< December 24	December 26 >

Guide to deletion

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Timwi 15:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comenplay[edit]

Advert? — Timwi 13:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Someone did a find and replace to eliminate all the first person stuff, but they missed one "we". So tagged. MER-C 13:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per spam criteria. Hello32020 14:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 14:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) advertising controversy[edit]

This article does not satisfy Notability, as I understand it.
Also, it is based on a couple of blogs, by Gaurav Sabnis and Rashmi Bansal. Both of them are alumnus of competing institutions, which makes them biased. In addition, I dont see how 2 bloggers (both from IIM, which competes with IIPM), can come up with some unverfied accusation, and post them on Wikipedia, as part of some college student slander campaign. This reduces Wikipedia's integrity and credibility.
I also believe that since blogs are self-published, Wikipedia does not count them are verifiable sources.
Further, another source used in the article is Businessworld, a magazine where Rashmi Bansal is an editor, and therefore is also biased.
And finally, Rashmi Bansal, whose college newsletter JAMMAG published the first article, has a warrant for her arrest in relation to content on another issue in her magazine. that adds to the fact that she is not a credible source. You can read about her on Google News.
The article is largesly uncited, and significant portions are quoted incorrectly from sources that are in any case not conforming to Notability and Verifiability.
For those of you not from India, IIPM has over 5000 MBA students studying, and over 50,000 alumni in the past 30 years. It has 400 companies including FORTUNE 500 and India's largest firms recruiting. The institute publishes leading business magazines. The Director is a respected economist and professor. The Dean has recieved numberous awards and is a best selling author who has lectured widely in the EU and US. The faculty teach alongside Ivy League faculty.
Notability of the institute is clear from this Financial Times newspaper article and another earlier Financial Times article. In addition, IIPM's official site has an archive of press clipping here and here.
In fact, this article has been contentious for over a year, but because experienced bloggers were familiar with Wikipedia, they were able to keep adding to the article and reverting changes withouta discussion. I am trying to work on the main article on IIPM as well, which has been partially protect for now.

Thank you in advance for your help in this matter

Delete. Iipmstudent9 11:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with all your points iipmstudent9. Regards, Mrinal Pandey 11:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should not be deleted since the controversy exists and this article will be use for prospective students who can check the veracity of the claims made by the institute sumal 13:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't a valid reason to keep the content in its own article when another article already contains essentially the same information. =Axlq 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sumal, please take a careful look at the page - it does not satisfy any of Wikipedia's pillars - Notability, NPOV or Verifiability. In addition, there will continue to be a mention of the controversy on the IIPM main article, but it will be smaller, in keeping with the Space it deserves, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Iipmstudent9 04:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article contains redundant material that already exists in The Indian Institute of Planning and Management article. It is enough that the controversy is described there. The subject isn't notable enough to warrant an entire article on the esoteric details of the controversy. =Axlq 17:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, and full of crap. The best way to get rid of an edit conflict, I say... perhaps an encyclopedic article can raise from it's ashes some other time. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awfully strong Keep. This very notable controversy has been discussed in the Hindustan Times, the Indian Express, and specifically as it relates to blogs in Dawn [1]. This is a very notable instance and precedent for Indians, especially Indian bloggers; and the nomination is a little absurd, given the owner-manager of IIPM, the controversial 'management guru' Arindam Chaudhuri, is referred to - without irony - as a 'respected economist'. Sheesh. Hornplease 11:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hornplease, you have not addressed any of the issues in the Delete notice, which I will assume you have read. Please do so, sir. There are over 10 reasons, each of which is self-sufficient, for this article to be deleted. In addition, Wikipedia is not the place for this topic, which, as you describe it 'as it relates to blogs' and 'notable instance and precedent...especially for Indian bloggers'.

Allow me to quote from [Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not]:

Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

I urge you to consider creating an article in Wiki commons. or Wikinfo, which might serve your purpose better. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and if we try to follow the KISS principle, and avoid instruction creep, Wikipedia should have an IIPM article with a criticism section that mentions this blog issue. It does. And thats a good article that we can make better. I hope you agree with me, or we can continue this dialogue.--Iipmstudent9 11:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to avoid lengthy criticism of Arindam and his institute taking up large amounts of the IIPM main page, it would be best to let this article stay; I address this to you if you are concerned primarily with their reputations. (Note that we typically try to avoid main articles that are mainly criticism).

Please note that none of the reasons given above indicate that the issue itself is non-notable; at best they indicate a content dispute. That is not grounds for deletion. The notability of the issue is unquestionable in that several mainstream sources -WP:RS will explain what they are - discuss the controversy. Hornplease 19:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hornplease, what I wish matters little, no? Similarly, your advice on what is best, is, with all due respect, irrelevant. What does matter is Wikipedia's five pillars - and the Notability principle does not cover a topic such as this 'controversy'. Wikipedia is not meant for articles that cover current events. Please look at the sections into which Wikipedia is organised - there is no place for such a page. And with regard to Arindam Chaudhuri, it has been widly reported in the Indian press that IIPM is a society, and Arindam is not the owner-manager as you claim, and not even a trustee of the society. The IIPM website calls him honorary Dean. IIPM has over 5000 MBA students studying, and over 50,000 alumni in the past 30 years. It has 400 companies including FORTUNE 500 and India's largest firms recruiting. The institute publishes leading business magazines. The Director is an IIM Bangalore professor. The Honorary Dean has recieved numberous awards and is a best selling author who has lectured widely in the EU and US, and is the recepient of many awards, that you can see at www.arindamchaudhuri.com, including a recent press clipping i saw online about a Priyadarshini award from Maharashtra (Mumbai) Chief Minister. The faculty of IIPM teach alongside Ivy League faculty. Financial Times has recognised the IIPM as a innovative and visionary institute in the world.

The articles' existence is clearly unjustified by virtue of it being non-notable. That said, most everything in the article is cited from biased or non-citeable sources, well-explained above. Mainstream source (a total of 2 newspapers, one of which, DNA, issued a retraction) didnt discuss the controversy - they discussed how blogs were making noise in India for the first time. You asked me to look at WP:RS; I did, and I quote to you:

Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view. Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

You will note that Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis are both bloggers, and both IIM alumnus, which makes them biased against IIPM. Further, JAMMAG is self-published by Rashmi. And finally, Rashmi is a contributing editor in Businessworld. And lets not forget, she's currently under arrest for libel in Bombay for comments in JAMMAG.

Further, from a Jimmy Wales memo:

If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as ((citation needed)), please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.
Here is an example from an article I deleted: "The most recent disaster that <name omitted> claims his organization has responded to is the 2004 South Asia Tsunami, although there is no convincing evidence that he or any of his team has been there.[citation needed]"

Now, I'm sure you'll see that the entire Controversy page is based on sources that are not verifiable by Wikipedia high standards, in any case. Do let me know ...Best, --Iipmstudent9 04:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a detail of the controversy, but I think we can clean this up a bit. Has relevant information about what happened. Current version of the controversy section on the IIPM page must continue in its current length to maintain NPOV. Deepakshenoy 12:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG KEEP with caps lock on. I am from India and this controversy is highly notable. The article is not based on couple of blogs as alleged by the IIPM student; it includes many reliable sources including Hindustan Times, Economic Times etc. The external links to blog appearing in the "References" section have not been used to cite sources; they have been used to point out the blogs of people involved in the controversy. Jyothisingh 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Jyothisingh, the mainstream article were not about IPM, they were about blogs... --Iipmstudent9 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - wow nobody is ever going a type a title like that, the subject is notable though.Baka man 18:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Moderate keep (count as half vote)~~ Keep

I would just like to clarify a few points. In the following, "you" refers to whoever began this AfD request (i. e. Iipmstudent9).

About blogs used as sources: It is true that the blogs are being referenced in the article. However, as far as I can see, they are not being used to assert the blogwriters' statements as facts. Quotes are being attributed to their respective authors, and not put forth as information. They are being given as evidence, and I think Wikipedia does not frown upon such use of blogs. Still, maybe we could re-word many sentences to reach an NPOV consensus. In any case, blogs are certainly not the only sources on which this article is based, as explained below.

*There are no verifiable sources in the artilce which justifies the libelous statements aainst IIPM.--Iipmstudent9 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "libelous" statements are not being put forth as facts. They're ascribed to respective people and publications. You can, if you have the references, mention the counter-statements made by IIPM to answer these claims. If you add these, you must also make sure that they are represented as IIPM's quotes and not assert them as actual facts.

Plus, I'm pretty sure Outlook, Businessworld, The Economic Times, NDTV and MoneyControl have been referenced extensively on Wikipedia and count as reliable sources. You're right, none of them justifies the contentious statements, but that's not the point now, is it? The article is just a description of an event, it is not there to prove or disprove anything. Max 19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About notability: Let us keep JAM aside for the moment since there is a debate on whether it is a reliable source or not. This controversy has been reported in the Indian media, most notably The Indian Express, and NDTV. It has been written about in national magazines such as Businessworld and Outlook (whose online editions require free registration, so I'm not providing links). It had been reported last year in other papers too (Hindustan Times, DNA, Mumbai Mirror etc.) but their online archived versions are either unavailable or absent. The problem of not finding enough references for this article is because Indian newspapers are lousy as far as maintenance of their online editions are concerned. Many don't even maintain archives. That is why a lot of older archive links don't work. But I think Wikipedia is not averse to offline references (i.e. actual hard copy references) as long as the original references are well-described (page number, section number, para number, ISBN etc. are properly quoted), and anyone who has a copy of the paper/magazine/book can easily look up the info. Anyway, there is a scanned paper clipping from Hindustan Times in this article.

* Max, if you followed the incident carefull,y you would know that there were no legal notices sent from IIPM. The whole thing was a scam cooked up by IIM alumni Rashmi and Gaurav... they wanted popularity for their blogs to skyrocket, so they decided to kill 2 birds with one stone. --Iipmstudent9 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That feels like your personal opinion. If you have the proof in terms of references that the legal notices were a scam, feel free to add that in the article. But attribute it to the source! Max 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, there is also the fact that IIPM is the largest spender for print ads in newspapers, and hence many newspapers may not have carried this story altogether (conflict of interest, anyone?) or removed the online version of articles pertaining to the issue, which makes it difficult to find "reliable" references. Of course, this is only a thought expressed by many as to why more mainstream sources are not being found, and no one can really do much about it.

* You're probably right. --Iipmstudent9 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think the notability can only extend thus far for an issue such as this. One cannot expect the controversy to be featured in The Washington Post or The New York Times. If you really want, here is someone from outside India taking cognizance: An article in the Online Journalism Review, part of the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication.

About this article being out of place in Wikipedia: Articles about incidents involving blogs are present on Wikipedia. Take a look at Killian documents. The scale of that issue was much bigger, but it was an exposé by bloggers. I would also like to point out that your statement (in your reply to User Hornplease), "Wikipedia is not meant for articles that cover current events", is incorrect. Hundreds of current events are well-documented on Wikipedia (2004 Asian Tsunami and 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings just to name a couple).

I think 100,000 people lost thier lives in the Tsunami, and over a 100 in Mumbai. Historic. Calamity. I'm not sure why you're putting a few youngsters taking potshots at an institute alongisde those... --Iipmstudent9 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely trying to counter your point that Wikipedia is not meant for articles that cover current events, hence the examples. I mentioned those articles merely as current events covered in Wikipedia. I know they're not on the same scale as this one. Max 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous comments: There are enough sources to justify this article being present. Deleting the article and moving the stuff to Controversies on the IIPM main page is a possibility, but it will just bloat that section up. Probably a significant rewrite and trimming to shave off verbose sections is required by putting in only the reported facts, to ensure NPOV. If the article becomes short enough, then maybe we can move it to Controversies.

A note to User Jobjörn: No offence but just because you do not know about the issue, does not mean it is full of crap, as you so articulately described it. If deleting articles were the best way to get rid of an edit conflict, we'd lose a third of the articles on Wikipedia :-)

Regards, Max 14:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* And finally, allow me to point out that there is, again, not verifiable source which confirms the ridiculous claims made by JAMMAG and BusinessWorld. ALl the other stories are about blogs and bloggers. And that is the bottom line. --Iipmstudent9 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the bloggers' claims are confirmed as right or wrong. As I said earlier, the article is supposed to be a description of an incident. It is not there to prove anything. The claims are attributed to respective people and publications. They aren't being passed off as hard facts. I support re-writing the parts where it sounds biased or unfair but scrapping the whole article only because it doesn't suit your agenda is not acceptable.

Plus, I do not understand your animosity towards Businessworld. It has been quoted as a source on other Wikipedia pages. Are you against it only because Rashmi Bansal has written articles in it? Bansal has also written articles for Rediff. Will you oppose the inclusion of Rediff as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles too?

Regards, Max 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see two short articles from about a year ago in the Hindustan Times about the controversy, plus a smaller mention in Thai Press Reports. Couple that with the OJR article, and I think there is enough notability for a mention in the encyclopedia. I actually would prefer this get a very small mention in the IIPM article with most of the content remaining in this article. I think the remaining points from Iipmstudent9 all relate to the content of the article and not whether the article deserves deletion. Note that the above keep vote reflects the fact that the existence of the controversy can be confirmed in multiple, reliable sources. It does not mean that I believe any of the statements made in the controversy are true are false. I might make some replies to some of the issues related to the 'content' of the article above, but disputes about the content should not influence the AfD - Aagtbdfoua 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Assuming it's notable, I'd rather have it here than in the main IIPM article. --Wizardman 05:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you want people to clean up an article, use ((cleanup)), not ((afd1)). Kimchi.sg 15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mrbrown[edit]

actually i nominate this article so people would get nervous and actually improve the article to prevent it from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss purple (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 December 2006

Question - When did we gain the ability to start articles with lower-case letters? Otto4711 18:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object - mrbrown is one of the most prominent bloggers in Singapore that he used to write a column for Today. If it is notable in Singapore, it is notable in Wikipedia. --Rifleman 82 18:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep- On first glance and after looking at external links, this article does not meet the notability criteria. --- Skapur 20:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to quantify this based on WP:NN? --Rifleman 82 20:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here are my reasons: mrbrown is not the main subject of any source cited in the arctile which is required by WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". The numbers cited for downloads have not been indepedently verified. The sources for the articles cited seems to be mrbrown himself and the other articles are on mrbrown's own web site. I will change my vote to keep if multiple independent sources can be cited. --- Skapur 21:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - He has been more than a passing mention in *at least* the following articles:

Changing colour, The Straits Times (Singapore), November 9, 2006 Thursday, LIFE! - LIFE BUZZ, 170 words
Govt had to deal with mrbrown's criticisms: PM, The Straits Times (Singapore), August 21, 2006 Monday, 3465 words, Lynn Lee
Blogging's more than idle chatter; It may, over time, help to raise political consciousness, The Straits Times (Singapore), August 2, 2006 Wednesday, REVIEW - OTHERS, 1013 words, Andy Ho, Senior Writer
Your Insights; Last week, Insight examined the issue of blogger mr brown, who drew a strong response from the Government following a newspaper column, and also discussed the evolving roles of the online and traditional media. Here is what some of our readers had to say:, The Straits Times (Singapore), July 29, 2006 Saturday, REVIEW - INSIGHT, 360 words
mr brown opens door to media debate, The Straits Times (Singapore), July 22, 2006 Saturday, 239 words, Li Xueying
No action against mr brown's supporters, The Straits Times (Singapore), July 22, 2006 Saturday, 221 words
Did the Govt really shut down a bak chor mee stall?; If it's Internet chatter, it's okay. But because it was published in a mainstream newspaper, it's not. So said Minister Lee Boon Yang, explaining the Government's stiff response to a newspaper column by blogger mr brown. Li Xueying sits in as MP Penny Low, blogger Bernard Leong and polytechnic lecturer Gan Su-Lin come together for a round-table discussion to discuss the role of the different media, The Straits Times (Singapore), July 22, 2006 Saturday, REVIEW - INSIGHT, 2033 words
Cops looking into gathering in support of mr brown, The Straits Times (Singapore), July 10, 2006 Monday, 390 words, Aaron Low
Today drops Mr Brown column, The Straits Times (Singapore), July 8, 2006 Saturday, 193 words
Today paper suspends blogger's column; Move comes after Govt slams mr brown's latest piece on the high cost of living here, The Straits Times (Singapore), July 7, 2006 Friday, 593 words

--Rifleman 82 21:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to keep. Please incorporate the above citations in the article if you have not done so already. --- Skapur 21:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He seems notable, but I wish we had more multilingual users to search for this kind of thing. Dar-Ape 21:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable bio.--Vsion 03:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was the subject of a fairly major political controversy (at least by Singapore standards). Jpatokal 05:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Mrbrown is one of Singapore's most well known bloggers, he once had a column in Singapore's papers, he has lots of mention in the Singapore internet scene, its hard to deny that he is non-notable. Terence Ong 06:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rifleman 82, and incorporate all those citations somewhere in the article. -ryand 07:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strong. Singapore bloggers are some of the most popular in the world and Mr Brown is one of the most notable. And could be the most notable male Singapore blogger. Hopefully the nomination for this AfD was a mistake? DelPlaya 10:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 15:25Z

Chris Kasmarzyk[edit]

Created by User:Ckasmarzyk, about a WW II veteran who "neutralized Omaha Beach", whatever that means. User:72.195.142.115 added a claim about Kasmarzyk receiving the medal of honor, which I disputed. I prodded the article, and User:Ckasmarzyk blanked it. Morally this should be a "speedy deletion", but it does not quite fit G7 because of the anonymous edit. Aleph-4 12:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(this entry was deleted from the Dec 22 deletion list; relisting it now)--Aleph-4 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, article is not sourced, appears to be complete nonsense. Speediable by CSD:A7 article has been tagged. - wtfunkymonkey 00:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 01:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No entry for WWII at [2] I call phony. FrozenPurpleCube 01:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 02:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entirely unsourced. Medal of Honor assertion may be just enough to prevent speedy, but still little to indicate notability and no sources to back it up. Seraphimblade 03:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As noted on the talk page, there is no such medal. See also above, [3]. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. It's just someone's vanity page, containing his wildest dreams. MER-C 03:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unsourced, unverified, likely fails notability. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 04:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Perhaps he just neutralized the pH. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No reference in http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohiia2.htm --- Skapur 20:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete right about now Dar-Ape 21:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete unsourced unverifiable WP:BOLLOCKS.-- danntm ^T _C 01:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteSomebody is Hoaxing with us. The 49th at Normandy was a British Army unit; the US Marines were only involved as specialists and advisors in Europe (most action was in the Pacific), with Army troops manning the invasion. If he was there as a US Marine advisor to the British Army that would be a good story. --Kevin Murray 17:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Wikipedia needs to be ruthless with these sorts of semi-sophisticated vandals if it is to have credibility. LukeSurl 15:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 web content with no assertion of notability (CSD A7). — TKD::Talk 03:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing it full circle[edit]

At best, NN comic series. Probable hoax or self-created. JLaTondre 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB, article lacks independant third party verifiable sources, article lacks sources altogether. Speedy delete by CSD:A7, article has been tagged. wtfunkymonkey 00:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 01:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or Delete per nom. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dare to Love Me[edit]

Article on unfilmed movie, composed of weasel words ("it is expected", "likely"). WP:CRYSTAL applies. PROD tag added, but removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff with the comment "doesn't meet crystal ball guidelines". Calton | Talk 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 01:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very much is crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 02:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Confirmed film, not crystal ballism at all. Variety article about it, and I suggest the nom, as well as other commenters, actually read the section on crystal ballism: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. From the Variety article, I garnered that the rights to the movie were purchased, but that nothing's been set in stone yet. Am I mistaken? --Wafulz 05:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE read the guidelines (I quoted them to someone just today) and the Variety piece, Badlydrawnjeff's sneering insinuation notwithstanding. And this qualifies as "notable" and "almost certain to take place" how? The latter especially: let me guess: you have a crystal ball that told you that it was sure to happen? --Calton | Talk 08:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Variety article, we learn who's producing, who's starring, and a lot of other good tidbits. All indications say that this is "almost certain to take place." Not a question in the least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a question to you and your Magic Crystal Ball, no. You really don't understand how Hollywood works, do you? Free clue: ads in Variety for upcoming productions often feature the phrase "Credits not contractual". There's a reason for that. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck getting it soon, I suppose. Not much else I can say if you don't even care to pay attention to the arguments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Premature article. Film projects need to be at least at the substantial marketing phase for an article about a future film to be valid, in my opinion Bwithh 06:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rights sale is no guaranteed ticket out of D Hell. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, But article needs a rewrite. Although the editor who started the article jumped the gun by quite a margin, the principal photography on the movie starts soon and therefore it will be notable. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 18:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article can be added when the movie moves from "pre-production" to production. --- Skapur 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 05:27Z

Twilight War: After the Fall[edit]

NN-game that is labled with a NN-neologism already slated for deletion produced by a NN-corporation which I am also nominating. This program fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Additionally WP:NOT a crystal ball, and article fails to assert notability, lacks sources of anykind say much less verifiable independant third party ones.

Delete as nominator -- wtfunkymonkey 00:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 01:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game apparently has had a very long development cycle, as noted by the nine articles from IGN about the game. "Twilight War: After the Fall" (in quotes) gets 76,200 Google hits; though only 174 of these hits are unique, I've found articles about the game in German, Russian, and Czech. Here are a few articles from GameSpot. I've never heard of this game, and it's certainly not going to be the biggest title ever, but I would argue that substantial coverage from multiple reliable gaming web sites confirms the game's notability- as would WP:SOFTWARE. -- Kicking222 01:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The company's website indicates that they don't have funding and won't be completing the product. Tarinth 01:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Development has shifted to another studio. The current website has not been updated since this happened. The most recent interview, by a fan site dated December 19 2006 states that the game is scheduled for a 2007 launch.[4] - hahnch e n 22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarinth's statement. If they have no funding and have stated they won't be releasing it, there's no hope for an article here. Sorry. --Dennisthe2 02:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The external links are listed now but are not independent. --- Skapur 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 15:26Z

Smiling_Gator_Productions[edit]

NN-developer that fails WP:CORP who's only claim to fame is a NN-game that fails WP:SOFTWARE. No assertion of notability or third party sources.

Delete as nominator -- wtfunkymonkey 00:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 01:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, and noting their only game has become vaporware. --Dennisthe2 02:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Montco 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of verifiable sources --- Skapur 20:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine L. Lindley[edit]

Resume by User:Alindley, of doubtful notability Aleph-4 01:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 01:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ (see below) the article, and I'll do take a look at the company listing in the article to decide whether to AfD it. --Dennisthe2 02:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resumes don't belong in the userspace either. MER-C 02:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Speedy Delete A7. --Dennisthe2 02:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced autobiographical resume of a non-notable person. MER-C 02:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 02:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced non-notable conflict of interest. —ShadowHalo 04:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 05:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems autobiographical. No citation given --- Skapur 20:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Grandmasterka. MER-C 07:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Virtual Number[edit]

This is not an encyclopedia article. Is it a plan for a new numbering scheme? A service that you can order for your telephone? Aleph-4 01:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 01:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Virtually incomprehensible (I assume a bad translation), and it appears to be some form of advertising or other, not an article about a genuine telephony concept. Borderline G11? Tevildo 02:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio, CSD:G12, article has been tagged -- wtfunkymonkey 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. MER-C 04:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tonywalton | Talk 09:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squattle[edit]

Does not even exist yet. Aleph-4 01:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Big top 01:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-spam. Danny Lilithborne 02:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as corporate vanity, Squattle (talk · contribs) created the article. So tagged. MER-C 04:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, no reliable sources, spam. —ShadowHalo 04:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Cesária Évora per WP:COPYVIO and No Context and Redirect to Barefoot Diva. Cbrown1023 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesária Évora[edit]

Delete as nom. Big top 01:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep whats the big deal. If they are copyvio issues the article just needs to be rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs) 02:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

We still need to delete it to get rid of the copyvio text. MER-C 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though you should have blanked the entire page and noted that there are multiple sources over at WP:CP. MER-C 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with rewrite to remove copyvio). This is a notable artist (she meets WP:MUSIC by any standard). Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content should have been removed in September (I did not see that it was noted as copyvio in September already). There is no alternative content so should be deleted for now. Ori Redler 11:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should really be kept, or even speedy kept as it clearly meets WP:MUSIC. Just remove the copyvio and restore previous content before the copyvio insertion (I assume there's good content in the past, if not I can translate the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia).--Hús ö nd 18:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, unbelievably, no safe revision: the original version (from 2002!!) was mostly copypasta. Translate away! Zetawoof^(ζ) 18:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep I believe this process of deletion is an unnecessary waste of time. one could simply edit the article removing material that is "copy vio". There is ample information on her from millions of other sources. She is a grammy nominated artist for crying out loud.

bbc bbc boston globe.

if there was a copy vio on michael jackson or madonna would we delete the page- no just revert or edit.Muntuwandi 18:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as teh copyright violations are removed Fabhcún 19:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article can be restarted when a non-copvio article is written. One solution would be to make this a stub article --- Skapur 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion is not notability but copyvio. --- Skapur 20:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is if there was a copyvio on Micheal Jackson or Madonna would we bother deleting the article only to start it all over again. What a waste of time and effort. Simply edit out the copyvio material. This is a very frivolous process.Muntuwandi 01:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there were a copyvio on a more famous person's article, it would be even more important to correct it ASAP! --- Skapur 01:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose converting the article to a music stub with basic information(name, birth-date, place, music genre) and nominate this article for speedy keep.

Keep & Cleanup This seems to be much ado about nothing. Yes it looks like someone lifted the text from another site. It just needs a rewrite rather than a big production. --Kevin Murray 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE THAT I REWROTE THE ARTICLE AND POSTED IT AT Barefoot Diva. I believe that it is free of copywrite violations and could be moved to this location. --Kevin Murray 05:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction still needs to be rewritten; your version still derives heavily from this source. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes this is among the sources, but per your request I drew from more sources and restrcutured the introduction. Please review and comment. --Kevin Murray 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the seriousness of copvio. But that said what is so sacred about the information at http://africanmusic.org/artists/evora.html.Muntuwandi 15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muntuwandi, I would say that it is not sacred, but Zetawoof was expressing another legitimate concern about perceived plagerism as my first rewrite was substantialy based on only one source. Now this should be fine, but I invite some more editors to jump in. I am not an expert on music etc., but I feel that this topic is well worth the effort to preserve. --Kevin Murray 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information isn't "sacred" - the issue is that the phrasing of the introduction (particularly the emphasis on Évora as a "barefoot diva") is heavily derivative - the original revision was practically a paraphrasing of the source. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup clean it up. Obvious famous person. --Xiahou 04:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100 Scariest Movie Moments[edit]

NN program, was a copright violation too before another editor rmoved the list (basically making it a blank page). PROD notice was removed by an anon IP with no explanation. TJ Spyke 01:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no comment needed Alf photoman 15:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current text is not copyvio and describes a TV show. Needs references --- Skapur 20:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Should add Television program at the back of the title. Tonytypoon 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete 'nuff saidDroliver 21:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's about a single, non-notable, five-part TV series.-- danntm ^T _C 03:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm confused. Why is this not notable? - Lex 08:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it be notable? These kinds of lists are made all the time. TJ Spyke 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically a bunch of talking heads, non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Comedian's Comedian for a similar discussion. Quadzilla99 04:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EnabledDanger 06:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacth Trujillo[edit]

Almost a speedy candidte, but there is a "claim to notability": among the greatest directors in the world. Looks like nonsense to me, given that he is just finishing school. Aleph-4 01:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, lacks sources. WP:SNOW anyone? - wtfunkymonkey 02:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 02:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment note that the article in question is a near duplicate of User:Isaacth, the user page of the creator of the article. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - the assertion of notability is ridiculous enough such that the article would have been the same without it. MER-C 04:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either the article author does not know how to spell the name or it is a hoax Alf photoman 15:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I could not find an independent verifiable claim to notability. --- Skapur 20:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. My advice would be to expand the article modestly, drawing on the published sources that already exist in the article as references. Articles which have as their primary content lists of recordings do not tell the reader much about the band; this needs to be rectified. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ill.Skillz[edit]

Non-notable band. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-25 02:01Z

Delete per nom. Big top 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ill.Skillz has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself. Ill.Skillz is the subject of this article and this article, they have also been featured in Knowledge Magazine as well as MixMag. Ill.Skillz is also the most prominent representative of the local drum and bass scene in Austria.--OriginalJunglist 02:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete until they're notable enough to able to secure an interview from someone other than D.Kay.TruthGal 03:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment D. Kay is a member of the group, as clearly stated in the article. One Night In Hackney 05:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - I misread the three interviews "Interview with D.Kay" to mean D.Kay was the interviewer as opposed to interviewee. At the request of the entry's author, OriginalJunglist, I've since looked at this entry more closely, and I'm now on the fence. It looks like their CDs aren't on a major label - am I right, are they a band whose CDs are self-released? If so, I'd still be inclined towards Delete, but until I know for sure, I'm going to withdraw my vote.TruthGal 17:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They do own their own label, however the majority of their music has been released on other labels.--OriginalJunglist 18:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of commercial releases as shown here: http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ill.Skillz?anv=Ill+Skillz

Keep It's generally unfair to use the major label criterion to claim a dance music act are non-notable. The majority of dance music is typically released on vinyl, which major labels rarely touch with a bargepole so most dance acts tend to release on smaller independent labels. As they have been repeatedly covered in mainstream music magazines, I'd say they are notable. One Night In Hackney 18:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable on the drum & bass scene. -/- Warren 10:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of numerous articles is sufficient. I don't care if they are on a major label or not - and neither should you. Will we hold independent films to the same standard? Will the major labels, major studios, major tabloids, etc be our sole barometer? Drew30319 03:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All notable "independent" films ultimately secure deals with major studios for distribution rights. Else they wouldn't get into theaters, and we'd never be able to see them.TruthGal 06:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's avoid the word "notable" as I assume you're using it in the Wiki-sense, which makes your argument self-fulfilling. About your point though - you're incorrect. I live in Atlanta and have the opportunity (as does anybody living in a large city) to see films that have not secured deals with "major studios." A film, song, group or individual could be encyclopedic in nature without the benefit of a major studio / major label / major fill-in-the-blank. The desire for homogenization is not universal. There are those who prefer coffee that isn't from Starbucks and pasta that isn't from The Olive Garden. There are also those that listen to music played only on the college radio stations and go to films shown at art houses in only a few cities at a time. I'm not comfortable with the notion that a select group of "majors" determines "notability." Drew30319 03:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't mean to get into a pissing contest with you, Drew, but I work in the film industry. It's basically a cartel - a half dozen conglomerates own and control everything. That "indie" film you saw at the art house? It was distributed by one of the major film studios (though sometimes under a subsidiary company name). For example, here are some current "indie" films and their major studio distributors: Little Children/NewLine, Notes On A Scandal/Fox, Volver/Sony, Curse of the Golden Flower (Man cheng jin dai huang jin jia)/Sony. Even Derecho De Familia - released under the IFC First Look banner... is part of a conglomorate - IFC is owned by Cablevision, a company which has a market capitalization of 8 billion dollars (not very "independent"!). Name a indie film playing at your local cinema (though not Lefont Garden, because the theater conglomorates pushed that great art house out of business), and I'll tell ya the giant evil company that's distributing it. By the way, I think this is fact is at best lamentable and at worst detestable, but it's the economics of the business. Getting a film into theaters is expensive and ultimately must be bankrolled by a giant corporation. Hopefully, digital films will change all that. Anyway, I long ago had retracted my Delete on this entry. I figured as an Ani DiFranco fan, I'd give Ill.Skillz the benefit of the doubt. (Although Ani's Righteous Babe Records actually has a distribution deal with music conglomerate Koch Entertainment, recently purchased by Entertainment One (the #1 wholeseller of CD and DVD in Canada) for 80 million dollars. Sigh.) TruthGal 08:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was looking on the web for references to this group and hit an interesting coincidence; there is a hip hop dance group called 'III Skillz' that was formed by Carlos Taguba and which has toured North America (see this PDF link). This would certainly seem to be a different group but an interesting coincidence. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
question Is it true that the three interviews that appear pivotal to notability of the band are all associated with blogs or am I misinterpreting the interviewing organizations (these would be Play.FM, DNB Forum and DrumAndBaseArena)? If they are blogs, then would they, in fact, qualify as "non-trivial published works" if the blogs were not themselves considered notable? I'm just exploring this with some questions as I know that the 'notability' of blog postings is a hot topic of discussion and we are in a transition time where we don't want to dismiss out of hand an emerging medium. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd definitely wouldn't use DNB Forum as a measuring stick for notability. The other two seem to be well established sites, not blogs as such. It's a bit of a tricky one, as in recent years many music magazines have stopped publishing, arguably due to the growing coverage of music online. Ill Skillz have also been covered in Knowledge magazine and Mixmag, both of which are relatively mainstream magazines covering dance music. One Night In Hackney 02:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirming ok, I found the item in Knowledge Magazine but I haven't found the Mixmag item; having a citation to include (not necessarily online) for the Mixmag item would be helpful. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't know the date they appeared in Mixmag, I'm assuming good faith on the part of the person who included it. One Night In Hackney 03:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK- this is stupid on my part - the article references are there in the external links ... this article needs to be rewritten, but it has enough. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 02:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Alexander[edit]

I-am-neither-playa-nor-playa-hater Nomination for deletion

Winner of a celebrity dating VH1 TV show who dumped the celebrity, Flavor Flav as soon as the filming was over (very brief mention in NYTimes article on Flavor Flav:"Although the star found love again last season with Nicole Alexander, a former basketball player he nicknamed Hoopz, the brief union ended after the cameras stopped recording. 'All of a sudden, Hoopz got too busy,' he said, 'and I couldn't get in touch with her.'" - that's the entire mention she gets in the 1800 word article[5]).

Our girl Hoopz has done some dancing in a couple of music videos and was gameshow girl on a MTV gameshow for a bit, some modeling, got a bit part in a movie coming up and auditioning for others, has her own yet-to-be-named reality show coming up real soon which I can't find any trace of (her IMDB page hasn't heard of it either[6]),has been tusslin' with the cops, hates her neighbors, and most importantly, Officially Has A Myspace. Also:"Although her beauty is obvious, she has been noted to have a face that eerily resembles that of Kobe Bryant." (For the record, I feel this comment in the article is HARSH) (On the other hand, she was HARSH on Flavor Flav too)

Only 8 hits for "Nicole Alexander" + Hoopz/Flavor of Love in Factiva news database. ~318 hits on Google with Flavor of Love.~2,030 with Hoopz - including a lot of spam sites/blogs. Fails WP:BIO for her own article. Okay as a mention in the gameshow article Flavor of Love, but most of the content here should be cropped - Wikipedia is not a celebrity gossip magazine/Hollywood talent database. Bwithh 01:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Note the sample text within the nomination (above) is no longer pertinent; it has been rewritten to WP standards including 4 references to independent sources --Kevin Murray 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't strike out like 75% of my nomination text without even informing me. Your objection to one part of my nomination only relates to a small part of the text you struck out. Bwithh 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - For clarity sake I did not remove any text. I used strike-through with a bolded note at that place explaining that the article had been rewritten and that the quote was nolonger pertinent (my note now moved to below nomination). However, I appology to Bwithh; I did not mean to strike through his nomination text, just an oblsolete quote. --Kevin Murray 21:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - To the point This quote within your nomination is utterly confusing; what are you quoting? What is the bit about Kobe Bryant's face? It appeared to be a quote of jibberish and bad taste referring to the poor quality of the author's writing skills, which prompted me to rewrite the article for clarity and NPOV. What are you trying to say? Is your nomination for deletion written in "wrap-speak"? This seems a bit unappropriate, confusing, and meant to ridicule the article and subject rather than discuss the merits of her notability. --Kevin Murray 20:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry but I propose the article stay because of all its resoureful info. There was a mistake it was Nicole Manderos who got the part to the reality show "Nobody". Its was all a huge a mix up, if you will. Nicole has been confirmed as an actress and a pro-model. That is more thna enough for the article to stay. --Gamefan06 02:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING isn't an argument for keeping the article. You haven't given a reason why the subject passes WP:BIO. MER-C 04:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entertainer with non-widespread recognition as per WP:BIO. MER-C 04:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. Akihabara 08:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I feel she passes WP:BIO well enough as the somewhat known winner of a well-known reality show who has been reported on sufficiently. I could craft fairer and more successful Google searches than nominator (who seems to think Hoopz's notability is determined by how widely her real name is known), but that is not really to the point of the policy. I only offer the testament that, although I barely watched any Flavor of Love, I had an idea about who Hoopz was, wanted more information and turned to Wikipedia.

I do, of course, agree that the current article is rather bad and gossipy, and I hope that it is improved by someone more knowledgeable than I. Volucris 12:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Naconkantari 23:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main FoL page. Ckessler 23:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC

Keep I've just updated the article with info. I think thats enough to not delete it!! --Inthaghetto 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) An erotic actor or actress "may be demonstrated as notable by meeting any one of the following criteria":

1. Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy, whether through news sources covering pornography or (preferably) in "mainstream" news outlets.

2. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets (the Air Force Amy rule).

3. Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche.

While not specifically a pornographic actress, she is an erotic entertainer skirting the fine-edges of soft-porn (see Eye Candy Modeling among other equally revealing sources), and she appears frequently on TV, and is clearly controversial. Like it or not, this is a phenomonon of our times and Volucris makes a strong point that Wikipedia should be a reliable source of information. --Kevin Murray 21:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So she won the event, and she's not notable? I don't get it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Winning a cable reality show shouldn't make you notable.--Prosfilaes 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It shouldn't? I can't agree with that at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.EnabledDanger 06:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like EnabledDanger is a brand new member and already working here in AfD (Hmm?). Fast learner or Sockpuppet? --Kevin Murray 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have the ((spa)) template for a reason: it doesn't quite WP:BITE as much as comments like this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I may not display the articulate tact of ALKIVAR, I do think that AfD is serious business and is taken way too lightly and often without enough experience, alternatively sockpuppetry is a serious offense. In either case I'm not ashamed to call a spade a spade. --Kevin Murray 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you have a moment, WP:AGF might be worth a read. It is possible that someone might come to AfD first. Perhaps they've edited for years anonymously and only today felt the need to create an account. Who can tell? Not me, my mind-reading powers are woefully unreliable. Since you are able to read minds, is this Bwithh's sockpuppet? MER-C's? Naconkontari's? Mine? Sockpuppetry is rarely a serious matter. If EnabledDanger were a sockpuppet account, there would be no reason for the owner not to use it to vote in XfDs, just so long as they didn't vote twice. Having your article deleted from Wikipedia isn't life-threatening, or even painful. Ms Alexander will be doing her stuff on cable TV whether this article is deleted or not. Nothing that happens on Wikipedia is remotely serious. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are politely digressing from the point, and asserting claims of clairvoyance which I never made. I suggested it was suspicious, and voting in AfD with sockpuppets is a serious offense if it represnts a 2nd vote. Whether the subject’s career and life will go on is irrelevant, the point is applying the notability standards evenly despite the personal likes and dislikes.
This is not “my” article. I came here as part of the AfD process. I’ve never heard of Hoopz nor watched the VH1 channel. I became involved in the discussion because I think the nomination write-up is abysmal and the arguments supporting deletion are weak. My basic feelings run close to those of ALKIVAR, but I lack his zeal and brevity. --Kevin Murray 01:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stupid cunt... but well known stupid cunt. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leilene Ondrade[edit]

Nomination for deletion Encyclopedically non-notable celebrity dating show contestant, "revealing" model, wrestling show contestant, bit part actress and poet. ~1,030 google hits, but mostly modeling websites/wrestling forums/spammy sites etc. Fails WP:BIO

I am sad that I can't find her poem on the internet. Bwithh 02:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. MER-C 04:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, anybody who has a blank space in the bio section of Holliwood.com can't be very notable Alf photoman 15:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make redirect to WWE_Diva_Search#2005 Fabhcún 19:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and no reliable verifiable sources provided --- Skapur 20:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite notable although the sum of her varied career has made her rather visible on search engines. --Kevin Murray 20:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO as a television personality on multiple shows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Rufus Wainwright. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 05:24Z

Release The Stars[edit]

Unsourced crystal balling. Nothing but rumours. Contested prod. MER-C 02:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When there is more solid information, the article can be readded --- Skapur 21:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too soon, not enough verifiable information available. Dar-Ape 21:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Rufus Wainwright. There is a source, the artist's website, but I don't think there's enough information for this to merit its own article.

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

The result was Already redirected by Twinxor Computerjoe 's talk 15:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.tar.gz.gpg[edit]

This is a combination of the GPG and tar.gz formats. While it's not too unusal to encrypt compressed data like this, it seems like the formats are adequately discussed on their own articles, and this page doesn't have much to say about the combination. Twinxor t 02:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected per consensus. Twinxor t 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either of those, preferrably both. Delete afterwards. Just H 02:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete afterwards, if you merge anything, you at least need a redirect. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A simple redirect to Tar (file format) would serve well enough with a brief description in the appropriate section. I could accept it elsewhere though. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (since they're "cheap") to GPG (as the file is fundamentally a gpg-encrypted file & will need to be de-encrypted before anything else) and because I don't see anything worth merging. --Karnesky 03:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with that is that GPG doesn't have any existing sections describing file names in it, where as tar already a section for filename extensions. Given that a link to GPG is easy enough there, I'd prefer that. In any case, this information should be there, so I'll go ahead and add it. FrozenPurpleCube 05:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see anything worth merging--it isn't THAT common of a format & I'm unaware of any programs that could process .tar.*.gpg in a single step. Explaining .tar.(bz2|gz|Z) is reasonable--they're more common and gnu tar has hooks for gzip/bzip2/compress, but not for gpg.

I guess that, if the consensus is to merge, a merge to tar might make some sense. But where would it stop? Would we include .tar.gz.uue? How about .tar.gz.gpg.uue (or at lest .tar.gz.asc)? --Karnesky 18:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I'd suggest putting that question up on the page for tar files. FrozenPurpleCube 22:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to relevant articles Alf photoman 15:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Karnesky. Yuser31415 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if redirected then also add tar.gz.gpg (no leading dot). This form is more likely entered in search box. Pavel Vozenilek 17:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected to tar (file format). Twinxor t 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you reckon there is sufficient consensus to close this MfD as nominator and redirect? Yuser31415 00:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I think all the relevant information is over at the tar article. I redirected it. Twinxor t 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, individual articles suffice. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. DaveApter 10:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wwt[edit]

Non-notable wrestling company, fails WP:CORP. 2 non-wiki ghits. Fails WP:V too. Contested prod. MER-C 02:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with what the previous user wrote. The article lacks notability or credibility, even if some of its content is factual. 129.98.212.144 05:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will change to keep if independent reliable sources are cited that confirm the subject's notability. --- Skapur 21:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no sufficient sorces. Hiddenhearts 17:45 UTC, 25 December 2006
Delete Read's like an E-Fed Bump Speedy if possible NegroSuave 14:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete n-n. DaveApter 10:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: delete, redirect left to American Baptist Churches USA where this information is now contained (preservation of edit history not necessary as a simple list like this cannot be copyrighted). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seminaries affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. Contested prod. MER-C 02:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as List of...., Keep and Clean up. Having a record of institutions affiliated with Baptist Churches would be more than a directory. Anyway that argument would see the deletion of almost all list.--Doc^g 02:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into a category Just H 02:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change into category per Just H. Big top 02:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That will only work if they all have articles. Do they? --Doc^g 02:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry. Delete per nom. Big top 02:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no immediate prejudice against recreating elsewhere, in a more wikipedia-appropriate format. FrozenPurpleCube 02:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but this information could be included in the American Baptist Churches article. Kathy A. 03:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List is short enough to be included in ABCUSA article. I have already included the list, sans phone numbers, etc., in that article. Nick Graves 05:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but first merge relevant information to American Baptist Churches Alf photoman 15:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as the list is small enough for the rest of the information in the article to be included in the parent article. The names are already there, just the address, name of president and reference link needs to be added to the parent article. --- Skapur 21:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Skapur. That's the way to deal with it.DGG 06:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge is fine with me.--Doc^g 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NOT#DIR. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into American Baptist Church as it's a very short list & wouldn't affect that article's "flow". SkierRMH 05:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shorinjiryu Kentokukan (Canada)[edit]

delete Appears to be a single non-notable school. No case made for notability.Peter Rehse 02:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nomination, CSD:A7 no assertion of notability, so tagged. -- wtfunkymonkey 03:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7 is for people, bands, groups, clubs, web content or companies only. MER-C 04:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly prevents it from being classified as either a group or a club? Nothing as far as I can tell. wtfunkymonkey 05:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 04:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources --- Skapur 22:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere are several schools, all in Quebec, Canada. There's also some stuff in Alberta, Canada too, if I recall correctly. I have made a request to an administrator within the school to adress CSD:A7, as well as requesting the provision of published sources. I am reluctant to include my own assertions about what makes the school noteworthy before discussing it with whomever is doing their PR now, and without published sources. If I can't get something useful in a few weeks, then oh well. Ramou_stu 11:50, December 26 2006 (EST)
Delete, non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its no reflection on the quality of the dojo or teacher but there are hundreds if not thousands of such groupings in karate - not something notable.Peter Rehse 09:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Bearcat. MER-C 09:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Stephens[edit]

Gives no indication of significance... does anyone know what those abbreviations even stand for? Not to mention the fact that the one edit in the history is changing which Richard Stephens the article refers to. Pstinchcombe 03:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete db-bio. Danny Lilithborne 03:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:HOLE. MER-C 04:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Indiscriminate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who became famous through being terminally ill[edit]

Contested prod. Unencyclopedic list. Garion96 (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the hell? Danny Lilithborne 03:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We aren't Time Magazine, either. --Dennisthe2 03:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete TIME magazine :) I love it! Silly lists like this are a blightDroliver 21:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go against the grain and say weak keep and possibly rename. I have to say... I kind of like this list. And I don't mean that in the WP:ILIKEIT way; I mean that this is a fairly decent list. It has distinct parameters (someone who is notable solely for their illness) and could have some encyclopedic value (say, somebody was looking for info on Terri Schiavo and wanted to know if there were other people whose only notability was illness... or something like that. Anyway, it's not the best list ever, but considering it's well-defined and finite, I still think that it has its place on WP. -- Kicking222 04:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You raise a good point, but under the circumstances, this is something probably better served by a category. --Dennisthe2 05:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Listcruft. – Ch acor 05:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is useful for being a curiosity, even if it does not meet the strict encyclopedic criteria. Moreover, it passes the infamous "Pokemon character test." In other words, if we chose to delete this article, we would need to delete more than 100 other lists of people who share a peculiarity among themselves. One of the funniest is a dead-serious List of people who died in the bathroom. More than 100 others can be found in this collection of Google search results. Therefore, I would advise you to keep this article, unless you can find serious problems with WP:V or WP:NOT. 129.98.212.144 05:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the pointer on the list of people who died in the bathroom. It shall be AfD'd, again on the grounds that it would be better served as a category than an otherwise unmaintainable list. --Dennisthe2 23:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm iffy on the quality of the list, but considering Category:Lists of people by medical condition I can at least vaguely support the idea, though it might be better to break up the list into sections of some kind or another. Like the cause of the terminal illness. Still, I don't feel deletion is immediately warranted. If it is though, look at the rest of the category. FrozenPurpleCube 06:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work. Make it into a table with columns for date of death, illness, and why famous. Anthony Appleyard 08:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is not unserious, and could be made encyclopedic by converting it to an annotated list (the annotations would provide context and support notability). I also disagree with the requirement in the lead section that the article exist, because adding list entries could identify articles for creation. I don't think a table is necessary, as the date of death is not relevant to the list (and could be found in the article). It also may be more appropriate to change the name to "people who became famous through illness" and expand it to cover terminal and non-terminal cases.Dhaluza 13:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably an indiscriminate list of information, but that argument aside, fundamentally requires unacceptable POV determinations. WP:NPOV does not provide the tools for editors to determine whether a terminally ill person became "famous" as a result of their illness or accessory to it, nor does it empower a determination of what "famous" entails for these purposes. The latter could be somewhat mitigated by renaming the list to "...notable...", but that is a poor solution that would allow the inclusion requirements to change if and when WP:BIO is revised further and that does nothing about the editorial determination issues regarding the cause of fame/notability. Serpent's Choice 14:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the first, which section of WP:NOT do you contend this list violates? For the latter, I don't see that as much of a problem in terms of NPOV, or if it is a problem, is no more of a problem than any other determination about whether a person is famous/notable. The condition of terminal illness, I think doesn't have any question of NPOV, so the only question is would we have an article about them if they had not been terminally ill? I think that except for rare cases we wouldn't, and if the illness came before their notability, then they'd go on the list. As such, I just don't see the NPOV problem. Could you explain why it's a problem? FrozenPurpleCube 14:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the NPOV issue, the article fundamentally requires an editor to make a decision that cannot be supported from sources: "would we have an article about them if they had not been terminally ill". Our notability standards are ill-equipped to allow editors to decide why someone is notable, only whether they are notable. Complicating the issue is the current (although apparently lax) requirement that the subject have "an article in WP to link to", which does not avoid self reference. Concerns I have with the list include a number of people who may not meet the inclusion requirements: Sunny von Bülow (possible notability as a socialite/philanthropist before illness), Barney Clark (notability concerns, has no article), Nancy Cruzan (injury, not illness), Jenifer Estess (no idea who this is, no article), Karen Ann Quinlan (uncertain if unexplained PVS qualifies as "terminal illness"), Terri Shiavo (uncertain if unexplained PVS qualifies as "terminal illness"), . Several others are notable because of actions they took after their illness; they are known for those actions, not the illness itself. The inclusion criteria are unclear as to whether this is meant to qualify (is someone who writes a book about their illness notable because of their illness, or because they are a successful author?): Heather Crowe (PSAs), Terry Fox (Marathon of Hope), Alison Gertz (activism), Elizabeth Glaser (activist, DNC speaker), Kirsty Howard (activism), Morrie Schwartz (author), Mattie Stepanek (poet). Serpent's Choice 23:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see the first as a problem, or if it is, it's a problem that is endemic to all notability decisions. At some point, someone is making a determination that X is important, while Y is not. Recognizing that in some cases it is because the person had a terminal illness should be no more difficult to determine than whether they are an author, a singer, or left-handed. Still, I suppose this list could be titled differently to say "List of people with a terminal illness" (or possibly "terminal condition", given the PVS concerns) with a section for folks who didn't have any other claim to fame, so to speak. That would probably be preferable to me actually, since it would include more information. The Lou Gehrigs and Steven Hawkings of the world. So if that option will satisfy you, I'd be glad to endorse it. The list already says such people shouldn't be on it. As for your questions, Barney Clark would be the first man to receive a Jarvik artificial heart(mention on the Jarvik article would cover him), and Jenifer Estess refers to the woman this [7] movie is about. So I'd say she'd qualify as notable, or at least the movie would. Probably does need an article at some point. I don't know for sure about people writing books, but if their books are primarily about their illness (in constrast to say Hawking who writes about physics), I'd vote for placement on the list. Perhaps in a specific section for them too. But in any case, the inclusion of anybody on this list that doesn't belong is a clean-up issue though, not so much of a deletion one. FrozenPurpleCube 01:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it makes it seem as if these people used there illness as a platform for fame. Fabhcún 20:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the "indiscriminate list" clause of WP:NOT. A great number of people could qualify to be on this list if you start looking at local and national publications around the world; with no clear criteria on what qualifies as "fame", lists like this are going to be more problematic than encyclopedic. -/- Warren 10:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not create a category, which would be even worse as it makes absolute claims without providing context. Nathanian 20:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a not unexpected vote perhaps, given that I originally created the page. To respond to some of the points above:
- Could those editors who believe that this list is unencyclopaedic explain why they believe this to be the case? If you mean "not the kind of thing that would be found in a traditional paper encyclopaedia" then I agree, but I assume you are familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that that's not what unencyclopaedic means in this context. I'm hoping you aren't merely using unencyclopaedic as a synonym for quirky, as it's well-established that quirkiness alone is not a sufficient reason for deleting articles.
- In respect of the objections to "famous" - you have a good point here. I think this can be dealt with easily though - if this list is restricted to people who are notable enough to deserve an article, and use the wiki process to determine who those are, we have a workable lower threshold. I've no objection to a rename either.
- Editors who are suggesting that this list should be deleted per the indicriminate collection clause of WP:NOT are falling into a common trap. Please read that section of WP:NOT - it lists eight categories of article that should be deleted, that's all. This is not one of those eight, unless I'm missing something?
- Serpent's Choice - I don't feel you are interpreting NPOV correctly. NPOV is about ensuring that what we say is presented in a neutral way. It's not intended as a filter for editorial decisions - that is quite rightly the domain of the collective judgment of editors and the wiki process. A judgment about whether to include an item of information in an article can only ever be a judgment, and in that pure sense is therefore a breach of POV, but if we accept that reasoning, then nothing in Wikipedia is NPOV, as for every fact included, someone somewhere will have made a decision to include it based on an opinion.
- Fabhcún - re: "it makes it seem as if these people used there illness as a platform for fame" - can you expand on this please - What is is about the list that creates this impression? Is this your reason for supporting deletion? If so, I think we can explore less drastic options.
- Personally, I feel that the list is a pretty clear-cut inclusion-worthy entry. Kicking222 gets things spot-on, I feel. A principal reason why we have lists and categories here (rather than being solely a collection of articles) is to enable readers of an article on a topic to find other topics with similar characteristics. To those proposing deletion, I would ask - how would a reader of an article about a person whose "notability" is solely due to their terminal illness be able to find articles on other such people if this list was deleted? Alternatively, if you feel that a reader wanting to do that would be making an invalid use of the site, I feel the onus is on you to show that that is the case.

SP-KP 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate, trivial, unsourced, unverifiable, matter of opinion as to "fame" and reason as to "fame", in addition to other reasons given above. Agent 86 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Agent86. I have a couple of questions - in what sense is the list indiscriminate please? Why do you believe the list is unverifiable? SP-KP 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, notability not established for some, worthless, unencylopedic trivia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. Please could you explain why you believe this to be unencyclopaedic and worthless, and why you feel that the lack of sources and varying levels of notability are deletion issues rather than a cleanup issues. SP-KP 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some good points made by some of the above contributions (though I wish some folk would read the essay WP:IDONTLIKEIT before commenting). Its current unsourced and rather primitive form make it hard to support – its editors would have had more chance if it had been well sourced from the start. I feel it has unsolvable problems with its entry criteria. The "becoming famous through" part is tricky and borderline. I'd have prefered "notable" rather than "famous" since it is much less loaded. And then there is the definition of "terminal illness". There are so many conditions that may or may not be terminal (AIDS, cancer) and many that will be terminal should the person not die of something else first (if you know what I mean) like prostate cancer or serious heart disease. There is too little to connect these people together to make a list like this a useful study tool IMO. Most of the people are also borderline notable. Colin°^Talk 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, some good points from you too. I disagree with your final piece of reasoning though, about the list's lack of cohesiveness. People with articles at Wikipedia are notable for a wide variety of reasons, and for every other reason (people who are notable through acting, through political leadership, through sporting prowess etc), we have lists, so a list of people whose notability is due to their having an illness is surely also worth keeping, isn't it, otherwise how does one find these people? Do you feel that nothing is salvageable from the list if it is deleted? If we developed the list into a "list of people whose notability is a direct result of their having a terminal illness", and sorted out the sourcing problem, what would your view be then please? SP-KP 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School production with no assertion of wider notability. Tyrenius 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockquiem[edit]

Previously prod'ded, and removed. I'm still not seeing the notability here. Danny Lilithborne 03:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - is there a deletion log for the previous deletion? I can always go db-repost under the circumstances. --Dennisthe2 03:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whoops, I meant a prod template was put on, and removed. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 03:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, Delete. I see a lack of notability or association thereof. --Dennisthe2 03:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable school production. MER-C 04:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 04:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see a hint of notability --- Skapur 22:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities who have been involved in incidents resulting in death[edit]

Major POV issues (what is an incident? does murder count?). Lots of potential to violate WP:BLP as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also started an AfD on a very similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who became famous after surviving a near-fatal event Gwernol 19:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs sources but I don't see any problem with this. These are well-documented events. --JJay 03:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales Tonytypoon 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (1) Ill-defined (celebrity? incident? resulting?). (2) POV issue (see possible misuse. Note: I reverted my own edit on realizing that it violated WP:POINT). (3) Identically titled category was up for CfD recently: see discussion here. Abecedare 04:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the nomination for deletion of the category pointed out that a category was unnecessary precisely because this list already existed. "X should be deleted because Y already exists" followed by "Y should be deleted because X was deleted" defies logic. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarification: I linked to to the CfD not because that is the reason to delete the list, but rather because there were arguments raised there that some may find relevant to this AfD. Abecedare 17:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah - apologies. I misunderstood your comment. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abecedare. Poorly defined and not incredibly encyclopedic. -- Kicking222 04:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike the "terminally ill" list, which is also under discussion, this list is ill-defined, as others have noted. What is a celebrity? What constitutes an incident? In a broad sense, even a heart attack constitutes an incident, and (unfortunately) that path to demise afflicts even the best among us. So this list is undefinable and thus unacceptable. 129.98.212.144 05:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename. I see where the author is going with it, and I think there's some value in a list like this, but "involved in accidents resulting in death" is way too nebulous. George W. Bush was "involved" with the Iraq War... does that count? If this article could give birth to a People convicted of murder or Survivors of deadly incidents or whatever, those might be good, because they set down in the title exactly what the content will be. Dylan 06:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV issues, hopelessly unable to become something encyclopedia. No existing critera, the mere title of this page sheds light on the impossible subjectivity of it. Yanksox 07:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/clarify. As someone who has edited this page in the past, I can see some value in it - but the current name is too open to individual interpretation, as pointed out above. Grutness...wha? 08:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Hut 8.5 15:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every celebrity will be involved in an incident resulting in death at least once, their own. Danny Lilithborne 20:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete not another list pleaseDroliver 21:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Too macabre --- Skapur 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree with the consensus that this article should be deleted (as it is a pretty broad subject), several narrower lists might be appropriate. like "Celebrities suspected of murder" or "celebrities involved in traffic fatalities" . Maybe better as a category though. FrozenPurpleCube 05:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the scope (how it defined "involved with") is too broad, and this really does not provide any encyclopedic value.-- danntm ^T _C 03:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as noted POV issues make it impossible to define who is included and who excluded. Better yet, I love Danny Lilithborne's excellent point. Gwernol 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sort of stuff WP:LIVING wikipedia biography policy is supposed to prevent. Unsourced or poorly sourced items listed without verification and alleging controversial material. --Eqdoktor 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unmaintainable cruft. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentis the Silver Tongued[edit]

Seems like conjecture or fanfiction of supposed Sith/Dark Jedi from Star Wars, the only reference and Google hit is for http://www.darkjedibrotherhood.com/dbjedi/dsc/dark_jedi_orders.html. Not mentioned on Wookieepedia. Canley 04:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - irrelevant and non-notable fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MER-C 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but add to List of minor Star Wars characters if notable enough. -Freekee 05:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge. I'm not convinced this isn't just a hoax. Serpent's Choice 14:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Serpent's Choice. Danny Lilithborne 20:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe merge but not worth an entry as an article --- Skapur 22:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep - as the notability of the mural is not questioned in this particular AfD (the only argument for deletion that applies to both is the number of Google hits, which is not a valid argument for keeping or deleting anything), the real decision seems to be whether to merge or not, which AfD does not govern. Editors are free to pursue that if they wish as normal, or to make a joint AfD nomination for both articles which does question the notability of the mural. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Frederick Brill[edit]

Nom & vote...
...~~Del~~ on this n-n war-casualty muralist, whose work is lost or decrepit, and who gets GTest

28 of about 131 for "Bardia Mural" -wikipedia -infobox

of which many are garbles or apparent copies from WP.
...Del, unless Merged with Bardia Mural. They are indeed just two angles on one topic, erroneously made each an article, and if the mural is judged notable, merge is a good outcome. The merge would also support a clearer and more orderly consideration of whether the merged Bardia Mural should be deleted for n-n -- which i think it should be, tho that is less screamingly obvious than with the bio.
--Jerzy•t 04:15, 25 & 21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's worse than that... 10 non-Wikipedia ghits of which 4 are from Commons, 3 are from message boards and the rest aren't reliable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. MER-C 04:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep & Cleanup~~ Keep unless Merged This may be a situation where the whole story is greater than the sum of the parts. Individually the mural and the man are not clearly notable though interesting, but the combination of the two and the circumstances of his artistry and death during El Alamein are to me a fascinating and notable story. Applying the notability guidelines requires some good judgment -- this will be a great story in 100 years, when many of our current "notables" will be irrelevant.

At minimum this should be maintained as a redirect to Bardia Mural --Kevin Murray 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP is for knowledge that is presently notable, not about what we think is "interesting", nor an archive of what we think will become notable. But i do find it reasonable to merge with Bardia Mural, without prejudice to any processes for the deletion of the merged article, and have changed my vote accordingly.
--Jerzy•t 21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My but you are strict! But since we are now on the same page, I look forward to a spirited discussion at Bardia Mural. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Cleanup; as stated, they are very similar & neither has a lot of specific information that wouldn't be affected if the articles were merged. SkierRMH 05:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Latter Day Church of Christ[edit]

I have not been able to independently source this article. See here and here. The Prod was removed by a third party without a reason being given. I notified the creator of the Prod but that has not produced any sources. Clearly fails WP:V. Delete. TerriersFan 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 04:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 04:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as I couldn't find anything either, and I think it's clear that this Matthew Gill didn't start any churches. FrozenPurpleCube 06:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, it seems that a group with the name does exist. [8] We may need a redirect to Latter-day Church of Christ instead. FrozenPurpleCube 06:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Latter-day Church of Christ Alf photoman 15:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a merge is not possible because these are different churches in different countries. The Latter-day Church of Christ practice polygamy whereas this lot don't. (There are several churches with similar names). I think the Derbyshire one may well be a hoax. TerriersFan 15:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, that's why a redirect might be the better choice. FrozenPurpleCube 18:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Verifiability is a cornerstone Wikipedia policy. We shouldn't hold on to unverifiable information, hoping someone will come along and rectify it. -/- Warren 10:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Warren --BenWhitey 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 03:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Shorinjiryu Karatedo[edit]

delete Small grouping of clubs - relatively recent independent creation (split) from a more notable organization that itself is a relatively small branch of karatePeter Rehse 04:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. MER-C 05:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks sufficient notability, source for article is only the subject web site Gnangarra 14:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 06:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shorinjiryu Kenkokan Karate —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 05:21Z

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 05:20Z

Robert Spencer/Criticism Temp[edit]

The slash in the title causes problems for listing for AfD. Here's the URL. Fixed. MER-C 07:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This "article" is a "sandbox" -- a test/organizational area -- that has been allowed to exist as a free-standing entry. There are obvious issues of balance, plus the ethical issues connected to the continued existence of a hidden, unanswered collection of criticisms of Robert Spencer, about whom a larger, public Wikipedia article exists. Dy-no-miite 05:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neglected draft, no substantial edits since creation in January this year. MER-C 07:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ask User:Robert Spencer first, including via his email address if known. Anthony Appleyard 08:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? He's not meant to be editing his own article, anyway, per WP:COI. He's certainly not meant to decide whether criticism of him and his works should be included in Wikipedia, or not. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Dy-no-miite and MER-C. Clearly not an articleAnneCr 15:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene bernofsky[edit]

Neutral bump up from contested speedy. There's an assertion to notability on the talk page and this article is one of the external links. No opinion. Kchase T 05:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable: Google found only 158 pages (76 after Google eliminated duplicates). Anthony Appleyard 08:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO - crz crztalk 09:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Kalani ^[talk] 21:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. DrKiernan 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and redirect to dredg. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 05:17Z

Conscious (EP)[edit]

The band is notable, but an unreleased demo tape by them is not. I tagged this for prod: notice was removed without notability being added. Could be a redirect, but how many people will look for an unreleased demo tape? Vizjim 06:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hey, dredg is a great band, but this isn't notable, nor is it cited (or likely to be citable in principle; Conscious sounds more like a rumor than a fact). Dylan 06:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 07:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources --Skapur 22:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 07:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by someone else - crz crztalk 09:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Carlsson[edit]

Article about a programmer at Apple Computer, doesn't have much information or seem to assert notability at all. —Cleared as filed. 06:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Being part of a development team is not an assertion of notability, and there are no sources to back up the statement. ((db-bio)) tag added to article accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 07:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drunkball[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. This is an article about a drinking game that is mostly an unsourced essay about the rules. The game only gets 300 Google hits, none of which appear to be usable as reliable sources. Dylan 06:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's obvious nonsense, especially in that last paragraph. TJ Spyke 06:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not relevant to the world at large, and silly. Down the -atory with it. Anthony Appleyard 08:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete frat drinking games and wikipedia go together like a mongoose and a cobra —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris Item (talk • contribs) 11:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete trash. Danny Lilithborne 20:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source cited --- Skapur 22:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it makes no attempt to assert in noteworthiness, at least the History section is good for a laugh in a waste everybody's time kind of way. Quadzilla99 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 05:16Z

Eric Rudder[edit]

Nomination for deletion Senior Microsoft executive but not senior enough for Wikipedia. His current rank appears to be Senior Vice President, Technical Strategy, one of 9 Senior Vice Presidents on Microsoft's current Senior Leadership Team. He gets quite a bit of tech press/website mentions in the 100,000+ ghits he gets[9], but this is part of his job at a prominent company - communicating Microsoft technical strategy to journalists. This doesn't make him an encyclopedically notable executive though - not even everyone on the Microsoft board of directors (which he isn't) is an encyclopedically notable person Bwithh 06:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the article or his microsoft bio passes WP:BIO guidlines. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination --Kevin Murray 06:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I work extensively on Microsoft articles, and this guy's name has never come up in any of my research. -/- Warren 10:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 05:15Z

It's My Body[edit]

Nomination for deletion Ah, the joys of Wikipedia:Random_page_patrol in turning up such nuggets (end plug). See the Votes for Deletion discussion on this 1985 porno flick from way waaay back in February 2004[10], which revolved around whether Wikipedia is or is not "Pornopedia" (plus some confusion about how to go about verifying the article) and ended in an apparent keep consensus. But let's get back to today and also the nascent guidelines on film notability[11]. How is this film encyclopedically notable? Well, there is a claim that at the time of its international release it was controversial and banned in several countries with significant press coverage (it's not clear why this film in particular is supposed to have been so much more controversial (the underwear sucking? the orgy scene?) than the 1000s of other porn films around). I can't find sources to confirm the controversy. There are 2 hits in the Factiva news database for this title - news stories from July 1986 about the revelation that Traci Lords was underage in a number of films, including this one (which gets a very passing mention). Fails WP:V for claims of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 07:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another routine porn movie. Wikipedia is not the porn industry's free billboard. Anthony Appleyard 07:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability and verifiability established. MER-C 08:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another porn movie, with nothing notable about it. Jayden54 22:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that notability is claimed, but no sources to back this notability up, so still delete unless some reliable sources are added to show notability. Jayden54 22:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral. Although I'm typically inclined to delete adult films, as very few of the thousands of them have any features at all that cna remotely assert notability (or even differentiation from the pack), this appears to have two factors in its favor. First, Traci Lords is not a random adult performer, but one of the most recognized names in the recent industry, in part due to the controversy around her age (which is itself germane to this article) and in part because she made a successful transition to mainstream acting. Furthermore, if this movie did indeed generate sufficient controversy to be banned in parts of Europe (other than where its content would generate an auto-ban, as in the UK), that would contribute to notability as well. I cannot imagine that very many adult films could offer more claim to notability without Deep Throat and the handful of others that have reached universal recognition. Serpent's Choice 22:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination asserted that this article fails WP:V for the claims of encyclopedic notability, not that there were no claims made. The article has been around since Feb 2004 (and received significant editor attention in a VfD), so that's ample time for refs supporting the special controversy/ban claim to show up - but they haven't, and a Factiva news database sweep showed nothing except the underage issue which would cover all the films Traci Lords made before the age of 18, not just this one in particular.Bwithh 22:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed this article had been around that long. Assuming that there really was public debate in Belgium and a newspaper article in Turkey, I'd stand by my comment, but I can't find them either, so I'll just back out of the discussion. Perhaps a means to address the underage issue is to expand the list in the Traci Lords article to mention all such films, without then requiring articles for each of them (barring other notability issues; her first such movie probably counts?). I know the Italian WP contains a comprehensive list that could be adapted to that purpose. Serpent's Choice 23:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, AfD does not govern merges and editors are free to pursue that as usual. I should note that more obviously reliable sources (such as the Hindustan Times) have been added to the article since this AfD began. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Greenwood[edit]

Non-notable, girlfriend of former athlete Oden 08:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Only semi-notable per UK coverage of the incident: but this is a global encyclopedia. This can always be transwiki'd to a showbiz wiki, if someone has one. --SunStar Net^talk 11:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relevant parts of the article in question could be merged into Richard Green, provided that the latter article meets the criteria for notability. My main concern is that the only reason for notability regarding Katie Greenwood seems to be a possible future sexual encounter (see [12]). The question is: does that meet the guideline (Wikipedia:Notability (people))? --Oden 14:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fabhcún 20:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sourced soon. Seems like this could be notable, but WP:BLP does apply, and there is nothing cited with a reliable source (I don't think www.howardstern.com counts, as I'm not certain what fact-checking goes on there.). If no reliable sources have picked this up, then we have our answer regarding notability as well. - Aagtbdfoua 21:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Richard Green and source. Not notable enough for a whole own article but merged together with the Green article and with some reliable sources it would pass the notability guidelines. Of course, if no reliable sources can be found, then just delete the article. Jayden54 22:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the former girlfriend of a pro athlete and being on Howard Stern is not enough, especially without any verification from reliable sources to pass the notability guidelines for people. Further, considering the content, we must remain mindful of our policy for biographies for living people.-- danntm ^T _C 03:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Richard Green per Jayden54. Certainly interesting but not notable by itself --Kevin Murray 06:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Threesomes don't make a person notable. -/- Warren 10:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Green was a very minor cricketer, who never really made it as a professional. Nathanian 20:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dare I say keep? Hedge that with whether we get some better sources than one Howard Stern mention, but it seems like she'd easily reach WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Richard Green stand alone article fails WP:V, WP:RS, a ménage à trois per se does not confer notability nor does being the girlfriend of an athlete do so.--Dakota 05:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event was widely publicised across the globe at the time. I've added a couple more sources to the article and am in the process of looking for more. Hiyahiyahiya 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Richard Green per Jayden54. This article is solely about the threesome, which seems notable enough given the cited sources, but there is very little biographical information here. -SpuriousQ 00:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richard Green (cricketer) or weak Keep. Found another media article: [13] —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 05:13Z
Merge as above; this suffers from V & RS on its own, but would fit well into the 'parent' article. SkierRMH 05:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 05:01Z

Eugene Nalimov[edit]

Non-notable biography with little potential for expansion. Computer chess is an interesting field of research, but Nalimov is only a footnote. It is difficult to accurately assess the importance of Nalimov tablebases to chess computing in general, as the format is likely to become an intermediary to some greater solution. The only posited proof of notability, the ChessBase award, is more of a symbollic gesture offered by a small company to up-and-coming enthusiast researchers. It is not a notable award in the chess world and it is not granted by a major chess publication. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom; the only question I had was to the notability of the ChessBase award, and based on the nominator and what I can find on it online, its notability appears weak in terms of granting notability to the subject of this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ChessBase is probably the most important maker of chess programs (their Fritz (chess) played with the World Champion Kramnik recently, and won) and chess databases. And Nalimov is well known in the chess computing circles.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since we have a dispute between the nominator and Ioannes Pragensis as to the notability of the award in question, and assuming that each assertion is made in good faith, why not risk error on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. The rest of the nomination criteria seems to be based on primary research or subjective opinions of the nominator niether of which is a valid argument in the Wikipedia world. In reading through many google hits, it seems that Nalimov is a chess celebrity and this is not a vanity article. --Kevin Murray 06:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Kevin Murray. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There is no harm of keeping it. meta:Wiki_is_not_paper and disk space is cheap. This article will probably be recreated in the future if it is deleted. 71.175.41.54 15:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Kevin Murray and above --BenWhitey 03:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Usmanov[edit]

WP:V, WP:BIO. There aren't multiple non-trivial reliable source about this person. - crz crztalk 09:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find much about this person through Google and nothing through Google News, although I did find a few Human Rights Watch mentions, but I don't think that it makes this person notable enough. Jayden54 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all but 22 of the webhits are wikipedia/mirrors and notes in a sticker campaign titled "who Killed Farhad Usmanov". Nothing implies notability in his own right. Have found a source but as all that was notable was the exectution it's a permastubarticle.- Peripitus (Talk) 22:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. Nuttah68 09:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Farhad Usmanov, Фархад Усманов, Farkhad Usmanov; still no evidence of multiple instances of independent coverage specifically about him, only peripheral mentions. cab 07:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Bearcat. MER-C 10:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Giannasio[edit]

A page about a living "New York based Artist", whose rather unusual name gets just 34 hits at Google, most of which turn out to be for a presumably unrelated Hawaii-based psychiatrist. The article is modestly written (the capital "A" in artist is probably just a typo) and of course Notability (people) is a mere guideline (as is the possibly relevant WP:AUTO), "Notability (people)" does talk of Painters, sculptors, ... whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field and I see no evidence of this here. I suggest waiting till Giannasio makes a slightly bigger impact. -- Hoary 09:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. janejellyroll 09:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:V. MER-C 09:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no assertion of notability, then the article qualifies for a speedy delete. So tagged. Tubezone 10:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Robinson[edit]

Obvious hoax; there is no Silver Ferns player with this name ([14]). Ziggurat 10:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 14:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 20:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax Jayden54 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Mhking 16:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No such person. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 10:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. This result does not change depending on whether or not we discount the comments from the people who were contacted on their talk page about this AfD (see this discussion's talk page). Sandstein 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious perspectives on dinosaurs[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)).

I nominate the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article for deletion for the following reasons:

The first section mentions how this issue is inextricably intertwined with evolution; really, this article is simply a part of Creation-evolution controversy and is largely covered there.
Dinosaurs in the Bible is not that important; it isn't very prominent, and seems to simply be a duplicate of rather unreliable stuff from the Behemoth article.
Dinosaurs according to the metaphorical take on various scriptures doesen't really say anything at all and is totally unsourced.
Dinosaurs in Young Earth Creationism is already covered in Young Earth Creationism and this section adds nothing not said there.
Earth created with age's only source is a site criticizing the viewpoint, and again, is covered by various creationism articles.
Jehovah's Witnesses section is already covered in Beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, and again, is simply an outgrowth of rejection of evolution – they believe dinosaurs are ancient, they simply don't believe in evolution, and I'm not sure if this is independently notable.
This page is essentially fundamentalist Christian perspectives on dinosaurs, and no one has added any other religious perspectives to the article even months after a call for them to do so.

If this article IS deleted, being a subarticle of the Dinosaur article, some of it would need to go into that article. I think a simple mention that the antiquity of dinosaurs is rejected by young earth creationists, and those who reject evolution don't believe in the notion that dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern species. As this is basically all the article says anyway, and we can simply link to Creationism and/or creation-evolution controversy in the section, I don't see any reason not to do this. It is not very important to the Dinosaur article, and as it is sufficiently covered by creationism and related articles I see no need for this article, as it isn't really notable in and of itself. Titanium Dragon 10:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's nothing in this article which isn't covered in the various others on creationism. Tevildo 12:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to related articles, otherwise delete. Dinosaur doesn't need an extensive section on it - it's a scientific article, not a religious one. Hut 8.5 12:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is useful to Dinos and delete the rest Alf photoman 15:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come on... this is purely speculative. Wikipedia is not a church, it is a place for facts and fact is that dinosaurs predate mankind by a wide margin. Dinosaurs in the old testament? Are you kidding me? The people who wrote the old testament had little if any knowledge of dinosaurs at all. MartinDK 15:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that people hold these beliefs. It is also a fact that people have posted evidence for and against these beliefs. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE How embarassing for us all that something like this that isn't based in knowledge and fact would appear in an encyclopaedia. Brian1975 15:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. Danny Lilithborne 20:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Also, don't merge any of this into the Dinosaur article; that article is about actual dinosaurs and scientific information concerning them. We don't need religious speculation in that article. --The Way 21:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So I'll comment, since I created the article originally, and since I've been one of the core editors on the Dinosaur article since January 2006. Basically, there were around two years of constant tussling over the presence and nature of a religious views paragraph in the main article on Dinosaurs (check that article's talk archives to see what I mean). Relocating the content to the Religious Perspectives article was a compromise solution, and one that has almost entirely prevented subsequent conflict in the parent article.

Would I personally prefer that "religious perspectives on dinosaurs" not be a topic covered by Wikipedia? Surely; I also personally think that being overly inclusive is not a useful exercise.

However... the presence of this article has contributed in a significant and very positive way to the quality of the parent article since I started editing it in January 2006. Christian-viewpoint editors -- who are legion on Wikipedia, and who might have been tempted to add to the Dinosaurs article, as happened constantly prior to the creation of the religious perspectives fork, have instead worked to improve the sub-article (where the content is more appropriate). And the content IS appropriate, I should emphasize -- it's reasonable to include significant minority perspectives about dinosaurs in Wikipedia even if they aren't "scientific."

If the religious perspectives article is deleted, we can look forward to many more disagreements over the addition of religious perspectives information to the parent article... Killdevil 02:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, that's not a reason to keep an article. Yeah, defacement is annoying, but really, I don't even think there are that many even looking at the article; they've probably all moved onto Evolution, Noah's Ark, Pope Benedict XVI, and similar articles by now. Bowing down to trolls is not a good policy, though, and we have to keep the standards up. And if we link to the creationism and similar articles, won't they be diverted there anyway? Or we could just remove it as irrelevant junk not supported by RSs. Titanium Dragon 04:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR Keep, not Merge with Dinosaur. I don't care wheter this article stays or goes, but I strongly oppose merge the content back into Dinosaur. The reason this article was created in the first place was to keep the embarrassing, barely-relevant creationist perspectives on dinosaurs out of the main dinosaur article. Any attempts to integrate this content back into that article will be reverted immediately by the editors of Dinosaur who have been content with the existance of the article as a comprimise since last June. Dinoguy2 15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fully understand the situation you are experiencing. However, granting these people their own article to continue this nonsense is not the way to deal with vandalism of the Dinosaur article. If your article is vandalized again they should be warned/blocked/banned. I am saying this to you in full respect and understanding of your situation but we need to be firm on this. People who vandalize by adding nonsense must be blocked, not granted their own article to keep soapboxing. MartinDK 16:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to preserve the intergrity of the Dinosaur article. There is no question that Wikipedia should report on the scientifically nonsensical and misguided attempts of some religious groups to discredit the established fossil record. The article makes clear in a neutral manner the fact that these movements place themselves in contradiction to entire fields of geology and biology. The existence of such views among fringe groups has been reported on in many major media sources, and keeping the article does not validate their ideas. "Delete because it's all unscientific nonsense" is not a valid argument, since if that were the case we'd have to delete Flat Earth, Time Cube, and Greys. Keeping Andrew Levine 23:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for deletion is not that it is unscientific nonsense; the reason it has been proposed fo deletion is that the article is not independently notable. That is to say, it is essentially a part of creation-evolution controversy; the entire article is duplication of what is said elsewhere in Wikipedia in the relevant articles. Being unscientific is not a reason to delete something; not being notable and being a dupe of other material is. Titanium Dragon 01:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I feel sympathy for the editors trying to keep nonsense and cruft out of the dinosaur article, but to create a POV fork for that purpose is the wrong solution. Send editors who wish to edit about such stuff to Creation-Evolution controvery, Young Earth Creationism, etc. I'm sorry your job is hard sometimes, but this article is nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above Tonytypoon 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete, DO NOT merge, per Dinoguy2 above. Article Dinosaur is a Featured Article, consisting of useful, verifiable information of an encyclopedic nature. Creationist cruft gets sent to Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, and we frequently delete attempts to add religious stuff to Dinosaur or any of the genera articles, directing them here. I am very concerned that this well-meaninged attempt to rid Wikipedia of a bad article will eventually cause the excellent Dinosaur article, which receives 1.5 million visitors a year, to suffer. The people who attempt to add material of a religious nature to Dinosaur are not vandals, and cannot be blocked (an admin who blocked a user for adding sourced material could lose his or her admin buttons). This article at the very least gives those users something to edit. Whatever happens, this material must not be merged into Dinosaur. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be blocked unless they're being disruptive; as I pointed out above - a link to Creationism would divert them, and obviously it could be explained why it is inappropriate for the article. POV Forking is unacceptable. Yeah, I know, it sucks dealing with unreasonable Creationists sometimes, but it happens, and if the article is really that popular, it is probably well policed. I'm sure we could deal. Titanium Dragon 11:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting unsourced obviously non-factual information in an article is vandalism by the very definition of the word. choosing not to deal with them through the usual channels for doing so and allowing a POV fork instead is unacceptable. Once again I appreciate your situation and your desire to keep the article at its high level of quality but this is not the way to do so. If an admin is taken to ArbCom and desysopped for blocking a user for claiming that dinosaurs were alive during biblical times I will be there, defending him with my teeth! MartinDK 12:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last time this was a major issue in the dinosaur article, we had an admin involved in the debate -- he blocked people who violated 3RR by removing religious language from the article... which is just to say that many of the people who have commented here are dedicated to keeping "science" articles "scientific" but that this is NOT a universal sentiment among editors on Wikipedia, and not among admins either. This fork was a reaction to the difficulty we had in keeping religious language from creeping into the article. Killdevil 13:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the last 1000 edits it seems apparent that the vandalism from anons haven't stopped although they are of a different nature now. Second, the insertion of POV non-sourced information prior to the forking came primarily, at the end anyway, from one anon with a static IP. But this is also about something bigger than the Dino article. It is about the fact that these people effectively bullied their way to an article that shouldn't be here. And that is unacceptable. As for 3RR it does not apply to fighting vandalism and as mentioned above there should be plenty of people policing this article. MartinDK 14:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that during the recent December ArbCom elections, at least one editor ran for ArbCom on the platform of a "zero tolerance policy for administrative misconduct: any administrator who abuses administrative privilege (where "abuses" means uses in a manner inconsistent with policy where such use tends to create or intensify a disruption in Wikipedia") will be, at the very least, temporarily suspended as an administrator. Admins on Wikipedia have had a free hand for too long." This candidate also stated "If the advocates for the scientific point of view comport themselves rudely and disruptively, while the advocates for creation science comport themselves politely, the creation science people will be the ones left standing and allowed to write the article." and received 41 votes of support. While the people who have voted above seem to support a scientific basis for Wikipedia's dinosaur articles, it is not a foregone conclusion that an administrator who acted to protect a scientific interpretation of Dinosaur would be able to retain his/her adminship privledges, as more than 40 people supported a candidate who would desysop an admin who used Admin tools to protect an article from a non-scientific standpoint.

Keeping this article around at least means the Dinosaur article is free from Creationist cruft and pseudoscience; in this sense, Religious perspectives on dinosaurs is very much Wikipedia's chicken article. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect for your arguments that one candidate was Kelly Martin and the community showed her exactly what they think of her if you look through the vote sheet. This is exactly why we need rouge admins! This is pseudoscience and and Wikipedia is not for things made up in sunday school. I for one would rather fight for the people who care about the integrity of Wikipedia than give in to people who bully their way into Wikipedia. As for the 3RR blocks such blocks are not warranted because 3RR does not apply when fighting vandalism. The day you negotiate with vandals is the day Wikipedia truly looses its integrity and the critics of our project wins. For the good of Wikipedia please do not let this happen. In case you didn't notice I am on your side. MartinDK 07:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I fully understood your argument, and that you fully support a scientific basis for Wikipedia's Dinosaur article. My point was simply that not everyone sees it that way, and both regular users and admins need to be careful when editing/blocking, as those priviledges (editing and blocking, respectively) can be taken away if the majority of the group decides maintaining a scientific point of view, and reverting non-science edits, is "abuse". You stated above you would fight for an admin who was taken to ArbCom over protecting an article from Creationist POV edits, but that does no good if 41 others support desysopping an "abusive" admin, right? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were 263 people who strongly opposed. I don't think it is hopeless to fight for an admin who supports a scientific basis :) Those 41 supporters need to be put in perspective. I understand your situation but if you have succesfully kept this stuff out of the dino article by keeping this article then surely you could redirect the same people to the creationism article instead rather than keep this blatant example of unsourced pseudoscience. MartinDK 07:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so the main dinosaur article doesn't become contaminated by religion. Starghost (talk | contribs) 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mainly to avoid edit warring in the main dinosaur article. Not a great reason; but a useful compromise. ^ross ^nixon 04:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Forking is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. This is not a reason to support keeping the article. Titanium Dragon 08:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Deserves its own article --Mb1000 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Keep, but DO NOT merge, per Dinoguy2 above. Scientific articles should not have this kind of speculation in them. Geologyguy 04:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but it is not a solely scientific encyclopedia. We have articles on the Simpsons and King of the Hill...cartoons! Not to mention the hundreds or thousands of other "non-scientific" articles! Look at the language of those voting "delete": "those people", "not based on facts", "pseudoscience", etc., and tell me this is not a POV nom. While the ideas and beliefs discussed and described in the article may not be based on "facts", their very existence is fact. This article describes verifiable beliefs held by millions of people worldwide. Of course it's "not a scientific" treatise on the existence of dinosaurs, it isn't meant to be -- it's an article describing beliefs of various groups. Definite keep.--WilliamThweatt 04:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't independently notable; we don't have articles for every minor character in every TV show, or indeed articles for every TV show, simply -notable- ones. This isn't independently notable as the entire article is already in creation-evolution controversy and most of the article doesn't really say anything at all. Titanium Dragon 08:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge to Young Earth creationism (don't merge to Dinosaur). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 05:00Z
Keep Wikipedia has tons of non-scientific articles... articles on history, on culture, and even on religion. The information in this article is notable, and even factual, in that it factual presents opinions that exist. The only problem I have with this article is the way it's written... I think it should be improved - not deleted. Tzepish 05:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether I agree or not should not become a standard for the inclusion of a WP article. Looking back over the history, I see how this article came to be ... However, it would seem to make the most sense to merge this article with creationism or young earth creationism - the two places where it is a significant issue. Pastordavid 05:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Although I believe that that there are no dinosaurs in the bible, and a lot of the material is untrue, I would be loathe to lose this kind of material from Wikipedia. It is invaluable to know what some religious groups think. How can we judge the opposition if we do not know what they think? It is a very bad idea to remove all things we disagree with. I am pleading to keep this, even though I probably have less belief in its credibility than anyone else on this page.--Filll 06:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fill, the argument for this deletion has nothing to do with whether or not it is real; that is irrelevant. It is just a part of creation-evolution controversy/young Earth creationism, and is not notable independently - it shouldn't have an article for the reason that the information is already elsewhere in far more relevant articles which are actually notable in and of themselves. Titanium Dragon 08:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is part of the overarching topics of Creationism or creation-evolution controversy/young Earth creationism. And the article clearly started as a FORK. However, those other articles are approaching excessive lengths. Should it be linked in better with other topics in creationism? Yes clearly it should. But I think that is no reason to delete it. Creationism is an immense field full of all kinds of amazing material (crazy to me, but amazing). I want to have it easily accessible. And pushing it all into a couple of mega articles is not helpful for accessibility. Look, as I said before, I cannot stand the nonscientific creationist stance, as many who have seen my comments know. However, how can I defend myself against these nuts if I do not know what they think?--Filll 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the best argument in favor of keeping it that I have heard so far. I guess that would make a good argument... keep it and let them expand it so everyone is aware of what kind of lunacy the people at the dino article are up against. The article still violates policy but at least it is a consistent argument. MartinDK 12:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and KillerChihuahua. This content belongs in creationism-related articles. ~CS 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and merge any unique material into appropriate Creationism articles Cas Liber 07:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is innocuous to collect items from other parts of Wikipedia here. I agree with User:Filll. It is not just a matter of creationism. It relates to what is said in tours of natural history museums by fundamentalist school groups. Carrionluggage 07:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes it a part of creationism does it not? It has been stated to be a POV fork of the article Dinosaur by the people who made it; moreover, as you yourself have pointed out, it is simply creationists who are described here, and it already is in other creationist articles. Why duplicate material when we can simply redirect appropriately? Titanium Dragon 08:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Criticism of... articles aren't POV forks? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 13:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. Created Jan. 06 as a compromise to end an edit war. Has never been developed to reflect its title, rather it remains fork for creationism and isn't sufficiently notable for a separate article. Vsmith 12:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On 11/25 both Guettarda and I added fact tags to the article, to date, none of them have been resolved. Surely a month is sufficient time to improve the article. Also, while the intended purpose of what appears to me now to have been a POV fork was to keep the lunacy out of the main dinosaur article, surely there are better ways to do that. This nonsense is essentially a fringe belief, and at best merits no more than a few lines. Jim62sch 13:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The article can be useful as long as it contains a minority standpoint that should be known. Alternatively, it can be merged with another article that does include information about Bible-science discussions. Summer Song 16:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it keeps devotees busy here instead of monkeying (sort of a pun on Darwinism) with school curricula. I say, leave it. I have had most of my friends in gales of laughter when informing them that Wikipedia has hosted discussions of how many and what species of dinosaur were carred on Noah's Ark. And an in-law who took a (purportedly non-secular, commercial) tour to the Grand Tetons was told by the tour guide that these mountains were carved out by the Great Flood. A shame to silence or compress stuff like this - it beats the Marx Brothers and The Onion. Carrionluggage 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. While deletion might, in the short term, benefit Wikipedia by removing an OR/essay-like article, it would just be throwing the ball back to the editors at Dinosaur. These editors haveobviously worked very hard in writing that article. They've attempted to balance their desire for a cohesive, factual article with the desire of other users to see minority views covered. Religious perspectives on dinosaurs seems to be their compromise solution, much like, at Abortion, we have Religion and abortion. Eliminating Religious perspectives would trigger an exodus of information to the most likely alternate candidate: Dinosaur. Editors unfamiliar with the history of Dinosaur and its sub-articles would perceive a void, and fill it by shoehorning even longer, more poorly-researched, and off-topic additions into that article. In the short term, an OR piece would be removed, but, in the long term, the stability and quality of a Featured Article would be negatively effected. I think, ultimately, preserving the quality of an FA is more important than deleting OR, because OR can be developed. Religious perspectives in its current form is a stopgap solution, and, obviously, was meant to be developed further. Buddhist, Islamic, Judaic, and non-fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian persepectives shouldn't be too hard to find with proper research. -Severa (!!!) 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion is a highly controversial topic. That article serves a purpose because it is rooted in current events. Since when have elections been influenced on Christian views on dinos? How many people do you see standing outside natural history museums protesting dinos being portrayed as predating mankind? I have every bit of respect for the people who worked on the FA article. Fantastic job. But if we follow your suggestion we might as well scrap WP:OR and WP:V and refer people to start their own soapboxes. It is not the way to go, for the better of Wikipedia as a whole. MartinDK 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Who says abortion is a "highly controversial" topic? Or even a political one? It is, by the simplest definition, a medical topic, and should require no more ideological forks or coverage than appendectomy. But, this does not remove the fact that many people construe it as a deeply political and ethical topic. As much as I would like to take a strictly "firm" approach to Abortion in terms of notability, verifiability, etc. (Do we really need a "Fetal pain" sub-section?), I have found all efforts toward this end to be disasterous. If you brook no concession ever, you're forgetting that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and is intended to be inclusive of many POVs. Thus, "firm, but fair" is my solution at Abortion; we compromise sometimes, attempt to accommodate editorial concerns/minority views sometimes, but, ultimately, only to a point. I see the situation at Dinosaur as being analogous to our own; they have accommodated minority views, but drawn a line, and said, "No more." These sorts of compromises are fair and have led to relative stability on both Dinosaur and Abortion. I appreciate your efforts to try to preserve article integrity against OR and NPOVUW violations, but, again, there needs to be compromise. And, as for giving people their own "soapboxes," POV forks off major articles are nothing novel: Homosexuality and religion, Religion and abortion, Religion and sexuality, Slavery and religion, Fascism and religion, Religion and the internet, Gender and religion, Religion and politics. Obviously, general religious forks have precedent on Wikipedia, but forking by religion or denomination do not (see a recent AfD nomination). -Severa (!!!) 18:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a very cogent statement, and one of a few very good reasons to keep Religious perspectives on dinosaurs around. Killdevil 21:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, Severa, Abortion is clearly an ethical topic, not just for christians. And Abortion is quite another topic. Summer Song 15:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (with redirect, keeping history visible) into main article dinosaur; not too long to fit there. If the information about a particular religion's view of dinosaurs becomes sufficiently long and sourced, it can be split back off as "Dinosaurs in Catholicism/Protestantism/Judaism/Islam/Shintoism/Gnosticism/Scientology/Discordianism/whatever." The third and fifth sections should probably be dropped unless and until sources can be provided. Neon Merlin 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dinosaur is already 67 kb long. Please see Wikipedia:Article size, specifically "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. " and "For science or technical articles, where higher concentration levels are needed [...] extra prudence may be required. In other words, limitations to online reading may apply even more for technical articles." Firsfron of Ronchester 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not merge. Of course this is essentially part of the controversy between creation and evolution, but there is no reason for having only one article about that controversy. For instance regarding Roman Catholic sacraments there are plenty of articles, and essentially these are all about believing or not in the holiness of such. Mixing the non-scientifical approach of the world with one that is based on scientific empirism, is bound to continuously jeopardize the objectivity and quality of an article and cause truly endless discussions, for water and fire cannot be one. The current weasel wording in the style of some people does however require naming at least a few people or groups of people with a proper source. The article is not a soapbox and must maintain Wikipedia standards; its talk page may hold the soapbox function as this is far from uncommon on Wikipedia. — SomeHuman 30 Dec2006 20:35 (UTC)
Keep, Everyone needs to be aware of what's going on with how people are dealing with dinosaurs religious wize and fix it so it can be an NPOV wikified article the way it's supposed to be.--Crazyharp81602 06:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My deepest sympathies with those editors dealing with vandalism of their beloved dinosaur article. Seriously. However, we Wikipedians tend to be smart... clever even. I'm sure someone can come up with a way to prevent this other than having an article which consists entirely of information available in other Wikipedia articles, and whose context is only clear when more is said about the religious views spawning it. Also, I find the argument that "this needs to be included so I know how religious people deal with dinosaurs" deeply flawed, because the vast majority of Christians, many of my family and friends included (full disclosure for COI purposes: I am not a Christian), are not biblical literalists, and "believe" in evolution, so to speak. If the subject's notability rests entirely on the fact that a sub-group of a religion holds its belief, then that subject's notability will depend partly on how notable that group is, and Creationists are not as notable as Christians generally (through they may be more outspoken). On the other hand, part of the notability of a belief is unrelated to the groups which hold it: to think otherwise is to think that every belief, held by any notable group is therefore notable, and this is obviously untrue. Charlie 12:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I change my mind to a clear request for keeping it. There have already been many long discussions regarding several articles about which ones should be merged or kept as an independent article. If this article was deleted, it would not make the discussion more easy. And I clearly think that the information in the article is something that should be known. I feel that many in here just want the article away because they do not like the viewpoints the article describes. Summer Song 14:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To give some additional comments: Wikipedia shall not proclaim christian standpoints. Wikipedia shall not proclaim creationist standpoints. But it shall not proclaim anti-christian or anti-religious standpoints either. And it shall not proclaim a point of view that it is only sickness or madness that cause someone doubt the main evolution theory, or other teachings that is generally considered proven as fact. It may seem like many in this discussion just want to mock every attempt to question the evolution theory or other scientific thoughts. There are several types of creation beliefs. There are some creation beliefs that are just laughable, but there are also some with at least some more educated thoughts. And that is exactly what this article is talking about. The article presents various thoughts that are held by religions on the topic. I think that the article has a value. Summer Song 15:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Geez... calm down. No need for the personal attacks. A bit of assuming good faith would be nice here. I am not anti-christian and I never called anyone sick or mad. Yes, the article represents a point of view but nothing else. Where are the reliable sources? Where can I verify that this in fact is not something made up? Those are answers that ALL Wikipedia articles must provide answers to, not just the Christian ones. I have been called everything from a islaomphobist, anti-jew, dumb liberal to stone-age conservative here. But never anti-christian. That was a new one. MartinDK 15:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because otherwise this material will keep finding it's way back into the main dinosaur article, and lead to endless problems there. Besides, as a viewpoint with so many supporters, it does deserve an article (however, probably a shorter one, in more of a neutral point of view). Why delete when rewriting solves problems? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment POV forking is allowed if the minority view is culturally important (read: notable) in and of itself. Persistent vandalism of the nature described here is but one of the signs that another view should be accomodated in a separate article. This is why Bigfoot isn't part of the primates article and why flat earth isn't part of the earth article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forking isn't the main issue here. The main issue is that the article viokates WP:OR and WP:V. If we are to invoke the "exceptions can be made in special cases" argument then we need to make it clear here that we are not endorsing this way of dealing with vandalism. Otherwise this is just a way of bending the policies that ensures the integrity of Wikipedia. Also, it is worth noting that all articles must meet these requirements. There are no exceptions for special minority groups. Having ones wievs on Wikipedia is not a right, all articles must meet the same requirements. I appreciate the difficult situation for the people at the dino article but I am also concerned about Wikipedia as a whole. MartinDK 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regardless of whether much of the material of the article has been discussed elswhere, the present article draws together the variety of thoughts about a topic which constitutes a major point of contention between scientists and many religious individuals and groups.

The subject of the article is not the presentation of facts from a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. The subject of the article is that such differences of philosophy and opinion exist, and what those differences are. Any belief that is held by a significant number of people is worthy of an encyclopedic article in an encyclopedia that can afford to be as large and diverse as this one. I do think that it would be good to get paragraphs written by people who are familiar with viewpoints other than Jewish and Christian ones. As for the balance of opinion, the article states that within these faiths there is both acceptance and non-acceptance of the scientific assessment of the evidence. Note that I have done a little rewriting, because we are dealing essentialy with belief rather than fact. We now have disagreement with or support for theory or assessment rather than disagreement with "fact". This honours the "fact" that the article deals with "ideas" and has moved from the realm of science to the realm of philosophy. --Amandajm 10:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bumblebee (rapper)[edit]

Notability concerns. MidgleyDJ 10:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel this is a legitimate page and the artist is significant enough within a political arena to warrant its existence — 149.167.150.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Had to fix this one... By the way, how do you think this guy passes WP:MUSIC? MER-C 11:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 11:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - negligible Ghits, non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Robertissimo 17:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC; hasn't even got a single album (or song?) yet. Jayden54 22:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. --Dennisthe2 23:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; this guy is nothing, article is not even formatted correctly.--C J King 18:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, take to WP:RfD -SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM Advertising Controversy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The redirect uses an acronym IIPM in its name IIPM Advertising Controversy but there are many institutions that go by the name IIPM. Further, current naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Send to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion AfD is the wrong place to discuss redirects. – Eastmain (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was already deleted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sugababes conspiracy theories[edit]

This appears to be a hoax, with absolutely no ghits whatsoever for it. It appears to be listcruft or may be an attack page. I suspect this may well be a hoax, because there are no references or sources cited. SunStar Net^talk 11:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - made up in school one day - Peripitus (Talk) 11:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Someone tagged it with ((db-attack)). MER-C 11:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While there may be some truth to the suggestion that the Sugababes are part of an organized conspiracy to promote catfighting, this article is just unreferenced disparagement and should be speedy deleted as an attack page - not to mention a rank violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - besides, criticisms should go on band's main page. Authors other edit was spam for a MySpace page, and is up for speedy-d. Tubezone 11:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's either non-notable, a hoax, made up in school one day or an attack page... just delete it. Hut 8.5 12:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per ((db-attack)) as already tagged. Serious BLP problems. -- Kicking222 13:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Kicking222 Alf photoman 15:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Cryptic 16:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha-Marie[edit]

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:BIO, and there are no sources cited for anything in the article. It appears to be an advertisement masquerading as an article, and there is nothing in this article that asserts the subject's notability. SunStar Net^talk 11:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - being popular on myspace isn't an assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per ((db-bio)). Considering she only hs 23 MySpace friends, and most of them are models, I think I'm three times more popular than her on MySpace (and I don't use MySpace). -- Kicking222 13:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not enough of assertion of notability. Hello32020 14:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Being a "dating expert" is an easy claim to make, but more difficult to prove -- in this case there is no indication of notability (I performed some web searches and all I found was her Myspace profile). Bonadea 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barteaux toy drive[edit]

Zero google hits; appears to be thinly-veiled promotion of insignificant band; no citations ($150,000 in donations & toys & no mention anywhere on the web? really?) Chris Item 11:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY, nothing on the web for the band or the drive. Likely a hoax, unverifiable. Akihabara 12:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Probably a hoax. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Hoax. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 14:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely fake/hoax. Nothing in any search engine (Google, Google News, Yahoo, Live Search, Ask) Jayden54 22:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and unreferenced. —ShadowHalo 07:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Almost nobody wanted to keep the present content, and the disambiguation links are now at Destroyer (disambiguation). Sandstein 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyer (Babylon 5)[edit]

Redundant to Warlock class destroyer and Victory class destroyer. Doesn't appear that there's any information in the stubby article that needs to be merged so just delete it. Otto4711 14:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

create redirect Just H 16:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambig with links to each class? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
disambig works for me. FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone is going to type "Destroyer (Babylon 5)" as a search term (I found the article as a random result). Still say delete this page and if disambig is desired then do so on the already-existing Destroyer_(disambiguation) page. Otto4711 17:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which, oh, scrolling down that page I see someone already did a couple of hours ago. Otto4711 17:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I have no idea what somebody will type, but disambigs are cheap, as cheap as redirects. If there was just the one type of destroyer, that'd be one thing, simple redirect. With two (plus who knows how many added in the future if the series is further developed), I think a disambig is the easy choice. FrozenPurpleCube 17:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the disambig is fine, though the reason I created the stubby was because previously, the B5 destroyer articles linked to the destroyer Wikipedia page that is about the 20th century warship class, which has nothing to do, either in form or function, with the destroyers on Babylon 5 (on Babylon 5, they serve as a cross between aircraft carriers and battleships). I'll go ahead and throw in a link on the Destroyer disamb page for the Omega Destroyer, which is the one primarily seen on B5.--Raguleader 17:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disambig should do. Tonytypoon 01:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page. Eluchil404 08:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add to Destroyer (disambiguation) with a redirect to Babylon 5 and an inclusion there of the term (or definition). SkierRMH 05:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation per SkierRMH. His idea sounds good. --Wizardman 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Bryer[edit]

Delete notability not apparent, fails the professor test. Just H 16:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, how many professors are Rhodes Scholars and Harvard Fellows? His Guardian obit seems to indicate the importance of his musical activities, although his professional career was as a dentist. I would say keep. As founder or co-founder of two youth orchestras and a festival, working with major conductors, and official EU sponsorship, that's something. The ECYO/EUYO seems to have played a strong "arts diplomacy" role at times.[15] --Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. Unsourced obit. Edison 23:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep--Please Look at the article. He is not a professor. Keep the professor test (such as it is) for people who are. Not everyone with an advanced degree is a professor. He is notable as a musical impresario: Aberdeen International Youth Festival & European Community Youth Orchestra are major projects. Needs a few sources, but this is eminently verifiable. DGG 06:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Nomination is weak and the nominator has not done his homework; this man is not a "professor" he was along with his musical endeavors a successful dentist and philanthropist. I've sourced several obituaries to the article and these are just a few among many. There is also extensive online discussion of his notability. This is obviously not a vanity entry and notability is clearly established by the three non-trivial sources now referenced from the article. In addition to the sources, he is the recipient of two major notable awards the Rhodes Scholarship and a Harvard Fellowhip - multiple awards are clear evidence of notability per Wikipedia guidelines. --Kevin Murray 07:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those wishing to keep the article should add more "independent, reliable and verifiable:" sources than 2 obits and an "appreciation." If he was notable over a long career as an impresario, there should have been articles about him along the way, not just obituaries. Articles about the music festivals which make more than a passing reference to him would help to support his notability. Edison 16:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting into some real hair-splitting. As volunteer editors we shouldn't be sent out on research missions to fulfill expectations beyond the basic guidelines which call for multiple (two or more) independent and non-trivial sources. The information in the obituaries is compelling enough to demonstrate that there is probably plenty of pre-web printed data on the man - let it go and be productive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
That's fascinating, Edison. Would you please cite appropriate policy, as obituaries are not listed as non-eligible per WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the requested policy citation:

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2 except for the following: o Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works. o Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.

It depends where and what the obituary is. In this case, the obituary in the Times, one of the 2 major UK national newspapers, is 500 words long, with two pictures of LB, one rehearsing the Youth Orchestra, and one more formal portrait. The obituary in the Guardia, ditto in importance, with headline:" Musical idealist whose enthusiasm gave birth to a great European youth orchestra" of 250 words long. These are no mentions in "simple records of birth and death" such a a paid death notice in a local paper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, a simple record of death in no way describes what we have here. My vote (per below) remains the same.Shawn in Montreal 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, not well sourced. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You're not going to find a lot of online citations for figures whose work took place prior to the 1980s, I think. He seems notable enough.Shawn in Montreal 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO, even with the minimal online citations; this sourcing debate comes up every time there is a question of pre -1980's persons, although I have noticed that there are more and more sites that are putting up "archival" materials that are making this less pertinent! SkierRMH 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive obits in both The Times and The Guardian assert his notability. --DeLarge 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was I don't care if Monday's blue, Tuesday's grey and Wednesday too, Thursday I don't care about you, It's DeleteDay, I'm in love. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:53Z

List of songs whose title includes days of the week[edit]

WP:NOT an index, per the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition to this what makes such songs notable enough to deserve their own article? Pure listcruft... MartinDK 16:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, ahoy! -- Kicking222 19:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on Monday. Danny Lilithborne 20:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this paradigm example of arbitrary listcruft. --The Way 21:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Don't Like Mondays, and I don't like arbitrary lists like this. Delete-- danntm ^T _C 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bloody Delete, per WP:NOT. -/- Warren 10:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a list of trivia, and I cannot see that it serves a useful purpose in the coverage of music. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Rajan Gopaldas[edit]

Delete due to insufficient reliable sources indicating why this person meets WP:BIO. Claims seem to be: winning the most medals within his college, a few mentions in the paper (in a section even the paper calls "Madras Miscellany" and which is refuted in another article, so reliability is an issue), and winning a residents' trivia competition (twice!). Unsure of speedy status, but given the benefit of the doubt and brought here. Reads like a suspected WP:COI page. Best of luck to him, but does not appear notable in the medical field yet, based on Google and/or Google scholar. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A google search shows up only two hits for this subject. Moreover, I am not sure if the website www.hinduonnet.com can be defined as a reliable source. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Uhh siva, thats the online site for The Hindu, a mainstream paper in India.Baka man 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article full of obvious (self)promotion. In addition to this we don't have articles on every person ever admitted into a certain educational programme, every person who ever published an article or every person who ever won a trivia contest even if it was two times!. MartinDK 16:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm from India, and the magazine he has been featured in is tiny by circulation, and does not have high editorial controls. Further, the trivia competition is not by any body I have heard of. And finally, in the larger scheme of things, he has not accomplished anything which several hundred thousand other Indians may not: won a prize, and mentioned in a local paper. Does not qualify as per Wikipedia:notable Iipmstudent9 18:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. Danny Lilithborne 20:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author of this article has expressed some concerns about this AfD, which I have responded to at the talk page for the article. I have referred him to the AfD if he wishes to make his case after familiarizing himself with the policies and guidelines cited therein. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Brand. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:50Z

Brand name creation[edit]

Essay/how-to guide, originally posted by User:Focusfields - which happens to be the name of a company whose business is brand name creation. Could be a copyvio, but I haven't found a source. FreplySpang 16:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excrutiatingly strong delete per nom. OR, ad, how-to essay... -- 19:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kicking222 (talk • contribs) 19:41, December 25, 2006 (UTC)
Delete not an article. Danny Lilithborne 20:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOR and WP:V. This is definitely a "how-to" guide/article, and not suitable for WP. Jayden54 21:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Use of second-person tense not suitable for encyclopedia. Essay-like style definitely seems like a case of own research. Tredanse 15:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:39Z

Anti-Mac[edit]

Notable author, but the paper seems to be NN, as it hasn't really had an impact on UI design. Twinxor t 10:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a 1996 Communications of the ACM essay based upon a CHI'95 panel discussion. While some of the points may appear very new and controversial, it has had no impact in ui design or thought (not that any of the points were original). --Ronz 16:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above comments, plus the fact that the subject is not really developped in the article, since it is 6 lines long. Dravick 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN proposal per above. At best smerge a line into History of the graphical user interface. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable as written above. – Mipadi 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; mention it in the Jakob Nielsen article as part of his ongoing work, if anything. -/- Warren 10:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Close enough to the original to qualify for CSD G12. -- Steel 23:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Initiative (Buffy episode)/Comprehensive synopsis[edit]

This seems to be the only Buffy episode with a separate "comprehensive synopsis" article. I'm suggesting delete rather than merge because the standard format for Buffy episode articles looks to be a summary plus an "expanded overview" and this level of detailed summary is apparently not desired by those who work most heavily on the Buffy articles, not to mention being a violation of WP:FICT. Allowing for a "comprehensive synopsis" article apart from the main article on the episode would be a terrible precedent and a violation of WP:FICT. Otto4711 16:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. Just H 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason for a merge in violation of WP:FICT guidelines would be...? Otto4711 17:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That I don't particularly care about WP:FICT, since most of the "guidelines" on wikipedia are fairly arbitrary. I don't trust the consensus that made it so i'm going by my own opinion, which is what people should go by in AFDs IMO. Here the consensus made is much easier to see. Just H 17:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy copyvio I think this article is a copyvio from [16] as it is only slightly rewritten from that page. FrozenPurpleCube 17:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per FrozenPurpleCube. Danny Lilithborne 20:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to speedy delete because while my reasons are still IMHO valid the copyvio issue moves it to speedy territory. Otto4711 21:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio. If not copyvio still delete per the nominator's comments. Jayden54 21:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugues Claude Pissarro[edit]

Delete claim to fame seems to be that he's the grandson of someone famous. Just H 16:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should do some more research before making this allegation. "seems to be" is a weasel phrase. You are challenging another editor's work and should be more precise. Clearly this is a weak article, but let's look at a fix before we toss it out. --Kevin Murray 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Minor painter, there seem to be over a dozen Pissarro descendants who have been artists themselves. Found several short biographies but not truly independent sources, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, he was not included in the 2000 exhibition "Camille Pissarro and his Descendants", so he's minor even in terms of the Pissarro family. [17] --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely wrong in your facts as well as judgmental in your conclusion of him being minor in his family; see [18]& [19] for evidence of his inclusion as H. Claude in the family exhibition. Please be more careful!. --Kevin Murray 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This artist is also known as Hughes Claude Pissarro, H Claude Pissarro, and as Isaac Pomié. Further online research is yielding much good information, leading to a possible support for notability. Please reserve your choices until I can complete some research and rewrite --Kevin Murray 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly 1,000 Google Hits for "Claude Pissarro"; 77 more as Isaac Pomie
Commissioned by White House to paint a sitting president - Eisenhower

NOTE This page has been extensively rewritten, and now meets notability guidelines with the following additonal information:

Biography - Grace Art Gallery A representation of many online biographies by galleries

Exhibit offers portrait of a dynasty By James Auer, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel art critic April 09, 1999 Independent review of his work and notice of exhibition

Artnews.com Independent review of his work and notice of exhibition

Humanities Web, Contributed by Jim Lane 15 April 2001 Independent biography and review of his career

--Kevin Murray 19:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per establishment of notability above. --Kevin Murray 19:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established. Nathanian 20:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to ~~weak keep~~ weakest possible keep. Kevin Murray, there are two different exhibitions, and I was unable to connect him to the Ft. Lauderdale one. The different forms of his name and the pseudonym complicate the research task; I looked hard but only found gallery (i.e. not independent, because they make money when they sell paintings) sources for biographical information. Note that the Grace Art Gallery and Art News links are not independent, and the Humanities Web bio is substantially the same wording as his official gallery bio. It's my impression that this guy gets by on a family name and aggressive print marketing, but hey. --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked high and low and I can't find a single museum that exhibits his work. I found a repeated claim that the Ashmolean had a work, but their website doesn't support that claim. His daughter Leila married into the Stern family, who run an international gallery business, so watch for connections to the Stern Gallery in sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm even more convinced -- one of the few articles on Google News Archive that isn't a passing mention or a mistaken attribution (maybe people think that Camille was his wife!) was an article about an auction misrepresenting its objets d'art:

The Arts: Buckley auction artful reminder that buyers best be wary

The ad said that "Original Handsigned works by Pissarro - Chagall - Miro - Icart - Cezanne - Degas - Picasso - Renoir ...

The artist was not Camille, it was Hugues Claude, Pissarro's living grandson.

(That's all I got from the preview.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify any of the prizes he won oh-so-long-ago either. Two look like art fair awards, being held in Cannes notwithstanding, and the other -- the medaille d'or Leonardo da Vinci -- doesn't turn up in any searching, so who knows who gave it out. About the only thing left for notability is that painting of Ike. It isn't the official portrait and isn't in the government collection today as far as I can tell, otherwise it would be cataloged. Ike was an amateur painter and I can only assume he had it done for himself or it was arranged as a gift. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the grand scheme of things what is the risk of letting this go? The evidence for and against is a bit shadowy, but we're not trying to get a felon off the streets, just publish an article.

If you'd read what I said above (from the beginning) you'll see that I've expended a lot of effort trying to find a good reason to keep. The more I searched, though, the "less" I've found. Not even one real gBooks mention (not surprising, given his dreadful pastiches of his ancestor's brilliance) -- two instances that are clearly mistakes where Camille was intended. --Dhartung | Talk 11:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above "shadowy", but not compelling enough to drop the article. I think when it is this close, we just let it go, especially if it becomes impassioned. Judging the quality of his work seems beyond the scope of a AfD. --Kevin Murray 17:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, it isn't the quality of his work. For AFD purposes I'm simply troubled by the dearth of independent reliable sources. The quality of his work is an indicator why there are so few, e.g. no appearances in books covering modern impressionism or French painters of the 20th century. Even minor painters get name-checks from time to time. If you look at my contributions I engage in article saves all the time and I'm no automatic deletionist. I don't believe in deletion without at least giving an article's notability an opportunity to be established. I don't think that "letting it go" is really a good idea if there are serious questions. --Dhartung | Talk 21:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the excellent research of Dhartung. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh ending[edit]

A band that "wants to make it big on the rock scene" but does not appear to be sufficiently notable yet. Aleph-4 17:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just H 18:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When your band's claim to notability consists of band members hitting up the audience to buy homemade CD's for two and a half quid, your band qualifies for a Speedy delete. So tagged. Tubezone 18:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely fails WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 21:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Kalfat[edit]

Delete based on the current content of the article. This article was started by User:Hamuksha, a new user whose contributions thus far have been centered around this article and placing this article on November 26, 1942, etc. The content of the article does not assert the notability of its subject - no publications, external links, etc. Furthermore, the subject has only 49 Ghits. Thus, there is no indication that Kalfat meets the criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Fabricationary 17:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete db-bio. Danny Lilithborne 20:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - under CSD A7. Jayden54 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering if this article could be speedied, but I listed it for AFD because the CSD A7 criteria is meant for pages that don't assert the importance of their subjects. On Khalil Kalfat, it could be argued that reasons why he is important are given, but these claims are not supported by external links, lists of his works, etc. Fabricationary 22:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are indications his linguistics and translation work may be notable (Arabic and French wikipedias have stubs articles too) but there are very few English-language sources to satisfy WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of English-language sources is not a valid reason for deletion if sources are available in other languages. He's either notable (due to multiple instances of coverage) or he's not; there's no such thing as "notable in Arabic but not notable in English". cab 13:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see any evidence of multiple instances of coverage. (I contacted the page's author to ask if he has any, but I suspect these would not be forthcoming.) Only given a peripheral mention in all Google hits about him, even in the one given as a source. Of 2 hits on Arabic name, one is from the sports pages and talks about soccer (so I'm pretty sure it's just another guy by the same name, though my Arabic is crap) and the other one's a forum. cab 13:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. There isn't much in the article that could be merged into an article on the university without giving undue weight to the debate society. It seems clear that no one favours the main text standing alone. Therefore, redirect without a merge. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston University Debate Society[edit]

Nominated for AfD by ECKnibbs. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 19:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article. I didn't write it myself, I copied the entire thing from the team's entry on the league wiki. If you guys want to delete it, I guess there's no way to stop you, but it's not as if the article is profane or offensive, and there is still plenty of information within it. Maybe it deserves a thorough cleanup, but I don't know about deletion.
Smerge into Boston University and redirect. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - don't seem notable enough to have their complete own article. Jayden54 21:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who nominated this article for deletion. I thought that it was a bit of a vanity page, and, as the poster says above, that it wasn't notable enough to have its own article. At first I thought that it should be deleted, but that was before I knew merging was an option. So I vote for merge, I suppose. ECKnibbs 03:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Boston University.-- danntm ^T _C 04:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About the only thing that can be merged into the Boston University article is the intro, the rest seems to be uncited original research. I say this as an Alumni (ENG'91). We could have a debate over it though :) --Eqdoktor 18:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Eqdoktor. - Aagtbdfoua 14:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. Not notable enough, but we can salvage a bit and put it in the main article. --Wizardman 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to me like a lot of OR and a lot of vanity. --Beaker342 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

To revise opinion again: I vote for merging the first sentence or two, and killing the rest. On second read, it's just vanity. ECKnibbs 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. A neutral verifiable article can't be built without engaging in OR is we have no sources. This game does seem to be on it's "way up," so there is no prejudice against recreating the article should non trivial & reliable secondary sources be found. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus War (second nomination)[edit]

This is the second nomination for deletion- the first nomination was a bit of a trainwreck that spent more time heckling about minor things than addressing the article. Anyway, I believe that the information in the article is unverifiable from a lack of independent sources and that it does not meet criteria in WP:WEB. Google search doesn't dig up any sources and Google links show 23 unique links, none of which are reliable (ie all blogs and forums). Alexa rank around 135k. Wafulz 18:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. Fails WP:WEB and no third pary sources. TJ Spyke 19:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. And thanks to the nominator for nominating using the right policy instead of WP:SOFTWARE. Hopefully this AfD will be more to the point. MartinDK 19:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB as I can't find any reliable coverage through either Google or Google News. Jayden54 21:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while it doesn't yet have multiple independent sources, it has appeared in print, in Custom PC Magazine in the UK this month, as one of it's top 10 "casual games". The magazine is not available online, but a member of the Nexus War Forums was kind enough to provide a photo-shot of the appearance recently [20]. Does this magazine qualify as large enough for this? Circulation is approx 22,000 according to the publisher. Regardless, the fact that it's in print should definitely be an indicator of it's notability. -- Kirby1024 02:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI think this falls under the "trivial mention" area- it's not really the subject of an article, it's just mentioned in passing in a minor magazine. --Wafulz 04:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, that's not true. The scan is just a small sidebar; the article itself deals extensively with NW (about equal time is given to NW and to Bejeweled, with interviews to both development teams) and how it works.--Jorm 23:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Can you give a scan of that? We would need muptiple sources anyway- this might count as one. --Wafulz 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Well, the article is 5 pages long, and I'm a bit nervous about providing an external magazine's entire article to the entire interweb. However, I'll contact the publisher and see what I can do.--Jorm 20:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't worry about it, I'll take your word for it. This is still only one source though. --Wafulz 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails WP:WEB, above mention in non-notable magazine is trivial.--RWR8189 07:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apparently this actually does fail WP:WEB once I read it closely, which I see as a problem with WP:WEB. This is a widely played, widely linked, widely-known-about online game--30,762 unique users--and eminently deserving of a Wikipedia article.--Mobius Soul 18:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way it would need multiple non-trivial sources. Having a Wikipedia article isn't some sort of privilege or status symbol- it just reflects how many reliable sources are available about a topic. --Wafulz 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Alexa rank does not imply notability Shawnfagel 04:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proceeding is this user's second contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 07:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alexa rank is one of many things I've used to address the issue of meeting WP:WEB.--Wafulz 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa Rank only counts certain Internet Explorer users and most of the games players use Firefox due to the Extentions for the game, Alexa rank is a really a non issue. Shawnfagel 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As above, magazine article serves as a non-trivial mention. --Nyroska 04:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proceeding is this user's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 07:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mention is actually trivial. This is one minor mention in one minor magazine- it would need multiple non-trivial sources.--Wafulz 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Just a comment: implying that someone's vote is unworthy because of lack of contributions when your own contributions are almost entirely in "articles for deletion" and associated talk pages makes you look a bit silly.)--Jorm 20:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I have over 1100 edits, less than 200 of them being in the Wikipedia name space.--RWR8189 05:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually used to have another account a while back, but for some reason I can't seem to log in with it now. Not that I had all that many more contributions there either, but it's worth noting. --Nyroska 08:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most other browser games have a seeming lack of sources, yet they have articles simply because they've been around longer, and thus have more accounts. If you extrapolate out the data, you would probably find NexusWar to be just as notable as any other browser game. There are far more articles on Wikipedia that are of less notability. Kazmarov 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those games should be deleted for not having sources. One of the flaws of AfD is people argue back and forth about notability and what constitutes it and completely forget about proper sourcing. --Wafulz 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/75/19 shows support (albeit trivial) for keeping this. It also talks about it along with other well known browser based games, the likes of Kingdom Of Loathing and Urban Dead. Infested-jerk 04:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have as much support as other online games, in terms of evidence and userbase based on age. - Norminator 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not address the fact that there are not mutiple non-trivial independent sources. --Wafulz 21:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Tavern Poker Tour[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable. Lots of ghits but the bulk of them appear to be bloggy and/or ads for bars running a tournament. Otto4711 19:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although it sounds very official (just like the WPT and EPT) isn't this just a fancy name for pub poker? Anyway, I can't find any reliable coverage or any sign of notability through Google or Google News. Jayden54 21:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just H 21:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 23:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Mellon123 01:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poker tournament. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:48Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Međugorje. Bearcat's argument about Our Lady of Fatima seems to have some logic behind it, but I know nothing about the subject matter, so it's difficult for me to evaluate it in context. I'm going to just redirect this to Međugorje for now. The original contents of this article will still be available in the article history, so one or more of the people who argued for a merge can come along and merge whatever material seems appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marija Pavlović[edit]

I'm not seeing the notability of someone who supposedly saw the Virgin Mary. Danny Lilithborne 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds fake to me, and definitely not notable enough to be included, unless reliable sources are added. I could claim the same thing, but that still doesn't mean I get an article. Jayden54 21:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Međugorje. I'm very happy that the article has been expanded by SkierRMH, but I still don't think she's notable enough to have her own article. I don't really care if the article is kept or deleted though. I just think the information would be better suited in the main article about this subject. Jayden54 17:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to Međugorje (gawd I hate non-English diacritics in article titles, WP:UE already). Vicka Ivanković is on prod. I will de-redlink the others. --Dhartung | Talk 22:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been asked to re-evaluate, but I stand by my recommendation. I see no value in following the letter of WP:BIO here as none of the six individuals is notable beyond this common event. It's a bit like articles on crimes or major events like disasters -- of course there is coverage of the person in relation to the event, but that doesn't make them individually notable. The Fatima comparison is also irrelevant; Fatima was a major "miracle" in the sense that it was and has continued to be notable worldwide, not the least because of the rumors concerning the third revelation. There's a movie[21], Mel Gibson may make another[22], there's been at least one thriller written about it[23], etc. I would hate for some kind of "equivalence" rule to lead us to have articles about the Madonna under the Chicago bridge.[24] If I may coin a phrase which may seem incosiderate, I'd call this something like holyspiritcruft. In other words, primarily of interest to believers/fans of Catholicism and mystical visions in particular, which are not universally admired by all Catholics, I can say authoritatively. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article Međugorje. If there are ever multiple independent reliable sources about her, an article could be recreated. Edison 00:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The three girls who saw Our Lady of Fatima have their own articles. I see no remotely convincing reason why seeing the Virgin Mary at Fatima is notable but seeing the Virgin Mary at Medjugorje isn't. And I'm not Catholic, either. Keep unless there's actually a valid reason to treat the Fatima and Medjugorje incidents differently from each other. Bearcat 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge-or weak Keep~~ Bearcat makes a good point, so I read the articles on Fatima and the three girls. Under the premise that the Fatima article is long it makes sense to move the major participants to their own pages; however, the Međugorje article seems sufficiently short enough that the participants could be listed there with redirects from their names. I dispute the premise of the nomination since the nominator is citing his own disbelief in what is a notable event, which is irrelevant to good editing at Wikipedia. Danny should become more familiar with the Wikipedia policies before evaluating other people's work.--Kevin Murray 07:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I change my vote per SkierRMH's rewrite and research. Kevin Murray 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say merge, but there's really nothing worth merging. The person who created the article admitted on the talk page of Vicka Ivanković that he was adding this articles just so Google would scan them easily. He doesn't seem to understand that Google will pick their names out of the Međugorje article just fine. Hatch68 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect now, too short for an article. Pavel Vozenilek 17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was living in Italy in the early 90's and recall these "visionaries" being constant gigantic news, mostly in tabloid press, but still very well covered. I know articles are out there, probably in Italian and might be just in print. I'll have a look, but I know her and the other children are notable. --Oakshade 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Međugorje. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:47Z
Strong Keep; there are a few problems, some of which I'll fix up:

Diacritics in searches

She married and her last name is now "Pavlovic-Lunetti" or "Lunetti".

A goodly portion of the materials available are not in English.

However, there are about 15,000 ghits on the variations of the name (2 basic one in English are: [25], and [26]. There have been multiple coverages of them in the international news. SkierRMH 05:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added citations to both this and the Vicka Ivanković, cleaned them up and wikified them. They're longer than typical stubs, but both now meet WP:BIO with no problems. SkierRMH 06:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the article, but I stand by my recommendation of merge. I respect the content and I think it will live more happily at Međugorje, which is basically about the claims of this person and 5 others, so it wouldn't put any undue weight on it. All of the sourcable information in this article is relevant in that article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 07:04Z
Sorry, I still have to stand by my merge and/or delete position. There's just no reason for the two articles here. Everything in this article is basically covered in the main Međugorje article. I'm starting to suspect SkierRMH might be too close to the material and probably doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. Hatch68 05:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is at least some of the article can be in Medugorje. If it will barely be a mention at all then keep. This is a tricky one, since she's really not that notable but the article's well-written. --Wizardman 06:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Fuentes[edit]

No valid claim for notability presented, and article is autobiographical. Speedy tag was objected to by User:Samir (The Scope), who recommended AfD, so here it is. I vote Delete. Danny Lilithborne 20:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable per WP:BIO and the article doesn't even claim notability. Jayden54 21:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject wrote her own bio and not even well --Kevin Murray 07:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI, autobiographical, is also a repost under Ana fuentes, no assertion of notability fails WP:BIO.--Dakota 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Talk:ana Fuentes has assertions of notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:45Z

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Olsen[edit]

Delete. Bit parts in a sibling's movie does not make a person notable. Ckessler 20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 20:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at all; Google only shows around 900 hits and nothing noteworthy. Google News shows nothing at all. Fails WP:BIO. Jayden54 21:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen if not redundant --Kevin Murray 07:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:42Z

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Rimer[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE, participation in a local tv show game doesn't assert notability.≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless she did anything really noteworthy when on the show, she isn't notable enough. Google News provides no results at all, and Google shows nothing interesting either. Jayden54 21:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Kevin Murray 07:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine dahl[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE, being a participant in the local TV game doesn't assert notability ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless she did something really spectacular when on the show, she isn't notable enough. Jayden54 21:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Kevin Murray 07:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Person appears to exsist through some searching. Need to be expanded though. "Possible Autobiography"Theno2003
Redirect to Big Brother 2005 (UK). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:40Z
Delete, don't redirect. She was in the Swedish version, which doesn't have a en.WP page, so if you must redirect, go to Big Brother (TV series), not Big Brother 2005 (UK) I also note that she's only a redirect in the Swedish Wikipedia, so certainly no justification for a page of her own over here. --DeLarge 18:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrean Singer[edit]

Delete. Would work better as a category, rather than a list. Ckessler 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Make into category. Nlsanand 07:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep & cleanup, put some thought into this please, we have these lists as well as categories for red-links. ⇒ bsnowball 15:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Eritrea-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced. Agree that category would work better. -- Satori Son 03:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Eritrean bands. Fails Wikipedia articles are not Lists. Would work better as a category, and the fact that no articles exist, making categorisation impossible, renders the article itself even less relevant. Also fails notability, which is the author's job to assert. If he can demonstrate the notability of any singer they can be added to Music of Eritrea. --DeLarge 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrean bands[edit]

Delete. Would work better as a category, rather than an article. Ckessler 21:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete furthermore, none of the bands have Wikipedia articles, so it wouldn't even work as a category (at least for now). Dar-Ape 23:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep & cleanup duh! red-links! & read WP:CSB please ⇒ bsnowball 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Eritrea-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redlinks are only useful if they are for bands that meet WP:V and WP:MUSIC. If/when some do have articles, they should be categorized as "Eritrean musical groups", as a subcategory to Category:Musical groups by nationality. Prolog 19:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep A category would likely not be organized chronologically, and this list could be somewhat useful even if few of the individual bands are notable. Leaving this article will increase the chances that articles on individual bands will be created. P4k 01:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Salad Days 21:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia articles are not Lists. Would work better as a category, and the fact that no articles exist, making categorisation impossible, renders the article itself even less relevant. Also fails notability, which is the author's job to assert. If he can demonstrate the notability of any band they can be added to Music of Eritrea. --DeLarge 18:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maeoniae[edit]

Prodded by Tubezone with reason - "No references given that can be verified, probable hoax". Proposed for AfD by Wetman. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is ~~Neutral~~ Tevildo 23:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating (still procedural) Tetrakorm. Tevildo 23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references apart from article creator's Angelfire page. Almost certainly a hoax. Note that the Tantalus article will need to be fixed after deletion. Tevildo 23:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more than Tantalus will need to be fixed. This article appears to be the tip of an iceberg, introducing both references to these purported quad-amputee prostitutes and spurious claims that Tanatalus (and Heracles) was literally kings of Lydia (rather than generally mythological figures) into a host of articles about Lydia, Lydian locations, and Greek mythology. There is a substantial amount of damage control in the future of these topics. Serpent's Choice 00:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only nine articles (not counting pages like this) link to Maeoniae. I am not responsible for claims about Tantalus, Hercules, etc. though I did tidy up some of the existing articles. TharkunColl 00:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and removed references to this topic. If sufficient legitimate documentation somehow appears to validate this purported practice, I'll revert the removal of content from the other articles myself. That said, there is still a ton of work to do in the Lydian articles, not the least of which is figuring out what to do with references to Tantalus-as-real-king and his purported temple city... Serpent's Choice 01:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Updated: I think I've purged most of the psuedohistory, occultism, and Atlantis theory from the Lydia articles, although List of Kings of Lydia seems beyond my power to repair, and I've doubtless missed some others. Serpent's Choice 05:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two references were given from books whose existence could not be confirmed, the third exists but is about exogamy, which has little to do with the practice referred to in the article. This practice is weird enough that it's very hard to believe that the only good references would be in 100 year old books whose texts would be difficult to vefify. Tubezone 23:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The substance of this article, which I created as part of my current tidying up of the articles on the Kingdom of Lydia, is based on an article entitled "The Maeoniae" by Charles Weyland that appeared in the December 1996 issue of Merel. In addition to those already discussed, the author provides, for example, the following reference:

"Lydia was the place of origin of the Maeoniae, a class of slave whose limbs were cut off upon being admitted to the temple as girls, and who were compelled to prostitute themselves thereafter. The amputations were effected in compliance with the principle of the golden ratio, which was thought to be most pleasing to the senses. The initiates of the sect became exceedingly skilled in the arts of their profession."

William Sandbach (1876), in his Preface to his translation of The Oera Linda Book.

I am fully aware of the obscure nature of the subject, but this in itself should be no reason to not present the information. TharkunColl 23:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not wishing to be indelicate, but I find it hard - nay, impossible - to believe that this subject would have absolutely no references at all on the web apart from your page. Anything sexual generally has tens of thousands of pages devoted to it, and amputee porn is no exception; one would have thought that someone else would have noticed the Maeoniae before now. Tevildo 23:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The Angelfire site is not mine, though I did use it as a reference in my original version of the article. The site states that all text and images on it are in the public domain. Also, should it be decided to keep my article, may I suggest turning Tetrakorm into a redirect page? TharkunColl 23:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax, the above comment notwithstanding. Sandbach is indeed the English translator of The Oera Linda Book, itself of at-best dubious veracity. However, I cannot find any indication that he discussed (or would have discussed) bizarre Greek sexuality in the preface to what is ostensibly a Frisian book about proto-European culture and the goddess Frya. Furthermore, I cannot find any indication that "The Maeoniae" by Charles Weyland exists, or, in fact, any evidence of a magazine or journal titled Merel that might have printed such an article. At this point, some clear evidence of valid documentation is going to be necessary to convince me otherwise. Serpent's Choice 23:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merel Magazine is quite well known, and Sandbach was discussing the history of Lydia, and how its traditions did not tally with those in the book he was translating. TharkunColl 00:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. Here's an apt description from a random website: "Ordo Anno Mundi A magical society offering full training in the Ophidian (Serpent-venerating) Traditional Craft, members receive their training by post. Group is located throughout the British Isles and produces a quarterly journal called Merel Magazine." I posit that this is not a reliable source for Lydian history (and that it is rather generous to consider it well known). Serpent's Choice 00:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After deletion, this should redirect to Robert Southwell, as it was the title of one of the posthumous volumes of his poetry. However, there is no reason nor requirement under the GFDL to preserve the current material behind the redirect. Serpent's Choice 00:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if the Sandbach quote is genuine (which I reserve judgement on, although I know Serpent's Choice to be exceptionally diligent in such matters), the lack of any references in the Classical canon is also very suspicious. If Robert Graves doesn't mention them, then it's hard to believe that they have any origin outside Sandbach's imagination, at the absolute best, and are therefore non-notable as obscure Victorian pornography. Tevildo 00:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tubezone. Sounds like a hoax. Double or quad amputation would have been almost universally fatal in those days. Edison 00:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two references given by TharkunColl do not appear in the on-line catalog of the Library of Congress, an excellent double-checking tool. The Library of Congress online catalog search engine finds no results for "Taylor, James. Greek Religion 1902. The Library of Congress online catalog search engine finds no results for any publication by a "Gilbert Hurst". Googling "Maeoniae hierodule" reveals that the two words are not connected anywhere on the Internet save at this Wikipedia article. This User's contributions log and his Talkpage will provide some context.--Wetman 03:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure, I checked and the Taylor book is not in the British Library either. .DGG 07:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Those citations are taken from the article I mentioned. TharkunColl 07:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I gave this searching up references thing one last go, just to see if I'd need to revert my own edits removing this material from the rest of WP. It is my considered opinion that Ordo Anno Mundi made it up. There is an English translation of Oera Linda by Sandbach, and I guarantee it doesn't talk about kinky Lydian sex in its introduction, or in the introduction of either of its two legitimate reprints. I'm not surprised there, Ordo Anno Mundi has some funny ideas about what Oera Linda means. Charles Weyland has never written anything anywhere remotely reliable; I am faced with the staggering reality that, although there are other people with that name (including a character from the Alien movies), I cannot find a single Google reference to anyone who might actually be writing about Lydian history under that name. I can't even find a record of him writing for Merel, the Ordo Anno Mudi journal, because their website is no longer extant. I suppose I could crawl through Wayback, but why? As for the Taylor book, I am all but certain it does not exist. There are several books by that title; none are by a James Taylor, nor are they published in 1902. There are two Taylors who have written about the topic, neither so titled a book, neither published in 1902 (although Thomas translated Greek poetry in 1889). There was one major book about Greek religion and myth published in 1902; it was in German. The Gilbert book, Lydia, is even more ephemeral than its Taylor counterpart. This article is a hoax and whether it was by the creator of this article or by Ordo Anno Mundi, it still needs to go. And so, to paraphrase good Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about the references for maeoniae. Serpent's Choice 07:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you drawn attention to my talk page in this manner? If you read it carefully you will see that I have been an active Wikipedia editor for well over a year, and have contributed a great deal of useful information. For example, I helped make List of English monarchs the excellent and detailed resource that it is today (though I can't claim all the credit!). I have indeed been involved in some heated discussions, and have made a point of never deleting any of them from my talk page. TharkunColl 06:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax, it's inconceivable that there would be any demand for limbless prostitutes. A Ramachandran 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as hoax, albeit a fairly clever one; I don't think it "inconceivable" that such a thing may have come to pass, but no verifiable references have been presented. This looks to me like an imaginative manifestation of amputee fetishism cruft. -- Shunpiker 15:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest keeping in the 'funnies' bit as it's very clever. They would never have survived, unfortunately, unless gangrene and superating wounds are what do it for you, or you have to 'visit' a Maeoniae quickly before she expires. I suspect Charles Weyland is a confabulation of Charles_Godfrey_Leland and Wayland's_Smithy. This is all very clever though, I believe we have a genius in our midst:)Merkinsmum 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but in the funnies section.Merkinsmum 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:38Z

List of Miniclip game developers[edit]

AfD nominated by 125.237.127.212 with reason - "this is advertising spam." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 23:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miniclip Games. Tevildo 03:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list/directory of non-notable game developers. MER-C 03:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list / redlink farm. Only a couple of these link to real articles, the others are disambigs or unrelated topics. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Lee Kun Hee Scholarship Foundation[edit]

nn foundation--Thee 3 22:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, does not meet WP:ORG or WP:CORP guidelines for notability. --Eqdoktor 18:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Harvestdancer 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lee Kun-hee. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:37Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Concerns of crystalballism were satisfied and no other deletion arguments have been presented. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Cricket World Cup[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Basicob 22:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow. Dar-Ape 23:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tevildo 00:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or Merge~~ into Cricket World Cup Citicat 02:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge I still am not convinced of the need for this being separate from the main artice, but you're right, it does pass WP:CRYSTAL Citicat 02:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:CRYSTAL. Event is scheduled, notable, location is known, and is as certain to take place as anything twelve years hence can be. Eludium-q36 10:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still, how is the purpose not served by merging and redirecting to the main article? The sum total of the informatin known is the location, and that is not likely to change for over a decade Citicat 20:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Because that (global) article isn't in the relevant English categories, which means it is less likely to be seen by interested readers, or indeed by people who can improve the article. Nathanian 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable article. Planning in hand. There will be lots of information than can be added well before a decade is up. At the moment there are lots of redevelopment projects in hand for English cricket grounds, and the possibility of getting a World Cup match will become a factor in how they proceed. Nathanian 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By this definition, we shouldn't have an article on the 2012 Olympics until we absolutely, definitely know it wil happen (which will be on the day it opens). Regan123 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. 13 years is too far away. I think 8 years is the maximum years for an event to happen likely. Tonytypoon 02:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are political reasons why England 2019 is absolutely certain, and I have edited the article to explain these further. Eludium-q36 10:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CRYSTAL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 180[edit]

No references; information could be speculative. J Di ^talk 22:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a hoax. TJ Spyke 23:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Confusing with xBox 360. Tonytypoon 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ATI RV530? Rather not. Saxbryn 23:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible. Ugh, definite hoax created by a sock of User:Nintendude. --Wafulz 00:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. It's only half the console of the 360! --tgheretford (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, 50% of the console, but 0% of the references. Dar-Ape 03:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question? if the user is a sockpuppet of someone who has an indefinite block could G5 apply or do they need to be specifically banned for that to be usable? If that is the case I would suggest speedy deletion if is not a regular deletion. I would have added it my self but I am unsure if G5 is valid in this case. --69.156.205.133 04:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think tat G5 would apply. TJ Spyke 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, and it says the user is a suspected sock puppet (not confirmed), so it might not. TJ Spyke 05:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced crystal balling at best. —ShadowHalo 07:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. BMan1113VR 03:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xbox, as many people in gaming circles use this as another name for the original Xbox (as opposed to stating "original Xbox"). This article, of course, is unsourced crystalballery. -- Kicking222 22:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's imho spreading wrong knowledge. It does not matter how an unknown amount of people nicknames a product unless it does not have an official name. Unless this expression has widely established, there is no reason to include it. A mere 15k of Google results, mostly referencing to the rumor about a hypothetical handheld device, should say enough. As for "original Xbox" or "old Xbox", these are also nothing but clumsy attemps to distinguish the two consoles. Saxbryn 09:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - hoax. --Scottie theNerd 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete because this may constitute to a hoax or keep if there are refrences.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Commonwealth Games[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Basicob 22:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tevildo 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Create the article again when serious planning has begun for this event has begun, that we can report on as an enecyclopedia.
Keep Articles on the bidding process for sporting events are accepted wikipedia topics. See 2020 Olympic Games as an example. The 2018 Commonwealth Games article needs to be improved, but the topic should exist. --DM Andy 21:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 -/- Warren 11:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Suggest the editor to go to wikibooks. Tonytypoon 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Rugby World Cup[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Basicob 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tevildo 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that planning is well underway for the 2011 RWC, there is already some angling and jockeying for position re the hosting for 2015. As such, this article could be useful and encyclopaedic - especially if some more firm declarations of intent are found. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed from "weak keep" to "keep" - I've found some sources - Japan has already declared a bid, and Scotland looks extremely likely to as well. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this will eventually happen, and might as well include it. Nlsanand 07:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness - the event doesn't happen for nine years, but those sources indicate that the political jockeying behind it is starting to happen. Quack 688 08:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Create the article again when serious planning has begun for this event has begun, that we can report on as an enecyclopedia. As it is, the whole article is speculation, and that is not what Wikipedia is about. Start a blog if you want to speculate. -/- Warren 11:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bid proposals and coverage thereof already underway. Nathanian 20:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Basically all info in the article is speculative. Citicat 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's look at the relevant quote from WP:NOT:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. (emphasis in original)

Note that it says speculation is allowed, as long as it's "well documented", not something a Wikipedia editor made up themselves. Something that says "Japan is making a bid" is great, but we don't have to limit ourselves to that. The speculation over countries like Scotland bidding is "well documented" as it's on the public record, therefore we can include it here. Aside from that, 2015 RWC is notable, and almost certain to take place, so I don't think the crystal ball clause applies. Quack 688 02:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how this meets "well documented" - two countries are documented, and the other six have no documentation at all. You have an article that states eight countries/regions might have an interest in placing a bid. Very definition of crystal ball. Why not write an article that the United State might have interest in the 2023 Cricket World Cup, because interest in Cricket in the U.S. might increase by then. Citicat 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we can't find any public information that Argentina's considering a bid? Fine, then delete Argentina from the list. Same for the others. That leaves us with Japan and Scotland, which have both made statements on the public record that they're considering a bid. Turn the article into a stub with just those two. As more countries get into the bidding process for what is one of the largest international sporting events in the world (behind the Soccer World Cup and the Olympics), we can add them into the article - with proper sources, of course. Quack 688 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:35Z

2015 in Malaysia[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Basicob 22:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tevildo 23:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; the reason it exists is the turning off of analogue TV signals; neither 2014 nor 2016 are extant. I'm not sure if its reason enough to keep it, but it does contain some information, but that information may not be notable enough right now for a keep. Titanium Dragon 00:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The relevant event that caused the article to be created apparently has apparently been scheduled, altho with no reference given, it's not at the moment easily verifiable. With a reference for the scheduled event, I'd change from Weak Keep to Keep. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely Crystal-Ballish. Even if it has been scheduled, would you put big money on it happening in 2015? At best, add a note to List of Malaysian television stations. Citicat 02:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Malaysia might not exist in 2015. -/- Warren 11:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contains two pieces of verifiable information. Deletion is just time wasting as it destroys work that will need to be redone. Nathanian 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you counting the country's 58 years of nationhood as information? We can also make an article about 3162 in Malaysia when the country will celebrate 195 years of nationhood. Just adding numbers together is not information. Citicat 16:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, two short items is not that hard to recreate when we get around to re-writing this article in 7 years time. Also in 3162, Malaysia will be 1205 years old (if we still exist). --Eqdoktor 18:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uh, yeah. Sorry 'bout the typo Citicat 01:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Suggest the editor to go to wikibooks. Tonytypoon 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:34Z

2016 Summer Paralympics[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Basicob 22:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tevildo 23:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Create the article again when serious planning has begun for this event has begun, that we can report on as an enecyclopedia. -/- Warren 11:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Warrens. —ShadowHalo 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Nihilist Underground Society[edit]

Based on the deletion of the article Gay Nigger Association of America (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination)), I'd say that this article likewise needs to be deleted. And I for one won't be a bit disappointed to see it go, as Wikipedia should be above giving unwarrented publicity to internet trolls.--Azer Red Si? 22:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dunno how much this will interest anyone, but I'm an editor at ANUS and would like to point out a few things. ANUS is the continuation of a hacker/free speech organization from the Houston BBS scene in the 1980s, has been mentioned in Spin Magazine and the Houston Press, has resulted in numerous FBI visits for our members, has published almost a thousand pages of online documentation, has the oldest underground metal site on the net (not just the web, as it predates that -- was an FTP ezine first), and has over 400 active members who do a lot more than troll. We're not a troll organization; we're a political organization and a publisher with its first volume coming out in a few months. Add that to the fact that the website has been online in various forms since 1993 and has been cited in numerous places and you have our importance on the net, which is something others sometimes resent and try to attack. I don't see how our "notability" is up for questioning at all -- we've paid our dues and continue to contribute to the internet community. OH, and I forgot to mention the MacBong which got us mentioned in WIRED. I know we've fought with WikiPedians in the past over this, but I don't see why this has to be acrimonious, since the facts are obvious for all to see. If you have any questions, drop us a line at [27] and we'll talk it over. If that's not enough, come visit the ANUS and see if there's something of interest for you there :) Anus.com 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that Azer Red is obviously not NPOV as he hates them due to their status as trolls and not their encyclopedic value. I think Azer needs more friends, e-buddies as we call them. --Iconoclast 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, wrong. Hence I said that Wikipedia should be above giving unwarrented publicity to internet trolls. If I thought the organization was notable then I wouldn't nominate it for deletion, but it only gets around as many google hits as the GNAA and that article was deleted. I don't like terrorists either, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to try to have the Osama bin Laden article deleted.--Azer Red Si? 15:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why should we assume that you're voting from a NPOV standpoint since you have a link on your userpage to the ANUS homepage, with whom you say you take interest?--Azer Red Si? 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Also, I hate them bitterly. --Insineratehymn 04:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you hate them bitterly, then they're obviously notable, eh? Eh? EH? LOL. Notice how this is more a POV issue than anything else? --Iconoclast 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Insineratehymn has admitted vandalizing the article through several sockpuppets. Prolog 18:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Skraeling 07:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)— Skraeling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom-DE SU 05:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per precedent of article deletions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantown --Einsidler 12:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Anyone who says otherwise is a homosexual pedophile. LOL I'm voting!!--Iconoclast 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment like this and you'll be blocked indefinitely. There will be no further warnings. El_C 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you'd do that.... you're a communist. --Iconoclast 23:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needed like, what, 10-18 or so Vote For Deletions until they got the GNAA article deleted. That says quite a bit about this "democracy", in which we need to vote again and again until we get the results we want. LOL. --Iconoclast 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subsequent nominations of the article were not made by the same person over and over again. The point you've raised actually rather helps to emphasize Wikipedia's democratic nature: if valid arguments are raised and consensus is reached about deleting an article, then simply the fact that many previous deletion noms have not gone through won't result in the article automatically being kept without the arguments in favor of its deletion being examined.--Azer Red Si? 01:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it took eighteen tries to get it deleted. LOL.--Iconoclast 03:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless someone can present an argument why the article should be deleted. All users, including the nominator, have failed to do so. GNAA was deleted as an unverifiable organization lacking media coverage. This is not the case with this one (MTV [28], Yahoo! [29], Houston Press [30]). Also, this was kept two months ago and nothing has changed since. Prolog 18:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable, little significance, does it really exist? Should we care? Would people who belong to this organization (if it existed) care if we deleted the article? They probably would be the first to vote for deletion, if they thought that voting would be worth the effort Atom 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is iffy, but verifiability is not. SirFozzie 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prolog. Honestly, this is one of THE most widely-known metal sources, and it's nihilism section has gotten mentions in at least one mainstream publication (the Houston Press article). I think it's kinda obvious by now the only reason people are voting against it is either "I haven't heard of it" or "I don't like it," neither of which are valid reasons for article deletion. Ours18 03:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known, well noted website in both metal music/culture and philosphical circles as well as recipient of some mainstream media coverage. Jeffcrukk 12:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)— Jeffcrukk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. It's a real website. I see no valid reason for deleting the article. I personally don't need to know anything more about the group, but Wikipedia isn't here for me. It's here for everyone. Leave it. Chadlupkes 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT a web directory and per few of the cited sources meeting WP:RS Dragomiloff 11:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prolog, and simply because it has verifiability via media coverage (which would indicate notability, would it not?). Google hits aren't the only gauge of something being notable or not. Edward Wakelin 06:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its real... its been covered in the media... its being afd'd by someone obviously trolling... and its a 3rd nomination... everything about this nomination makes me want to indef block the nom... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be that you "hate them bitterly", or love them passionately, but neither is a valid reason for deletion or inclusion, and such !votes should be swiftly discounted; see WP:ILIKEIT for details. The comparison of this highly notable group to GNAA is apples and oranges, and I'm afraid there are more than enough reliable sources on the subject that it meets and exceeds the standards set forth by WP:ORG guidelines. In short, an obvious keep. Silensor 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom has not made a valid argument for deletion, particularly in the context of a renom, by citing an unrelated deletion discussion (precedent does not apply) and making an ad hominem remark about trolls and publicity. I have no opinion concerning this group, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers all topics, even those we don't like. This organization is listed in the bibliography of The Encycopedia of Heavy Metal [31] as an authoritative website. That is good enough for inclusion here. --JJay 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSOE[edit]

nn app. Google 53hit. Ziwuen 22:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--M8v2 23:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I appologise if I didn't conform to some obscure policy in writing the article - but would you mind explaining what you mean? zizdodrian 21:10, 26 December 2006 (GMT+10:00)
- Ziwuen's nomination is a bad one, that doesn't follow the advice given at User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Xe would have made a good nomination by saying that the software did not satisfy our WP:SOFTWARE criteria, and outlining what research xe had done to determine this. All that xe has actually done has count Google hits, and counting Google hits is not research. Given that neither Ziwuen nor M8v2 gave good rationales, and that it has taken four days for someone to even mention the WP:SOFTWARE criteria, I am re-listing this discussion. Please give proper rationales at AFD. Uncle G 14:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached

Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. No assertion of notability, wide-spread use, unique or special capabilities/features, etc. DMacks 17:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Online Operating System. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:33Z
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services and, as currently proposed, WP:SOFTWARE. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 06:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:32Z

List of people who died in the bathroom[edit]

This is a list that would be better served by being a category. At best, delete, at worst, keep pending categorization. Dennisthe2 23:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But if it has to stay then I would prefer a list over a category. To put, for instance, Elvis Presly in category:people who died in the bathroom seems kind of simple. Garion96 (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly list, possibly offensive. Please no category as substitute Bwithh 23:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary and unencyclopedic as a list (what's next, List of people who died on a Tuesday?) and ill-served as category; down this path awaits so many silly categories as to render them useless for their intended purpose. Serpent's Choice 00:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the title of this article made me laugh. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely unsourced. also irrelevant, in that the deaths described, while perhaps occurring in the bathroom, were nearly all not related to being there and could equally well have occurred in any other location. The article is hence irrelevant. And of course hopelessly incomplete.--Anthony.bradbury 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - We're about to get rid of Category:People who died in hotel rooms so if this became a category it wouldn't survive. If it's going to exist on Wikipedia it's going to be in the form of a list. Given the choice between list and cat this should be a list, but it's probably not going to survive as a list either. Otto4711 02:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken, there. --Dennisthe2 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just arbitrary, and offensive to the deceased.-- danntm ^T _C 04:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "offensive," to the deceased (who I'm willing to bet don't care) or others, is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not censored. Otto4711 04:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Potentially offensive. Nazli 05:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, joke. Pavel Vozenilek 17:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. Is there really anybody who doesn't think this topic is idiotic?--OinkOink 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the topic is idiotic. It's certainly not Wikipedia material but it's not irredeemably stupid either. There's lots of stuff I think is idiotic that gets plenty of coverage here but I don't argue for its deletion on that basis. "Unencyclopedic" is sufficient in and of itself without casting aspersions on those who might find the topic interesting or amusing. I'm seriously tempted to opine "Keep" only because of all the people who want to delete this for illegitimate reasons like it's "idiotic" or "offensive." Otto4711 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't really care if this gets deleted or not, but do not categorize. Such a category would not only serve to embarrass the departed, but also the 'pedia's credibility. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article makes sense to me. E.g. Elvis Presley died in a bathroom. Tonytypoon 01:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: stupid, WP:NOT#DIR. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer pranks[edit]

No references whatsoever or assertion of the notability of these sites/videos/pranks. The terms used to designate the different kinds of computer pranks (e.g. "loss of control" pranks) are neologisms. In short, this "article" is nothing but a collection of original research and links to non-notable videos and shock sites. This isn't YouTube. This is an encyclopedia.--Azer Red Si? 23:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:OR. Fails WP:NN. A wholly pointless and non-wikipedic article.--Anthony.bradbury 00:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research makes Wikipedia cry-DE SU 02:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the neologisms, how is the article original research? Isn't it describing primary sources? Λυδαcιτγ 03:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes unreferenced assertions such as "this video inspired so-and-so to do such-and-such" or "this video was intended to...". And even if original research wasn't a concern, notability certainly would still be.--Azer Red Si? 04:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Yuser31415 04:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per everyone's (above me) opinions. --Red Pooka 20:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified. Heimstern Läufer 05:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Suggest the editor to simplify to the notable ones and merge it with Albino Blacksheep. Tonytypoon 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Brittain[edit]

fails WP:BIO —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 23:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC) ~~Bundle everyone else from List of Countdown champions in with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.244.185 (talk • contribs)~~ [reply]

Delete Brittain; see comment below.Relist other members of bundle as required.While Brittain is not notable as a game show champion (as he does not seem to have set a major record on the show), there are other people in the bundle suggested for deletion that are notable in other areas, such as Mark Nyman, one of the world's top Scrabble players. As Nyman would be delete as part of this bundle, I think that bundling every Countdown champion for deletion would be far too over-reaching. Andy Saund e rs 15:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Additional comment: WP:AFD says "Examples of when articles may be bundled into a single nomination: An article about any topic and other articles with the same content but with different titles." I do not feel that Mark Nyman, which is implied as part of this makeshift bundle, and Richard Brittain have the same content. Therefore, there should not have been a bundle added on to this nomination (I would remove it myself, but I don't want to be seen as vandalizing a deletion discussion by "removing" a nomination). Andy Saund e rs 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd additional comment, lest I be accused of propogating geographic bias: To me, Countdown to the United Kingdom is similar to Jeopardy! in North America. Not every Jeopardy! five-time champion, or Tournament of Champions winner, has an article in Wikipedia; in fact, many five-time champions have had their articles deleted. The precedent from the Jeopardy! AfD discussions have been that one must have transcended the show and received significant press coverage from their appearances on the show, such as Ken Jennings or Eddie Timanus, or set a significant record on the show (i.e. Brad Rutter, Jerome Vered, or David Madden). To me, it seems that Brittain is akin to a typical five-time Jeopardy! champion, or a regular Tournament of Champions winner (I should point out that the last three Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions winners, Mark Dawson, Russ Schumacher or Michael Falk, have not have articles created.) Andy Saund e rs 15:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No vote until this nomination is unbundled per OntarioQuizzer. I'd encourage an early closure of this AfD without prejudice to it starting again, unbundled. (My opinion FWIW: Countdown winners are not notable.) AndyJones 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the original nominator, I have "unbundled" the nomination (i.e., I struck the original comment regarding bundling). Only Richard Brittain was ever actually nominated for this AfD, so only Richard Brittain is under discussion. The other pages may be considered later in seperate AfDs as necessary. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Profile[edit]

Not notable, does not assert its own notability, was prodded twice ([32], [33]), but twice removed by the same IP. Dar-Ape 23:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear failure of WP:WEB. Possibly could have been speedied. Fan-1967 23:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious failure of WP:WEB--Anthony.bradbury 00:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - CobaltBlueTony 02:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that subject is notable per WP:WEB. The METRO PROFILE then begin promoting it's [sic] page to users on the popular social networking site, myspace.com. Wikipedia was a logical next step. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'll prod the userpage, which is a copy of this. MER-C 07:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jyothisingh 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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