilty (and I personally don't think that having two full-time historians in the staff is notable, most librarians with college degrees are historians as well), and also does it have any sources that is not the library themselves, an article can be created on the building and merge whatever useful info there. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When did "national notability" become a Wikipedia standard? Your also using classic "straw man" on your counterargument. You were presented with three counts of notability, you chose the weakest one to argue, and ignored the other two. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources are given for the article's above-mentioned claims of notability, and the article even admits that some of the text is cut-and-pasted directly from the library's own website, possibly making this a speedy delete. wikipediatrix 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the section that was copied has been rewritten by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). John Vandenberg 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in lacking any notability. I do not think libraries are inherently notable Corpx 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Libraries are not inherently notable, and there is nothing particularly notable about the supposed "firsts" this one incorporates. You could probably find similar unique points to mention about practically any oldish building. Gatoclass 05:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article isn't about the building, its about the institution, which has been housed in multiple buildings over the years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert easter egg references to in line references. The article is already well referenced with Easter Egg type citations. A quick Google search turned up lots of other articles on the library in the Seattle Times and other papers. It only takes a few nanoseconds to run a Google search. Please do some due diligence before nominating something for deletion, a simple reference tag would have done the job. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"everett public library" gets 21,000 google hits. A search on my local university library gets a total of 115,000 google hits, and I wouldn't think of doing an article on it, although an article on the university itself would obviously be justified. You say "a quick google search turned up lots of other articles" - if they are from reliable sources affirming the library's notability, why not reference them in the article? My point is basically that the article as it stands does not establish the library's notability, but if someone can demonstrate some concrete evidence that the library is notable, I might be persuaded to rethink my vote. Gatoclass 07:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it only gets 576 unique hits, and unique hits are what matter. The rest are duplicates from the same sites again and again. Of those 576, not all are even about this same library. wikipediatrix 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And 200 book hits (26 are limited preview), and 18 scholar hits. Many of these are merely crediting the library for images or assistance, however this book reviews the library and its collection, giving it four stars - above the average rating. And this which covers this library and 14 other landmarks in Everett and gives a short description of why travellers might enjoy including it on their itinerary. John Vandenberg 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only two decent references are need to determine notability which is defined as "... received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Did you read all 21,000 Ghits and determine that are all irrelevant? At this point I can't even be sure you read the article itself, if "[your] point is basically that the article as it stands does not establish the library's notability." The Easter Egg citations were converted into traditional inline citations last night, before you wrote this, and three additional references were added, including the Seattle Times and and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A puff piece in "Snohomish County News" hardly rates as "signficant" in my view. Neither does an article on a restoration project for the bookmobile. In short, neither of these references have much to say about the library's notability per se. I get a local paper delivered free every week which would certainly qualify as a reliable source and which is crammed with local interest stories like these, but I'd be unlikely to use any of them to justify a Wiki article either.

I guess the fact that it is on the National Registry of Historic Places might arguably establish notability, but then there are over fifty other such buildings in Snohomish County alone, can you imagine how many such articles would end up on Wiki if there was an article for every such building around the world? If Snohomish is any guide, there must be over 100,000 such buildings in the US alone.

So I'm still inclined to the view that this building is of marginal notability at best. But I'm certainly not going to argue passionately for its exclusion. Gatoclass 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus for some reason that places in the National Registry are notable (I don't agree with that, I instead support a merge of all those buildings without further notabilty, but I'm not willing to argue as well) Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A puff piece in "Snohomish County News" hardly rates as "signficant" in my view. I think you're misreading what "significant" is supposed to be about. Here's what WP:Notability says:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.

That significant coverage can come from any reliable source, whether it's the Snohomish County News, the Snowmush County Picayune or the Podunk County Perspicator. (oops, forgot to sign) Noroton 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a technical POV, you may be correct. However, policies are not absolutes (see WP:IGNORE) and an element of judgement is always required. In my judgement public libraries are simply not a notable enough subject as they are ubiquitous, unless there are exceptional circumstances indicating otherwise, and I hardly think being the first library in Washington State to provide a bookmobile service qualifies as sufficiently exceptional to merit an article.

As I said below however, I think there are slightly better grounds for keeping the article based on the historic value of the building itself, but the focus of the article would then need to be changed somewhat. Gatoclass 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its always sad that the local papers don't get archived online. Here in New Jersey there are 6 papers, but none have archives online, and they don't have a decent website either. So much history isn't available, I wish Google would scan papers the way they scan books. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Original library building on the national historic register. Weakly notable, but enough to favor a keep (unless there's a concensus on libraries that can override this). Needs a library infobox at the top. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep solely as it's on the National Register of Historic Places. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and rewrite to be about the Carnegie library. Corvus cornix 18:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes explicit claims of notability, including NRHP listing, backed up by reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be renamed and rewritten about the building then, not the library, I'll change my vote to keep if someone is willing to do that Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 20:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If as you say there is a consensus that buildings in the Register are notable, then I think a rewrite emphasizing the building itself with mention in passing of the achievements of the library as an institution would arguably be a sounder approach. Gatoclass 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it meets WP:V, WP:Notable and has a nice picture, to boot. Noroton 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I know this looks like a local library like others, but has historical significance and several sources to assert notability (at least the history of it) - so that's a passJForget 02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any local library is notable if at least two independent media outlets take notice of it and write about it in enough detail that an article can be written, and not just a few sentences. People are under the misconception that notable, means the "oldest, biggest, or best" like in Guinness World Records. It just means that media outlets have taken notice of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 08:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI don't understand why this library is being asked to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia when other libraries in the same geographic vicinity (King County Library System, Pierce County, Bellingham) have entries that are not being challenged.Mollybird 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Mollybird. 8 September 2007[reply]

The existence of other articles on the same general topic is not a valid reason for keeping them. Maybe all these articles should be up for review. In fact, I might go and check the other ones now :) Gatoclass 22:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to architectural importance, having two full time historians on the staff, and having what is considered an excellent digital repository for a public library. The article has been expanded. John Vandenberg 07:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Wikipedia search shows 32,568 entries, from those smaller (and less notable?) such as Hamet and Haines Borough to those much larger (more notable? such as Seattle, Los Angeles and Vancouer, B.C. Seems a senseless waste of time for Delete-Hawks to investigate and apply the same standard to all 32,568 entries, many of which contain no useful information. This one has interesting facts, useful links, and (yes!) even a nice picture. Notability may well be in the eye of the beholder. --Lizhawk1 03:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like an argument for deleting masses of these other entries! And just because other questionable entries may exist is not a valid argument for keeping this one. However, your comment does suggest that perhaps it's time Wiki developed a clear policy regarding notability where libraries are concerned, because 32,000 entries "many of which contain no useful information" sounds like a significant and growing problem to me. Gatoclass 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Everett Public Library is home to the world's oldest bookmobile - international notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgemmer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 September 2007

No, that's wrong. The article only says it is home to the oldest bookmobile in Washington State. Gatoclass 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Main library building alone would merit an article just for its architecture. But lumping (having the article cover the broader topic) rather than splitting seems entirely appropriate to me. - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, criterion A7, web site about which notability is not asserted. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roliana[edit]

Not notable forum website opened July 2007. 112 UNIQUE Google Hits. Not all relevant. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* ,Roliana was actually started in May, is the first result on Google (Every website will have it's irrelevant results, it's rare to have a purely original name) In it's short months, a lot has happened in it's history, and this is the best way to secure it so that the dates are not lost. Roliana has been noticed among other Avatar communities as well. I don't see any reason why after working on this article all day to create a solid history, which was approved by the sites owner, for future reference in this quickly growing site, should be deleted. --Ethgania 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable four-month-old webforum, no sources cited showing any notability. NawlinWiki 02:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Maralia 03:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps creator would not have slaved over this all day had he not removed the speedy deletion tag. I have retagged for db-web. Ethgania, please read our guide for creating articles about web pages, etc, WP:WEB. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa May[edit]

Was tagged speedy but WP:PORNBIO allows for notability based on being prolific in some niche but it's hard to tell if that's the case here, so the community ought to decide. Carlossuarez46 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PORNBIO. No niche that I can see.--Sethacus 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not watched any of her films then? ;) --WebHamster 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you? Delete - per WP:PORNBIO. Article does not make an asertion of notability. It's a short bio (that reads like any other porn actors (written by a fan apparently)) and a (very comprehensive) movie list. 1redrun ^Talk 07:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, humour alert dear boy. Seen her "niche"? --WebHamster 09:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look that closely at the external links provided... :) 1redrun ^Talk 10:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I was a connoiseur of her work but, looking at her *ahem* extensive filmography, I see the Euroteenanalinterracial niche. If that's valid, I think every porn starlet ought to have an article. :P(This lame attempt at humor brought to you by Sethacus 01:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC).)[reply]

Delete as not satisfying WP:PORNBIO criteria ... I was going to tag this article myself (using this draft protocol), but decided to watch it for a few days first, and now someone has beat me to it. —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs) 15:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article should stay - I think it's unquestionable !

IMHO

I'm sorry to says this, but the person who put up Alexa May for deletion is making a big mistake. Anybody who doesen't know Alexa May is poorly educated about European adult stars. The biography of Alexa May is important to be put on wikipedia. She worked in many movies for Pierre Woodman at PRIVATE Media. Alexa's contributions as a major European adult actress are unmistakeably and anybody who denies this fact is poorly ignorant. Period(.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.202.111 (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you show specifically how the subject satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)#Valid criteria? That is the only thing that matters here. —72.75.74.236 14:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

RE: Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)#Valid criteria

Well,.. here are some points...

1) Alexa May has appeared in the groundbreaking and famous "Throat Gaggers" movie, which has won numerous awards, and is produced by the "Red Light District" pornography studio. Alexa's video has won praise, in this movie she is being thrown down and having large penises forced into her mouth by several different men. She is receiving oral sex ("skull fucking") which causes gagging and sometimes vomiting. The video series, Throat Gaggers, received the 2003 Adult Video News "Best Oral-Themed Feature" AVN Award. Of the eight videos reviewed at AVN.com, six have received the top "AAAA" rating, one received a "AAA-1/2" rating, and one received a "AAA" rating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_May#Throat_Gaggers see the following...External Link (Attention! It includes x-rated photos)
2b) She did star in Pierre Woodman's blockbuster series called "PRIVATE Castings", the most famous casting series in the adult movie industry. The series is a blockbuster series! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_May#Pierre_Woodman_.26_Private_Media_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Woodman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Media_Group
3) Alexa May has been prolific or innovative within a specific genre niche.
YES,... she was. Her famous and iconic scene in the award winning Throat Gaggers shows this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_May#Throat_Gaggers

Well,... sometimes,... I have to wonder about the guidelines of wikipedia, because many less-known adult starlets have articles on wikipedia, that are less strictly viewed by administrators and other users. I can name a whole list here... just ask me.

Who are they ??? I don't know them ! This list could go on... and on.
Alexa May made innovative and groundbreaking appearances in the award winning movie "Throat Gaggers",... and that led to a whole new sub-genre and niche,... the famous "Throat Gaggers" series at "Red Light District Entertainment". Furthermore, Alexa May was a leading Pierre Woodman girl at Privat Media Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.240.94 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Throat Gaggers? I find that hard to swallow. Please also review WP:WAX whilst you are here, it may answer some of the queries you posed. --WebHamster 16:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - References to things like Throat Gaggers should be in the article, not here ... if they were, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion ... actually, on looking again, there are multiple links to it (in violation of WP:MOS), but that's beside the point, which is that there is no Attribution for the subject's alleged "awards" ... simply having appeared in a notable film does not make an actor notable by transference. —72.75.74.236 23:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on 2b: I don't think appearance in "Private Castings" is in itself notable, for the same reasons that an appearance in Ed Powers "More Dirty Debutantes" series isn't. The point of these videos is that they show unknown newcomers. Some go on to become notable adult actresses, but many don't. Iamcuriousblue 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Disciple[edit]

I'm not quite sure what this article is supposed to be other than a synopsis of a book for which there is no stated author, or any other factual details for that matter. The article's creator has deleted CSD tags and a prod with no explanation other than an entry on the article's talk page about "please discuss the book". I'm guessing that this is WP:OR. It's far too generic a term for Google to shed any light. So it's up for consensus decision. WebHamster 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The book can be found on Amazon.com. Needs a complete rewrite, though. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BK where among other things it states that existence at Amazon is no indication of notability; it's sales rank of #286,830 among books at Amazon seems proof of its utter non-notability. Carlossuarez46 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, and no evidence that I can see. MarkBul 02:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable book and Wikipedia is not the place for book reviews.OfficeGirl 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe & Stop (Fat Joe song)[edit]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC, no indication that it's notable, charted, or such. Carlossuarez46 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It "was scheduled to be the second single . . . "? --Evb-wiki 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability. MarkBul 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Singles need specific notability for their own article othwhise they should be in the album article. As it is it fails WP:MUSIC 1redrun ^Talk 07:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the specific Fat Joe's disc article.--JForget 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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'd like to note that this might have been a good candidate for prodding. Nihiltres^(t.l) 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breakthru Publishing[edit]

This is, by the article's own admission, a small vanity press. Fails WP:CORP. Only 238 unique google hits, and not all of those are about this same bunch of people. User:Smee created this article at the same time as the equally non-notable Jane Self and her Breakthru Publishing vanity press book 60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard. All of this material could easily be summed up in a sentence or three on the Werner Erhard article. wikipediatrix 00:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to pass our corporation guidelines. According to the article, they've published 6 books in 24 years, 3 of which are by the same guy and none of which seem particularly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Starblind. Accounting4Taste 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - seems to be good consensus: the only keeps included the article creator and the other admitted that the article needed better sourcing. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime World Order[edit]

Anime and manga podcast. Can't find any non-trivial coverage of this podcast in reliable sources or anything that makes it meet the WP:WEB notability guidelines. Was nominated for a Parsec Award, but did not win it (WP:WEB says it has to win the award) and I can't find any reliable sources that talk about the nomination. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per the external source link, which is also part of the official Parsec Awards web site, (http://parsecawards.com/2007Finalists), it was indeed nominated, and furthermore was named by the steering committee as a finalist.Jhar 12:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast was also reviewed in Anime News Network's "Hey, Answerman!" column on June 15, 2007.[60] --Farix (Talk) 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 13:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I won't fully or strongly object, since I am the article creator. However, I do feel that this show is popular and relevant enough to warrant an article, as it is easily the second most popular anime-related podcast on the net. Jhar 13:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With coverage by both Anime News Network and Ain't It Cool News, it is able to pass WP:NOTE and subsequently WP:WEB. The content of the article, however, needs to be better referenced. --Farix (Talk) 20:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete Ain't It Cool News is hardly a reliable source, and WP:WEB requires that any web content "...has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works..." in order to be notable. The article only has search results and top ten lists as references. Would change to a keep if some more reliable sources directly about the subject could be found. Sbacle 16:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until and unless independent, reliable sources can be found. Eluchil404 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waverley Old Boys FC[edit]

The club is an amateur football club playing in a minor league in Australia. No independent sources are provided. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was listed as a contested PROD. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HI MATTIN... if we include independant sources will that fix the article to your liking? thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyzp (talk • contribs) 01:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The independent sources need to establish notability for the club. For an amateur club this is likely to be difficult. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amateur club established in 2001 and with no sources indicting special notability. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I place a link as a reference in our article which shows Waverley Old Boys FC is a member of the ESFA association, will that suffice? ie: ESFA is the association for amatuer clubs in Sydney, NSW. They have a link on their website which lists all clubs currently a member of the association. Is this what you are talking about? I don't understand when you say "establish notability". Is that what you mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyzp (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:N to get a better understanding of what suffices for notability. Life, Liberty, Property 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Capital. Twenty Years 03:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:CFORK. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate claims or bias of Sean Hannity[edit]

This article is a clear POV fork of Sean Hannity Burzmali 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure any appropriate, sourced content is reflected in the Hannity article and then delete as a clear POV fork. Erechtheus 00:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no citations on this page, little if any encyclopedic information, and it is a clear POV fork. While this is not in itself a criteria for deletion, the user who created it has made no edits except for this article and is the only editor of the article (with the exception of the person who nominated it for deletion. I definitely am no fan of Hannity, but it is clearly a POV fork and a POV-pushing article, which both violate the most important policy of Wikipedia. Life, Liberty, Property 01:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My real reason is that there is no way this article could be written in NPOV because the title itself is a POV. My not-so-serious / kind of true reason is that this article would be unmaintainable because of sheer abundance of information to include. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all verifiable info into Sean Hannity, then delete. --Evb-wiki 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (steal anythings alvagable to Sean Hannity. Obvious POVFORK and unverified.--ZayZayEM 03:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork. Topic should be covered, and is already covered in the main Hannity article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For starters, the title itself is POV because it says that the opinions given are automatically wrong. Rest of article is OR and any (I highlight the any) text which can be proven can be merged into Hannity's main article. Spawn Man 06:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR essay. Gatoclass 07:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - By definition the article can't adhere WP:NPOV with this title. 1redrun ^Talk 07:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure POV fork Lurker (said · done) 11:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per everyone. Wikipedia cannot afford articles like this.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the title may constitute an NPoV violation, as well as a POV fork. If it cannot be included in the Sean Hannity article in a neutral and concise manner without violating WP:BLP, then it cannot stand alone as a fork or split-off either. Is this turning into a snowball yet? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and kill it with a stick. Clearly POV. Corvus cornix 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bitter, much? --Deusnoctum 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are acting as censors eager to kill my work without giving me opportunity to make specific changes. I will post it verbatim later when I get back, but you are supposed to according to Wiki policy jelp me bring my article inot compliance. Instead, the Burzmali who tagged me for deletion IMMEDIATELY seeks only to remove my work as expeditiously as possible, without help me improve it. This is not the soviet union, and censorship is not the right of faceless would-be Nero`s who turn thumbs down with snide comments. Abide by Wiki policy now or late it your choice,and the reccomendations to help me into compliance or give up your eiditorial rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastbackpinto (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foster youth education[edit]

Contested prod. Blatant original research paper. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Delete. A- in no way is this going to ever be a good article, and B- Wikipedia is not a place to post your term paper.TheLetterM 01:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as obvious original research and unencyclopedic Life, Liberty, Property 01:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per TheLetterM. This isn't an article, it's a thesis.--Sethacus 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plow it per nom. This article is buried in WP:SNOW. --Evb-wiki 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. (Please don't !vote snowball deletion when there's nothing showing a consensus yet, and please don't advocate speedy deletion for things that are not eligible.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unattributed and poorly written. Carlosguitar 04:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR and I think it may even be a copy vio by the looks of it. Spawn Man 06:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per four "speedy keep" votes without any votes to delete at all. Looks like an unanimous decision to me. JIP | Talk 05:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Tamale United[edit]

Not notable, very little information, and no sources. Yamakiri on Firefox 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A professional football club in the top division of it's country is certainly notable enough. Source to club information on league website added. Patken4 00:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added this to the list of deletions at WikiProject_Football deletion list. Patken4 00:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:OUTCOMES, top division football league is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently a big deal in Ghana, as Google News pretty clearly shows. One All Africa article seems to be a 25-year history of the team. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is a standard Keep vote and NOT a speedy keep. I have a feeling that more attention for this article would be a good thing, and perhaps it could be brought into decent shape by someone with knowledge of the topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a soccer team in a Sub-Saharan African "Premier" league, as the article states. I would assume that sports teams at the top level of the league in their respective countries are notable. If that isn't the case, we'd have to be deleting articles such as Manchester United or Chicago Bears based upon those notability standards. It, admittedly, is of relatively poor quality, but that is only because of systemic bias. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide an encyclopedia that provides equally excellent coverage for all countries, therefore Real Tamale United meets any reasonable standard of notability. Life, Liberty, Property 01:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Patken4. Maxa megalon 2000 05:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landphoon[edit]

This is an article on a neologism that essentially asserts its own non-notability: it is an "unofficial term" not used in any official warnings or advisories. It's essentially a slang or colloquial term with no formal definition (see the talk page). The references given do mention the term, but only just, and they do not define it in any way. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as most of the article is just an attempt to define the term, and the article arose directly from a dispute over a vandalistic edit to Tropical Storm Erin (2007) that wasn't quite resolved. Core desat 08:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article admits this is not used anywhere as an official term. Lurker (said · done) 11:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism that isn't used seriously by any authority. --Golbez 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent verification spontaneously forms out of the blue in the next few days. The article history and the diff provided do seem to confirm Coredesat's assertion that this article was created simply to prove a WP:POINT. The term is not 100% made up, hence the couple of references, but is apparently not notable outside of Australian meteorological circles. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's sources that contain the term, so I say transwiki to Wiktionary. If they don't want it, they can deal with that there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, I was trying to prove a point with this article, because the term is mentioned in a refereed article. The Erin debate did lead to the search for references in literature, and a few were found. The term is not made up at all on my end...I didn't coin it. If there was no government or university web sites with published papers containing the term, I wouldn't have added the article. But there were. I will accept the deletion if it is the overwhelming view (it does constitute a neologism), but the article will need to be revived if the term shows up in a dictionary at some point. There are many meteorological terms that are defined and not used in official warnings or forecasts, so I don't think that part of the reasoning can be used for deletion. Thegreatdr 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with reviving the term if it shows up in official literature at some point; this doesn't preclude future inclusions. --Golbez 14:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple complain 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niccolò Casini[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Former Livorno keeper who survived a previous nomination, since then he failed to make a single appearance for the club ([61]), being released by his club.([62], in Italian) Angelo 15:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league (WP:BIO). Number 5 7 16:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus 20:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -Flubeca^Talk 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO --Malcolmxl5 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because time has passed does not mean he is no longer notable. Remember that the basic notability guideline is based on the existence of verifiable, reliable sources - those sources have not disappeared over the past few months. Gerry Taggart is playing at a non-professional club now, does that wipe out his previous notability? No. Casini was in Livorno's squad last season, which gives him a certain amount of notability, and the case for notability could only be strengthened (i.e. by making an appearance for the first-team), but not weakened. ugen64 02:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, following your reasoning, are we also gonna keep all players (including amateur ones) originally from a professional club's youth system?!? That's news to me. Taggart's case is completely different, he played lots of pro matches. This guy failed to make a single appearance, despite the fact Livorno played in the Serie A, the UEFA Cup and the Coppa Italia last season. He was just a young reserve player who was awarded a number, a common usage in Italian club, as this can happen even for 40 or more players, especially with clubs playing European competitions. And WP:BIO says Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis, does not say Competitors who were awarded a club number in a professional team. --Angelo 08:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "So, following your reasoning, are we also gonna keep all players (including amateur ones) originally from a professional club's youth system?!?" No. You might notice I voted "delete" for Rui Fonte for instance (even though he is currently in Arsenal's youth system). ugen64 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same though. He doesn't just come from a pro team's youth system, he was a sub at Livorno, fully pro, Serie A team. -- Ban Ray 23:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was signed from a regional amateur team, filled a third-choice goalkeeping position in the whole season and he was then released for free, and now there's no source at all around about what's he doing right now. The guy clearly fails WP:BIO (no pro appearances) and WP:N (no significant coverage). --Angelo 00:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice to immediate renomination. Although almost nothing of the article that was nominated remains, a new deletion discussion may be needed to discuss the new concerns. It may also be worthwhile to consider the option of merging into an alternate article, such as Delhi or Cinema of India. As regards the viability of articles of the type "Cinema in [city]", that is something which should be judged on an individual basis and with consideration for the existence of reliable sources to establish notability. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of movie theatres in Delhi[edit]

This looks to be a classic case of Wikipedia is not a directory. Cyrus Andiron 16:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Corvus cornix 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as directory/yellow pages. As a side note, it also seems a little advert-like. Useight 19:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IP198 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to Wikitravel - As a WP article, violates WP:NOT#GUIDE, article 2 "Travel guides", I quote: Wikipedia is not a place to re-create content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, popular eating guides, gazeteers, travelogues, and the like. Notable individual locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, however. Gatoclass 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When is Jhoom Barabar Jhoom playing? I love Abhishek Bachchan Mandsford 22:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to KeepDelete as per nom, "Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages" (WP:NOT)and it does seem a little like advertising, although that may not have been on purpose., see below. Noroton 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is no longer the one I voted to delete. I changed my vote based on User:Rothtak8's many WP:HEY improvements. I think still more work could be done in bringing information into the article from the good number of excellent sources already listed on the page, but this is now an article that happens to have lists, no longer a page that is simply a list. This is not original research since the references go to (independent, reliable) sources that cover roughly the same subject as the article. Cinema houses in Delhi are also notable enough for an article, with some multiplexes the biggest in the country and some theaters patronized by India's top leaders. The closing admin should deprecate all !votes that don't reflect the vast change in the article. Noroton 15:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they shouldn't, because I'm not changing my vote based on the rewrite. I still fail to see what is notable about movie theatres in Delhi and I still think this article belongs on Wikitravel rather than Wiki. Thanks, Gatoclass 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a directory for things like this. --JForget 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have been updating the page so it's not so much a directory but an informational page about movie theaters in Delhi. I also have a lot of references that you can check out. Let me know if you think it is any better? And it is not any form of advertising. Rohtak8 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nicely done, but I still think it would be a more appropriate article for Wikitravel. Perhaps you should get a copy of the source code on your HD so you can move the article there if it gets deleted here. Gatoclass 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more to the article, based on the sources already in the "References" section. I think the article now goes beyond a simple travel piece and delves a bit into the city's history and the cinema industry there. Noroton 17:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to refer you to List of movie theatres in Mumbai, which is what I based this page off of. Rohtak8 03:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will change my !vote iff the tables of non-notable cinemas are removed from the article. Corvus cornix 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe "directory" of cinemas is gone, which I believe was the big issue with this page. I have kept a list of only "notable" cinemas that are/will be mentioned in the article itself as well. These notable cinemas are well-known landmarks in Delhi and I believe they deserve at least a page on Wikipedia. thank you. Rohtak8 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've kept a list of redlinks just begging to have articles written about them, all of which will surely get tagged for afd (in fact, I pledge to do so if they get written). Corvus cornix 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlinks are gone! Sorry, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Rohtak8 21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Considering the subject matter here, wouldn't it be better to move it to Cinema in Delhi or History of cinema in Delhi? Corvus cornix 21:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All right, the page has changed completely. Rather than listing theaters, it now provides a very detailed description of the history of movie theaters in a specific city. I don't know if that is an improvement or not. If we're going to do an article on movie theaters in Delhi, then we better do the same thing for every other city in the world. Let's start with every city in Maine and then work our way west across the world. See the point, my initial nomination stands. --Cyrus Andiron 15:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Noroton 02:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a hoax. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Medina (musician)[edit]

most-likely hoax Will ^(talk) 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete from what I can tell, it is almost definitely a hoax. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Surprisingly, this article has managed to remain on Wikipedia for almost 9 months. --Metropolitan90 03:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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