< April 8	April 10 >

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

The result was speedy delete as attack page by Mike 7. (non-admin closure) Resurgent insurgent 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menstelia[edit]

This is just an attack page, a POV fork of Carlos Mencia. Much of this is already in the Mencia article. Brianyoumans 00:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It hedges on being an attack page, but it seems to be merely a POV fork as per the nom. --Dennisthe2 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - As above, POV fork - Tiswas^(t/c) 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per others above. Ab e g92contribs 00:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV, borderline attack page. --Haemo 01:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's Menstealia --Haemo 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--ZayZayEM 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates POV policy. Hello32020 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page, no reliable sources for all claims made in the article = violation of WP:BLP. Resurgent insurgent 03:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Bryant 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Haslingden[edit]

delete - 74th in a single Olympic event seems doubtful notability - Tiswas^(t/c) 00:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete- Unless there's some other significance to this person's life which has not been adequately expressed on the page (and why wouldn't it be?) ParvatiBai 00:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sources. Ab e g92contribs 00:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Aren't all Olympians inherently notable? Eddie.willers 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleteGman124 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete Wow 74th. He needed one big Act of God~~ ==> Change to Keep. Olympian.--ZayZayEM 14:8, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable from what's stated. Hello32020 02:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure, Olympians have inherent notability, but 74^th? I think not. Hornandsoccer ^Talk 03:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being selected to represent Australia at the Olympics is a sufficient proof of notability. WP:BIO lists as one of its criteria: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Placing 74th does not take away from that accomplishment. --Eastmain 03:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eddie 'the Eagle' Edwards lost badly at the Olympics. But he also became well-known and had some semblance of fame. Does the subject? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:BIO Orderinchaos 05:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BIO and precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte. In the case of Lecomte, an Olympic athlete's article was kept merely because he was an Olympic athlete, even though not even his first name was known. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Athletic prowess or lack thereof should be pretty much irrelevant. If Haslingden is the subject of multiple reliable sources, he meets Wikipedia's primary notability criterion. I have found one: ABC, if there are any more, this should be kept. If Olympians are inherently notable, then performance at the Olympics should also not be relevant. --Canley 08:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know. 74th? I get the feeling that that is not within the intended results of WP:BIO as it applies to sportspeople, even if it does appear to be within the letter. Lankiveil 09:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Even though he finished 74th, the people at the Olympics Wikiproject are trying to haave the names listed on this subject for all competitors at the Olympic Games. If you look at the coverage of some of the other events, you can see this. Even though they Mr. Haslingden finished 74th in the men's 18 km event, it is still listed in the official Olympic report for the 1952 Winter Olympics in Oslo. Additionally, there may be Wikipedia users in Australia who have more information on this athelete and can fill out information. Chris 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part 2. Haslindgen also competed in the 50 km event at those same games though he did not finish. The source for this event is also listed in the article as well. Chris 13:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no higher level in sports than the Olympics. JBEvans 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This article could have been crafted as an example of why not all Olympians are notable. A single competitor in one Olympic discipline in one games is clearly not notable as a sportsman. Sam Blacketer 14:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep with latest sourcing and revisions. Sam Blacketer 08:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. Coming in such a dismally low place in a single competition may not seem very notable to you or I, but the fact of the matter is he represented his country at the Olympics, and that alone satisfies one of the "special cases" : Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports. I have issues with "notability" because it is so ill-defined and subjective but in this case the guideline is pretty clear-cut. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not targeting this comment at you in particular, but this line of argument has two problems. Firstly WP:BIO is a guideline and not policy. Secondly, even if it was, the heading of the list reads "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits". Merely because a subject comes into a class mentioned in WP:BIO does not mean that the article must automatically be notable. Sam Blacketer 15:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's only a guideline, and you bring up valid points. While it should not be used as an absolute test, I feel that if certain "special cases" merit mention in the guideline they should generally be considered acceptable inclusion criteria except in cases where there is some compelling reason to ignore the guideline. Unfortunately situations like this are prone to circular logic - "Guideline says that X is a special case of notability, but guideline also says there is no absolute test of notability". It's all going to be a case of interpretation, naturally, but my interpretation is that if an article satisfies one of the "special cases" then I will assume notability unless there is exceptional reason to ignore the guideline. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for three reasons. First, competing at the Olympic Games satisfies our criteria for notability because the person would have competed at the highest level in amateur sports. Unless we introduce a stricter criteria for notability of sports figures, then this is sufficient. Second, we have had several similar articles up for AfD before and they have all survived. There is nothing to indicate we should change precedent now. Third, a cross-country skiier from Australia has to be somewhat rare, and notable for that alone. Andrwsc 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somehow it seems like there's a common misconception that an athlete can compete in an Olympic event without having any other achievements to speak of. The article needs to be expanded, but one does not reach the Olympics by a whim. He has competed at the highest level of amateur sports. Leebo ^T/C 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-As said above, though he finished 74th, he had to do something major before that to get into the Olympics. That part needs to be found and added. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - - as per WP:BIO, he has competed at the highest level in his sport. The guideline doesn't say "... and won stuff or came really close". -- Whpq 17:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. I am sure an Australian Olympian is more than just WP:CRUFT, which is the alternative in this case. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was an Olympian. His place in the event is irrelevant. The only fact that matters is that he represented his country at the highest ametuer level. --Cyrus Andiron 17:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, though he wasn't very close in placing, even participating in the Olympics is something that most of us won't even accomplish. A simple cleanup/expand tag on this article would have sufficed. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did not care what country Mr. Haslingden was from, just that he competed. Besides, he has two stub tabs already calling for the expansion of the article, one from Australia and the other for winter sports. I do this all the time with my articles if I think they need to be expanded. Chris 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has participated in the Olympics and there are sources to prove that. He most definitely had to have some success in his career to represent Australia in the Olympics. Subject meets WP:BIO. —Anas ^talk? 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Haslingden was Australia's first cross-country representative at the Olympics together with Cedric Sloan. [1]He would have had to performed well in trials and other events to have been selected. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be possible for editors with knowledge on the matter to prove the subject's notability by expanding and sourcing his article? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People are focusing on "74th". What matters is that he presumably finished first, second, or third in the Australian Olympic trials. I agree with the editors who say that all Olympians are notable. JamesMLane t c 03:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competing at the Olympics is a nice, clear-cut criteria for inclusion. Otherwise, we get into messy arguments about how good is good enough. And competing at the Olympics isn't something you just do one afternoon (even with the notoriously incompetent athletes). Andjam 03:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment Yes, Australia didn't do very well at the sport at that Olympics (though I don't think any seagulls were actually killed). Australia came second last and last (excluding DNFs). But it still isn't cruft. Andjam 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody is adding to the article or expanding it or making any serious assertion that the subject could warrant a full article. Maybe the information should be merged into something relevant. Considering how many people get sent to the Olympics, the idea that every single one should have their own article (despite the fact they may have done nothing else of note) is a trifle ridiculous. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have expanded the article from sources. As the 1952 Winter Olympics was Australia's first Winter Olympics, he was a pioneering Winter Olympian. It is generally agreed that Olympic participation is sufficient for competing in the highest levels of the sport as specified by WP:BIO. It might be appropriate to merge with Australia at the 1952 Winter Olympics but there is strong sentiment for a standalone article.Capitalistroadster 07:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, this was Australia's second Winter Olympics, though it was the first time it sent a team rather than a sole Olympian. Andjam 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has been mentioned that notability is satisfied according to the guideline "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Do we know what the minimum achievement was for qulaification? Is it possible that Haslingden was a shoo-in? This would surely diminish any claim to notability, inasmuch as it diminishes any notion of him being a bonafide competitor. The abc.net article alludes to the fact that it required minimal achievement on his behalf to qualify. - Tiswas^(t/c) 09:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he's an olympian he should be in. Do you want to have a thousand of these discussions over the coming years deciding which olympian should be in and which shouldn't be? Does eighteenth in the 1952 fencing count etc? So much time would be wasted. If someone's an Olympian then he or she is notable. It's the same with first class cricketers etc. It's an encyclopedia and we're not going to run out of paper. He should be in. Nick mallory 10:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is sourced (well, for a short article!) and passes WP:BIO, so I don't see much of a problem with Keep-ing it. Nihiltres 12:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (vote change) I still think the argument "all Olympic athletes ever should have their own article" is just a license to create crap stubs and leave them unmaintained until an AFD. But the expansion (and sourcing) explains why the man could be considered a notable in Australian sports history. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You could use any notability criterion to "create a crap stub." If you're simply expressing a pessimistic outlooks toward stub expansion, it applies to other areas besides athletes too. Leebo ^T/C 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nearly 11,100 competitors at Athens 2004. 2,633 at the 2006 Winter Olympics. Do all of those need an article? Bearing in mind there have been 25 Summer and Winter Games. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one said that we were close to finishing the encyclopedia. I hope we don't start excluding subjects for the sake of saving ourselves the work. No one is requiring you to make those articles, but the athletes are notable and thus shouldn't be deleted. For comparison, we have about 1.7 million articles in total, and species are considered notable enough to have their own articles -- yet there are many millions more species than we currently have articles on all subjects combined. This doesn't render any given species non-notable, and it also doesn't mean you have to devote time to creating species articles if you'd like to work on other things. Leebo ^T/C 15:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment Sure you can't google an awful lot about him right now, but once old issues of newspapers get digitized we could yet see a featured article written about him. Andjam 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For him to make it to the Olympics means he qualified somewhere... Which makes him nationally quite competitive. Meets WP:BIO as it is currently written. He's at least as notable as Book Book. Garrie 04:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I just noticed... he was in Australia's first Winter Olympic team from Australia and you want to delete the article?Ga rr ie
Keep Is notable as the first Australian to compete in cross country skiing at the Winter Olympics. Sarah 07:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Andrwsc. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE to somewhere. Clearly not a consensus to outright banish the content, as many deleters confess the possibility of a viable merge. However, the target of the merge is unclear, it's either the redlinked article or Friends itself. Making a new article out of a copypaste of two existing ones seems poor to me, and I don't feel duty bound to do such as the outcome of an AfD in any case. I'm therefore taking a slightly unusual route: I shall redirect both articles to Friends for now, and ask that someone extracts the contents from the respective histories and does as they editorially see best with it. Following that, they should change the target of the redirects as appropriate. -Splash - tk 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monica's apartment[edit]

Delete - unencyclopedic minutae masquerading as an article. There appear to be no independent reliable sources of which Monica's apartment is the primary subject. Otto4711 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a pointless regurgitation of minutae that, were it not so unutterably unencyclopaedic, belong in the main Friends article. Eddie.willers 01:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic article--$UIT 01:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleteGman124 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as needless detail about a fictional location that lacks independent sourcing.-- danntm ^T _C 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Joey's apartment to a new article on Locations in Friends or some such. The show is notable enough that some description of the various locations is encyclopedic, but I'm not sure the current style is the way to go. FrozenPurpleCube 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It can be added to the Friends article. Should not stand alone. JBEvans 14:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge-No need for an article on a fictional characters house. Merge to the Friends article (probably with Joey's apartment also). --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Locations in Friends. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Monica Geller.--Paloma Walker 21:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, or merge into Locations in Friends. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to Monica Geller or even delete. No sourcing, fictional location. —Anas ^talk? 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. (I've also commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey's apartment.) It doesn't adequately cite its sources, but it's only been tagged as such since January, and could still improve. On the other hand, I'm not sure what kind of neutral, reliable sources are going to be available for Monica's apartment. If the article is not deleted however, I'd rather it be combined with Joey's apartment and Central Perk as Locations on Friends. WODUP 00:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Either delete altogether or merge in with prior noted articles. JAMDAWG

14:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^{talk with me·changes}[reply]

Strong Keep or Merge into Locations in Friends. As notable as Central Perk, this is a major setting for a tv program that is a cultural icon. The apartment, and its companion Joey's apartment and Central Perk were more than mere backdrops to the story, they were almost featured characters themselves, moving plots forward and figuring significantly as content, not setting, in many episodes. I could see merging the three articles into one "Locations in Friends" article, but have no problem at all and would prefer to keep them as separate pieces. It would be a real shame to lose the material that was assembled for these articles because of overzealous deletion. Tvoz |talk 03:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - yes in that order! Has no references, no verification outside of wiki on the page and it is probably difficult if not impracticable to find any singular references encyclopedically supportive of this content.--VS ^talk 12:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassavettes[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete notability not asserted - Tiswas^(t/c) 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 00:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability.--ZayZayEM 02:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete They do assert notability in their claim to have been chosen the best local band in Boston. However that may not rise to the standards of WP:MUSIC. The article does not meet WP:ATTRIBUTION which is critical especially in regards to their claim of best local band. JBEvans 14:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete: They have appeared in the local papers here in Boston, and they did win the Phoenix's band poll (which strictly is who can send in the most letters with your band's name in to the paper). That isn't enough to clear WP:MUSIC, and this article plainly and gratingly butts heads against WP:SPAM as well. The article represents the creator's only Wikipedia activity, so WP:COI may well be in play. Ravenswing 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-fails WP:MUSIC, and the biography part is filled with POV and contains the word "our", so it's probably a COI as said above. There's also not one source in the whole article. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:MUSIC and is written from the bands point of view. AltoSax 456 20:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, doesn't meet WP:Music.--Paloma Walker 21:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, [[WP:MUSIC, subjective POV, just delete it already. :-) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete: Partly mets WP:MUSIC; they have received some international coverage (at least in Spain). Perhaps should be advisable to mark for "editing", and remove all POV parts. — 88.2.33.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 0:40 10 April 2007

Comment: Would you have any sources backing that up you'd like to share? Ravenswing 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica's apartment. -Splash - tk 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey's apartment[edit]

Delete - unencyclopedic minutae posing as an encyclopedia article. There appear to be no independent reliable sources of which Joey's apartment is the primary subject. Otto4711 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a pointless regurgitation of minutae that, were it not so unutterably unencyclopaedic, belong in the main Friends article. Eddie.willers 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleteGman124 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft--ZayZayEM 02:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monica's apartment to a new article describing locations in friends. The show is notable enough that covering its locations is reasonable, but I'm not sure this is the way to go. FrozenPurpleCube 02:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 14:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Friends or seperate article of called "Locations in Friends". --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Locations in Friends or somesuch. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - create a section in the Friends article for locations, but locations in Friends do not need their own separate article or articles. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 19:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Friends.--Paloma Walker 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, or merge into Locations in Friends. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this article verges on fancruft. However if we really must reference this fictional location, then something like "Locations in Friends" (as noted above) would be acceptable. A1octopus 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. (I've also commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica's apartment.) It doesn't adequately cite its sources, but it's only been tagged as such since January, and could still improve. On the other hand, I'm not sure what kind of neutral, reliable sources are going to be available for Joey's apartment. If the article is not deleted however, I'd rather it be combined with Monica's apartment and Central Perk as Locations on Friends. WODUP 00:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge into Locations in Friends. As notable as Central Perk, this is a major setting for a tv program that is a cultural icon. The apartment, and its companion Monica's apartment and Central Perk were more than mere backdrops to the story, they were almost featured characters themselves, moving plots forward and figuring significantly as content, not setting, in many episodes. I could see merging the three articles into one "Locations in Friends" article, but have no problem at all and would prefer to keep them as separate pieces. It would be a real shame to lose the material that was assembled for these articles because of overzealous deletion. Tvoz |talk 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for Monica's apartment - Merge or delete as per Teckwiz's suggestions.--VS ^talk 12:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are lynching Negroes[edit]

Patent Nonsense Animesouth 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is also totally unsourced. -Animesouth 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete the references sourced do not even have this precise phrase. --JianLi 01:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not nonsense at all, but an article about an actual phrase. And there are sources. Yes, there could be more, but the article itself is fairly sound. janejellyroll 01:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is absolutely not patent nonsense; it's a well-known historical expression, and probably one of the classic examples of an adhominem argument. Probably needs some more sourcing, though. For instance, here's a citation for the use of it in propaganda:

http://parentseyes.arizona.edu/bloom/oralhistories/mila2.html --Haemo 01:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of my favorite articles on WP; well-known, not made up. Admittedly, some sourcing problems. Ab e g92contribs 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleteGman124 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article's a bit of a mess but it does appear to be a historically important expression. There's already one source; more could certainly be found. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup.--ZayZayEM 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean. Seems to be a notable expression that actually existed. --Evan S e eds (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an cleanup. I'm assuming that this is a notable phrase. Sr13 (T|C) 03:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loved it, would read again! --ArrEmmDee 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: People keep assuming that this is a notable phrase. I have never seen this phrase used verbatim. The source listed in this article does not even use anything like this phrase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Animesouth (talk • contribs) 06:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete on several grounds, ~~first, there is no citation for the actual phrase--in any previous AfD discussion of this sort, that alone has always been fatal.~~ second, the article implies a POV about Soviet criticism of the US. third, the article relies upon induction, known around here as OR. Most comments amount to ILIKEIT.DGG 08:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is that a lot of the phrases are, naturally, in Russian. I don't speak Russian, but the literal (Russian) phrase in the articles gets some 8000 odd GHits outside of Wiki mirrors. Google's poor Russian machine translation gives a feel for some of these:

Here's [2] an article which uses the phrase, referring to Putin's autocracy.
Here's [3] another one which uses the phrase in context.
And another [4]
Here's a letter to the editor referencing it [5]

This is just on the first couple of pages. I can't translate any of the other languages, but a couple of them get a few hundred hits for the literal phrase as well. This phrase is notable, and is definitely not nonsense - the article just needs better sourcing. --Haemo 08:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly accept your sourcing as relevant, & have deleted that point, but I still urge consideration of the others.DGG 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Haemo; adequate sourcing and notable expression. Sandstein 09:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, just a phrase that might be mentioned in an article about U.S.-Soviet relations, nothing more. Piccadilly 11:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per DGG JBEvans 14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Haemo's first citation which says "Don't you know that they're lynching Negroes in America? " More than a random phrase, this article shows a propaganda tactic used by the Soviet Union during the cold war. Please add this and other references. Edison 14:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this was a rather infamous phrase/saying once upon a time and has a historical relevance to US-USSR Cold War relations. It is far from "patent nonsense". Tarc 15:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haemo. We should be looking at getting more of that sourcing, into the article. This nom should have been better researched; an attempt to bring information about a term in another language needs to be checked in the other language, not deleted because 'I can't cite this foreign phrase in English.' That's sort of the point. Thespian 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haemo. The phrase is apparently an old notable one in Russian. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand and rename. If the phrase has been translated multiple ways, the article should probably have a different name. "Soviet Propoganda"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lankybugger (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. Currently listed "reference" doesn't have the phrase and DGG's point about original research is well-taken. However, Haemo's research seems to indicate that the sources do exist that would solve these problems. Shouldn't even be that difficult to whip the article into shape if someone who is particularly familiar with Russian were to take a crack at it. Mwelch 22:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename, after reading name I automatically thought to myself "delete." After reading the article, it does have some meaning to it. A good clean up and referencing should do the trick. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ changed to Strong Delete and tag it for lack of sources. Did not realize there are only 7 sites on Google Search that include this phrase. This is simply not notable.--FateClub 02:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And 8000 in Russian, and another odd 1000 in other languages. --Haemo 06:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A classic example of the misuse of the Google test -- this phrase had pretty much passed into history before the Internet began. JamesMLane t c 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was part of history wouldn't it be recorded somewhere? More than 7 sites perhaps? --FateClub 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Recorded somewhere" doesn't necessarily mean "recorded somewhere online in English". JamesMLane t c 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English-language publications discussed historic and recent events from any place in the world. From Ancient Rome and the Byzantine Empire to Vanuatu and Fiji. There are many institution teaching Russian history and culture and many researchers specialized in the area, and this was even more important during the Cold War, but it is apparent that THEY ALL missed this event or did not bother to write about it. There are excerpts and even entire publications posted in websites and capable of being found by Google. --FateClub 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't usually comment on these - but this seems to me to be a pretty egregious misuse of wikipedia. You write an article on progpaganda, then get narrower and write about particular method or source, maybe about particular writers. But an article on a specific phrase (or paraphrase) that might or might not be notable in the context of a larger subject? Come on! We can have great articles about every conceivable aspect of HUAC without having an ENTIRE ARTICLE just for the phrase "Are you now or have you ever been a Communist". Do we need separate articles for Uncle Sam and for the phrase "I Want You"? I could think of numerous other examples. This AfD has been a good example of a couple of good editors pointing out that the article is not nonsense and giving some context, followed by a flood of people essentially arguing "it exists, keep it." -67.85.183.103 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all about propaganda - it's about the cultural impact, and use, of a given phrase which has transcended its propaganda usage. --Haemo 06:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although we should make sure that there isn't a better-known translation of the phrase into English. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but strongly urge that better sources be provided and if not forthcoming, re-consider for deletion. I was a functioning, politically aware adult during the last 20 or so years of the Soviet Union's reign, and I never have come across this phrase. That's not a good enough reason to delete - any more than people assuming it is legit is reason to keep- so sources seem to be in order.Tvoz |talk 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and go and write "Are you now or have you ever been a Communist" if you want. --Lukobe 05:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your proposed title should redirect to "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party", but, either way, I agree with you that an article on this phrase would be justified. It should be linked to from our existing article Are You Now or Have You Ever Been (about an episode of Angel (TV series)). JamesMLane t c 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cleaned it, sourced, and expanded a bit. `'mikka 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the phrase is known among Czechs and was used in the satirical sense in the past. Pavel Vozenilek 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: maybe the phrase warrants an article (it would probably be better off merged somewhere), but I was appalled to read "The image of America lynching Negroes was part of a stereotype propagated by the Soviet propaganda." Admittedly, the article immediately follows this with "The claim had validity in the 1960s when it originated, as there were human rights abuses including lynchings of African Americans going on in some U.S. Southern states. There were also many public and televised conflicts between the black population and police during that period." Well, yes. Everyking 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important topic. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 11:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a combination of nonsense, vandalism, and disruption. --Wafulz 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky[edit]

This is just nonsense. Probably speedyable, but the tag was removed by another editor. janejellyroll 01:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly unencyclopedic, unverifiable. Aspires (very poorly) to be a dicdef. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleteGman124 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic sillyness. It's been speedied a few times already. ... discospinster _talk 01:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current vandal of the article has already attempted to obfuscate his user talk page by moving that over to wonky and blanking it, but it seems that bots would keep up on that. So it occurs to me that this history should be preserved somewow. As for the term, Wiktionary has it already. I'm hedging on a delete and salt, and will roll with that if we have something to keep the history (or a reason not to). --Dennisthe2 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Complete, unsalvageable nonsense. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alan.ca 01:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess as mental training[edit]

Delete: Information belongs in article chess. There are lots of things which are good for mental training: academic fields, puzzles, sports, music. That is no reason we should make a new article. Neither should this page be a redirect, as it an improbable search phrase. JianLi 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chess. Notable, verifiable information, but it doesn't stand well on its own. --Wafulz 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay.--ZayZayEM 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any usable information to Chess. As it is, its an essay. Hello32020 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge per Hello32020.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge-The page title itself sounds like a section name, but the main Chess article is big. So, either try to fit it, or make a section in the chess article with the "Main article" link. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the article alone shows no notability. Usable information from this article in conjunction with information in the chess article would be nice. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, seems to be useful content but no reason for it to be independent of the Chess article, even as long as it is already. Goodnightmush 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite There's some good raw information. A good system of reorganizing would be to rename to Psychology (of/and) chess, referencing Hartston and Wason's book The Psychology of Chess. Another option would be "Chess (and/in) education." YechielMan 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge article's notability is not supported (not to mention broad brush statements). A couple of lines in chess would pull the concept of this one up in a flash.--VS ^talk 12:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of outdated English slang[edit]

Unmaintainable list. Subjective; when is something truly outdated? Finally, it has problems with verifiability per WP:V. Crystallina 01:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Some of that slang is still in use ("Bees knees" being but one example), making this whole mess a whole lot of WP:OR. No attributions, can't verify it, and there is no way it could ever be completed, because of the fact that, again, some of those terms really are in use. --Dennisthe2 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective criteria, not to mention incorrect on many counts. Additionally, there is no way to declare a phrase "outdated" considering it could easily come back into use. --Wafulz 02:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned, this is actually very incorrect. I hesitate to use the term "original research" when obviously so little has been done. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Subjective article. Unsourced. As mentioned several phrases still in infrequent usage.--ZayZayEM 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too subjective to ever be a real list, and too huge to be comprehensive. --Haemo 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced; no one can accurately define "outdated." Sr13 (T|C) 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resurgent insurgent 03:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Piccadilly 11:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ but I think that at some point it could be the start of something useful. I put this page up with an "under construction" tag in the hopes that I could make an interesting page, but it kept getting taken down, and I guess that's not how you do things on Wikipedia. The version you see here isn't what I intended; I wanted to put a lot of words from List of archaic English words and their modern equivalents that were interesting put didn't belong on the page. There are a lot of old slang words which still are not in use out there, and it would be cool to have a nice list of them somewhere. Maybe it would be original research and somewhat against WP:V, but no more so than List of words having different meanings in British and American English. In addition, one could certainly come up with sources; I found a book of 1800s slang on Gutenberg. So in short, it is a mess because I never finished it, but I think it would work in some form, maybe even on Wiktionary? Please advise Illuminatedwax 12:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy After talking with an admin, I'd like to work on this in my userspace to see if I can't improve this article. Illuminatedwax 13:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You appear to be wanting to write a dictionary of slang. I've explained on your talk page where the project for doing that is. Userfication is inappropriate, because the work that you want to do isn't appropriate for this project at all. Uncle G 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - unsourced, uncategorised, possible original research, but could possibly be improved to be worthy of inclusion.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slang is subjective enough, throw "outdated" into the mix and you get a mess. Fails WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I started counting the words I knew were not only still in use, but that I still used myself. I lost count. RGTraynor 17:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-How do you define outdated and slang? Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I hate to be a wet blanket, I'd like to fire a rick this far too arbitrary and unsourced list.-- danntm ^T _C 17:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking through the list as some have said above some of the slang is still in use and I use some of the slang words regularly. Also youve problems over what each slang word means as it can vary from region to region, an example being in your list Bimbo where i live that word means a woman who goes with lots of different men for sex whereas you have a different meaning for it. --PrincessBrat 20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite... extensive.... Doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but perhaps it could be moved to a different website? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Golly gee, this list is neat-o. The major objection seems to be to the word "outdated" in the title. So change the title, and keep the classification by decades. Dictionaries have no trouble defining slang, and there are dictionaries that can provide external references for this. Fg2 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sourcing an article from dictionaries creates a dictionary. The place to create a golly gee dictionary is over there. Uncle G 11:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main problem I see with this article is that alot of the words on this list are STILL in use today, or at least alot of the words I am familiar with, and still hear from time to time. By the definition of the article itself, These phrases or words are no longer used, their meaning is no longer understood, or their usage causes the speaker to appear old or outdated. Since a large number of these words cannot even match this definition is why I'm voting to delete. JAMDAWG

14:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^{talk with me·changes}[reply]

delete unsourced--Sefringle 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. This is original research, pure and simple. Any article citing only a silly 'news' site with three exclamation marks in its title deserves to be burned. (Incidentally, there were no grounds for relisting this, the call of an admin closer is to find either a consensus or no consensus, unless the debate is so sparse neither is possible. There was plenty of material to call whether there was a consensus or not). If this is a valid topic then I would encourage a good, scientific rewrite, but here is not where to begin. -Splash - tk 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead-eye syndrome[edit]

Seems mostly as ariginal research, the only reference is to a "Aint it cool news"_→AzaToth 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify. The article itself describes something that's more of a bug, but I want to give it a chance myself. Let's wait until we kill it. --Dennisthe2 01:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a neologism that hasn't caught on yet and without a solid attributable definition. The only point of reliable reference (for this definition) is Ain't It Cool News, and everything related I found seems to just be a rehashing of the Polar Express statement on blogs/forums. --Wafulz 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as non-notable neologism. If more sources (particular those that are reliable) explain the term, I'll flip flop.--ZayZayEM 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. Sr13 (T|C) 03:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it is a potentially valid topic, it is quite interesting (yes, I know), and it is referenced, although the far from infallible search engine test doesn't seem to establish notability. And to think that the possibly scientific dead-eye syndrome is an unsuitable topic whereas donkey punch supposedly is a worthy topic here...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep-Seems like a notable article. It needs a reliable source though. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO Although Dead-eye syndrome has 60,100 google hits, "Dead-eye syndrome" only has 25 unique hits. The article is 7 months old and has not really progressed. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. The "syndrome" it attempts to describe is indeed notable -- however, it's already covered by the well-established concept of the "uncanny valley". -- Docether 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or just maybe merge to uncanny valley. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I found the article interesting, but without reliable sources the article is useless. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, as is this is deletion fodder, but I think the topic is valid. Nihiltres 13:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with uncanny valley. ~Inkington 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is referenced (not great but is) and is a fact it seems (I mean I got dead-eye syndrome when I watched Polar Express but then I fell asleep and I felt a lot better) - but seriously folks this article is/could become a worthwhile stub.--VS ^talk 12:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the very fact that someone like Zemeckis, a major film director, acknowledges the fact that animators and directors are concerned with this issue justifies it being included as a definition within Wikipedia. Furthermore, uncanny valley is an issue concerning robotics, not film animation, which is what dead-eye syndrome is concerned with.--TallulahBelle 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alan.ca 02:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it looks to me like a neologism. semper fictilis 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with uncanny valley]. This is a real problem, one of many, obvious in computer generated actors. But one reference about one Holywood figure's comment is not enough to justify a separate article at this time. When it is better attested through multiple independent reliable references the article can be recreated. Edison 06:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With source would be a reasonable article --St.daniel 13:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More sources would be good, but the topic is valid and notable enough. Davewild 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uncanny valley is too wierd a term and too specific a theory to adequately cover the highly encyclopedic topic of failures of computer generated actors to be convincing. This article covered only one facet of it. I hope someone in the field will create a good article on the topic, since studios are spending millions trying to achieve convincing rendering of living persons, for such purposes of adding a scene with an ensemble member who has passed away (like Tony Soprano's mother in the Soprano's), making a fantasy creature like Gollum based on motion capture, adding a deceased actor to a commercial or movie, or having a flashback scene showing a youthful moment in a film with an aged actor. There are other problem like stiffness and robotic movement, all of which would be welcome in one new article. Edison 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington Mall[edit]

Does not appear to assert notability. Navou ^banter / _contribs 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It most certainly asserts it, by giving the size and the list of merchants. The question is whether it is in fact notable. As probably the most important one in the northeast US , it might be. DGG 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I don't get any notibility out of the article. List of merchants is not notability. (aside) WTF there is a Burlington Mall (disambiguation) page?--ZayZayEM 02:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims of notability in the article. Size and list of merchants don't cut it - if a mall doesn't have size and doesn't have tenant merchants, it doesn't have an existance either. Resurgent insurgent 09:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This mall has 1,336,000 square feet of gross leasable area per [6]. Any mall with 800,000 square feet or more of GLA is a "super-regional mall" per the ICSC at [7] and at [8]. In the U.S there are only 611 mall larger than 800,000 square feet out of the 37,000 plus shopping centers in the U.S. There is more discussion of this at the talk page of WP:MALL (which is tagged as historical and as rejected). Being a superregional mall has been sufficient to demonstrate notability in past AFDs. It is also likely that such a mall has multiple independent sources with nontrivial coverage, which would allow the stub to be expanded. Edison 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, it's a big mall in this area. So? There are malls everywhere; that doesn't make them prima facie notable, especially when they contain nothing more than a list of links that plug into corporate websites far from Burlington. If in fact there are sources that fulfill the requirements of WP:ATT, this article's been around for a year now, and I don't see them yet. Ravenswing 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep-It does seem a little notable, per Edison, but the hours make it seem like an advertisement. That should go. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it may lack notability where someone else lives, but for people living near the area, the article can be quite useful. It contains a hint of subjective angle, so get rid of that. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Err ... I do live in the area, and it's just another shopping mall in a land of plenty of them. It's neither the area's first (that's the South Shore Plaza in Braintree) nor the largest. Ravenswing 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable [9] --W.marsh 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Size and scope of the mall demonstrate notability in its market. Article would greatly benefit from expansion and additional sourcing. Alansohn 03:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets notability - nothing more to say really (except for why do the champions of these articles disappear before they are written up properly?).--VS ^talk 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mall is definitely notable in my opinion -- definitely seems big enough and relevant enough. I'm removing the list of stores (except for the anchors) to make it seem less like a directory. TenPoundHammer 15:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, highly notable as a supermall. Stop wasting time. RFerreira 01:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. There is minimal support for retaining the article, and the longest comment relies entirely on personal awe. Make a mention within the Vista article, or something, that's plenty. -Splash - tk 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing Point (alternate reality game) (2nd nomination)[edit]

The article still strikes me as advertising for Microsoft. The only sources of substance are from the Neowin forums and The Register. The rest came from blogs or minor mentions in articles that were actually about Vista. During the first deletion discussion there was but one staunch defender of the article, and I wound up even convincing him. Many of the other arguments for keeping it went along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. Lunch 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(On a minor note, this also went through DRV.) Lunch 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, as as one time non notable advertising. DGG 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but I would prefer a merge to an article describing the marketing of Windows Vista. FrozenPurpleCube 04:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not seeing any reliable secondary sources asserting that this low-key marketing campaign was notable. At best, it might merit a quick mention somewhere at Windows Vista. Krimpet (talk/review) 16:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krimpet. A little mention in Windows Vista is enough. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I found the article quite interesting which means that someone other than me finds it interesting too. I see no problem in keeping this if sources can be found and the article undergoes some rewriting to squeeze out a few subjective phrases. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree if sources could be found, but none have been. I made a good faith effort the first time around to find sources, but couldn't. Neither could anyone else. It's now a couple of months later, and no one who was so enthusiastic about the article the first time around has added any sources or made any substantive effort to clean up the article. Lunch 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I think the campaign was the best example of viral marketing conducted to date, with the biggest real-world impact (we are talking about projections on the brandenburg gate!) and pretty big media coverage. It also gathered quite some buzz on the net, so i think it has a strong right to remain as an independent article in Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.14.121.88 (talk)
- "Pretty big media coverage" where? Can you provide any references? "The best example of viral marketing" according to who? Lunch 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The best example, as i wrote, according to me..every "best" is subjective. It was however the most well-funded, and most spectacular ever. (I don't think i need to mention references for this, i can't recall any other viral campaign with worldwide live events). It did provide pretty "out of the ordinary" prices (trip in "space") and was an unusual attempt to be made by such a huge company, who can dispose of tons of standard-media coverage. Regarding the media coverage, i can only speak for Italy, it was on the news here...but i'm assuming other references could be found in the States. But even if it hadn't got any...well it was viral marketing anyway, and such a huge attempt at it, i think it would deserve to be mentioned. Some of the main tech blogs talked about it for ages..i don't think Wikipedia can be silent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.14.121.88 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - If Wikipedia is to claim that Vanishing Point was "the best example of viral marketing conducted to date," then yes, we need sources for that. That sort of statement is clearly in the bounds of WP:V and WP:ATT. See #4 at Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought.
      "It was on the news here [in Italy]." Where? Please, add sources to the article.
      "Blogs ... talked about it for ages." And after the 15 minutes of fame are up, how now? Is this something you want in an encyclopedia a year from now? Five years? Ten? Lunch 21:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is one of the best examples of a viral marketing campaign because of the live events that unfolded during this campaign, and the nature of the prize that was at stake. I really do think that people under appreciate the effort and resources spent on this comapaign. And I think part of the reason is that the article fails to elaborate on these 'live events' which is a major component of this campaign that really makes it stand out from past viral campaigns. During this campaign, the live events consists of displaying a video clue during the middle of a water fountain show in Las Vegas, Live Event #1, skywrting clues all over the world, Skywriting, and projecting clues on famous landmarks around the world. Projecting clues I don't know of any viral marketing campaign, other than Year Zero that has as much complexity involved. --Stoppedcode12 15:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense and an attack page. --Wafulz 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greebo (Slang)[edit]

Unreferenced slang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mysdaao 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--ZayZayEM 02:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; keep by default.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagleview Middle School[edit]

fails WP:NOTE, nicely written article, but completely not notable, tho an attempt is made at notability. Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 01:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I acknowledge that I created this article and that I have edited it heavily, but there are numerous other, less elaborate articles about other public middle schools. I will change my vote to "delete" once all of these other non-notable schools have also been nominated for AfD and others have expressed concern over their respective notabilities. I cite the following examples (many of which are of significantly less quality than Eagleview Middle School): Alvechurch Middle School, Avon Middle High School, Chatham Middle School, Citadel Middle School, City High-Middle School, Clayton Middle/High School, Cranborne Middle School, Gaffney High School (which also fails WP:NOTE, although it does not initially appear to), Joyce Kilmer Middle School, Lexington Middle School, Middle College High School (Stockton), Middle Township High School, Mountain Gap Middle School, Parras Middle School, and Salk Middle School. There are countless other examples that one can find upon searching for the text "middle school". — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 02:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:DISRUPT--ZayZayEM 02:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ZayZayEM, I apologize for the seemingly disruptive tone of my response to this AfD; I was simply shocked that this article would have been nominated before countless other stubs and (arguably) horribly written articles on other schools. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Xarr 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Webdinger, don't apologize. You were not disruptive at all by the definition in that WP:DISRUPT guideline. What is useful in ZayZayEM's link to that guideline were the points it makes in the second and third paragraphs about Wikipedia not being consistent. The guideline shows that your argument has been rejected by a consensus in the past, not that it was disruptive. Noroton 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this school is clearly notable becau of the science performance. As for the others, the way to deal with them is to nominate them for discussion, or to suggest merges. I suggest ignoring the above comment and considering the article on its own merits. DGG 02:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School. Herostratus 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being a school does not automatically make it notable, at all. J Milburn 11:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. Camaron1 | Chris 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article lacks references and might be better merged into a school district article. Though, its length and inclusion of some detail do suggest notability. Camaron1 | Chris 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That there are other middle schools with articles doesn't matter much; heck, I've filed prods on a bunch this past week (and thanks to Webdinger for directing me to more!). That this article is slightly better than a stub doesn't matter much either: odds are vanishingly small that any secondary school would lack extracurriculars, a core curriculum, administrators and an honor roll. What this article lacks, as is required by Wikipedia, are sources, and so it fails WP:ATT. Until and unless they are provided, this school's science performance is an allegation only. Ravenswing 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this good looking article. Too much good detail to merge. I agree with DGG's comments above. Noroton 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but does needs work. However, I have rewritten 2 weak stubs in about 2-3 days and have my plate full for now.VK35 23:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well written article about a significant school. I have sourced up the Science win to establish notability - other sourcing required but that is an editorial matter. TerriersFan 03:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand into an article on Academy School District 20. Chris 02:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. "Well-written" and "nice looking" are invalid keep reasons. "No secondary sources are available" is a valid deletion reason, and I sure can't find a single one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with respect, the key notability is 'winning the 2006 Colorado Science Olympiad competition', and that is reliably sourced, and I have also sourced the '2003-04 Report card' and '2005-06 Report card' where the School scored 'Excellent'. TerriersFan 03:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also with respect, none of those things establish notability. Multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources independent of a subject covering it establish notability. "It's a really good school" does not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with irritation. Seraphimblade, I welcome well-meaning criticism (such as yours above) of the criteria I use in deletion discussions, but I followed that link you gave for "invalid", and the section you linked to has nothing to do with the point that I and the other editor were making. If I missed something relevant in that paragraph, please point it out. Noroton 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (self-edit, Noroton 16:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep as-is per the comments above, the removal of this article would be detrimental to our project. RFerreira 02:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Barnowski[edit]

Completely unsourced, no clear assertion of encyclopedic notability, major contributor appears to be the subject; the article has been previously deleted (through CSD, not AfD as far as I can tell, and the article for the blog FYI Sports Fans has been deleted and protected (though I was not involved in that and don't know the details) older ≠ wiser 02:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:AUTO (User:Nickbarnowski), WP:BIO, WP:V. —LOL 02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTO and WP:BIO. Keep it in his userpage. Sr13 (T|C) 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Has someone mentioned politely to the editor it might be better suited to a userpage.--ZayZayEM 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass notability guidelines, even if he is more 'notable' than many 13-year-olds.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity page--$UIT 17:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth: It would be tough for a thirteen-year-old blogger not to fail WP:BIO, and this is a clear WP:COI violation as well. RGTraynor 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a vanity page about a 13 year old blogger. Alto Sax 456 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant WP:BIO violation. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable kid. Does not pass WP:BIO--Cyrus Andiron 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Handsome Awkward[edit]

Wikipedia is not crystal ball. Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Affirmative, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, not sourced either. Hello32020 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning on speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Used 3rd studio album. I think a redirect may work better in this case since the song exists. --Wafulz 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball.--ZayZayEM 02:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think you would want to see the words "possible" and "rumored" in the first paragraph, do you? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sr13 (T|C) 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found before AFD close. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Sources, no good information, No article. DBZROCKS 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and it starts out with the word possible Alto Sax 456 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, no sources. Throw it away already. ;-) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if reliable sources cannot be found, but Keep if some are: the article looks like there are good reasons to expect the single. Nihiltres 12:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP, but some expert editors should take account of the intelligent comments made toward the close of the debate. -Splash - tk 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clown society[edit]

This appears to be a well crafted joke article. It is included in category:satire that gave it away. I can't believe it has been overlooked so far. ZayZayEM 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to sense maybe its not a joke. But the current article still doesn't seem very serious and requires attention.--ZayZayEM 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's almost certainly a joke, but if anyone belabours the point, it also fails WP:ATT --Haemo 03:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Rackabello 06:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are actually several papers on JSTOR (I don't have access) that seem to refer to clown societies and looking at the creator's and the article's edit hx I don't think this is a joke. Somebody with access should check it out.--killing sparrows 07:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - May not be a hoax article per Killing sparrows.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep it's actually studied in anthropology, I've added some sources for examples in Pueblos.--BMF81 16:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - a quick look at google found a lot of really interesting stuff on this. The article is sourced poorly (less so after BMF81's additions), and not organized well, but I think it can actually be a really fascinating subject. I don't have time to rewrite now (going into work in an hour), but if left I will take it under my wing for a re-write and re-source. It's listed as satire because of the actions of the clowns, not because the article is. A search on google for 'clown society' would have shown this is not a joke article, that many of these exist in Native American culture.Thespian 16:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Further to this, at one point it was suggested Sacred clown be merged into this article. Instead that article was renamed Heyoka, and it gives Clown society as a 'see also'. I think a lot could be done with this article; it needs work, not deletion.Thespian 17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And no criticsm for ZayZay for the nom, when you see so much crap around here its easy to see it everywhere. I read the article and thought at first it was a hoax, especially as I hate clowns. And mimes.--killing sparrows 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An inspection of the google scholar search for clown society will prove it is a term used in anthropology research. If I have a criticism of the article it is that it's unencyclopedic in tone and borders on original research in places. It's no hoax though. Twospoonfuls 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, badly needs cleanup and inline references. --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, apparently, the author of this article is a member of the clown society (just kidding, Tom). ;-) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attribute properly, and then keep, since the Google Scholar cites show that it is a real anthropological term. -- The Anome 08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to me to be that the term "clown society" as used in the anthropology literature refers only to the kivas of the puebloeans. Now while there is undoubtedly such a thing as licensed disorder and ritual misrule (the Greek Komos, Saturnalia, the Bakhtinian carnival, Carmena Brurana, etc etc.) there isn't a single term which covers all that. Indeed it is probably too diffuse a subject to fall under one rubric. An article that tried to encompass so much would be an essay without adequate definition rather than an encyclopedia article. I suggest cutting out the sociological speculation and merging the article with Pueblo Clowns. Twospoonfuls 09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea to me, particularly if the other material can be merged into licensed disorder, ritual misrule or some similar suitable place. -- The Anome 12:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Note that the guideline WP:MUSIC (yes, yes, I know) expects two releases, and as the keepers accurately observe, this band does not have even that. -Splash - tk 22:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Equals Death[edit]

This article fails to cite sources or references with almost every claim, especially those that would qualify the band as notable. HeartsThatHate 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with sources, their most notable claim seems to be that one of their members once was in a band with one of AFI's founders. --Evan S e eds (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fail to back up notability, which is never clearly asserted. --Haemo 03:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - have released an album on a notable label and have been mentioned in notable publications. There isn't much need to delete this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do believe that the band is notable enough, but the article itself needs some revamp. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. it definitely lacks notability as well as sources. --Horcruxes 04:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alvechurch Middle School[edit]

A middle school with no assertion of notability killing sparrows 02:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A few possibly notable alumni and an above average academic record do not make a school notable. --Evan S e eds (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable institution. Piccadilly 11:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. Camaron1 | Chris 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Deleteper nom and evan's comments.Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Evan S. Fails WP:N and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I remember some articles that were kept because of two famous alumni, as asserted here--we seem to be deciding in a more reasonable way.DGG 22:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all verifiable schools. Just H 23:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, the pupils from the school seem to have a fair amount of notability, but it is un cited thus unreliable. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have rewritten the article and sourced up the academic standards and one of the alumni. The school won an important academic achievement award in 2002 and is also notable for producing a good academic performance from children from socially disadvantaged backgounds. TerriersFan 02:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I have seen worse and less notable schools survive the debate. Rgds, - Trident13
Comment The articles has now been redirected to Alvechurch Church of England Middle School -- I assume there is another with the original name. DGG 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is no Alvechurch Middle School as can be seen here. - this was a shorthand used by the article's creator, a quite common practice. I simply moved the article to its correct title. TerriersFan 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks sources for notability. The only external sources concern events and not the notability of the school. Vegaswikian 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The DfES award is sourced and confers notability as is the Ofsted report. Other refs on events are how a school also gains notability by aquiring press refs' TerriersFan 17:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as currently rewritten, the awards and recent sourcing definitely confer notability. RFerreira 01:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 02:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham Middle School[edit]

A middle school with no assertion of notability killing sparrows 02:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not assert any notability. Sr13 (T|C) 03:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable institution. Piccadilly 11:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. Camaron1 | Chris 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATT, WP:NN. I'd be interested in the basis upon which User:Piccadilly believes this to be notable, because none is asserted, making this an actual Speedy candidate. For my part, it's scarcely been touched, except for a peculiar transfer of its physical location from Virginia to New Jersey. Ravenswing 17:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but there is more than one place called Chatham. People inserting many local articles sometimes don't check for things like that even by entering the town name and looking for a disam. If done deliberately, I can think of little more confusing that reusing an article name for a different subject. DGG 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All verifiable schools, make a disambig if needed. Just H 23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this no-growth stump. Noroton 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability/ --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm lenient on schools, but this one could at least try to show notability...--Wizardman 02:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge any information that can be verified to parent locality or district article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G1. --Wafulz 03:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ED 2[edit]

I'm barely able to tell what the hell this group actually is. As near as I can tell, they're just some organization at the University of Manitoba, and not particularly notable, and there are no sources for the article itself to assist in verifying that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete via CSD:A7. --Evan S e eds (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a joke about genital shaving (Brazilian waxing, Beaver (disambiguation)). --Wafulz 03:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Beaver Slo-Pitch[edit]

Non-notable organization. A Google search only turns up this article, a category, and a wikimirror.[10] Apparently related to ED 2, which I've also put up for deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. --Evan S e eds (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhtar safarov[edit]

Non notable - doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO, Google returns blog entries, but nothing reliable. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One video from one major studio is not notable, even IF sourced. --Evan S e eds (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 03:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Baristarim 04:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and merge/redirect to school district page. Fram 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citadel Middle School[edit]

Non-notable middle school killing sparrows 03:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 03:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Merge per DGG below. Non-notable. It's not even 15 years old, and has only a minor sub-domained website made by the school district, which also shows no claims to notability ([11]). --Evan S e eds (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have already formally proposed a merge of this into the article for the school district, along with several other schools in the district. I think school district level articles are the appropriate ones for most middle schools. DGG 03:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. Camaron1 | Chris 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Merge - A good compromise, school is notable but probably not enough for its own article. Camaron1 | Chris 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - If there's a district article, sure, go ahead. This article asserts no notability on its own. Ravenswing 17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little is there to School District 43 Coquitlam. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Keep as a redirect so that at some point in the future it may be recreated if it's ready for that. (Whoever closes this discussion should note there is no consensus to delete or salt.) The article's been stumpy long enough. This seed didn't grow. Noroton 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's really nothing to merge, it just says it's a school located here. Really not notable.--Wizardman 04:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to parent district article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 now, but clearly if sources are not found, the article will find itself in hot water. -Splash - tk 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra[edit]

I'm not certain this would fall under WP:CSD A7, but I can't find any assertion of notabillity of this band._→AzaToth 02:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, difficult one this. They are rather well know, but only within the UK Symphony Orchestra scene. They do occasionally win awards, and they do play at a level which is considerably more noted than what I believe to be the standard for an entry. I'm gonna vote keep. Cloveoil 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous contributer Cloveoil, West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra is well known in the UK Symphony Orchestra scene. To delete them would cause a slanted pucture of the musical world as it is in the UK. I vote for keep. Paulw99 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, distinct lack of sources and references. Let's have some press or other coverage please. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming some reviews can be found and included. The "UK Symphony Orchestra scene" is a sufficient wide area, DGG 03:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources (not counting the band's own website) are provided by the time this AfD closes. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-09 15:40Z
Delete unless an assertion of notability and sources are provided. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, that is if references can be found. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As group, it does nothing to establish any kind of notability. 07:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Kincaid[edit]

Notable porn star. Epbr123 04:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i see you want the article deleted on grounds that she is not famous enough. To be honest i am surprised you want to delete articles given that i thought wikipedia was an ever-expanding project aiming to be as comprehensive as possible. And also she is fairly famous having won several AVN awards.

I'm not calling you a liar but she hasn't won several AVN awards. Epbr123 12:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't won any awards, but she was nominated best actress at this years avn's. She didn't win, but she's still an actress of note, and her popularity is growing.

Delete as failing biographical notability - no news articles, no awards... just another porn actress - Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She has a fan base and is pretty famous. She has been in the industry for a while and she has established herself. I think the page should stay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.154.11 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve Very inobscure person. Way more notable than a Hollywood extra. Piccadilly 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Reed[edit]

Contested prod. Doesn't appear to meet the includion criteria set out at WP:BIO—delete. Note, this article overwrote an article on a wrestler; the notability of the wrestler should be decided separately.-- Jeremy (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)'[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. googling finds few references. The claimed USA Today reference is from an outdated sites-of-the-day page that now links to only a web-squatter [12] and the scifi channel reference finds only quotes from websites trying to sell his books. Also, the only comments on Lulu.com for his books are by himself and are just reiterating the quotes from his website. Also, they are both ranked over 20000 on the best seller list of lulu.com [13] [14] --Evan S e eds (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-09 15:44Z
Delete as per all above reasons. Alto Sax 456 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus Pea ceNT 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Skoien[edit]

Delete Non-notable politican who has only held positions within the local party organizations. Equally or less notable than Anthony Castrogiovanni who's page was deleted.--LyonsTwp,IL. 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an elected politician; maybe his elected office isn't by itself enough to satisfy WP:BIO, but his chairmanship of a major corporation & the press flurry about the "bounty" on Daley make him noteworthy enough (and more noteworthy than Tony Peraica, a bio of an elected official at exactly the same level in the same area which the nominator's written. Aside from the Tony Peraica article, the nominator's entire edit history consists of failed attempted db-bios & AfDs on Illinois politicians. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you are wrong on each of your counts, first most of the pages I have nominated for deletion through db-bio have been deleted, and of the pages I have tried to have deleted through AfD, one (Tony Zirkle from Indiana) was deleted and one (Edward Forchion from New Jersey) wasn't. Second that still isn't my only edit history besides Tony Peraica which by the way I did not create as you had inaccuratly claimed if you had checked its edit history you would have seen that User:Sglover had created it. Third your vote is uninformed if you think Gary Skoien is a county commisioner as Peraica is, Skoien has never held an elected position outside of the local party organization. Your dubious attempt at discrediting me have failed on each of its counts.--LyonsTwp,IL. 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above - you didn't technically create it - however, you did expand it from a three sentence sub-stub to a full length article (the "9 intermediate revisions" are all yours). And your edit count and edit history show that of your 98 mainspace edits, 66 were revisions to Tony Peraica, 20 were attempted db-bios/AfDs on Illinois politicians, and 5 were attempts to slip non-NPOV material into Todd Stroger, leaving just seven "other" edits. I have no axe to grind here (I couldn't care less about Illinois politics) but this nomination looks possibly politically motivated. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chairman of the Cook County Republican Central Committee. I emphatically do not think the chairmanship of a party country committee is normally notable, but this is an exception, because Cook County is Chicago, and in practical terms of American politics, that makes quite a difference. The involvement in various political scandals would be notable in any case. I see no information of the importance of his real estate business. At this level, we need to consider each article separately, so I ignore the comparisons. I also ignore editor's edit histories; the articles are what's in question here. DGG 03:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cook County is Chicago, and the scandals definitely make him notable. Ab e g92contribs 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many articles on mayors of cities far smaller than Cook County's population, the second largest county in the United States with a population of several million and a by-word for machine politics. RGTraynor 17:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not due to position (predecessors and successors not automatically notable), but because of the controversies. --Dhartung | Talk 21:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is in the public eye and has been written about. JamesMLane t c 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AudioXpress[edit]

The article is unsourced, not even stub length, and there is no assertion of notability. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced article on magazine "formed by the merger" of three other magazines without articles of their own. Resurgent insurgent 09:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Resurgent insurgent. Even the list of contributors is mostly red links. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. These "has >N links to arbitrary news sources" comments are weak. Sure, it has those. Do they establish encyclopedic notability, and if so, how? Do they demonstrate that the article meets the guidelines/policies, or is there are there reason(s) for making exceptions to them? The deleters, otoh, are firmly rooted in references to WP:MUSIC. -Splash - tk 22:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giddy-up, helicopter![edit]

Contest prod so brought here for procedure. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I AfD'd this for procedure after a prod was deleted. I think it's borderline at this stage as to whether it meets WP:BAND - they do get 336 Ghits with a fair bit of press coverage. (Since nomination I've added a couple of references to the article to give it multiple non-trivial published sources.) Also, the original nominator (172.147.54.62) looks like it may be a single purpose sockpuppet as their (single day) edit history seems to consist entirely of prods, ((context)) tagging & adding "uncategorised" to articles, whilst their original ((prod)) notice has a whiff of bad faith about it. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the sources cited, but could definately do with a cleanup. No lead paragraph, needs to sort out capitalisation, that picture is somewhat invasive, and further categorisation would be nice, among other things J Milburn 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seeing as it's his/her first full article, I've told the creator that if it gets kept I'll go through it and clean it up - but no point doing it if it only has four days to live. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: I am the one that originally prod'd the page because I felt, and still do, that it is a non notable band. The article may be drastically improve since it's initial posting but a good article on a non notable band isn't really the issue. The issue is really rather or not the band deserves a page on Wiki regardless of the quality of the article. And so far, nothing I have seen has shown that this band is "Wiki Worthy." 172.133.130.59 10:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

172.133.130.59, see the message I've left on my talk page re this (presumably no point leaving on yours if AOL is playing their old serverhopping game). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the bottom part of the article: "CMJ music festival accepted them to play in New York but then took it back; they now want revenge and a solid summer tour." That is why I said get revenge on original prod. But still, further proof this article is partly a joke to them! 172.147.143.182 03:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of anything else, they don't pass WP:MUSIC at the moment. No prejudice to recreation if/when they do. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Keep. Multiple press sources. Ab e g92contribs 16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC for the moment. If they're signed to a notable label and get a couple of records out, then we'll talk, but right now, I don't feel they meet the guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, edging toward indie-level notability, but not there yet. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Zings of Comedy[edit]

Page created by TheOriginalZingsOfComedy (talk · contribs) in an apparent conflict of interest. It's pretty tempting to consider this as spam. There is some minimal third-party coverage (which you can find among the 9 Ghits) but nothing substantial enough to build an encyclopedia article. Pascal.Tesson 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Hornandsoccer ^Talk 04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Lots of people will be contributing to this article. Give it until the end of the week. This is an offshoot of Zebro, whose wikipedia page only grew as time went on. 01:57, 9 April 2007

Comment Since this AfD started, the article has indeed been edited by Leftpiano (talk · contribs) who made nonsensical additions of images to obtain this version. This is pretty much what is bound to happen when the article is constructed from first hand accounts rather than solid third-party coverage.

Delete For now I am on the delete side. This weekly phenomenon started last week. There is no reason to describe it as notable yet. Contact me at my talk page to change my vote if things seem different in by the end of the week. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Who decides what is or is not notable? Exactly how many weeks would the show have to go on for to be considered "notable?" Does the fact that it runs until August not matter? Isn't this rather arbitrary?

It's actually not arbitrary. Notability guidelines are here. Look also here for verifiability, here for what we consider to be reliable sources, and here for our attribution guidelines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one show, two mentions in the local media... at this point, I don't think this really meets the needs of multiple, non-trivial references. If it takes off and becomes popular enough to draw more substantial press coverage, preferably on a wider scale, then an article may be appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it's too new to have much notability. Once it's more well known, we'll have something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - does not claim notability. I wouldnt hold it up to Zebro for comparison; I was thinking of bring that article here when I found this debate. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 substantially rewritten and meeting WP:ATT. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parras Middle School[edit]

I nominated this before I saw that it had been recently AfD'd. Yes, I know I should have checked the history first, but I didn't. I decided to go ahead and see how the 2nd nom was done, so here it is. Feel free to lash me! I still think this is a non-notable middle school, perhaps not as non-notable as others, but nevertheless, non-notable. killing sparrows 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parras Middle School

Keep Notable institution. Piccadilly 11:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable thing mentioned is that it is a "Blue Ribbon School," of which there are about six thousand (or nearly one school in twenty). (And the link that is supposed to support its being one is, in fact, a link back to the article itself; the writer couldn't even be bothered to provide verifiability for its being a "Blue Ribbon School," though I'm sure it is, just like five thousand others...) Dpbsmith (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. Camaron1 | Chris 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATT, WP:NN. The writer couldn't be bothered to provide verifiability for this school being a "Blue Ribbon" one, but happily, the link follows to the Department of Education website, which has complete lists of the schools awarded Blue Ribbon status since such status was created in 1982. This school appears on none of those lists. RGTraynor 17:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep per revised version and WP:A ~~WP:N~~ ~~RGTraynor and damn close to WP:CSD#A1~~. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons, HOWEVER, it does, in fact, appear on page 14 of the citation provided. Open the PDF and use the search feature on 'parras' to find it. ThuranX 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good to me. And well sourced. Notable, too. Noroton 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't !vote on the earlier AfD. Of the eds. voicing at that AfD, only 2 are present here. I consider this a good example of the variability of our decision based upon the random presence of individual editors. This tends to make me favor numerical criteria, and I think the top 5 % is distinction enough for notability, since it has been sourced.DGG 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have now fully sourced this article including the Blue Ribbon from which the earlier link was broken. The Blue Ribbon should be well enough (if the top 5% of schools are not notable we may as well give up) but with additional notability this is an obvious Keep. TerriersFan 23:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming for the moment that WP:N can be reduced to a fixed number, 5% is far too liberal a standard for inclusion. That would give us more than 6,000 school articles in the United States alone, based on a single year of Blue Ribbons.[15] This does not include articles about schools that never got a Blue Ribbon but are notable for other reasons. 5% doesn't make sense in other areas either. (For instance, it would give us articles about 325,000,000 people!) Including every Blue Ribbon school gives us another problem: More schools are added to the list every year. If there were no overlap from year to year, that would add another 6,000 school articles per year, and after 20 years, we'd have an article on all 123,385 schools! I'm sure there is a large degree of overlap, but you get the picture. I think Blue Ribbon status is a factor to be considered, but I don't think it should be sufficient to qualify an otherwise nonnotable school for inclusion here. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The assumption that underlies your logic -- that 6,000 schools are being recognized each year -- is completely and utterly false. The initial list of Blue Ribbon Award winners includes fewer than 5,000 schools over a 20-year period, under 250 schools per year, or about one quarter of one percent of all eligible schools nationwide. More recent years have included a comparable number of schools on an annual basis. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program has clearly demonstrated that it is the highest honor that an American school can receive. If we can't get agreement that the award is notable (and have to use patently false statistics to deny it) and that a achool so recognized has made a strong claim of notability, than we have very big problems here. Alansohn 15:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have requested before, please be civil and assume good faith. My statistics are not false. I was mistakenly relying on what I perceived as the suggestion above that 5% of schools get Blue Ribbons, not realizing that TF meant 5% as an approximate cumulative total over the years. ~~If that was "completely and utterly false", it's not my fault. Go accuse TerriersFan of "using patently false statistics" if you must.~~ I believe you are correct about the number of Blue Ribbon schools, so I am retracting my comment and changing my opinion on this article. Have a lovely day. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The figure is just under 5%, as I stated above, but where your extrapolation went wrong was to assume that that was an annual growth figure rather than the running total. To put 6,000 into context; in the last 24 hours around 2,300 articles were created on Wikipedia. TerriersFan 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! You get the Blue Ribbon for seeing the difference between what I thought you meant and what you actually wrote! Yes, I thought you were saying 5% per year. Yes, that was my error. I apologize for casting aspersions about your statistics. Thank you for being patient with me. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article demonstrates notability using reliable and verifiable sources. I also agree that the 5% number is completely wrong. Based on my estimates, closer to 40 to 50% of schools should be able to demonstrate notability with ease. Alansohn 11:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case that's scarcely "notable," is it? RGTraynor 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% of municipalities are notable. 100% of federal elected officials are notable. 100% of interstate highways are notable. A smaller percentage of schools, particularly at the high school level, will be able to demonstrate notability with multiple, non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources. I'm willing to live with the fact that it's less than 100%, and I'm more than willing to acknowledge that most middle schools will have far greater difficulty demonstrating notability. This school has clearly met all relevant standards of notability. Alansohn 15:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? --Butseriouslyfolks 00:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to look at it as precedent. I agree that establishing notability for a middle school like this one is reasonably difficult. But for high schools, the overwhelming majority have multiple non-trivial from reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is not notable by my standards, by wikipedias it is. Virtually every school in the United states has an article on wikipedia.--Sefringle 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad argument, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Wizardman 02:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'd say the blue ribbon award just pushes this school into notability, even though most of the other stuff might be trivial. Looks good to me though.--Wizardman 02:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the convincing arguments made yet again by Alansohn. That, and the fact that recipients of the Blue Ribbon are notable, as it considered the highest honor an American school can receive. RFerreira 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 12:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Castle (University Group)[edit]

~~Potential speedy candidate as patent nonsense~~ WP:OR as admitted by the creator User:Thenewgeneration here. Note there is an edit war on-going between the creator and an anon, be sure to look at a version by the creator. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment stricken; Upon reexamination, it may not be nonsense, merely unsourced, OR, and not notable. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Creator does not have source to back up what is stated. Article is trying to be shortened but creator keeps opinionated---false--information up there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.123.196.76 (talk • contribs) 05:07, April 9, 2007 (UTC)

The above is same user 165.123.196.76 05:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC) — 165.123.196.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Everything that I have written in the article is factual, though if there are specific points to be discussed I am willing to do so. Please state the inaccuracies as specifically as possible. Thenewgeneration 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC) — Thenewgeneration (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. From the source provided in the article, it appears that the Castle is just the building of, and the local nickname of, the university's chapter of Psi Upsilon. However, the only source provided is an article in the university's newspaper, which is not enough media coverage to justify an article about the chapter. Nor does the fact that one episode of a cooking show was taped there qualify as sufficient notability to justify an article. I don't know why this article has been alleged as nonsense, though. --Metropolitan90 07:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense claim removed by nom. See above. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Thenewgeneration is so confident in their belief of this material, I urge them to bring it up in chapter and stop acting like a child hiding behind their internet identity. (This is what I call internet muscles) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.123.196.81 (talk • contribs) 15:33, April 9, 2007 (UTC)

If the above user would care to invite me to the chapter meeting, I would be more than willing to do so, then I would have even more to wirte about. This is the exact reason this article should not be deleted, those opposed to it are all clearly in the house and are unhappy with what may have been said. I can list more newspaper references if they are desired, simply allow me a few days to find all of the appropriate ones. Thenewgeneration 17:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please. I have nothing to do with U. PA., or this group. I came across the page on Random Page patrol. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flyboy I am not referring to you as being affiliated, I am referring to the IP 165.123.196.81. Thenewgeneration 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ORG, WP:ATT. Even at its unvandalized best, this is just a single-chapter frat without any sourced claim to notability, whatever its longevity. RGTraynor 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. KazakhPol 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bah, i like it. 128.91.128.104 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:OR or seriously clean up and provide sources. --Tom 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked online at 'the castle' and have found much of considerable interest. I am not in any way affiliated and I am interested in the article and would even be interested were it longer. Everyone should take more time to read up properly and professionally before making snap judgments, I expected more out of wikipedia "editors" 128.91.128.104 03:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC) — 128.91.128.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: What you should expect here is that Wikipedia has rules and guidelines for what articles merit inclusion. If you have evidence that this article actually meets those guidelines, please present it. RGTraynor 13:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a secretive loosely-organized "fraternal" group - the lack of sources bears that out; a completely secret fraternity is normally that - secret (read, non notable). Furthermore the WP:OR admitted to by User:Thenewgeneration here [16] cinches it. I almost never call for a speedy, but this probably qualifies as an attack article if the information presented here is indeed incorrect as other editors have indicated. User:Thenewgeneration maybe trying to conduct some investigative journalism, or he may have other motives, but its clear that the article does not belong here as long as it violates WP:V and WP:OR and doesn't come close to touching WP:ORG. Strong Speedy Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ccwaters 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix Down[edit]

Non-notable band, doesn't meet criteria in WP:BAND. Article was originally speedied as non-notable, then recreated by author. De-prodded. Neil916 (Talk) 05:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable band, has won awards, opened for notable bands, & collaborated with notable people (including Richie Castellano of Blue Oyster Cult.) Article was re-created with reasons for notability added, and expanded. Kr4id 06:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Article deleted April 8 for A7. Still no notability, still no references. Andrew Robertson 08:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references = no notability = no article. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-09 17:42Z
Redirect to Final Fantasy items (Phoenix Down already points there, and this is just a variant spelling used in SNES FFIII). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of good sourcing, then redirect to Final Fantasy VI or Final Fantasy items per Crotalus horridus. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as per above. Current subject of article fails WP:Music so we shouldn't worry about it being deleted.A1octopus 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, smells like WP:SPAM to me. If reliable third party sources can be provided for these so-called awards, I may reconsider. RFerreira 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep and revert to redirect; nominator has withdrawn nomination. (non-admin closure) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-09 17:44Z

Sirup[edit]

Neologism and probably nonsense. Should be redirected to Syrup, as it was until Feb 11 when a one-edit user created it. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just a matter of redirecting the article, it would have been better to just do the redirect rather than bring it up here at AfD. The page has been repeatedly reverted to the current state, as well, and had been previously protected. The proper course of action would have been to revert to the valid redirect and then request page protection since apparently the anon is back. Since no one else has voted delete, if you'd like to withdraw the AfD nomination we can close it early and get that done. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. How do I withdraw? I wasn't sure, given the activity on the page, if it needed to be brought up here and thought I'd be safe about it :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just be bold and revert the page to the redirect, saying that's the action you want to take here is as good as withdrawing a request - there is no "formal" method of withdrawing a nomination. After you revert it to a redirect you may want to list it up at WP:RFP to request that it be protected, and be sure to point out that it has been protected in the past and the questionable content was re-added after the protection expired. For future reference, if you ever want to take some kind of action like redirecting or merging and it seems questionable, consider listing the article on WP:RFC to seek more community input :) Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Splash - tk 22:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bengkulu people[edit]

Delete - the Bengkulu ethnic group does not exist, at least as per the Indonesian 2000 census. There is a Bengkulu Malay language, but the ethnic group is Malay. See the list of ethnic groups listed at Bengkulu. Caniago 05:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ or if really not existing redirect to the appropriate group. Please cite sources for your claim of non existence, as sources for existence exist. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've already stated my sources they don't exist - they don't appear on the Indonesian census. The only sources you have provided in the article are religious mission websites which have no academic founding at all. You may as well also cite some Scientology websites. (Caniago 04:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Redirect to Malay (ethnic group) to avoid that other people recreate it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The article is not supported by the sources. #1 is just a nonspecific illustration #2 says "The Bengkulu people live in the city of Bengkulu, the capital of the province of Bengkulu...The Bengkulu people are descended from the union of multiple peoples who have migrated to the area, including the Melayu (Malay), Minangkabau, Aceh, Bugis, Banten and Jawa (Java) peoples. The Bengkulu language is a branch of the Melayu language cluster" #3 says "Since they have characteristics that closely resemble those of Malays along the eastern Sumatra coast, they are properly referred to as Bengkulu Malay." This shows enough of a misconception to warrant recreation of the article from scratch. of course, it can be edited if kept. DGG 23:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the concerns raised here (even the 'keep' indicates he is not sure of the validity), the only reference is a religious site of a low academic value. A standard not high enough in my opinion despite presumbaly high intentions. I'd say the reference is completely unreliable as the national figures are so wrong they are funny. Why are there two groups 'Javanese' and 'Javanese Indonesian'? Same for Sundanese. Muslims are only 43% of the population while Christians are 13%? Wrong. And who are 'new religionists' and where did the figures come from? I suggest that reference be removed. And it appears from above that even the 'keep' voter is himself suggesting he is not really sure of their existance as a distinct ethnic group.Merbabu 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Being an Indonesian and have been lived there for more than 20 years, this is the first time I heard about the ethnic group name which is merely derived from a province or a city name. The source is very unreliable. Sorry, it does not pass WP:NOTABILITY. — Indon (reply) — 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on redirect. Tobias, why did you redirect it to Malay (ethnic group)? Are we done with this discussion? — Indon (reply) — 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the creater of the page, I wanted to clean WP from maybe not so good sourced information. At the same time some other people may one day look for the Bengkulu people. To avoid recreation and further re-discussions IMO it is best to redirect. There is no policy that says redirects are forbidden. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The term apparently is in use out there, quality of the sources notwithstanding. Might as well redirect it to the next best match.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Splash - tk 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Tsi[edit]

Effectively an unsourced article since the source relied on provides insufficient information as to this person's identity (and given that, the person, if he existed, cannot really be referred to as a "famous" poet). Delete unless more information as to identify is provided. --Nlu (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain: From Chinesw wikipedia:

天寶十二載（753年）進士，曾任檢校祠部員外郎、洪州鹽鐵判官。大歷末（779年），伉儷歿於洪州[1]。有《張祠部詩集》。在唐代詩人中，張繼不算大家，也不是名家，宋人葉夢得《石林詩話》記載其詩在南宋時僅存三十多首。《全唐詩》中，只存四十餘首。《楓橋夜泊》是他最著名的詩，作於天寶十五載流寓蘇州時，这首诗首先被选入高仲武編選的《中兴间气集》，後又選入《唐诗三百首》。高仲武評張繼詩：「員外累代詞伯，積習弓裘。其於為文，不自雕飾。及爾登第，秀發當時。詩體清迥，有道者風。」「比興深矣。」其事蹟見於辛文房《唐才子傳》。 According to this, he became a scholar in 753. In terms of Tang poet, He is not a huge poet; Record show that he only have 30 poems left by Song dynasty, while The "Complete Poem Collection of Tang" he only contributed 40. However, he did contributed<<楓橋夜泊>>, which is collected in the "300 Tang Poems", and most famous chinese poem anthology. 142.58.101.27 00:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notablity.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 02:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expert opinion needed In the view of those who understand its significance, is any poet with a poem in the 300 Tang Poems notable?DGG 04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I know Li Bai's poem is there... can someone check? 142.58.101.27 04:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that not all poets who had a poem in there qualifies. The problem with this article, again, though, is that it doesn't establish which Chinese poet the name "Chang Tsi" corresponds to. --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the people at the relevent national WikiProject are probably more likely to be able to figure this out than a bunch of random AfD voters cab 09:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 09:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too am also unsure of his importance. I'm adding the "expert" template to see if we can get some help on this one. In the meantime, I'm relisting the discussion to see what other users think. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference for the Mahler connection, which IMO is enough to make him notable from a Western POV. There is ample room for further improvement. I am not an expert in Chinese literature, but "The 300 T'ang Poems" is arguably the most famous and most "classic" anthology of Chinese poetry. I would keep him based on that alone. Stammer 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it appears that we have stumbled upon a scholarly hornet's nest. See this reference, which I have also added to the article. Stammer 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I lack the expertise to determine if the article can ever be much more than the stub it is now, the assertions of notability that is does contain are sufficient and properly sourced. -- Satori Son 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stammer and Satori Son. The Mahler is one of the best known Western uses of Chinese poetry. Johnbod 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri launder[edit]

Autobiographical vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 06:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Delete as above, also appears to be a conflict of interest. Duke of Whitstable 13:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't look sufficiently notable (72 Google hits, and nothing I can find in NewsBank). Tearlach 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COI article. Author should wait for consensus of other editors before adding this information. Appears to fail notability. EdJohnston 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Area 10 Project Space Peckham? Kollaborators? — Athænara ✉ 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See the the AfD for Kollaborators. I would favor adding the Area 10 article to this deletion debate. Is it allowed to just add it? Perhaps we can do so if the nominator approves. EdJohnston 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a quick Google search turned up just 46 hits, none of them appearing to meet the Reliable Source and Notability Guidelines' requirements. I'm willing to overlook conflict of interest issues and reconsider if notability is demonstrated. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (however, per the discussion below, I will merge mention of some points into Deism, Panentheism, and Pandeism). bd2412 T 13:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Panendeism[edit]

This appears to be original research. Self-published sites and a letter to the editor are not reliable sources, and without such sources this article is unencyopedic. — Elembis (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anville 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no real sources here -- getting a local paper to mention a word you've coined is not the sort of source on which to build an encyclopedia entry about a supposedly-notable belief system. Xoloz 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote, but the "local paper" mention in the article was five years before the word was supposedly coined (ergo, Copling is wrong about having coined the word). bd2412 T 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
weak keep - the article has been rated 'Start' by, and is supported by the WikiProject Religion, and has had a fair number of editors over several years. It seems to me that having been rated above stub as part of the WikiProject members, we should consult why people with an interest in the project felt 'The article has a meaningful amount of good content.' Thespian 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've invited the user who added the banner to join the discussion here. It's true that the article has had 54 edits and a little more than a dozen non-anonymous editors. However, I think it's interesting to see how little the article has changed from its first version to its last (until the VFD tag was added): see the difference. An anonymous editor wrote the article, and others have cleaned it up (and changed the content of the Origin of the term section), but I don't think they've moved it out of original research territory. Anyway, thanks for the comment. =) — Elembis (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note: anyone can add a project banner to an article, and anyone can rate an article. So the fact that it has a project banner and start rating doesn't really demonstrate anything in particular. And a rating as "start" merely indicates that it has (in one person's eyes) grown past the point where it can be considered a stub. I've dropped a notification at the project talk page, so project members can comment if they wish, but Wikiproject opinions don't actually trump a more general consensus (although they can often offer more expert advice). Xtifr _tälk 02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the information in the article, it was made up one day by a single person "The term panendeism was purportedly coined in late 2000 by Larry Copling in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, " and it seems other people using similar terms may or may not mean the same thing. From other postings, there is not yet an actual congregation. DGG 00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with pandeism and remove non-attributable information. Ask a philosopher or theologion whether they have heard of the term or believe it to be semantically meaningless. Since the term "panendeism" is etymologically related to pandeism as "panentheism" is etymologically related to pantheism, it makes no sense to posit that the philosophy does not exist. It is a metaphysical or theological stance, not a religion, so it does not have a "congregation" or organized group of believers per se. It can be covered in the section on Pandeism by a single sentence: "It has been suggested that the term panendeism can be applied to a variant of pandeism as panentheism is a variant of pantheism; however, at present there is no attributed support for this claim." I believe this would be the best course of action. -- Brian 17:53, April 11, 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that when you remove all of the non-attributable information, nothing is left. Without sources, the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and the sentence you proposed violates the guideline WP:WEASEL. "Has been suggested" by whom? — Elembis (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you could put a line in panentheism (or deism) saying that Larry Copling has proposed panendeism as a deistic variety of panentheism and cite to http://panendeism.org/default.aspx or http://www.panendeism.com/ for support (at least the latter explicitly says "Panendeism is a sub-category of Deism", and compares it to panentheism). Cheers! bd2412 T 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment An old WP mirror has an interesting prior discussion leading to an earlier deletion of this article in 2005. I am not sure how it fits into the edit history. DGG 00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The VFD you mentioned is interesting, but it's for Pandeism (a considerably better article), not Panendeism. I didn't notice the difference myself until I was several pages into the discussion. =) — Elembis (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, that VFD did not result in the deletion of the article. It was kept for further research to be done (which then revealed that the oldest references were hard to turn up because they were in German). I do note that panendeism term gets zero Google Books hits, in any language. Perhaps merge into deism or panentheism? Cheers! bd2412 T 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- I'm not finding any reliable, third party sources containing the term "panendeism." --Keesiewonder ^talk 11:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparent neologism (actually protologism), almost entirely original research (except for the somewhat contradictory research into the origins of the term). The notion itself sounds like it might be worth a brief mention as a possible variant at either or both of the articles pandeism and panentheism, but I don't see any evidence that this really a notable or widely accepted conception of God among religious scholars of any stripe (aside from the alleged coiner who didn't actual coin the term). Xtifr _tälk 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Airways Australia[edit]

Reads like an advertisement, fails WP:ORG company is not even opperating yet, possible Copyvio Rackabello 06:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs a major rewrite, and there are slightly worrying WP:CRYSTAL aspects, but there are several sources that indicate this will certainly go ahead: The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald. It's mostly owned by Singapore Airlines, and has actually operated in Australia since 2005 (Singapore to Darwin), and this article refers to the Australian subsidiary which was incorporated last month. I would say with some sources like the ones I have mentioned, this is notable enough. --Canley 08:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL ... recreate after they start operations. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 08:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this company is not even operating yet, and most of the article is mere speculation. WP:CRYSTAL certainly applies. Lankiveil 09:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete or Merge The information regarding the companies' parent Tiger Airways in respect of it's Australian expansion is already well documented there. There is no need to repeat this information in a new article which will essentially repeat the same information, not withstanding the companies planes will likely carry the same call signs as the Singaporean parent. I cite the deletion debate for Acer Computer Australia, which was exactly the same scenario and was merged into Acer and then deleted. This is not withstanding significant WP:NPOV issues in the article. thewinchester 11:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Crystal applies. Parent company page exists.--ZayZayEM 12:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent company Tiger Airways until such time as the airline is operating and has a distinct identity separate from the parent. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD was very premature. The article was created today. I would give the article 5 days before assessing it. "Tiger Airways Australia" generates a modest 84 unique hits, but I think they pass WP:CORP as a product or service that can be forked. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Tiger Airways until it can hold its own. Supposed to happen, but even as a separate division, I don't see it being able to support its own weight, it's just a case of Tiger expanding to service Australia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Change vote to Keep per VK35's note below. I'm willing to give it a chance if there's a commitment for improvement. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~or Merge~~. This chances of this airline operating is very high. Some people will improve articles but not take the effort to create a new page. This page has great potential. If it is kept, I personally promise to expand it. I don't want to put in all that effort now if there's a chance that it will be deleted in a few days.VK35 23:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only problem I have is that it appears to pretty much be another operating division of Tiger Airways. Is there something else out there that says otherwise? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a few good ideas for the article, some of which others may or may not have thought of. I have rescued 2 articles from deletion by significantly improving them. I don't choose to rescue many articles. The Tiger Airways Australia article has even more potential than the other articles that I have rescued. I now believe that the article should be a Strong Keep because there is now a commitment for significant improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VK35 (talk • contribs)
    - - Please noteI have made significant changes to the article to try to prevent deletion. This effort is not finished. The article will get even better! Consider changing your opinion/vote if you think the article is now worthy of keeping. VK35 21:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking good, keep up the good work. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The predictions section should go. However, the sources cited by Canley as well as in this Google News source indicate notability. [17]. Capitalistroadster 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VK35 Bandwagonman 14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this starting of the new airline has been confirmed, there are independent sources to prove this new airline as well. Its official and its nowhere near from crystal ballism. Cleaning up the article is one thing that can be done in the near future. Terence 10:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Terence above. --Candy-Panda 09:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding the ((future)) tag does mitigate issues over WP:CRYSTAL somewhat, so long that all remaining points are adequately sourced. We can and do write articles on "planned" stuff, some of which never materialise, but that alone can hardly be primary motivation to delete an article, for the planning process and debate can be encyclopedic too. May I also note that we regularly have articles on subsidiaries, including fully-owned ones. This is a subsidiary of Tiger Airways incorporated in Australia, and not merely an extension of its operational services or an operational branch of the parent company incorporated in Singapore.--Huaiwei 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dip (Roger Rabbit)[edit]

This page is a mere two sentences which say nothing that the Who Framed Roger Rabbit page doesn't.Viewer 07:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything that needs to be said about it can be said at the main article. PCock 12:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And doubtful if anything is worth merging. Duke of Whitstable 13:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no point in merging to Who Framed Roger Rabbit. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, adds nothing that is not already present in the Who Framed Roger Rabbit article, and not worth redirecting because it is over-specific. -- The Anome 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie comedy[edit]

Suspected neologism; non-notable Teflon Don 07:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely a neologism, definitely not-notable. --Haemo 08:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Emerging genre with concrete examples, sure to grow as new movies are produced. Captain Infinity 17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Captain Infinity Raerth 17:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- it may be an emerging genre, but presently there are no sources to support this claim. As it stands now, it is a non notable neologism. Where else has this term been used? When was it created? Who created the term? None of these quetions are answered in the article. --Cyrus Andiron 19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A google search brings back almost 2 million hits. How many would you like cited on the page? Captain Infinity 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I've cited 6 uses of the term "Zombie Comedy" for different films referenced in the article, including two that go back to 2004. Captain Infinity 19:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for the term "Zombie Comedy" and it returned something in the range of 700 hits [18] which certainly isn't bad, but it's not 2 million.Chunky Rice 00:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not using quotes. But as you can see, the term is being used in the industry and is being applied to a good number of films. And, as one can read in the trades, new Zombie Comedies are in the works. It's a growing genre, with enough valid applications to films in the last decade that I think it warrants at least a stub. Captain Infinity 15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were sources that were actually about the genre as a whole, maybe. But looking at it now, it's just reviews that happened to use the term to describe a specific movie.Chunky Rice 20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the referenced articles refer to the Zombie Comedy as a genre. Captain Infinity 21:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to it, maybe. But they're not actually about the genre.Chunky Rice 21:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how many of those would you like cited? I've found literally hundreds of thousands. Captain Infinity 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've found literally hundreds of thousands of reliable sources about the Zombie Comedy genre? Forgive me, but I find that hard to believe. Two or three would do it for me.Chunky Rice 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://www.thenewmediator.com/?cat=4 Next to last paragraph. A search on Google shows millions of hits for Zombie Comedy, and 778,000 for Zombie Comedy Genre. The phrase has been in usage for at least three years, there are many film examples around that are not included in the Wiki article, and there are currently films in production that fall squarely in the genre. Let's not forget, the article calls it an "emerging genre". It's not like "Romantic Comedy", which has been around for far longer. But it is a verifiable, recognized genre that shows no sign of going away. It makes no sense to me to ignore the reality and kill the article, which will certainly grow in time to include further examples and growth of the term. I did delete the neologism "Zomedy" from the article, which has not caught on quite yet, although it too can be found across the web from a variety of film reviewers. Captain Infinity 02:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must not be seeing what you're seeing because all I'm getting is a passing mention in a blog (non-reliable source). Further, I did do a Google search and turned up far fewer hits than you did (see above).Chunky Rice 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that's because they did not put the phrases in quotes, which forces Google to look for the exact phrase: using quotes, I get 27,800 hits for "Zombie comedy", and 346 hits for "Zombie comedy genre". -- The Anome 08:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There does seem to be a consistent use of the term.DGG 00:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this is an identifiable, if small, film genre, and this term is consistently used by film reviewers to describe it, as can be seen by Googling for "zombie comedy". -- The Anome 08:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Anome. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't dispute that the term is being used. That doesn't mean that it is notable or should be included here. Please see WP:NEO. To this point, nobody has shown a single source that actually discusses this genre.Chunky Rice 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's got references and all that. I suppose it could be expanded though__$UIT 19:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Olson[edit]

Completing nomination for 203.36.120.5, who only added ((afd)) to the page and listed the old closed AfD on today's log. No opinion. Resurgent insurgent 09:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though the prior AFD was just seven weeks ago. Most of the "references" are to a fan BBS (or something like that). She may be notable, but this doesn't really back it up.--Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The close at the previous AfD was "Keep and add sources: DGG 00:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The credits seem genuine, despite their being listed on a public bulletin board. The agencies and magazine pages seem real. Worthy enough of a mention 209.244.16.205 00:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This model does nothing ouside of the sphere of the regular business of modelling that makes her noteworthy. ALL plus size models are being scrutinized right now and enjoying heightened media attention as a result of the skinny model debate. Should we give them all an entry? The other claims are also in line with the regular business of a model: The majority of plus-size models have regular clients. A large number of plus-size models have been in national magazines and on TV shows. The highest paid plus-size models earn US$100K per annum, and her client list does not suggest she is notable in that particular respect either. She is not represented by a New York based agent, which indicates that her notability does not extend far into her own industry. Genuine credits or not, this entry is vanity-based and does not merit inclusion. Hers is not a celebrity or household name in America nor anywhere else in the world, and the entry does not meet the Wiki guidelines for inclusion of people. If anything, I suggest a merge into a suitable place within the entry for plus-size model, but there are many other models that should be ahead of Ms Olson in the queue. AntiVanity 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I wouldn't characterize this as totally lacking sources, the Bombshell magazine one looks passable enough, but that's only one, and the primary notability criteria asks for multiple independent sources. Google doesn't seem to turn up much (I'm assuming this woman is not the same as the one who plays for the Saskatchewan Female Midget AAA Hockey League). It has only been seven weeks since the last AfD, but there doesn't seem to have been much meaningful activity in that interim. A borderline case, but I don't think there's quite enough there. But I certainly think that recreation should be allowed if more sources turn up. Xtifr _tälk 02:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not state it lacked sources in this discussion, only that all of the work cited is what is done in usual course of business for a model, and that in and of itself it does not merit her entry to the Wiki. Bombshell Magazine is a grassroots, free-to-all webzine and during startup actively canvassed for photos to use on its covers and for its articles that models, eager for free publicity, submitted for free use. Olson's appearance in the webzine falls into that period. Furthermore, all citing of images and discussions of Olson on http://www.judgementofparis.com as proof that the model is noteworthy must be tempered with the knowledge that the website is poorly regarded by model agents and clients, and that it is censored vigorously and with extreme prejudice by the web admin. Ironically, many discussions about the site's heavy censorship and the preferences exhibited are resident on Bombshell's sister site,Curvy Chick (click for a link to one) By way of a belated introduction, I have been in the fashion industry for over 10 years, and I know Olson's true stature. Without prejudice - she simply doesn't merit an entry... yet. AntiVanity 08:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leviton[edit]

Blatant advertising by single purpose account. CSD's removed. Attempts to revert advertising approach removed. Company's notability not sufficiently asserted. Clappingsimon talk 08:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the one who is the "friend of the company," but im really not. I changed it a final time. check it out, it is in no way an advertisement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krieglax23 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment This single purpose account was created yesterday and I have blocked it for 1 month for violations of WP:OWN, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:VANDAL, and WP:COI. Durova^Charge! 21:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though a friend of the company has turned the article into an advertisement, the article can be reverted to an acceptable version. The company is notable. I suggest reverting to my version of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leviton&oldid=121350905 , but see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leviton&direction=prev&oldid=23952755 from 2005 as a stub. --Eastmain 12:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but the phrase the largest manufacturer of wiring devices in North America needs a ref. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whitstable (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I didn't go far back enough in history when I nominated this for speedy deletion. I think this makes a reasonable stub. We should keep a close eye on it though, because it looks like a number of users have been trying to turn this into an ad. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and watch per discussion. This company almost (emphasis on almost) touts its own notablility, what with seeing Leviton devices on so many houses, but still reads like it's kind of spammy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a cite for largest privately held manufacturer of wiring devices in North America. I expect every adjective is carefully selected in that claim. Certainly a notable company, over a century old, with a line of 20,000 or more products, found in 9/10 of homes in North America, also early leader in wireless computerized remote control for lighting and other eleectrical devices. Has over 300 citations in Proquest. Edit out the overly friendly tone, and keep in the refs about the labor trouble in 1940-41, in which First Lady Roosevelt got involved and in which the company was cited for violating the Wagner Act. The workers dared to demand $16 per week pay and a week's vacation every year!Edison 21:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started editing for conciseness and encyclopedic format DGG 00:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biffovision[edit]

Recently aired pilot, no notable prior work by creators, not otherwise notable. 81.178.80.196 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prior notable work from Mr Biffo includes My Parents Are Aliens, Sooty, Eastenders, Barking, and the long running teletext service Digitiser. Prior notable work from Mr Hairs includes the long running teletext service Digitiser, and several best-selling travel books written under the name Tim Moore. Posts about the pilot feature on Paul Rose's blog [19] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RussellC (talk • contribs).

Comment Paul Rose is also notable for his monthly column in Edge, arguably the most well regarded gaming magazine in Britain. There is absolutely no lack of notable prior work by the creators and both are well known within UK gaming culture. This pilot is no less worthy than any of the others covered on Wikipedia, though it does need some filling out. One of the main cast members is not listed for a start.

TenTailedCat 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the other cast member. Russ 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've just come onto this webpage to find out Biffovision surely it is worth keeping, as its serving its purpose of an encyclopedia article! I'd also say that any program made by the BBC is deserving of a wiki article, considering the show was aired very early in the morning I know of 5 people who stayed up to watch it because they were big fans of what the writers did on digitiser, this surely makes it rather notable. Also I don't understand why it wants people to cite sources for things that happened in the show, surely the source is the 30 mins of television, i'm not really sure how to source tv shows?

Google search for "biffovision" returns 26,500 results, all of these relate to discussion of either the tv show or paul roses blog.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (aeropagitica) 08:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. BBC show. Cleanup and wikify article--ZayZayEM 12:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Mr Biffo" is also the author of 'Confessions of a Chatroom Freak'

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

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

Aftervote[edit]

The result was speedy delete per criterion G7. Harryboyles 14:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is about a search engine provider. No assertion of notability that meets the standards of notability in either WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Article's author removed ((prod)). Neil916 (Talk) 08:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper sources can be added to prove notability. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 09:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, no notability, no independent references. --Tractor kings fan 10:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)--Tractor kings fan 10:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont understand how its "spam" to create a wikipedia article for a search engine. Are you doubting that the search engine exists? Are you doubting that its based in a area? Please explain what it is you have a problem with so I can satisfy your issues, before writing something off as spam. Also, I will mention that creating a wikipedia article serves no 'spam' benefit- Also- If this is considered spam, Why are the entrys for engines such as chacha and wink allowed? I am all for providing you with whatever information you need to satisfy your needs. Bostondan2 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much of this is admitted copyright violation ("The following is taken from the AfterVote 'About' Page:...). As for the rest, too young to have garnered any notice, it appears. Unnotable. Herostratus 12:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck it. Wikipedia is turning into the dmoz. Bostondan2 12:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC) and done.[reply]
Speedy delete Page blanked by author. Maxamegalon2000 13:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chi generator[edit]

Product placement for non-notable product. No reliable, third-party , sources. --Pjacobi 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Anville 13:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Borderline spam speedy delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge). It's a trademarked synonym for "orgone generator". Check the categories. The article itself is clearer than other articles on the subject. DGG 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh[edit]

Dictionary definition, but Wiktionary already has a (superior) list of definitions. I see little prospect for expansion. greenrd 10:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and revert back to redirect to Meat. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 10:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- But flesh is not a synonym for meat. In contemporary British English, at least, one does not normally refer to a person's flesh as "meat", except in sexual or cannibalistic contexts. To do so, outside of those contexts, invites confusion and/or offence.—greenrd 10:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deserves at least a ((wi)) on the page. Any reworking or clarification of the page to explain the context of the word's usage is an editorial decision outside of AfD's scope. Resurgent insurgent 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page, which can refer folks to meat, skin, and whatever else people feel is appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 15:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded the page with a discussion of the significance of "the flesh" as metaphor in Christian theology, and added several literary allusions. Further expansion is possible. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect This article is a bad idea. Delete its contents and use it as a redirect to skin. DBZROCKS 20:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as expanded by Smerdis -- nicely done. bikeable (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've reworded a bit. jimfbleak 12:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all as copyright violations. This is in no way a judgment on the "worthiness" of the topics themselves; we just can't have text dumps of copy written books sitting in the mainspace. If someone wants to create new, original articles at this namespace, feel free to do so (and I note that consensus here would appear to suggest that if these were not copyvios they would have all been kept).--Isotope23 14:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gas tube rocket hypersonic launcher, etc.[edit]

plus images

Three unusual ways of getting stuff into space. Surely these are non-notable, won't work theories or original research. Read like something out of From the Earth to the Moon (Jules Verne) or The First Men in the Moon (H. G. Wells). Given the inventor's name, I am very tempted to describe them as "a load of bollonks". -- RHaworth 11:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now discovered that we think Alexander Bolonkin is notable but I am still dubious about his inventions. -- RHaworth 11:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three. These are neutral, sourced technical articles about processes which aren't mainstream enough to warrant inclusion in paper encyclopaedias and which would be hard to find elsewhere; this type of article is Wikipedia's great strength. I've cleaned up Inflatable Space Tower, which was a mess in terms of layout. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ugly but salvageable if we had a second real source. MrZaius^talk 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've dug out & added a couple of independent sources for Inflatable Space Elevator. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if the other two get deleted I think Inflatable Space Tower warrants separate consideration, as it's far more detailed than the other two. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Agreed with iridescenti. While they fail the independence qualification of WP:N, the articles appear to describe the inventions of A. Bolonkin neutrally and are informative. I would invoke WP:IGNORE unless other concerns are raised. -- intgr 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: These appear to be documented, especially the "inflatable tower" on the NASA pdf. It should be clear that these are highly theoretical designs. Also, I suggest we consider merging Cable Space Launcher with Mass driver, they appear to be very similar devices. The only major difference is that the Cable Space Launcher does not directly accelerate the payload like an electromagnetic rail gun, uses a "linear electric motor" (assumed to be similar design) to accelerate the pull cable going underneath. Danski14^(talk) 17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Just had a look through them and the references include some reputable journals so the concepts aren't original research. And whether they "won't work" is irrelevant to whether we should have an article. Bryan Derksen 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator. I would change my view to "keep" if the articles showed that these ideas had received serious consideration by the rocket science community. And the articles must make it clear how far these designs have got off the drawing board - I suspect the answer is not at all. -- RHaworth 20:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feasibility or practicality are not factors that are considered for notability. See WP:N.Chunky Rice 21:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... I will also mention that Mass Drivers are actually considered feasible for cargo payloads (not people). And surprisingly, the space tower is well documented in an official NASA pdf. Danski14^(talk) 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No evidence of notability, fail WP:SCIENCE. --EMS | Talk 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I extend my opinion to include items 4 and 5 at this time. --EMS | Talk 05:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am adding Circle Launcher and Space Keeper now. -- RHaworth 20:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Sourcing looks good. I'm not sure what the issue is.Chunky Rice 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you must be joking. There is just one source - no corroboration of any sort. -- RHaworth 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

combine The same sourcing is used for all, confirming a first guess that the articles can be merged. I would suggest merging them all, under a title like Non-Rocket Space Launch and Flight devices The material is not duplicated in the article on Bolonsky, and it shouldn't be because there is enough for an article here, and he is notable on other grounds as well.DGG 01:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am adding Utilization of Wind Energy at High Altitude now. I note the images are being tagged ((PD-self)) - I suggest this gives us grounds to delete all this as original research. -- RHaworth 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Huh, is that supposed to make any sense? How would the fact that this contributor drew the images invalidate current sources? -- intgr 06:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The PD-self tag confirms, in my view, that BKruglyak, the creator of these articles is probably Alexander Bolonkin himself or closely connected with him. Quite apart from putting a strong conflict of interest taint on them, this means that they are simply repeating their own ideas here which I call original research. For anyone else to write these articles it would not be OR because they are reporting someone else's research. -- RHaworth 08:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Comparing the illustrations to the ones on the website, it appears that they're re-drawn from them, rather than the same images. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I don't think so; compare Image:MLS-F1.gif with [20]. I'm pretty confident that the uploaded image is simply an unscaled version of the image from Bolonkin's web site. -- intgr 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: "Original research" is research that is published nowhere other than Wikipedia; someone's own research published elsewhere is not original research. Refer to WP:OR#Citing oneself and WP:COI#Citing oneself. -- intgr 12:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not been pushing the copyvio aspect because the author would almost certainly grant permission to copy. But you may care to compare this at arxiv.org with Utilization of Wind Energy at High Altitude. -- RHaworth 08:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cleaned up the Wind Energy one, which was a mess of wrong coding & line breaks, so at least it's being judged on content rather than appearance. (If this AfD results in merge, this one shouldn't be merged, since it doesn't relate to the other four.) I would strongly advise User:BKruglyak to use the preview button before s/he adds any more content to Wikipedia on this or any other topic, to use wikilinks in the textand not to cut-and-paste from other websites, especially sites using coding that isn't compatiable with Wikipedia. I'd also strongly advise him/her to dig out references rather than relying on a single author's technical papers; these articles are sourcable from multiple independent sources (as I've done with Inflatable Space Tower), but I've not got the time to do it for all five. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The original author of these articles does not appear to communicate with us at all — he hasn't yet responded to my inquires on the copyright status of images taken directly from Bolonkin's web site, nor this AfD nomination, despite making numerous edits after these inquiries were made. -- intgr 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree - given the effort I put into redesigning, rewriting & sourcing Space Tower I'm surprised I didn't get some feedback (even a "leave my article alone, you're not taking it the way I want it to go"), given that their edit history shows they've been active since then - but being antisocial isn't grounds for deletion. They're a very new user and I note from the edit history that they've never made an entry on a user or talk page - they might not understand how they work. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Adding Earth–Moon Cable Transport System at this point. -- RHaworth 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I add a strong delete for Earth–Moon Cable Transport System to my previous opinion. This is blatantly original research, and the more I look at the other topics the same applies to them too. (Even if you can make a case the this marginaly gets past WP:NOR it utterly fails WP:ATT.) We already have a featured article on the space elevator. Dr. Bolonkin's jury-rigged ideas need not be confused with it. It also occurs to me that the editor responsible for all of this is most likely Dr. Bolonkin, making their creation a violation of WP:COI. --EMS | Talk 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is not original research per WP:OR#Citing oneself, WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper), WP:ATT#Citing yourself and WP:COI#Citing oneself. Get your facts straight. -- intgr 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - If I am wrong about the editor being Dr. Bolonkin, then I am, but I would love to know how you know that if this is not Dr. Bolokin putting all of this stuff up. Even without that concern, this is non-notable material which is either self-published or placed into conference proceedings which most likely were not peer reviewed. I really, really cannot see any good reason for removing it all ASAP. --EMS | Talk 01:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: "Original research" is research that is published nowhere other than Wikipedia; relying on someone's own research published elsewhere is not original research, be it a peer reviewed conference or not — the reliable sources policy governs that. -- intgr 07:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Peer review is the key phrase. Where is the evidence of peer review? Do we accept theories that have not received some sort of peer review? -- RHaworth 11:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations?[edit]

Comment - copyright violations?: two similar articles, Kinetic Space Tower and Centrifugal Space Launcher, were found to be copyright violations from http://bolonkin.narod.ru/p65.htm. It is possible that some of the above listed are also copies of published works of Bolonkin, and are speedyable as copyvios. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Copyright held by Elsivier 2006. Straight cut and paste from e-Book (amazon for $200). Spoke with Dr. Bolonkin and says editor is a big fan, wants to help, but is not familiar with Wikipedia (or copyright). See my notes at User_talk:BKruglyak. CompRhetoric 14:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Green[edit]

Speedy deletion not appropriate here, I removed the tag as I thought here was better for consensu. I dony think a minor character from Friends deserves a Wikipedia article, you could consider mergining it into other articles where this is necessary but a dull article doesn't seem appropriate here. Telly addict 11:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is basically plot-summary stubs of the two episodes in which Amy Green made an appearance. All the information in this article can be found at The One with Rachel's Other Sister and The One Where Rachel's Sister Baby-Sits.Dr bab 12:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The article covers a character that only appeared in two episodes. Amy was clearly not an important part of the show and does not deserve her own article. --Cyrus Andiron 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per both above - info at episode pages is both more detailed and better written. Jeodesic 12:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I wouldn't object to a creation of List of minor characters in Friends, or somesuch. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all necessary info is already at List of recurring characters in Friends#Amy Green. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel byte[edit]

WP:BOLLOCKS. This is not a "common name" - indeed it is so uncommon that Google returns zero useful hits that are not derived from Wikipedia. greenrd 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced. Resurgent insurgent 12:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not-notable term. PCock 12:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless referenced. Ab e g92contribs 17:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless notability can be asserted and referenced in the article. Navou ^banter 18:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick search through the Jargon File and the related chaff file (normally the definitive resource one would want to use for terms like this, despite ESR's slightly eccentric POV) turns up bopkes for the term, other than that "weasel" is synonymous with "loser". More a neologism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is unreferenced and a google search came up with nothing useful. Alto Sax 456 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN term. It refers to kilobytes, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki; only Transwiki if there is evidence that the term is in use (even rarely) in published (non-blog) material. Otherwise, treat as a non-notable neologism. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyvio Bubba hotep 12:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3G's in indonesia[edit]

Procedural nomination. Contested ProD. Reason given was "not encyclopedic". Bubba hotep 11:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio from [21]. Had the text been original I'd have opined to keep and cleanup, though, probably to a saner title such as science and technology in Indonesia. Resurgent insurgent 12:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, thanks for picking up on that. That's usually my first port of call to check for copyvios, but in this case it slipped me by. I better speedy close and delete. Bubba hotep 12:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G1) WP:SNOW.--Hús ö nd 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suffofuck[edit]

No sources. Neologism. Google returns 0 hits, unthinkable for a notable sex term. Prod removed by original author. --Onorem 12:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No sources, and apparently at the time of creating the page, the creator AfD'd it... L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless neologism, and this is all covered in Erotic asphyxiation anyway. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no source for this neologism, and I can see problems for Wikipedia being seen to 'endorse' things such as this. Sam Blacketer 14:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Otherwise this brutal and lethal nonsense might get enough mirror cites like "Donkey Punch" that people would cite that as evidence for notability.Edison 14:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced neologism, unencyclopedic. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luton/Dunstable Urban Area[edit]

undeveloped stub. Little chance of it containing info not already in Luton, Dunstable or Houghton Regis. Please see other urban area articles for more info L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keeep - these are distinct statistical areas created by the Office of National Statistics. Short articles don't automatically mean poor or uneeded. Regan123 13:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have listed this at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography as I think this could have wider implications. No voting template added at this timestamp. Regan123 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Regan123, because ONS regions serve as a basis for so many statistics it's useful for people to be able to see exactly what they cover. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis into this article. No need for the three of them to have separate articles; they can all be covered together. Sadly Wikipedia doesn't have any clear guidelines on inclusion of geographical locations, but I'd say a useful rule of thumb is that, if there are no independent sources on it other than statistical and census records, it doesn't merit an article. Geographical areas are not "inherently notable" simply by virtue of being used for statistical data collection. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely oppose this suggestion. The three settlements are distinct, and those articles already have lots of great info. Merging them into one article would create an incoherant and unusable article. Joe D (t) 14:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems to be discussing a term for a region that encompasses other regions. It seems a valid encyclopedic article. Even if the term is not widely used by normal people (and I wouldn't expect it to be!) it is cleraly a recognised and used term in some official circles and would therefore seem valid. AlanFord 15:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speaking genereally, if an official body uses this as a distinct area, then it should have an entry. It is a good place to describe who uses this classification, and somewhere to put the information. For example, the combined statistics do not belong in the Luton or Dunstable articles, whereas the Urban area article could describe how often the two areas are treated as one. MortimerCat 15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Regan123, Iridescent, AlanFord, and MortimerCat. DDStretch (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I agree with Walton_monarchist89 (talk · contribs) that "if there are no independent sources on it other than statistical and census records, it doesn't merit an article". Please see ONS website. Should we have an article for every item of data on that list? "The ONS says it's important, so we should have an article" - NO! If it is not in regular usage, there need be no article. Also, same file, lines 1782-1784 - I see no mention of Houghton Regis. Are all Bedfordshire articles as factually incorrect as this would seem to be? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rationale isn't that the ONS says it's important; rather, as Iridescenti said, ONS uses the term, so readers might come to Wikipedia seeking amplification. JamesMLane t c 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'comment Surely this "amplification" can come from the Luton and Dunstable articles? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Official government region designation. --Oakshade 06:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an eye on it. -Splash - tk 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ira Lewy[edit]

I tried to help the author of this article, Kingseason, with establishing the notability of the subject. He appears to have written a number of research papers, but I don't think this goes beyond the amount of research needed to fulfill Wikipedia:Notability. When asked of the author's relation to Dr. Lewy, Kingseason told me that he was his research assistant. Even without this information, the article reads like a conflict of interest. It's almost entirely positive information, while a quick google search turns up omitted negative information about Dr. Lewy [22]. I don't have any prejudice against someone scrapping the article and rewriting it in the event that he does actually meet the notability guidelines, but the current article is not satisfactory. Leebo ^T/C 13:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-weak keep to allow time for tidying up and sourcing, but delete unless substantially improved soon; as per nom, at the moment this reads like a job application. If the man's notable for anything, it's for his criminal & disciplinary record more than his work, and this is precisely the material the article currently omits. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resume/CV. If the creator wants to work on it, it can be userfied and moved back into article space when ready. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references from the New York Times (enough to establish notability, I think) which call into question his clinical work related to breast implants. Now that some negative information is available, I think an appropriate article can be built from the current one and from the references. --Eastmain 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not totally sure his initial medical research is notable, though some of the journals cited are first-rate. But his later adventures are. DGG 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a one-sided "bio" which ignores the ignominious last several years of this person's career, with more State Medical Board fines, censures, and reprimands than are listed here (can find by Googling Pennsylvania and New York and his name). It also ignores his last job with an "alternate" cancer treatment center, where again, he had no medical admitting privileges at any hospital. If it isn't deleted, it should include further details of his "later adventures." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciamaria (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 April 2007 — Marciamaria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, it should,. this is an editing question, so please add them if you have sources. DGG 06:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A word of information is in order; since the advent of Googling and, more specifically, the National Practitioners Data Bank in the late 1980's, state medical authorities are able to "pile on" a practitioner, because a disciplinary action in another state is,by definition, a cause for investigation and discipline. In Dr Lewy's case, the retaliatory removal from the staff of Methodist Hospital (a defendant in many breast implant cases and the home of the invention of the device itself) automatically was a breach of the state board rules, then the state's action pari passu led to mirroring actions elsewhere. To see the vindictive and abusive nature of this process, consider that Dr Lewy never even practiced medicine in New York State, or had an active license, yet New York demanded thousands of dollars to drop its action. Other than Oklahoma, his license remains in good standing in all other states. Further, his primary Baylor teaching hospital never took an action against his privileges even after the Methodist action . Working for the Burzynski Clinic was indeed a great opportunity to help the doctor with his great burden. No hospital privileges were required.
Regarding the deletion and editing, it seems prejudicial. Major scientific accomplishments, like the Circulation article,were removed. If the complete references were restored, Dr Lewy feels they speak for themselves, and would accept a mention of the Texas State Board action, though not its "plea bargained" conclusions or their mirroring in other states. Indeed, Dr Lewy himself cited the critical article about him in the New York Times Ironically, the same piling on that he experienced 10 years ago to punish him for his work on breast implants via the state boards and now played itself out again within Wiki. Kingseason.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) — Kingseason (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Dr. Lewy's problems with the Texas Board stemmed from three issues: his loss of privileges, his prematurely issuing a press release which was confusing and incorrectly characterized his participation status regarding two research studies, and his charging referring agencies a surcharge for evaluating patients and evenings and weekends. The latter two were well after his loss of hospital privileges (1993) and the Texas report was in 1997; his Texas "problems" were therefore not just "piggy-backing" on the 1993 event.
  Falsifying his application to practice medicine in Oklahoma and pleading guilty to a misdemeanor as a plea bargain when faced with the facts are also hardly "piggy-backing" on earlier problems.
  As far as the Baylor Hospital and the purported non-loss of medical privileges, the fact remains that for the last several years of his professional life, Lewy did not have hospital admitting privileges; anyone in the medical professions knows what that means. He was not able to admit to a hospital his very ill and dying patients at the Burzynski Clinic.
  Why did the original submission not mention the Burzynski Clinic, if Lewy is now so proud of his work there, or Lewy's short-lived job in Oklahoma. When and where was Kingseason his "research assistant"?
  Kingseason writes that Lewy would "accept" the mention of the Texas State Board's action; Lewy has no choice to "accept" or "not accept" the Wikipedia article. His dissatisfaction with the Wikipedia entry stems from the fact that all of Marciamaria 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)the grave problems he had in the last more than ten years of his professional life were omitted in the original entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marciamaria (talk • contribs) 14:18, April 12, 2007 (UTC) — Marciamaria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Marciamaria is completely ignorant of the facts; Dr Lewy states that the hospital deletion did set in course a hearing at the state board level that eventually led to an agreed order in 1997. Regarding the press release, as stated before it was compromise; there is evidence that he was in fact participating in the research project mentioned. Finally, the overcharges were merely for night and weekend hours used at patient requests. All these "events" did occur in 1993-1994. TGhe Burzynski clinic had a system in which one physician was responsible for hospitalized patients.
    Clearly this entry is turning ugly and Marciamaria is quite vindictive.Further, much of the published work had been deleted. This is unacceptable to Dr Lewy,and he requests deletion. Thank you. Kingseason —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 17:55, April 12, 2007 (UTC)
Keep. To me his contributions, both positive and negative, add up to an interesting story that is clearly notable. The later legal issues are a matter of public record and can't be denied, but the small fines indicate to me a lack of serious malfeasance. I don't think the subject of an article should be able to dictate its removal but in connection with WP:BLP we should be very careful that all negative statements in the article are reliably sourced; I have already twice removed statements added by Marciamaria (seemingly a single-purpose attack account) that I did not feel were sufficiently well documented. And to Marciamaria and Kingseason: please sign your statements and format consistently, so that the rest of us can follow the conversation more easily. —David Eppstein 00:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Marciamaria and Kingseason are both single-purpose accounts, though Kingseason has been around longer. Neither have contributed to other articles in the encyclopedia. Leebo ^T/C 01:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I did try to sign my last edit, but it appeared somehow in the middle of the comment (I'm sure it's my fault, but it was signed, although in the wrong place.) I have not removed anything from Lewy's bibliography; others must have done that. As for Kingseason's insistence that the events referred to in the Texas Board's reprimand Marciamaria 01:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC) all took place in 1993 and 1994, the report itself refers to the last event as taking place in 1995. Anyone who reads the entire correspondence, edits, notes to and from Leebo, Kingseason, and others., can come to only one conclusion about who Kingseason really is (he refers to himself as Lewy's research assistant). I am sorry if anyone thinks I am guilty of a single-purpose attack account: the fact remains the everything I have said is backed up by published reports, that the original biography was nothing more than a kind of puff-piece, a form of advertising, which Wikipedia explicitly prohibits, a self-serving entry that left out material information, including Lewy's last place of employment as well as his problems with State Medical Boards. Yes, I have never before written anything about any Wikipedia entry, but I never before saw anything that was so egregiously incomplete. 01:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Marciamaria[reply]

keep ignomy is notability, the article should be made to discuss the whole career.--Buridan 09:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hui[edit]

The following is copied from Talk:Jack_Hui

Reasons to keep the article "Jack Hui"

1. The argument provided by user Cyktsui to delete this page is that the case is only suspected. However, the nature of the case is clearly stated in the article: "Hui pleaded not guilty in the first trial on January 12, 2007 and the judge granted a request to delay the trial so that Hui could sit for the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination.". There is no defamatory, only attributable facts.

2. The subject in question is sufficiently notable, not only because of his suspected indecent assault case, but also his achievement. Googling his Chinese name will result in tons of verifiable information.

3. The article is neutral and independent (As a matter of fact, I don't know Mr.Hui personally) but I know more about him because of the reports of his case from the mass media.

4. The article is informative, and well sourced.

That's all, thanks!. - INTELer 17:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying the article is POV, but it seems like Jack Hui is not significant enough as Wikipedia article. There are a large nubmer of people participated in IMO, with higher achievement, but not having their own article (not that they should). --Cyktsui 13:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Very Weak Keep - there are lots of references provided, but most are in Chinese (which I don't speak), so I can't tell whether they constitute "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources" as required to meet WP:BIO. An opinion from a neutral Chinese speaker would be helpful here. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 11 - 13 are newspaper articles in related to the sex crime accusation while others are results of Mathematical Olympiad. --Cyktsui 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thinly sourced allegations of sexual offence makes me think of another similar article that was deleted - Brian Peppers. As far as the provided references say, the coverage resulting from his awards was at best trivial (being mentioned in several lists of top students, nothing more), but the coverage of his trial has been disproportionate. I suppose this lopsided coverage of a living person goes against the spirit of WP:BLP. (I can read the Chinese references.) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-09 15:59Z
Comment: Brian Peppers was a American convicted sex offender who became the subject of a Internet meme. WP:BLP concerns were invoked in deleting his article. In comparison, the subject of this article hasn't even been convicted and he's already the talk of the town (figuratively speaking). I do not support the keeping of this article unless Jack becomes noted (i.e., has become the subject of a detailed write-up in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia) for something other than his alleged offence or his awards. (Here's more information on the deletion discussion of Brian Peppers' article.) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-09 16:10Z
Keep silver in the IMO is notable. The trial is NN and a BLP violation unless he is convicted--but it alone would still not be enough, because of the relatively trivial nature. DGG 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this AfD a joke? There're multiple mentions in notable newspapers, and even a HK government website has mentioned him. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A view from an unregistered user from Talk:Queen's College, Hong Kong

I just want to ask what is the purpose of posting the two articles up? No doubt they are facts. But, as Cyktsui said, there are so many students in Queen's College, it would be impossible for the school to control every stuedent and their behavior. Again, it is unfair to put the blame on the school as student's behavior is on his own responsibility. Besides, the Form 7 student is now having his advanced level examination. I think the incident had caused great hit to him already. This high-sounding post which included his full name will cause further blow to him mentally, let alone he is still in criticial time now. He is still assumed to be innocent until he is finally convicted by the court. Some people in Hong Kong may consider Queen's College as one of the prestigious school in Hong Kong. The public may put high expectation on the school. Therefore, this incident was exaggerated by the mass media as it had high "news value". Or some poeple may think the school doesn't deserve its name. They want to make up of this incident to censure the school. Finally, I appeal to delete the post as it is unfair to the school, to that Form 7 student and upset the schoolmates much. --Kianss 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 14:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rubén Manusovich[edit]

Notability is not asserted and cannot be determined. If notability can been established please do. JBEvans 13:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - very brief and unsourced, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to meet WP:BIO. Delete unless expanded and sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Could be speedy-A7'd, but since there's already an AfD, I'll let it be. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find anything on this guy and don't think that he is actually Israeli. NYC2TLV 08:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Seem he became a businessman and related to Fedecámaras. Google search return 3100 results. Matthew_hk t c 11:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- 144.214.97.0 11:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletions. -- 144.214.97.0 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of him even being a professional footballer, or the name of club he plays for. If of course, that can be verified then I would change that to Keep. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and no content.--Sefringle 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 13:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G8 logos[edit]

Logos are fair use only in article on the subject (that is, a G8 summit logo is fair use in an article on that particular G8 summit, but not in a gallery of G8 summit logos (see, for instance, the lack of any galleries of sports team logos). Even if the logos could be used in this article, it is of absolutely no worth to the encyclopedia. Lexicon (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary list, would have little or no content once fair-use images are removed. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a clearly improper use of our fair use image guidelines. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-09 16:03Z
Delete per nom, violation of fair use guidelines. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inappropriate gallery of fair use images with no commentary. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything else Alto Sax 456 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zenra[edit]

Zenra is Japanese for completely nude. Dictdef. Tokek 14:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article asserts that zenra is also a subgenre of pornography, and a quick Google search seems to lend some credence to this. I'm at work right now so I am not willing to research a pornographic topic any deeper than a Google search, but the impression I get is that this article is in need of sourcing but sources may indeed exist. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictionary entry. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for 3 months; as above, this does seem to be an actual genre of Japanese porn. That should be enough time for someone to find sources, and if they don't, it should be renominated then. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So, you're biased towards "keep" even though you say you haven't found any credible sources? This article has existed for about a year already, and the ((unreferenced)) tag has been added since 5 February. This AFD nomination is based upon my perspective as a person fluent in Japanese that what the article asserts — "zenra" being a credible and unique subgenre of pornography — is totally false; instead, it is merely a porn related Japanese term. Not all terms that are capable of returning a bunch of porn results on Google should be deemed encyclopedic. —Tokek 22:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems sourcable, and that is sufficient for a keep, assuming sources will be found. DGG 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding references:
- WP:DICTDEF (Wikipedia is not a dictionary).

- Yahoo! Japan Dictionary (Yahoo! Japan 辞書): "zenra: To be wearing nothing. maruhadaka (synonym). suppadaka (synonym)."

- Just created an entry for zenra at wiktionary [23].

- Pre-existing articles include Pornography in Japan and Nudity. Is there something about the word for "all nude" in Japanese that has potential for an independent Wikipedia article with significant amount of content not already covered in these two articles? No.

Also, noting so far that the "keep" votes are based merely upon suspicion that it may be notable.—Tokek 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, sort of. with quite a few comments

From what I am reading here, the disputes seems to be whether "zenra" counts as a genre. The majority of the commentators seems to agree that IF it is a genre, then the entry should be kept, and IF it is not a genre, then it should be deleted.

Well taking the word literally, a genre is nothing more than a type. Any collective with some features that one can use to distinguishes members of the collective from non-members can count as a genre. And certainly, judging from the description here -assuming they are correct- one can distinguish between zenra and non-zenra.

I am Taiwanese, and guessing from the kanji, zenra seems to mean nothing more than "fully nude" or "completely naked", making it nothing more than an adjective in Japanese. This, however, does not mean that it cannot constitute a genre, insofar as this is a English entry, the fact that many (judging from the number of google returns) English- speaking porn watchers recognize "zenra" as a genre -even if this is due to a completely mistaken understanding of Japanese- , would be enough to justify zenra as a genre. Basically, even if 全裸 is not a genre, zenra can be a genre.

Basically, i support the contention that zenra can be a genre assuming that the descriptions are correct.

However, we must also take into consideration the wikipedia's rules, namely, no original material. While i am pretty sure zenra films meets the criteria for "genre-hood" according to the descriptions, i am not really sure how many people actually recognize it as such. So in the end, it really depends on people who watch a hell lot of porn...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.161.69.231 (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I almost agree with what you say this discussion is mainly about. This discussion IMHO is primarily about whether the topic is worthy of an encyclopedic article. Whether or not "zenra" is a "genre" is just one aspect that is being discussed. Another aspect being looked into is: given the fact that there are other related / overlapping articles such as Nudity and Pornography in Japan to mention just a few, is there a reason to have a separate, somewhat peculiar article for total nudity in Japan?

Also, I have a feeling that you are confusing "genre" with "jargon". This AFD request is NOT claiming that the term is a neologism. It IS a real word. Even if random Japanese word X was not a term commonly used in the English speaking world, that fact alone does not disqualify it from being worthy of a Wikpedia article. OTOH, the "genre argument" alone does not exclude this article from being worthy of deletion. 全裸 pronounced in Mandarin could potentially be an English jargon, but would the pronunciation deserve an article of its own? Do we need to translate "stark naked" into every language on Earth, then add an article to Wikipedia for each? This article does not seem to be capable of filling any niche on Wikipedia, and it has no potential for growth beyond its current state as a dictionary definition especially because the definition is too simple and culuturally totally non-unique. (By policy, new users and IP users can't vote.)—Tokek 12:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't just a word, it is a style of porn of girls doing normal activities while nude. Much different than a dictionary definition, or just girls posing naked. MightyAtom 01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think people are really getting sidetracked by the "genre" discussion. A term can be a genre and a dictionary definition article at the same time, too. Any article can provide a dictionary definition-like explanation for a given term. Anyone can argue that "all nude" translated in random language X can be considered a "genre". And of course, since it's a porn-related word, we inevitably get tons of Google hits (Google hit count doesn't matter too much in this case as I'm not arguing that this is a non-existant word!). The question is whether there is any potential for real growth beyond a dictionary definition article, in a way that makes sense considering that we already have articles such as Pornography in Japan and Nudity. —Tokek 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The word "zenra" in this context is used to describe a state --- "not wearing a piece of cloth on", in the shortest, handiest and catchiest possible way; not more, not less. It is also a very convenient and effective way to improve one's SEO. You will probably not want to type "a video of a person skating without wearing a piece of cloth on" when googling, if you are looking for a "nude skater video" or "nude skating video." The word is used perfectly responding to such needs.--OhMyDeer 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are significant amount of Zenra videos (which I admit I have seen some of them), in which I think it is significant enough to be certified as a notable genre. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just added a ref from a japanese newspaper; how does this affect peoples views? Urso 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ca$hville Records[edit]

Fails WP:CORP and WP:RS; only external link is a YouTube video. Tagged unreferenced since February 24, 2007. Prodded one week ago with no significant article improvement since the prod notice was removed. Non-trivial coverage by two or more published works has not been provided. Nominated for AfD twice before a year ago resulting in no consensus and keep. Geniac 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleteGman124 23:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keepTru Soulja 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and seems like WP:HOAX and violates WP:V. Discount above votes. WP:VOTE and WP:JUSTAVOTE.--WaltCip 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DUCK. Looks like a hoax, quacks like a hoax. RFerreira 01:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Quinn Smith[edit]

NN celebrity kid. Ckessler 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, then redirect to Kevin Smith. Her film roles are all a byproduct of her father's career in film making and are all pretty small, to boot. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per Lankybugger. No independent notability --Mattinbgn/^talk 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect I'm not gonna argue with your opinions since I agree with them. I made that when I wasn't a very experienced wikipedian. But now looking at it, it's not long and she's not very notable I guess. If someone really wanted to learn about her they could go to IMDB and find all of the information in that article, anyway.Bsroiaadn 22:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Agree with the above. BertieBasset 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Couldn't agree more. --Dariusk 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrophilia[edit]

Non-notable, referenced by a blog entry, no mention of such a fetish in any sexuality book. bogdan 17:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, the cited "article" is no such thing. Aaronbrick 18:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this thing gets some references. Seems like something people might do, but has no place here until it's documented elsewhere. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the name may need changing . Cf succubus -- that is actually a major historical imagined meme, and this seems a dilute version. The name appears to be a neologism. Not all fetish names have to end in "philia" Anyway, people don't have to do it; they just have to talk about it. I will, as usual, try for some references. DGG 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found. I'll watch the AfD. - Francis Tyers · 10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfunding[edit]

No sources. Neologism. Non-notable. Appears to be original research. Pdelongchamp 17:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced. Links do not use the term. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It strikes me as original research. YechielMan 15:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'll do my best to merge selectively; others will have to improve on my efforts if they want to. Mango juice^talk 18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenmore Middle School[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE. Long, drawn out article about a middle school with not 1 ounce of notability. Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 17:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Lacks references and would probably be better merged into a school district article. However, the article is beyond that of a stub and could become a good article with a cleanup and expansion of existing sections. Camaron1 | Chris 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to its respective district. There is little to suggest that this school is signifcantly different from most other middle schools. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to respective school district. —Ocatecir ^Talk 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Mr.Z-man above. It's better developed than some of the school pages I've seen here in AfD, but the content seems to be something more tuned to a website than Wikipedia. (note, edit conflict.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that is properly attributed to the district article, deleting the WP:OR, and leave a redirect. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep most school articles should be written this well and have this much information in them. There is too much good information here to merge.Noroton 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to district It is well written, and it has a good deal of information that shows the school to be very similar to other schools, without any particularly notable characteristic. DGG 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to district, and prune heavily in the process. We judge articles by their content, not by ~~weight~~ length, and the content here fails to demonstrate any particular notability. Much of the content, in fact, borders on trivia. Xtifr _tälk 02:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [24] - passing WP:NOTE. Part Deux 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your school in those google news articles are about a school in buffalo. just fyi. and I'd go with merge to the district.Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would also support a merge. Camaron1 | Chris 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to district article. Vegaswikian 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried looking for any notability in this school to push it towards notability, but I can't find anything that stands out.--Wizardman 02:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (second option) Merge to district article. Garion96 (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:LOCAL while retaining edit history for GFDL purposes. RFerreira 02:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:LOCAL. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RFerreira, etc. --Myles Long 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton. This is well-written. - grubber 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Maruquin[edit]

Unnotable athlete 99DBSIMLR 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Olympic athlete (passes WP:BIO as one who has "played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports") and multiple time USA Field Hockey male Athlete of the Year. [25] (which I have added to the article). Leebo ^T/C 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as highest-level competitor. Bad faith nomination? Punkmorten 18:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was 99DBSIMLR's first of several AfD nominations of high level amateur athletes, so I think it's more of a misconception of the notability guidelines than bad faith. Leebo ^T/C 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Olympic field hockey athlete, definitely notable. --Cyrus Andiron 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Soumyasch with the reason "advertising (G11), notability not asserted (a7)." --Xnuala (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zylog Systems Limited[edit]

nn company Sooonu 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under non notable corporation criterion --Cyrus Andiron 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While a strict numeric count indicates no consensus, there are at least two single purpose accounts and one other who states (s)he is a representative of the company. This aside, the sourcing concerns were never addressed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zitku[edit]

nn company Sooonu 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This company (or product, I am not sure which) is not notable. I was the earlier prod-er of this article. The article's creator (also the person who removed the prod) is employed by the company, violating WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO UnitedStatesian 19:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Zitku is neither a company nor a product. Zitku is a community research project( a search engine and directory). The project performs searches on over 1 million human edited pages and publishes results. The project also has been a featured project/article on Aboutus.org 29th March and has been reviewed by webmasters at Aboutus.org. WP:AUTO is about autobiographies which is not the case here, I am not Ziktu and neither am I the only person in this project. Zitku is a notable community research project funded jointly by a University and a private company. The article does not violate WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO Amit 07:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its new and not popular but it is a search engine and a crawler. How many crawlers are there in the world ? A 500 max, quite notable. Deserves a place in the encyclopedia, if this were a paperback endition, I would probably skip its inclusion. Removing the prod was not a good thing. I couldnt find anything that qualifies this article under WP:NPOV. UnitedStatesian can you point out how is the point of view not neutral ? Smithowen 08:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have read the discussion page and i feel the article does not violate WP:NPOV. I am unsure about WP:AUTO, my arguement is "should US citizens be not allowed to start an article on USA ?". I agree with what is written in WP:AUTO about autobiographies, but the rule does not apply here. I recommend we keep this article. Ritugupta rg 20:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN online webpage with no reliable/third party sources to back up any assertions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep because this is an international company and clearly meets WP:CORP ~~and (2) the nominator failed to place an AFD template on the article itself~~. YechielMan 15:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acette[edit]

nn comapny Sooonu 17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Fighting Championship (XFC)[edit]

nn comapny Sooonu 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Nominator is too new to have earned credibility, but he has a point. YechielMan 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria Andrwsc 16:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Soumyasch with the reason "notability not asserted (a7)". --Xnuala (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAFY[edit]

nn website Sooonu 17:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Soumyasch with the reason "notability not asserted (a7)". --Xnuala (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aqilla[edit]

nn comapny Sooonu 17:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by Soumyasch. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Scantlebury[edit]

nn bio Sooonu 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think it's just notable enough. He has been a managing director of an important software company. Should be easily sourceable -- But there should be something more, because categories have been added for "Technology writers" and "Members of the Royal Society of Arts", both of which could add to notability, but they arent mentioned in the article. DGG 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 by RyanGerbil10

SharpOWL[edit]

nn comapny Sooonu 17:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Metzner[edit]

Unotable scientist. Fails WP:NOTE 99DBSIMLR 17:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is now a stub. What's needed is a complete translation of the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia. --Eastmain 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Eastmain 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A rough translation has now been added. He was the editor of two journals in his field. DGG 05:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it has been expanded and sourced. As founder of two notable institutes, he seems clearly academically significant, and three different obituaries provide sufficient sourcing. —David Eppstein 23:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus Pea ceNT 15:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsai Chia-Hsin[edit]

Unnotable athlete. Fails WP:NOTE 99DBSIMLR 17:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BIO as an athlete who has "competed at the highest levels of amateur sports. 99DBSIMLR, please note this sentence as it applies to Olympic athletes before nominating any more for deletion. Leebo ^T/C 18:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Olympic athlete competing for his country at the highest ameteur level, definitely notable. --Cyrus Andiron 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as high-level competitor, but I would like to see references. Punkmorten 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I was in the process of adding more sources and results for other events he competed in, and I accidently hit "Back" and lost my preview (This page has expired!). I'll get it together later. Leebo ^T/C 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject appears to meet WP:BIO, and article is already tagged as a stub, which counts as a request for improvement. Xtifr _tälk 03:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Could still be redirected but consensus is unclear, should probably be discussed on the applicable talk pages (doesn't require AFD to redirect). W.marsh 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obligations in Freemasonry[edit]

No substantial edits in over a month to an article that is now again a duplicate of its original section. The now-banned user who created this article was more interested in "exposing Msonic secrets" (with one text that is in the public domain than any sort of discussion on Obligations (which was already covered), thus WP:POINT. The main issue for no consensus in the original AfD was that the article was well-referenced. Those sources were later deemed unreliable by consensus (one place at one time is not enogh for a generalization), and the OTO section was taken out also as unreliable. The article is now a carbon copy of the material in the main Freemasonry article, and should therefore be deleted to avoid any future POV forks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MSJapan (talk • contribs)

NOTE BENE: There never was an OTO section in this article as alleged by MSJapan. ~~Other facts presented may be obscured by similar memory lapses.~~ Jefferson Anderson 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was thinking of Jahbulon, apparently. Thanks for the ad hominem though. MSJapan 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for reminding me to look at the Jahbulon article. I see some changes have been made that I don't agree with. Jefferson Anderson 15:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freemasonry#Obligations, as nom said, its more or less a direct copy of that section.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe it is technically possible to redirect to a subheading. Am I wrong about this? Jefferson Anderson 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think its a compartivly recent addition to the software, but yeah, its entirely possible.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ability to redirect to headings is new and shiny. -- saberwyn 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing it at various places, and it works well. DGG 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and either restore quotes from Duncan's removed by Freemasonic editors or use the synopsis version created by User:ALR. I've reverted to the latter since the Freemasonic editors object to Duncan's rather strenuously. Thus the article is no longer a duplicate of the section in the main Freemasonry article. Jefferson Anderson 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - or perhaps Merge. I appreciate the fact that Jefferson Anderson is willing to drop the references and quotations to Duncan's Masonic Monitor (a very controversial and unreliable source, and the main issue during the previous AfD) and adopt compromise language. This moves me from a strong delete (in the previous AfD) to simply a redirect recommendation. I still feel that this material works better as part of the main Freemasonry article, where it is presented in context so the non-masonic reader can better understand it. The addition of the list of things Masons agree to in a typical obligation does not change this feeling. If that material is considered vital, it can be merged into Freemasonry Blueboar 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adopting the reasonable arguments of Jefferson Anderson. Frankly, I make an analogy to a religion--there can be valid different views of the same text, and we shouldn't decide which is right. DGG 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not an interpretative issue. If we want to use the same analogy (though I think it's flawed here, because Freemasonry isn't a religion), it's like using the NIV Bible and saying that it is entirely the same as the KJV, and moreover that everyone uses it. It's a gross generalization; the text which is "right" is governed solely by the Grand Lodge in the jurisdiction - no one else's matters within the jurisdiction, nor is it correct outside the jurisdiction. That has always been the objection to the text, not some silly BS about exposing secrets, because the obligation isn't secret. MSJapan 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to section in main article, substantive content is identical.ALR 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The college of Engineering[edit]

Originally prodded by me because: The article appears to be only a picture gallery. Based on the captions, it probably prefers to the college of engineering within Sudan University, but there is absolutely no text, and generally, departments and faculties within universities should be in the main article. A redirect would be inappropriate as "The college of Engineering" could refer to any one of many universities with such a department. Original editor removed the PROD without really addressing the concerns. Whpq 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to merge. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-09 17:59Z
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too little context for an article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Possibly a merge if someone's feeling bold. -Splash - tk 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Smither[edit]

Failed Libertarian candidate in the 2006 election from Tom DeLay's old district. I'm was really surprised to see that this hadn't been through AfD last year. Third-party candidate, with few reliable sources: unclear to me whether he satisfies WP:BIO. Delete pending other opinions. Xoloz 18:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, why being a 'third-party' candidate matters? His candidacy got much press coverage, more than that of other 'second-party' candidates. --Uriel 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have evidence of this, especially the latter claim? --Calton | Talk 07:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=bob.smither&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8 he even got interviewed for CNN, I don't think every single 'second-party' candidates got that far. And this anecdotal, but I live on the other side of the world, and I'm not from the USA, and I heard about his candidacy from the press. --Uriel 14:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. He lost a political race. So have a lot of other non-notable people. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This race received considerable public attention outside the geographical area, because of the unusual circumstances. Smither is more notable than the average minor-party candidate. Article needs cleanup, though. JamesMLane t c 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether politicians are notable depends on the individual circumstances, and the nature of the district and his distinctive views were widely reported. DGG 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Texas's United States House elections, 2006. His notability is derived from his presence in a particular notable campaign, not from anything that he actually accomplished. By the proponents reckoning, any goober who managed to get on the ballot would be notable. Montco 05:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or minor merge to Texas's United States House elections, 2006. No claim of notability other than he went from having a snowball's chance in Hell to a snowball's chance in a frying pan because of the special election. --Calton | Talk 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable even for non-politics related reasons, in the last month alone there are at least three news items that mention him in relation to the search of his daughter: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bob.smither&btnG=Search+News

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Pea ceNT 15:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Róża Kasprzak[edit]

Does not meet notibilty requirements for athletes (Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports) 99DBSIMLR 18:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She competed at the Universiade and the European Championships in Athletics. I'm not sure how that isn't at "the highest level in amateur sports". Leebo ^T/C 18:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's safe to say that at least the European Championships counts as "highest level" as it's probably the third strongest track and field competition in existance, behind the Olympics and World Championships. The European Indoor Championships probably meets the standard as well, being the second strongest indoor track and field event, only behind the World Indoor Championships. Finally, if the athletes are not only competing, but also placing well in the final round, you have a quite strong case for keep. Punkmorten 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High level event, plus high placement. Notable. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Placing well at ECs, very notable. --Cyrus Andiron 18:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question Highest level means a single highest level, not a very top level and a lower stratum. In an Olympic sport, I do not see how a regional competition can be the highest level. It is "third strongest track ... meet". Third from the highest is not the highest. She may well be notable under general considerations, but then we cant say it is following the rule citedDGG 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think "highest" means "only the Olympics" or it would say that. Some people never get the chance to go to the Olympics, but dominate other huge events like the ones mentioned. I take highest to mean these internationally recognized championships. The European Championships in Athletics are not "just some meet". Leebo ^T/C 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what rule do you have for how for down you want to go? The superlatively was used deliberately to avoid problems. It does not say Olympic because some sports don't have that competition and some single other competition would take its place. That's what the word means in English. If it meant international it would say so; if that's what's generally wanted, the rule can be changed. DGG 05:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion that making the Olympics the cut-off is too high. Perhaps it's a moot point, because if one is competing as one of the best athletes in Europe (even if it's not at the Olympics) there are going to be articles about him or her. Leebo ^T/C 11:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any athlete who competes in the European Championships is competing at the highest level in her sport. It may not get much coverage in the USA but it's very prestigious in Europe. A finalist at the European Championships is an elite athlete by any definition of the word. Nick mallory 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ifdown[edit]

Non-notable Linux command. Wikipedia is not the Linux Documentation Project. greenrd 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for much the same reason:

Regarding the second article, I don't know how to properly link to it, other than by pasting the URL, because the article title begins with a slash - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//etc/network/interfaces - If anyone can get this to work properly, please be bold and fix this paragraph for me.

Merge and redirect all to somewhere else appropriate. Unfortunately I don't have any good suggestion, so I can't really object to Delete if no good ideas come up. Incidentally, the problem with linking to articles with a leading slash only occurs outside the main namespaces (i.e. in places where the "subpages" feature is enabled), because the leading / makes it interpret the link as a subpage of the current page. It works fine, for example, in Ifup. This old enhancement request from bugzilla.wikimedia.org might shed a bit more light on the issue [26]. I guess you can hack it as e.g. [[:en:/etc/network/interfaces|/etc/network/interfaces]], which gives /etc/network/interfaces. If you do ((la|en:/etc/network/interfaces)), it sorta works, except that the Talk page link is still broken. cab 02:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not a repository of all human knowledge about every possible thing. ➪HiDrNick! 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment --- just to clarify, there's actually three articles up for deletion (ifup, ifdown, and /etc/network/interfaces). Cheers, cab 00:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm appalled and confused. First two related commands I thought to test for are both articles. And okay, gawk is important, but split? There are many Unix/Linux program articles, e.g. Category:Standard Unix programs. And if Category:Unix software can have anacron in it, I don't know what the appropriate criteria are. Will someone explain how to judge this and other software articles? Shenme 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, we don't have good notability criteria for these (so far WP:SOFTWARE says: "subject to multiple independent publications", heck yes; "included in prominent OS distributions", heck YES... but should we still have articles about each of them individually?) and the *nix command articles are, lightly put, a giant mess. Someone should start up a giant big bulldozer and merge these together - we absolutely don't need articles on each and every *nix command. Some are remarkable (gawk(1) clearly is as it's a programming language and a GNU package in its own right, anacron(8) is a software package in its own right as well, but split(1), heck no - a mention in GNU Core Utilities might be adequate, as that package is what I install if I want to use that thing anyway). I hope this gets done without shoving each and every one of them to the AfD! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ugh, someone deprecated WP:SOFTWARE while I was not looking. Anyway, I hope my point stands - I was just pointing out the problems we have with the current criteria =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. Not significan enough in their own right; should be covered in detail if someone makes an article on GNU/Linux network utilities, but definitely not individually. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all per cab. CloudNine 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three appear to be in danger of reaching if not already in the territory of breaching - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--VS ^talk 07:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Xtreme Wrestling[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable wrestling promotion. No secondary sources, lots of redlinks and some of the blue ones appear NN too. Note that a Google search for WXW appears to throw up a lot of hits for a German promotion. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I recall this promotion's TV show went out in Philadelphia at the very least. I'd say any notability it has stems from the TV show and the Wild Samoan training school. I'd prefer more comments as to whether this is worth expanding (or even expandable) before putting down a final opinion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've cleaned up the article, fixing most of the red links (with exception to independent wrestlers) and providing references. I've also expended its history noting its relationship with the then-WWF and wrestlers who have regularly appeared at its Sportsfest supercards. MadMax 07:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while I agree that the article is lacking in content that's not a reason to delete it. wXw coupled with the Wild Samoans Wrestling School (students "graduate" into wXw). wXw promoted the card where Gary Albright died in the ring, while morbid does set it apart from most indy federations and adds to it's "Notability", it's worth expanding IMO MPJ-DK 10:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition - The article could be expanded to include the wXw's predecessor (Trans World Wrestling Federation founded in the 70s), a section on the Wild Samoan's school, title history and be a good wiki entry. MPJ-DK 10:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that happened (with sources) I'd happily withdraw the nomination. EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say keep it, looks legit enough to me and it has the backing of two guys very well known in the business. Govvy 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of multiple independent non trivial sources, fails WP:N and WP:A. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the promotion has since been well established and does include several newspaper articles as references. MadMax 04:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you'd like to explain how the notability of the promotion has been established per WP:N or WP:CORP, as opposed to tangential comments from wrestling fans? The threshold is multiple non trivial sources. Two of the newspaper articles are only tangentially related to the actual promotion, given that they deal with the death of Gary Albright who died wrestling for the promotion, so I would question how much source material is actually contained in them. The other reference is not available on any of the archive.org versions of the GFH site, despite there being an archived version of the page on the publication date in question. Also given the name of the article it would tend to suggest that the article is actually about a pair of wrestlers not the actual promotion. Feel free to place a copy of the newspaper article on the article's talk page, paraphrasing to avoid any copyright problems so it can be reviewed. I ask this because of your dubious use of references on the Tony Stetson page, where you included a book that does nothing more than print his name (and whether he won or lost a match) on four different pages. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the promotion, as presently stated in the article, includes the following points.

The promotion is owned and operated by Afa Anoa'i of the Wild Samoans, a WWF Hall of Fameer and a former 3 time WWWF World Tag Team Champion.
Many of his students who have graduated from its training school and have competed in the promotion include both former and present WWE wrestlers as well as a current member of the WWE creative staff.
They have conducted at least two world tours in the Middle East and Asia during 2002.
Their annual Sportsfest supercard has included former WWF and ECW wrestlers, the latter staging an "invasion" of the 2001 Sportsfest.
Since January 2000, it has had a regular televised program in at least the Philadelphia area.

As for newspaper references I provided, one is regarding Afa's son-in-law Gary Albright who died of a heart attack in his first match in the promotion (supporting MPJ-DK's point). That specific article does describe the WXW event in which Albright died. As for my edit to Tony Stetson, I provided a reference to his championships won while in the promotion, which is clearly shown in the book. MadMax 19:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As before, rather than repeating unsourced tangential arguments, please show evidence of meeting Wikipedia guidelines, specifically - A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. Please provide the contents of the source on the article's talk page as I requested. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

Keep I'd be happy to do some work to expand this after my brief wikibreak. Further comment: there may not be sources in the article now, that does not mean they cannot be found. Tranquility--ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ”Tangential unsourced”?? I guess that’s your way of covering your ears and going ”nah-nah-nah-nah I can’t hear you”. Alright fair enough then in the interest of "putting an end to the debate"

Owened and operated by Afa – Source? Brian Shields (2006). Main event – WWE in the raging 80s (4th ed.). Pocket Books. ISBN 978-1-4165-3257-6., in writing confirmation that Afa does indeed run the wXw.
People trained by in the Wild Samoan school – Source? WWE Hall of Fame entry
Tour of the middle east? – Snitsky profile it mentions him going on a middle east tour for wXw, in fact it goes into a longer, NON-TRIVIAL run through of his career in wXw. WXW supports Operation Enduring Freedom
Sportsfest – apparently it needs to be sourced to even exist, listing of matches for Sportsfest 2005, Sportsfest 2004, Sportsfest 1998 (with several WWF contracted wrestlers appearing including Owen Hart, the Rock & Mick Foley)
On Television in the Philly area? the existence of a TV show called ”WXW Rage TV”, 1996 and on, Rage TV Report – ” WGTW Ch. 48 out of Burlington/Philadelphia”

That last one also mentions the storyline involvement of Bill Apter of PWI fame, something which to my knowledge no other federation has done, again helps make them rise above the usual indy federations. Tangential? They’re part of why this federation is notable, no matter how much you’d like to dismiss them. I think there is plenty of evidence to support the keeping of this article so that it can be turned into a good Wikipedia entry and that there are several people here who'd be willing to do the work and actually contribute positively to this article. MPJ-DK 07:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was to delete this article. -- Denelson 83 07:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen M. Smith[edit]

Delete: Non-notable professor and fund raiser. This was originally speedied by me but was reposted in a slightly improved form. There are claims made at Talk:Stephen M. Smith including significant press coverage but I do not see that coverage. The mda.org reference also mentions Mike Buche, Raymon Villegas, and Mark Reiman which are all red links. I received a note about this article being involved in some wider dispute but I know nothing of that. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. This professor has no notability. --18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Ksy92003

Keep: per notability rationale on article's talk page. Smith was recognized by significant press coverage. Also recognized as innovative and unique by the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Smith created a significant project, a non-profit as a proposed fundraising model for other ALS patients. The article is cited, verifiable, and written in good faith. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How's this guy even close to being notable? And this from someone who invokes BLP elesewhere? 151.151.21.105 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't state why this guy's notable--$UIT 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One article in the local newspaper is not "significant press coverage", and I agree with previous commenters that notability has not been shown. In terms of WP:PROF, it doesn't even say that he has any kind of specialty, let alone that he's known as any kind of expert in it. So I think for notability we have to rely on the more general criteria in WP:BIO but there the case is weak too. —David Eppstein 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep if notability as an activist can be further demonstrated. No claims were made for academic notability. DGG 04:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per David Eppstein. Guettarda 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Insufficient assertion of notability. Resolute 04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the entry, we know Mr. Smith's nickname, profession, employer, education, place of residence, teaching style, major ailment, and the name of the non-profit fund concerning said ailment he started, none of which are notable enough to warrant inclusion in this project. Also, as mentioned, the alleged 'significant press coverage' has not been demonstrated. 130.156.29.134 17:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Markham Place[edit]

Notability not asserted, & Wikipedia is not a directory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seinfreak37 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 April 2007

weak delete The multiplicity of the restaurants is perhaps more than usual, but not uncommon for this location.DGG 04:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)TC)[reply]
It's a shopping center (oops, centre) with no real assertion of any special qualities and no sources. Delete. --Calton | Talk 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a section within MarkhamRaveenS 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No secondary sources or assertion of notability. I also oppose merge to Markham, Ontario as that is already a good size article and merging this would give too much coverage to what appears to be a relatively unimportant shopping centre.--Kubigula (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus and article's improvement Pea ceNT 15:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malin Kundang[edit]

This article is entitled like a biography, no references and is like a childs story. This could be a hoax as if you read it, its very imaginative. Telly addict 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a hoax, and I don't think it's intended that way. What it is, is a copy/paste of this version of an Indonesian folk myth. What that means for the article's existence isn't clear. Perhaps that's a copyvio, but the story appears to be notable in the culture and quite old as well. Leebo ^T/C 19:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so and I respect your opinion but it is written like a story and it did make me suspicious it might of been a hoax. Telly addict 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I understand. I was trying to say that we could probably write an article about the story as a notable Indonesian folk myth. Unfortunately, looking at the creator's talk page, he is blocked for wide ranging copyright infringement. I think this may fall under the same category. Leebo ^T/C 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I've cleaned it up, removed all copyvio, and added refs and categories. Tearlach 01:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tearlach has written a nice stub on the myth, with notability established and sources cited. Leebo ^T/C 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable story in Indonesia. (Caniago 08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, Tearlach has done an excellent job at turning this into something clearly notable and well-cited. Xtifr _tälk 03:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostly Talk[edit]

Nonnotable podcast; doesn't identify hosts' full names, or give independent sources showing notability. Disputed speedy. NawlinWiki 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Added article today - deleted while editing the article. Not a podcast only. The show is notable for its guest appearances including one of the few with George Lutz of Amityville Horror. Show noted for its Brian Jones project where communication over the air in real time with "spirits" was attempted with voices coming through. Show noteworthy enough for inclusion on Coast to Coast AM for interview on the shows hosts investigations into EVP among other subjects. Show hosts are also investigators in the same light as Ghost Hunters, reality television. An article is NEVER FINISHED and always open for improvement here at Wikipedia. Editor above refused discussion which was opened on the talk page as to his/her objections - where I was open for deletion if point could be made to me that based on the above this is not worthy of inclusion in light of other inclusions of paranormal radio here at Wikipedia. All the above objections should be dealt with in a civil manner with myself as creator of the article; but this was not done. Now I'm here instead of improving the article and moving on to others. Another article of the same dimension would be this: WPARanormal; personally I do not see the difference with the NOTABLE exception of the Brian Jones interview and being noteworthy enough for inclusion in Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM. Also on list here are Wikipedia List of paranormal radio shows. --Northmeister 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have been rapidly speedy'd duriing it's creation, instead of use of the talk page. Even now, one editor seems to be putting a lot of effort into this. To delete this article, which has a level of substance, while it's being built, instead of using the talk page to bring up flaws and guide him, looking like a lack of cooperative spirit. ThuranX 22:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps the edit history accidently wasn't checked, to distinguish it from a stub. I'll AGFDGG 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the slightest shred of actual notability or important media coverage -- the closest is a couple of links to a local paper ("Local News for Northwest Arkansas"). --Calton | Talk 07:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 04:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Unofficial Apple Weblog[edit]

"The Unofficial Apple Weblog" lacks sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article is a blatant advertisement for the blog and is not at all encyclopedic. Nominating for Speedy Deletion, and page has been tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion. Paulus89 20:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why did you take it to AfD if you think it should be speedy deleted? I also disagree that this meets the criteria for speedy deletion, but I guess we'll see what the attending admin thinks... --Canley 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and not a candidate for speedy. To what extent it counts as commercial spam, and to whether it can be salvages, is worth discussing. speedy is only for unquestionably deleteable articles. The people here are the ones who will decide.DGG 07:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a blog, and it's not about some nobody's blog, either. YechielMan 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of secondary sources and as apparent commercial spam.--Kubigula (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inventure Consulting[edit]

nn 4 month old student run company. No outside sources. Delete exolon 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company, does not satisfy WP:ORG. —Ocatecir ^Talk 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Paulus89 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WillF (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salted as recreated nonsense. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Bros[edit]

Unsourced original research, possible neologism. —Ocatecir ^Talk 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Why wasn't this deleted automatically? its a bunch of unsourced crap. did i mention it sucks. DBZROCKS 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. So tagged. YechielMan 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved. W.marsh 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical engineering topics[edit]

This article has many of the same topics already listed in Category:Chemical engineering. Also, some of the topics listed in it are zinc and zirconium, leaving the limits of the category itself not well-defined (every known substance could be listed). Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry could inherit the list and possibly use it as well. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 20:46, April 9, 2007 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Chemical engineering worklist, where it would be useful for project management, then delete the redirects. This is just a list of links, with no further information for the reader. Categorization is pointless for the reasons stated by the nominator. Physchim62 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category should be sufficient. This is yet another abandoned list... with many incorrectly added items. --Rifleman 82 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move -- Someone has already moved it to the name given above by physchim62; I would just say that it's unnecessary to delete the redirects, in case people go looking for the list. -- phoebe/(talk) 23:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kollaborators[edit]

Speedy tagged than contested. I don't see a clear case for this meeting WP:CORP and the references are rather trivial, but I thought I'd give it a discussion. My opinion is Delete. Isotope23 20:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability in terms of 3rd-party reliable sources has not been shown. No objection to re-creating the article later if proper sources are added. If this group has achieved notice there ought to be press coverage. EdJohnston 03:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Johnston. — Athænara ✉ 05:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a quick Google search on Kollaborators+area+10 turned up just 30 hits, none of them appearing to meet the Reliable Source and Notability Guidelines' requirements. I'm willing to overlook conflict of interest issues and reconsider if notability is demonstrated. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per consensus but that move discussion should continue per later appearing, not fully addressed comments.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itchycoo Park[edit]

Unsourced Computerjoe 's talk 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move I found sources confirming that Little Ilford Park existed. However, the article needs to be wikified and sourced. It also should be moved to Little Ilford Park, the formal name of the park. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move Place does exist and was referred to as "Itchycoo Park" in the Small Faces song as claimed. However artcile should be listed under the park's formal name as noted above. A1octopus 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move, There should also be an article on the Small Faces song which is a staple of classic hits radio at least in Australia. Capitalistroadster 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move Park does exist, article needs a clean-up - • The Giant Puffin • 10:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite without moving. It sounds counter-intuitive, but bear with me. Most of the incoming links are in fact about the song. Thus, a user clicking on a link reading "The Small Faces released the song 'Itchycoo Park'" would expect to see an article on the song, rather than an article on the park on which the song was based. Is the song notable? You betcha. Thus, it can be expanded and rewritten in the manner of any other article about a pop song. The information that there really is such a place can be added as a sub-section of the article on the song. If there's more information than can gainfully be put in a sub-section, then a separate article should be created. There is one incoming link which is about the geographical place, which might suggest that a separate article is in order, although that link could be piped to point to the specific section. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would contend that it would be preferable to move the article to the proper name of the place but leave behind a redirect on this title so that incoming links still go to the right place. A1octopus 14:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the thing, though. The "proper name" which people would expect if they followed most of the incoming links is the song, not the actual park. It's hard to judge relative notability of two different things, but it seems to me that the park is notable as a result of being named in the song, rather than the other way around. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast roll[edit]

Article about a piece of bread. POV original research. Not notable, not verifiable (no sources in nearly a year). Valrith 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Very recognizable and popular food, particuarly in the UK. Croissant is "just a piece of bread" also, but that doesn't make it non-"notable." Kraft Foods has their popular "Ole Breakfast Roll-up"[27]. On the net alone, there's multiple recipes for breakfast rolls [28] [29] [30][31][32]. The Pat Shortt song Jumbo Breakfast Roll, a song about breakfast rolls, was a number 1 hit for several weeks. And even The New York Times has had articles about breakfast rolls [33] [34]. And according to at least thress sources (including CNN), NASA astronauts eat breakfast rolls in space [35] [36] [37]. Just because editors haven't added sources to an article in a long time doesn't mean sources on the topic doesn't exist. This AfD reminds me of when an misguided user tried to speedy delete the animal fat article with the very similar wording "Unsourced and constitutes original research." [38]. --Oakshade 21:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Oakshade, and have to say, never even thought about the subject having an article before, but read it, and wow, the Brits love them the breakfast, eh? ThuranX 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agree with Oakshade. -- Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Kuraby State School[edit]

The result was speedy delete. Harryboyles 12:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes no claim that the school is any more notable than any other primary school in Australia Mattinbgn/^talk 21:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, written like an ad, provides insufficient context (where in Australia?) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Some of my friends actually went there (it's in Brisbane), but it's not what you'd call notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio from here and here --Mattinbgn/^talk 12:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigg Taj[edit]

Delete: WP:VSCA. This was prodded and deprodded before wrongly being prodded again. I removed the second prod and here we are. Without the beatbox championship assertion, I would have speedy deleted anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Uncontroversial, completely non notable. 1 sentence assertion is the only thing keeping it from CSD A7, biographies. Goodnightmush 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of the prodders. Vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PSI World[edit]

I can find no sources but primary ones on this organization, no indication whatsoever of notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Have not had the time to expand this article yet, will do so when I find the time. But cited in books, and journal articles. Smee 22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment To which of those "books" or "journal articles" are you referring? On the searches you provide, it looks like most of the hits are coincidental occurrences of "psi" and "world" together, or "psi world" used to reference something other than this organization. Are there any substantive sources about this organization? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, I have not yet taken the time to research it, but if the consensus of this AFD is to delete, and not maintaining a stub, I will work at a much later date, at creating a new article with at least 10 citations or so from reputable secondary sources. Smee 22:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - This article was only written in order to link the company to the pejorative LGAT term, a term used most often by the anti-cult community. Once a company is referenced on the Rick Ross forum as an LGAT, the members there rush to wiki, add it as an LGAT and begin linking their propaganda. This is even suggested by Smee's plea to hold off until more 'documentation' can be found to legitimize their claims. If the article, or the claims, were legitimate, the research would/should/could have been done before the article was written. It was not until their pov article was challenged that suddenly 'more time' is required.

This article, about a legitimate training organization, is not an article at all, but merely a misuse of wiki. Lsi john 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect Lsi john's "delete" opinion and right to express it, but highly disapprove of these unfounded baseless claims and accusations. Other than the "delete" notion by Lsi john, all his other claims are unfounded. The main usage of the "Large Group Awareness Training" term, has been in scholarly academic pscyhology journal articles, psychology textbooks and other books on related topics. Smee 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete just looking at the article, As is , the article doesn't even say how it fits into the LGAT category. It was not sent to AfD the same day it was written, but three months later. there looks to be even earlier history, but it was hidden by a controversial redirect. For something known to be controversial, and much disputed in the page history, I would have expected some sources by now if it were sourceable. DGG 05:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hell, this could be speedied on ((db-inc)) grounds alone, since there's not a breath of a hint of a suggestion of a mention of the possibility of notability or of sources. --Calton | Talk 07:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had touched this article trying to fix what I thought was an odd redirect and have no particular interest in the subject, which does seem to me non-notable outside of anti-cult circles. Rorybowman 03:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hope it is alright with y'all, but when I have the time I will try to find some more reputable secondary sourced citations describing PSI World, PSI Seminars, whatever, and if this article gets deleted, re-create it in a much more sourced, non-stub format. Hopefully this will mean upwards of at least (10) or more citations from reputable secondary sourced formats. Smee 00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I would add these citations now, but it might just be better to wait this out and see what happens with the AFD, and potentially start this over from scratch later with more citations from more reputable sources. Smee 00:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Its only value is to the anti-cult community, which, noteworthy in this case, is where the majority of your contributions appear to be. PSI is a small training company of no significant overall importance. I would repeat the request for your sources and why this article is significant. If the article was significant enough to write in the first place (without sources), why wasn't it written in more detail (without sources)? With all the other articles which could be written and all the other articles you are involved in, why so much energy to keep this one or obtain 'grace' to resurrect it? Though admitedly those questons are rhetorical. Lsi john 05:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not create the original article. But if and when I re-create it or add to the existing version if the AFD fails, rest assured there will be plenty of citations from reputable secondary sourced material. Smee 05:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. The debate is complete in itself, so I don't think I'm going to write a long closure statement here: a good number of learned people advocate clean deletion of this, and whilst there is learned support for retention also, it is clearly not the consensual position. (Aside: I don't like the argument that there exists a topic that is unsuitable because of the internal operations of this wiki; the internals should be fixed, not the articles deleted). -Splash - tk 23:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications in philosophy[edit]

Delete. This article will always be either biased, incomplete, patchy, and unhelpful (as it is now) or exceedingly long (like the London Philosophy Study Guide, which is linked at the bottom of the page, have a look at the vast number of subsections needed to do the job--epistemology, for example, has no less than twenty, and on a wiki it would probably become a lot more). Even if it were to become long, it would be controversial and very prone to edit warring rather than being encyclopedic. Furthermore, this list has no utility to anyone: If one wants to know what to read in epistemology (for example), one should just go to the article "epistemology", and (in an ideal world at least) the references at the bottom of the page would be where to get started; if one already has an understanding of the broad topic epistemology, then one could go straight to a more specific article on whatever epistemological issue interests them (perhaps the Gettier problem) and consult the references given there. There is nothing this page can do that our other articles don't do better (and even those are already prone to plenty of controversies over what is to count as sufficient references). KSchutte 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion debate is here. It was withdrawn by nominator. --Bduke 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - KSchutte becomes frustrated when he removes Ayn Rand's name from a list and someone else (often me) puts her name back (that is really the only edit warring that has been going on). When this has happened enough times, he decides the the list should be deleted. This is the pattern that has presented itself over time and with several lists before this one. He states that the list has no utility but he has no statistics of use to back that statement up. He doesn't know what use it is getting. If I want to look at publications in philosophy I want to use a list and not go hopping to each of the topic areas. We do know that many editors have made many contributions over a long time - and their work shouldn't be trashed. He complains about the list being too long. Length is a function of the subject's complexity and I'm not aware of any posted standard saying what a just-right length would be. This list isn't there to satisfy KSchutte's view of things (e.g., bias, completeness, length, or Rand-free) - it is to be a useful tool for someone interested in philosophy publications. Sorry if I sound snippy, but there is a kind of arrogance to wanting to delete the work of many other people because you can't have it just the way you want it. Steve 22:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. If you actually have a look at the edit history, my friend, you'd find that many or even most of the significant contributions to this list have been made by myself. My present disgust with your behavior is irrelevant to whether this is or ever could be a good article. Also, you selectively mention my removal of Rand from various lists without mentioning my repeated defense of the inclusion of Rand on several other lists (such as List of philosophers born in the twentieth century and list of women philosophers). I do want her removed where she is inappropriate. How startling!

Furthermore, I'm not complaining that the article is too long. One of my complaints is that it is not nearly long enough. It should be as long as the London Philosophy Study Guide, and I believe that reaches at least one hundred pages. - KSchutte 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are problems about inclusion in this list and other related lists which are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. I have tried to get a debate on the inclusion criteria that are listed at the top of the page from a template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls. I have suggested:

"This is a list of important publications in (({1))}, organized by field.

Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as significant or important:

Topic creator – A publication that created a new topic of considerable significance.
Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly.
Introduction – A publication that is a particularly good introduction or survey of a topic at either an elementary or advanced level, and that has also made a significant impact on the discipline such as changing the way it is taught, being the current best-selling textbook in the field, or having been an exceptionally important previous textbook in the field, or in other ways.
Influence – A publication which has significantly influenced the world.

Assertions of significance or importance should be supported by cited sources or by a properly referenced article on the publication elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Would this change to the template help to make this list better? I would prefer to improve the inclusion criteria, settle the long standing edit war about Rand and keep the list. Note that, unlike other lists in the Project, this list does not have sentences for each entry giving a description of the entry and a reason, per the criteria in the template, of importance. --Bduke 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I think philosophy is unsuited to this sort of thing on a wiki. While it can be done well by professionals (as the London Philosophy Study Guide proves), it is absurd to think that a subject that has been studied as long as philosophy (texts don't really become outdated in the way that books on programming or neuroscience do) and has contained as diverse a collection of viewpoints as philosophy does could ever survive the POV controversies on a wiki. If there is some way to retain the article with no list at all (but rather links to uneditable things like the LPSG) that would be nice, but that seems to be "What Wikipedia is Not". Add to this the additional problem that people are far more inclined to think they know philosophy without studying it than they are likely to think that they know what a scientist knows. If you talk to the writers of the LPSG and convince them to let it into the public domain, I'd be glad to transcribe it here even in the face of the problems, and we'd have a nice useful list that would be a hundred printed pages or so, and then people would probably add their quackery and it would be only slightly noticeable. On any list under fifty printed pages long, the quackery is extremely obvious, disingenuous, and harmful to anyone who may think she is learning something important about philosophy by reading it. - KSchutte 22:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anyone who is pondering whether a list of this sort is possible should get a reminder of how big philosophy is by looking at the List of philosophical topics. - KSchutte 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I was initially a fan of this list, and lists like it, I'm afraid I have become disillusioned. I think the primary purpose for this list is that it can provide a reading list for people interested in a particular topic. In this respect, I think the reader would be better served by an appropriately referenced and complete article on a given topic (as KSchutte has already mentioned). Doing this is better because it presents the material in context, allowing the reader to see in what ways individual pieces have been influential. I am concerned about the dangers of bias in a list like this. Judging influence objectively in any discipline is very hard, especially so in a discipline like philosophy where there are many different "camps" who often attempt to reduce the importance of people from the other camps. Even when not intended, bias of this sort will have a substantial impact. Because we don't have representatives from all of the different philosophical movements who are active on wikipedia (much less this list), I don't think the "averaging of POVs" strategy will pan out here. This is especially true since the reaction of many people will be to include as much as possible in the list, thus reducing its usefulness to readers. I'm afraid that I don't think that this list can ever provide a fair representation of what it purports to do. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any subject should be suitable for this if there are enough publications. I don't see why philosophers should be assumed to be less reasonable than other scholars. DGG 05:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting that KS and myself are assuming philosophers are less reasonable than other scholars? I must say I fail to see how. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must agree with Kevin. Besides, let's not fail to notice that the analogous list for political science has been deleted (I'm assuming, since it is linked to but doesn't exist), the list for biology has been nominated for deletion twice, and the list for computer science has been nominated for deletion once as well. It isn't just a problem for philosophers; it is a problem for every field. - KSchutte 16:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't really disagree with KSchutte and Kzollman. It's doomed to be an unwieldy, overlong, partial, and unbalanced list. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- possibility to move to Wikibooks; such a list is inherently "unencyclopaedic", as it can never be adequately sourced to the agreement of editors, and is contrary to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --Leflyman^Talk 20:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To quote myself, from the article's talk page, last year: "For my money, lists such as this are NPOV traps. It is not possible to come up with criteria that will achieve general agreement, and so the list will be a continual source of conflict - the present is a case in point....I think that lists such as this would be better removed; the task they might perform is better served by Category:Philosophical literature. This cat ought contain all such items for which there are Wikipedia articles. Time spent on this pointless debate would be better spent on improving the cat, or improving the article on Rand's book." Banno 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mel Etitis. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Banno. it is a pov trap, but the category is too. --Buridan 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the list of philosophers is very well organized and serves virtually the same purpose as this article. I also think a list of publications would be a better fit for Wikibooks. uriah923^(talk) 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think kzollman has hit the nail on the head. This list is unlikely to ever meet the Wiki criteria for such lists - NPOV, "comprehensive" etc. I think it far better to make sure that each of the main articles on schools/periods of philosophy include the key works mentioned - which no doubt they do/will. Madmedea 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmanageable. And, as per Banno, POV problems are inherent in this type of article. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article itself has some problems, but the field is narrow enough to be clearly defined by non-POV criteria. I think it should be limited to English language publications and acc. renamed Alf^Photoman 17:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is your justification for such a judgement and what are your qualifications to make that judgement? Most of the votes to delete so far have come from individuals who are already or are working to become professional philosophers. The same can't be said for most of the votes to keep. Also, your language comment is puzzling (and apparently unrelated to everyone's concerns here). Did you mean the list should include only things originally written in English or did you mean it should exclude anything lacking a published English translation? Why? - KSchutte 06:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is relevant. Since much of this debate is centered around the probability that agreement can be reached I think that the opinion of professionals (or almost professionals) should be taken more seriously. Assuming that what people say on their userpages are true, among those who voted everyone who holds (or are working to get) advanced degrees in philosophy voted delete, KS and I both have MA's and are persuing PhDs (both in the UC system, although at different schools), Simoes is a graduate student in philosophy (at U of Houston), and Mel is a professional philosopher at Oxford. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though his userpage doesn't mention them, I'm sure Banno has similar qualifications. - KSchutte 22:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I must point out that the publication list is not more subjective than the list of philosophers. The list of philosophers list the people and the list of publications list their work. We do try to find criteria that will be satisfying. The aim is to create a list the most experts in the field will agree of their importance. In the worst case such a list can be constructed by consulting such experts. As for the size of the list, I do agree that a too large list is not useful. We plan to take care of this problem by splitting the list to sub list. APH 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The aim is to create a list the most experts in the field will agree of their importance. Even if we had a bank of pre-chosen experts to consult, I submit that there will not be agreement over what to include. Now, deciding who gets to count as an expert in philosophy is difficult (for instance, am I, an ABD graduate student?) and representing their beliefs adequately will be even more so. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 14:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In many areas we do have a pool of experts. In physics there are Nobel Prize laureates. In computer science there are Turing award winners. People appearing in the list can also be considered as expert to their sub topic. I contacted such experts in computer science and they thought that the list is very valuable and help making it even better. I think that a graduate student can be considered as an expert to a sub field and so is a professor. APH 06:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fuck it, let people randomly hop around the category system until they find what they want. Kappa 05:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it was not directly relevant to the deletion discussion, I have moved the comments regarding profanity to the talk page. Please continue the discussion there. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham (Avi) Loeb[edit]

This is an autobiography - see comment by Dha321 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.43.156.42 . Attempts to modify page by other users besides Dha321 have been reverted. Faol87 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~Weak Keep There is probably notability present, but the article needs to be cleaned up so it doesn't read like a faculty profile page. Also, the user should probably be notified about WP:COI and it should be made clear that he doesn't own the article and has no right to remove legitimate edits as such. On that note, I'm usually in favor of killing the article and letting it be generated the legitimate way, by an independent contributor. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've notified User:Dha321 of some of the concerns, including WP:AUTO, WP:OWN and WP:COI. I've also invited him to participate in this AfD discussion. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Ok, I've been pretty vocal about this and DGG is right about restricting this to the article. I just get a little irked at what appears to be self-promotion, notable or not. Despite still being against the manner in which the article was created, I am changing to weak keep since DGG has done the honors and removed the biggest offending section of the article. I'm hoping the originating editor will decide to "allow" others to edit the article without undue issue. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 06:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Possible WP:AUTO issues, granted. The tone of the above-referenced comment also suggest related WP:OWN issues, as it is completely inappropriate to suggest that Dr. Loeb's clearance is required to make changes in the article. That said, however, the subject is notable and the specific changes to which Dha321 was objecting in that above-referenced comment were, in fact, objectionable. Googling "Sandage-Loeb test" returns over 100 results. Googling just "Sandage test" returns 4, one of which ackwoledges that the test is also called the Sandage-Leob test. So clearly the scholarly world has acknowledged a contribution by Loeb to the test, whether User:67.43.156.42 thanks that should be the case or not. User:144.132.195.54's changes seem more defensible. These were also reverted by Dha321, so that's again suggestive of WP:OWN. But given that Loeb's paper is what's being referenced, and that paper in turn does credit Hills, the original prose that Dha321 restored is not entirely without merit either. On the whole, a re-write so that it's clearly not WP:AUTO and a reminder provided to Dha321 to relinquish "ownership" seem to me to be a better solution than outright deletion. Mwelch 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. By googling the web I conclude that the original article

about Prof. Loeb contained true statements that are supported by direct references to primary sources (namely refereed articles by Prof. Loeb). I do not see any problem with the latest (corrected) version. User:67.43.156.42 made statements that are simply false and look as if they are vandalism intended to curropt the article. The original article by Sandage was written in 1962 before quasars were discovered, so he clearly did not have quasars in mind. Loeb's idea from 1998 is mainly about using quasar spectra. The argument that Loeb applied sloppy scholarship in this case is clearly false. User:144.132.195.54 followed a similar agenda with no good justification as far as I can see based on the referenced papers. For example, the work by Loeb and Zaldarriaga on detecting extraterrestrial signals with 21cm observatories was never mentioned before because 21cm observatories did not exist. The paper would not have been accepted for publication in a refereed journal if this idea was discussed before. Again the change here was a false statement. I suggest that these users will be warned for not even reading the original articles that they refer to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.86.236 (talk • contribs)

I've just taken a look at this paper and this is a pretty incremental distinction. The fact that "21cm observatories" are a relatively new concept is not the relevant point here; low frequency radio astronomy has been an area of activity for decades, and it was long ago realized that these new facilities would be ideal experiments for identifying transient sources (including SETI). For example, the LOFAR observatory has had transient radio sources as part of its science case from the outset. [39]. So yes, explicitly saying that LOFAR can detect SETI signals is an original contribution, but it is hardly a major result worthy of mention here.

I've also cleaned up the ADS citation info; the previous numbers were not quite right. Faol87 10:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not especially against the subject of the article, as I said above, but the article itself is like a bad cross between a bio blip and a CV. The "Research Highlights" has about 20 items in a laundry list. It's unencyclopedic at best and shameless promotion at worst. That section in particular should be completely rewritten as an encyclopedic statement about his notable research. Also, some of the glowing assertions like " Some of his papers pioneered areas that have become by now the focus of established communities of astrophysicists" and "Loeb was among the dominant theorists to trigger the intense current research on the first stars and quasars" should either be toned down, properly sourced or just removed. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 04:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per cquan. ThuranX 04:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are judging the subject not the article. He's a full professor at Harvard, possibly one of the top 2 or 3 astronomy departments. He's been a member of the Institute of Advanced Study. He is also a visiting professor at the Weizmann Institute of Science.

It remains true that those writing articles about academics often say either too much or too little. That's why articles get edited. I can see how people might have gotten frustrated with this article, and the apparent COI of the subject, but the proper course would have been to make an edit such as I just did, removing the entire Research Highlights section. His interests are sufficiently described in the main part, which includes references to a few of his most important papers. DGG 05:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming further improvements. Subject is somewhat notable. Article is very poorly written, as per Cquan. His students must like him. ;-) Gnixon 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It is rare to see an academic with both this level of academic success (full prof at Harvard etc) and popular press coverage (Time and Sciam). I would like to see some sourcing for the claim that "Some of his papers are considered pioneering areas that have become by now the focus of established communities" but (ignoring whether a paper can be considered an area) it makes a very strong claim for notability of his research. I don't think article ownership issues are particularly relevant for notability; we don't let subjects of articles request that those articles be removed, so similarly I don't think tendentious editing by the subject of an article (which I'm not convinced has happened) should be the cause for removal. —David Eppstein 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figmentalism (idealism) versus realism[edit]

Reads as some sort of essay instead of article. ThuranX 22:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The world did without the clumsy neologism "figmentalism" for 5,000 years, and we can do without it for the next five to ten we have before it all goes BOOM! Google yields all of 34 hits, most of which are Wikipedia and copies. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Anville 17:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concerned that the list is original research given the lack of sourcing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Dracula[edit]

Non-notable self-published book. This article was previously nominated here, but was kept as keep (incorrectly, in my view). The problems mentioned before remain - despite diligent promotion from the author around the Internet (lots of the Google hits are her promoting it on blogs), the Google for "Maria Dracula" "Denise Roman" returns a piddling 286 hits. The only recognition for the book is from publications that watch the vanity presses exclusively; nothing mainstream. Lastly, the content for the article is copied 100% from the book's website; Wikipedia is doing nothing but acting as a mirror for it.

Previous arguments for keep noted in the last debate include the large number of hits when searching without the author, which is completely unreliable considering how common "Maria" and "Dracula" are individually. Any serious review would have mentioned the author as well. The other item of note was making this list of "Books of the Year" from ForeWord, a magazine that covers independently published books. Considering that there were 613 "finalists" for Book of the Year in 2005 (and 197 "winners"!), this sounds like a faux award where they don't even bother to read the finalists. SnowFire 22:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete no referencesGman124 23:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of verifiable notability. The title is not listed in the Library Of Congress (although the author is). Eddie.willers 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per issues with notability. Further adding to the problems with using google as a landmark is the fact that Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and Castlevania: Rondo of Blood both feature characters named Maria and Dracula, which further muddies the waters. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I went through the article and removed the copyright violations. Without those in the article, there doesn't appear to be much of an article at all. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, amusingly enough, it's probably not a copyvio you removed; the original article was almost certainly made by the same author of the website and the book, and it's thus legit, since it was her rights to sign away. The article was previously tagged with copyvio a loooooong time ago, but it was removed with the edit summary of "Restoring following reciept of permission by author." Of course, that just introduces vanity/conflict of interest problems instead. SnowFire 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian top eight finishers at the 2004 Summer Olympics[edit]

These pages ~~This page~~ survived an AfD discussion in August 2004, but I am re-nominating it them. At the time, I think editors were afraid that we would delete information not found elsewhere, and their national passions were high, so many people voted to keep. Now, 2½ years later, we see that the contents of this article are fully redundant with a section of Canada at the 2004 Summer Olympics, and that this article remains totally orphaned. In the Olympics WikiProject, we have consensus that this type of information is best located and maintained on the appropriate "Nation at the year Olympics" articles. There is no reason for athletes from one nation, at one Games, should have this alternate, unique, duplicate, article. Andrwsc 22:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant per nom and compiled in an almost unreadable format. Also, why top 8? Usually only the top 3 (gold, silver, bronze) are the only ones featured like this. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom for the second list as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrwsc. Punkmorten 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.RaveenS 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Island (TV series)[edit]

This unreferenced article is about a television series that was never aired, is not listed at IMDb, and which I can't find on Google. Delete unless references can be provided. GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete there are no referencesGman124 22:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a non-notable, unreferenced failed TV series. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I was just going back to this article to nominate it myself as I believe it's a hoax, but I see the afd has been taken care of. Hoax article made-up by an IP editor. If this show ever existed there would be at least one Ghit, especially since it "spawned two comic book adaptations". Pufnstuf 23:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep as no one is recommending deletion. Discussion continues at Talk:Stephen P. Sheehi. Pan Dan 22:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen P. Sheehi[edit]

~~Likely autobiography~~ Pan Dan 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to add that while in most AfD's what should be evaluated is the potential, not the current, state of the article, in a case of conflict of interest concerns I feel the article should be deleted even if the article has potential. It is not appropriate for single-purpose accounts to shoehorn articles about themselves into Wikipedia by creating an article and then having other, disinterested, editors bring the article up to Wikipedia stan dards. See also User_talk:Jaxon_km. Pan Dan 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Weak Keep Judging objectively by the work and how his peers view it, which is what counts.

He is an Associate Professor at a good but not very-top-ranking research university. He's director of a language program/. . He has written one book, 4 academic articles, and 2 other pieces. he has another book and article forthcoming, sometime. He has also done some writing for newspapers & web sites, which he knows enough not to list in his on-line academic CV, but it will help him here. It's what he did, & he presents it in a reasonable way.

I disagree somewhat with Pan Dan--if someone writes an article about himself and he is in fact notable & it can be documented, and it's a article without POI or where the POI can be removed, I'm glad we have it. But I agree with him that it makes us look very carefully indeed about documented notability. I think his encyclopedic value for WP is borderline, as many Associate professors are. If he does write his 2nd book, and it gets good reviews, and he has attracted more professional attention, he might then be notable. But not yet. The COI isn't fatal, but it didn't help. If he can document some spectacular published reviews--not book jacket blurbs--it might make a difference. Or if he can document the wide influence of his web and newspaper writing, which might conceivably make him notable as a non-academic writer. DGG 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Week keep on the basis of the two book reviews. The Volk one is quite favorable, the other less so--nonetheless, its oly one book Furthermore, I do not think it matters who wrote the article, if the end result is objective. The suspicion on autobios is because the evaluation of the career and the presentation of material cannot be taken at face value, but must be vigorously checked. I've checked this, and I've read the reviews. In general, I also do not think such an article should go into much detail about the work--if anything, the description of the book is excessive. . I was not able to ind any mention of him in the external references at the links given. DGG 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no significant reviews of any of his other publications are found, perhaps the best thing to do would be to rename the article as Foundations of Modern Arab Identity (the title of the book) and refactor the article as being about the book, rather than about the person. The biographical information about Sheehi that can only be found in non-independent sources such as his university's website would be removed. Pan Dan 21:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE I offered such extensive review of the book in response to the notablity criteria that was raised earlier. It was understood that for an individual to meet such criteria, they would have to be deemed a pioneer and an essential contributor to the field and the theory (among other notions). Sheehi has done just this. I am not at odds with renaming the page "Foundation of Modern Arab Identity", but I believe the criteria along which this has been decided or suggested is relatively unclear and seems to shift from day to day. I believe it was made clear that he indeed fulfills more than one of the criteria for notability. Also, I have read the works of the people who have cited Sheehi. If it is necessary, I will contact them to provide me with citation; also I am aware that some of their work is forthcoming. It is one thing to delete an article on fimrly agreed upon criteria and expectations, quite another to arbitrarily pick and choose which to abide by. As it stands, I believe the issue has been clarified and I still hold firmly to my conviction that the page should not be deleted or altered to preclude his personal information. Admittedly however, the page does need revision, which I have offered to attend to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.208.60 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Well, even if the article is kept in its current from (with its current title), information about Prof. Sheehi that cannot be verified in reliable sources should be removed in any case. However, that's something we can discuss at the article's talk page. Since no one here is recommending that the article should be deleted, I am going to close this discussion as a speedy keep. Pan Dan 22:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erroneous premise for deletion In clarification I just want to say that this is NOT an autobiography as I created the page with permission from Dr. Sheehi to use the information that was present on his Univeristy website. I decided to create the page as I have been researching his work and thought it would help other researchers reference him more easily and know more about what he did if they had a tool like a Wikipedia Page. I am a bit confused as to what the mission of Wikipedia is from the previous comment by DGG. It seems rather elitist to me that a purportedly neutral website pick and choose what scholars to include predicated on information pertaining to their status in the scholarly world. In fact, Prof. Sheehi has been in the lecture circuit for more than two years and garnishing a lot of attention on his recent reseach projects both on the history of photography and radical activism in the Arab world. He has much more than 4 articles in print although I chose to include those because he chooses those as "Selected Articles" on his univerrsity website. He is well known in the scholarly realm of Middle Eastern studies which is in itself a difficult field to penetrate. I believe his page should remain on Wikipedia and in turn allow for more pages of this kind in an attempt to further solidify research efforts. Jaxon_km —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.208.60 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- "I created the page with permission from Dr. Sheehi" -- As I explained at User_talk:Jaxon_km#Correction, neither Prof. Sheehi nor anyone close to him (as you seem to be) should write about him on Wikipedia. Pan Dan 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In actuality, I am not close to him; I have read your comments and understand the term "conflict of interests". As I mentioned in my comment above, i have been researching Dr. Sheehi and have e-mailed him frequently to get further information on him and his previous work. While doing so, I thought it might be a good idea to have a page that other researchers could easily access when finding themselves in the same position as I had been. That is when I communicated with him, via e-mail, and asked for his permission to use the information on his website to create a Wikipedia page. Any further clarification needed? I believe it is pretty straightforward, re-quoting me is unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaxon km (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- After thinking about it, I'll accept that your connection to Prof. Sheehi is as you say it is and concede to you that this connection doesn't mean you shouldn't write about him on Wikipedia. This leads me to try to see if he passes the notability criteria that we apply to all academics. From what I can tell from searching, he contributes to some blogs and wrote an op-ed to the local paper in Columbia (SC) which drew some reader responses. He (or his work) does not appear to be the subject of reliable sources, independent of him and of his affiliations, that we could use to write a neutral encyclopedia article. The article itself is not written from a neutral point of view (which led me to believe it was an autobiography) and does not cite reliable sources. He does not appear to pass the notability criteria, so I still think the article should be deleted.
  Whether the article is kept or deleted, if you are interested in Prof. Sheehi's research, may I suggest that you add information to Wikipedia about the topics he researches, not necessarily about him. For example you might want to take a look at the articles in Category:Arab or Category:Marxism. Pan Dan 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still think the article should not be deleted, I thank you for your comments, they are greatly appreciated as my comments are as they stand. I will take into account what you said and work towards integrating more information on the kind of research he does, rather than just information about him. --138.88.208.60 02:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Jaxon[reply]

I have edited the page to include pertinent information that will lend considerable leverage to Prof. Sheehi with regard to the notability criteria mentioned above. Consideing that there have been reviews in which scholars have indeed cited his work as seminal to the field, he has been cited in many scholars' work, and his book is used as a textbook in various schools across the country, I believe Sheehi fulfills the criteria for notability as professed by Wikipedia. I believe this provides a solid argument as to why the page should not be deleted from wikipedia. Admittedly however, it can definitely do with some tweaking which I will be tending to shortly. Jaxon--JJ 03:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding those independent reviews, which can be used as source material for a neutral article. I withdraw my nomination. Pan Dan 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Colonization of Trans-Neptunian Objects. NawlinWiki 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Pluto[edit]

Colonization of Pluto consisted in very large part of inaccurate bollocks, which I have removed. Having done so, I find that there is essentially no article left. Given that I know of no serious discussions of colonizing the object, the article is definitely unencyclopedic. There has been serious discussion of Colonization of the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud, but there is nothing left to be merged. Michaelbusch 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1 Rackabello 23:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idea of colonizing a dog is barbarous! --Hemlock Martinis 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell that to the fleas. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Rackabello nominated it for speedy on grounds of no context. I don't oppose the deletion, but no context seems a little strained. Michaelbusch 00:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't get much more context than "Colonization of Pluto" as a title. --Hemlock Martinis 00:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS and fantastical crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Schneider (Artist)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Experimental interdisciplinary artist". Almost certainly autobiographical. Notability not established. -- RHaworth 23:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only available sources don't establish notability, because they are local, minor pieces. The article is written in a way that indicates a likely conflict of interest. Leebo ^T/C 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is written a lot like spam and notability is not established. Alto Sax 456 01:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references appear to be articles in student newspapers, but they are still "multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources", which is enough to establish notability by Wikipedia's definition. Even if one suspects that this artist isn't very important, notability has been established. --Eastmain 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the "triviality" has to be questioned when dealing with student papers. A particular student could be very notable on their own campus, but be completely unknown elsewhere. If it was a local newspaper or magazine, that would be different. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of Mike Schneiders, making it difficult to find more sources. Leebo ^T/C 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student newspapers vary. some do reach beyond their campus. We can't possibly accept them automatically, but we can look at them: the article in Stroud is a multi-part good but non-critical personal essay about him/The Keystone article treats it as a minor news event, not as art. I do not think in this instance they are enough to show notability beyond his own campus(es). DGG 06:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But this should have been listed on the Visual arts deletion list, which I have now (I hope) done. Johnbod 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There are only two published mentions, and they are trivial. That is a very low standard of notability. There is no art historical context created in either of the articles. There is little of substance about the art as art. Bus stop 11:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article evidently fails WP:BIO Special cases Alf^Photoman 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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