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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 09:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Luscher[edit]

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

Delete as not establishing notability per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Seems to be mildly notable in that he worked on the soundtrack to a film (Abby Singer) that seems to be at least somewhat notable (imdb entry, apparently has made several film festivals, and includes appearances by numerous big-names in film) and also on the music for a notable video game (Amped — Xbox release that was apparently successful enough to spawn two sequels). That seems to meet the notability requirement of WP:MUSIC, if just barely. Mwelch 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like Mwelch, I think the composer technically meets minimal standards of WP:MUSIC. However, I don't think that's quite enough to tip my opinion in favor of inclusion. Achievements still seem low to me. Perhaps I'm being stricter than I should be but that's my opinion. Pig^man_dialogue 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Does have a listing on IMDB, so he does at least have a quasi professionally established career, although search results were few. --Ozgod 03:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. I have a listing on IMDB (I've been on a few film crews), so it really doesn't mean anything to be on IMDB -- I'm certainly not notable enough now to be on Wikipedia. And the music he scored was not for a notable film (the film itself isn't even on Wikipedia). Needless to say, allmusic comes up with no info (though he's there, not a big feat either) and there are very few ghits and even less credible sources (or at least so I can find). All points to delete for me. Rockstar915 05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. A somewhat obscure songwriter, who's work has only appeared in one video game and in one mildly notable film.--TBCΦtalk? 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Questionable notability, delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIONenyedi ^NenyediContribs_@ 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per Nenyedi...--Cometstyles 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. --Lockley 21:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iraqi legislative election, December 2005. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:57Z

Justice and Future Coalition[edit]

Justice and Future Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listed due to no info on what happened to this party in the Iraqi election in 2005. Author created this article and I think others too on Iraq but they have not been improved on since June 06. Fail to see any notability and there is no content explaining policitial membership, reason for party creation etc. PrincessBrat 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Iraqi legislative election, December 2005. Not a hoax, but certaintly not notable enough to merit a seperate article.--TBCΦtalk? 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per TBC. -- Selket ^Talk 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:58Z

Bill Arthur[edit]

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

Commentator on TV with a focus on Rugby only. Not notable and article is made up of one sentence PrincessBrat 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, 173 Google hits. - PoliticalJunkie 00:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. --Ozgod 03:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Glad relisted, non-notable. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 03:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable person. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sky Sports, where Arthur seems to act both as a commentator and an occasional host.--TBCΦtalk? 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply not notable from the info provided. Google only returned the wikipedia article on him. Nenyedi ^NenyediContribs_@ 13:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sky Sports as per TBC..--Cometstyles 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of nobility. Article not supported by references. References of Bill Arthur are minimal. Cocoma 18:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 09:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moses mayfield[edit]

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

Notability Kntrabssi 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the norm regarding notability. Kntrabssi 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with no prejudice to recreation if the upcoming major lable album gets them past the guidelines at WP:BAND. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We have no way of knowing if the band's upcoming album with Columbia Records will be successful or not.--TBCΦtalk? 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has references which establish notability, and the band is touring nationally. See http://www.mosesmayfield.com/schedule.html --Eastmain 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree with those noted as objecting to the application of inclusion criteria 3 of WP:BAND. This looks like a relatively small club tour. I still say its better to delete for now. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, WP:BAND Nenyedi ^NenyediContribs_@ 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice against re-creation until they pass WP:BAND, which at the moment this band doesn't. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- not notable...--Cometstyles 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. WP:BAND says that the central criterion is that the band "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The references sem to indicate that the band meets the criterion. Having only one full-length album is not a reason to exclude a band if it passes on other criteria, such as the multiple independent reliable non-trivial published works and the national tour. I would encourage people who consider that the band fails WP:BAND to carefully re-read WP:BAND which states, as do most other Wikipedia notability guidelines, that passing a single criterion is enough to establish notability, even if other criteria are not met. --Eastmain 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rewrite. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:59Z

Dark Ages (computer game)[edit]

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

Section 1 is directly copied from the game's website. A majority of the remainder of the article fails WP:Not#Info, as it is minutiae and descriptions of how to play the game. Also, it fails WP:WEB as it has no non-trivial sources. It is my opinion that this article is an non-expandable stub at best. Faladine 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep but clean up the article and remove the cruft. Notable video game websites such as Gamespot, Game Rankings, GameStats, IGN and RPG Fan have included the game in their databases [5] [6] [7][8][9]. WP:WEB does not apply, as this is a video game and not a "webcomic, podcast, blog, Internet forum, online magazine and other media, web portal or web host."--TBCΦtalk? 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it seems somewhat notable. Game guide aspects need to be removed or moved off wikipedia, but that is not for AFD. Koweja 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- relatively large article, no harm in keeping. Don't delete for the sake of finding something to delete. --Fred McGarry 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and due rewrite Clearly notable but no sources.--Sefringle 03:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TBCΦtalk?. Mathmo ^Talk 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it is a notable computer game. --Carioca 04:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but do a slash-and-kill editing technique to allow the article to grow naturally. Guroadrunner 10:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but chop almost everything after the first paragraph. Might want to tag that revision in the talk in case someone wants to copy it to a gaming wiki. — brighterorange (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've done a copy-and-paste dump for the game to Encyclopedia Gamia here. Don't know if it helps, but it does preserve the information better. Guroadrunner 20:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rewrite - Add some sources and remove or improve sections copied directly from website..--Cometstyles 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite. Info can be added by player, not copied from website. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:02Z

International Wrestling Cartel[edit]

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

Notability not established, no outside reliable sources listed. Prod removed by anon, so sending here for consensus. NMChico24 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable local wrestling organisation. Not sourced. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very close to CSD A7, but not quite. According to WP:CORP, this article is basically about the the company of a small city wrestling promoter. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN indy fed. TJ Spyke 03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, not of broad interest. There is a link, and the organization seems to be a minor and local. Nenyedi ^NenyediContribs_@ 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete - as per nom...--Cometstyles 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Not-notable and independent. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:03Z

List of self-referential songs in films[edit]

List of self-referential songs in films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Songs in movies that mention itself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Unencyclopedic and trivial, a list of film theme songs that happen to include the title of the film in them. No more notable than having a list of films that includes the main character in the title, or dozens of other potential film/song title lists. The article introduction makes little sense as well; Musical film score is often employed in the production of a film, but there have been occasions where a song was written in reference to itself. I don't believe any of the songs listed here were "written in reference to itself", they were written for the film they were included in, but that's quite different to a song that was genuinely written in reference to itself, for example "You're So Vain". Saikokira 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for all the same reasons the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of theme songs which mention their show's name in the lyrics was deleted. Otto4711 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An interesting list, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCΦtalk? 05:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --Selket ^Talk 07:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOT#IINFO, fails WP:ATT/WP:RS by a long way. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above Nenyedi ^NenyediContribs_@ 13:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another indiscriminate, trivial list. Arkyan 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per Otto4711...--Cometstyles 15:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of many song lists and other lists that do not belong on Wikipedia. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more listcruft. JuJube 03:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Weak Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar)[edit]

Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. There are no reliable secondary sources to prove notability. Secondly, Google[10] returned less than 200 hits for his arabic name. As for his english name, most of the links are for the congressmen Gary Miller, who is a totally different person. Sefringle 03:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article fails to establish notability. --Ozgod 03:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NOTE.-- Dakota 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no non-trivial second party sources. If that should change by end of this AfD change to Keep Alf^Photoman 13:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Only because I think that a better process to deal with this article would be to tag it with ((notability)), and maybe a ((expert-subject)), as suggested in WP:BIO under "If the subject does not appear to be noteworthy". I suggest this because he may be entirely notable among the Arabic-speaking online moslem community, and judging by the number of people who have done major content-oriented edits on that article, I suspect he probably is. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Gary Miller seems to be quite notable Muslim theologian. Goggle (Gary+Miller+Islam)[11] produces thousands of website containing his bio, books, article, lectures and videos. 202.154.141.243 17:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Gary Miller is also an outspoken critics of Christianity. His argument is in [12] page well over 6 months without a challenge to his notability or refutation of his argument. without his bio will cause confusion among wikipedia reader as there are other people with same name. 88.241.21.129 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Strong Keep The article is not complete at this stage. Gary Miller has written many books and appeared as a pundit on television and radio. He is like a mirror immage to Ali Sina.[reply]

comment that doesn't prove him notable.--Sefringle 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – his bio. Because of the contribution of his attributed work on wikipedia. Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Muhammad 124.125.67.40 02:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As described above by AliSina, this article is not complete and it needs more contribution, it shouldn't be deleted if "references aren't there", the references should be added. Also, Gary Miller's criticism of Christianity is mentioned in other wiki articles. User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 11:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable, but the article needs more references. Mav99 15:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Above Annons have not provided a single source proving notability. Their only arguement is WP:ILIKEIT--Sefringle 02:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Sefringle here is a small sample of website published his book/article or lectures/audio or biography
• thetruereligion.org.
• islamicinvitationcentre.com
• www7.bev.net
• themodernreligion.com
• answering-christianity.com
• islamway.com/
• mydeviant.com
• islamicinterlink.com
• islamicity.com
• islamtomorrow.com
• islambasics.com
• cyberistan.org
• jannah.org
• islamherald.com
• islamicweb.com
• islamvision.org
• al-sunnah.com
• missionislam.com
• nzmuslim.net
• themuslimwoman.com 124.125.67.40 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not one of these websites is a reliable source. They are all Proselytising websites, which are never reliable sources. I could find just as many websites for virtually anybody. That does not make that person notable. Daniel Lou has just as many links, but he is not notable[13].--Sefringle 08:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Article is nothing more than a platform upon which to post links.Proabivouac 19:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have read his works and learned from them. I think he is much better than many others who are doing the same job. If he didn't have a page on wikipedia, I wouldn't have been able to find him. So, I would say Keep. --Aminz 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 salt. Daniel Bryant 09:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Saar[edit]

• Moved to correct title and trascluded. Kafziel ^Talk 03:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support See above Zazaban 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(page - messages - contribs) 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please salt this already. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA! Conditional keep

Original comment - There's something I don't understand here. If you do a Google on "Gita Saar" you will get a bunch of hits back that mix "Bhagavad Gita" with "Gita Saar". It appears that the "Gita Saar" is much akin to the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. (Actually, it reads more like the Desiderata to me but that's a digression.) So, contrary to what User:Anthony.Bradbury says, I think this article should be kept provided that it is agreed that the Gita Saar Gita is genuine and of the same notability as the Judeo-Christian texts that I provided for comparison. --Richard 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning towards Delete - Changed my vote per User:GourangaUK below. --Richard 16:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Geeta Saar, Gita Saar may be different names but they are linked to one and only Bhagavad Gita. As people don't have time in these modern world to read the whole Bhagavad Gita or any other holy scripture, the Geeta Saar just describes the essence or the vital points of Bhagavad Geeta and reminds one to just remember Geeta Saar throughout their daily life. Geeta Saar has been translated from Bhagavad Geeta, scripture written by Swami Satyanandji, the founder of Sri Ram Sharnam Gohana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.12.16 (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with and Redirect to Bhagavad Gita. These words are very popular among Hindus, and you can find them several Hindu temples and ashrams, and mathas. Googling gives several results[14][15] and there are entire sites dedicated to Gita SaarGita Saar. utcursch | talk 06:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. --Slgrandson

• Keep Content is memorable and widely seen in India. It may not have the same authority as the Gita itself, but nevertheless, it strives to capture the essence or at least put the reader into the mindset of "let go" which many state to be one of the important aspects of the Gita. I have always wondered about the author/motivator behind this Geeta Saar, and having this additional information would help. Think about it like this: The next time you are in Mumbai, and see this on a taxi windshield or rear window of some car, wouldn't you like to hit wikipedia and know more about it? Savyasaachi

  Comment There are a lot of things I would like to look up on Wikipedia, but not all are notable. It does not seem to be very notable outside India to me. Zazaban 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh... "not very notable outside India" so what? India is a huge country. There's lots of stuff in Wikipedia that is not very notable outside the U.S. In fact, some of it is probably not very notable outside the state that it is in. Notability isn't necessarily international in scope. --Richard 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 09:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combatic[edit]

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

I originally tagged this as requiring references and context, but the author removed those tags and added a citation *of himself* as reference. That action leads me to believe that this is original research. There's no substantial indication that this "combat dicipline" meets notability standards or attributability standards. Deranged bulbasaur 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR. The "source" does not exist on either Amazon or the Library of Congress. --Selket ^Talk 07:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, unverified, original research. Also, the creator of the article should have made the title of this hoax more convincing, as the names of different fields of studiy usually contain the suffix "-logy" and rarely—if ever—"-ic".--TBCΦtalk? 07:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:OR. Also is very low on meaningful content, and contains eight spelling or grammatical errors, which in three lines may be a record.--Anthony.bradbury 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; NN, fails WP:ATT, WP:COI and probably WP:BULLSHIT into the bargain. What in the heck is this, anyway? Ravenswing 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obvious OR. — MediaMangler 15:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Fight sciences and Category:Fight sciences may also be of interest here. GregorB 18:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Wizardman 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who played President of the United States[edit]

List of actors who played President of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - actors can play dozens or hundreds of different roles in the course of their careers. Listing actors by the parts they play is rather trivial. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors who have played Hamlet. Otto4711 03:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. I would suggest it for a Category, but even then it would still be too trivial. --Ozgod 03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete outright, NO categories. WAy too trivial even as a categorization scheme. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too trivial & hard to keep on top of. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, as part of the POTUS trivia series. --Vsion 06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of obscure trivia. In response to Vsion, note that inclusion is not always an indicator of notability.--TBCΦtalk? 07:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite precedence, this list does not seem way too trivial. It's not every other actor who gets to play the role of the President of US. Well, the list is virtually unsourced. If there is some doubtful entry, that may be questioned. But the list apparently seems to be well researched. Yes, Wikipedia is not a collection of obscure trivia. But this is not exactly obscure. --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not every actor who gets to play the role of Hamlet either, and in fact there are numerous sources that name Hamlet as the definitive role that an actor can play. They were cited in the Hamlet AFD and were not considered persuasive enough to save it. Otto4711 21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are significant differences between portrayal of fictional characters and that of historical figures. More suitable comparisons are List of artistic depictions of Mahatma Gandhi, Cultural depictions of Jesus and the section in Mao Zedong. --Vsion 02:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also not a particularly persuasive argument. One could justify a list of any sort of actor by role by saying "it's not any actor who gets to play..." whoever, including "it's not every actor who gets to play a guy named Bob" and "it's not every actor who gets to play a government employee" and both are every bit as objectively true as saying it about "the President." There's nothing inherently special or notable about playing the President. Otto4711 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking cue from your own opinion this list seems even more significant. You have told "it's not every actor who gets to play a guy named Bob". Correct. And bye the way, who is Bob? On the other hand, US President is someone. That's why this list is significant. Also, as Noroton has stated below, anyone who wants to study how various actors have approached the role of presidents, real and fictional, would find this list .... not insignificant at all. As JayHenry has stated below, this list would be a sound candidate for a featured list, provided some more works are put into it, necessary references provided and lead is adequately expanded. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dwaipayan. You certainly wouldn't want a list of "Actors who have played people named Bob" or "Actors who played government employees," but President of the U.S. is obviously more remarkable than that. Someone has put a tremendous amount of work into organizing this list. It's well done per WP:LIST, good for information, navigation. It's also discriminate, verifiable. Not a lot of movies actually have the president as a character, so it's not impossible to keep on top of. Frankly, this list would be a sound candidate for a featured list. And, although it's not a criteria for deletion, I'd propose that in the absence of sound criteria, editors should take into mind whether or not they're destroying the hard, well-intentioned work of other editors. There's just no good reason to do that here. --JayHenry 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Take into the account the hard work of other editors" is, as you rightly point out, an appeal to emotion with no basis in policy or guideline. I would go so far as to say that it should be considered an argument to avoid in AFDs. Otto4711 21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean it as a gentle reminder toward WP:CIVIL. AfD is a really hostile, nasty place and it shouldn't have to be that way. --JayHenry 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dwaipayan and JayHenry--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep when someone calls an article up for deletion as "useful" Otto cites WP:USEFUL (not a policy or guideline), but simultaneously we get this comment at the top of this discussion: "actors can play dozens or hundreds of different roles in the course of their careers. Listing actors by the parts they play is rather trivial" So we can't argue usefulness but we can argue what is essentially the opposite, because that's what "trivial" actually means here. Anyone who wants to study how actors have played presidents, real and fictional, would find this list .... nontrivial. 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, strike "trivial" and substitute "completely insignificant." It is completely insignificant in the career of an actor who has played hundreds of different parts that one of the parts he played was the POTUS. Otto4711 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that the significance to an actor's career of playing the POTUS isn't the only reason somebody might want to read the article. Anyone who wants to study how various actors have approached the role of presidents, real and fictional, would find this list .... not insignificant at all. Noroton 06:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think this is listcruft at all. JuJube 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No one said anything about "listcruft" except you. Otto4711 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So? JuJube 05:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well-laid out list (with more than just names) with finite membership criteria (so long as high school plays and class assignment movies are excluded). I expect that playing POTUS is a significant step in the life of an actor that is not taken lightly, therefore this is not pointless trivia. Anyone who qualifies for this list meets the notability requirements to have a Wikipedia article about them. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Otto4711 appears to be objecting to this list on the basis that playing the President is a trivial completely insignificant aspect of an actor's career, not as a list of portrayals of U.S. Presidents in notable films and TV shows (which it is). If this article was renamed and contained an inclusion criterion, would he still object? The nomination cites no policy or guideline and one AfD discussion as a precedent - not enough to convince me that this well-structured and easily manageable list should be deleted. --Canley 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone interested in this discussion may also be interested in the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who played Nazis in movies. Noroton 03:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Peta 08:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful index to information in Wikipedia. Someone who wonders "who was the actor who played FDR in that film, I think it was called Camp David or something like that" can browse this list. Categories don't do that. Fg2 11:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with all the keep comments above. The office of US President is a specific and special case in fiction and film. Mdiamante 06:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JayHenry. List is notable and comprehensive. —scarecroe 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fat actors[edit]

List of fat actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - there is no possible objective definition of what makes for a "fat" actor. Especially in body-conscious Hollywood, what's "fat" there is healthy weight for height and age somewhere else. Being "fat" is not a permanent condition and actors frequently gain or lose weight to play parts. See for example List of actors who gained or lost weight for a role, none of whose gainers are listed as "fat actors," as an illustration of the subjective inclusion criteria of this list. Otto4711 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This does not seem to be intended as a list of actors who are fat, but a list of actors well-known for playing fat people. -Amarkov moo! 03:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, the name of the article should be changed, or it will rapidly fill up with names of merely overweight actors. --Xyzzyplugh 04:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneccesary listing Julia 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. More like actors who are known to be fat and who play characters known to be fat, as I interpret the lead paragraph. It wouldn't include Martin Lawrence for playing Big Momma. There is no objective definition for 'fat', so the reliable sources label them for you. If the list doesn't contain any actors you feel should be on it, it means the list is in progress so you should add them, and there shouldn't be much of an overlap with list of actors who gained or lost weight for a role as nowhere does it say those actors are known to be fat. Consider a rename to List of overweight actors. –Pomte 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Obesity in film, which seems to be a much suitable title as evident by its content.--TBCΦtalk? 05:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above. Fat can be seen as offensive to many people. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or delete Near impossibile to objectively decide what constitutes 'fat'.60.231.76.127 10:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - perhaps rename to Obese actors in Hollywood. - Richard Cavell 11:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whether the article is renamed as suggested above or not, the definition of "fat" remains largely (sorry) subjective, at least in the interface between skinny and gross, and it is therefore not possible to make this article encyclopedically complete or reliable. Therefore it should not be here.--Anthony.bradbury 11:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - the article is very well referenced, and if the 'fat man' stereotype can be verified, then that's all the better for this article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-referenced. And let's stop making pointless euphemisms here; the older actors would not have flinched at the word "fat", and modern ones tend to be playing the humorous part of "the fat guy" (or gal) - calling them "obese" is just confusing. And you know that in 20 years people will be saying, "Don't call them "obese", that's a slur - call them 'metabolism-challenged'." Brianyoumans 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious! --Lostcause365 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I'm surprised someone has put this much effort into digging up sources for one of these lists. Anyway it really needs a new title as the current one implies something that the article is not. I disagree with Obesity in film as it's just a list of "fat man" character actors and not obesity in general. Obese actors in Hollywood suffers the same issues as the current title. The title needs to convey the fact that this is a list of character actors whose role is a fat person, but in a more succinct way. Arkyan 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm...a debate like this reminds me of Kirstie Alley and, even more so, Eddie Murphy. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please take a look at the article, its talk page, its numerous references, and its history before "voting" to keep or delete or rename. The primary reference is to "Warner Brothers' Fat men"[16] by Dana Gioia from the book "O.K. You Mugs: Writers on Movie Actors." All names are referenced to sources such as that book about the character actor genre of the fat man. None are just someone's personal opinion that an actor needs to go on a diet, and there has not really been a problem with keeping such original research out of the article. The list has been stable for months. It does not include present day comedians who put on a fat suit to play a role, or who happen to put on a few pounds, but only those whose girth was their fortune. The men listed made their livelihood by working as a character actor in that genre. Most of the individuals are from the golden age of Hollywood, such as Sydney Greenstreet, who played "The Fat Man" in "The Maltese Falcon". He certainly did not play "The Obese Man." Likewise on the list is silent movie comic "Fatty Arbuckle" who we should not try to rename "Obese Arbuckle." I searched each name which I found on the original list in such databases as the New York Times to confirm in their obituaries that they were there referred to as "roly-poly character actor" or "rotund character actor" to conform to the definition made in "Warner Brothers Fat men." Disagreements should be dealt with by the normal editing process, not be eliminating a valid type of character actor from the golden age of movies. The nominator should also have notified me on my talk page since I am the principle contributor to the article with 49 edits, per [[WP:AFD)). Edison 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The OR/POV that's at issue here is not whether someone will add actors who they think need to go on a diet. The OR/POV that's at issue is the lack of objective standards for the list. Otto4711 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The standard is having a reliable source say that an actor primarily worked in that genre. Likewise we do not have an objective standard for other types of character actors than second party coverage in reliable sources. Edison 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding nothing on Google indicating that there is such a thing as a "fat actor" genre. Even your essay source does not assert that there is such a thing, only that the author likes some actors who were fat. One opinion piece does not a genre make and we are left with the same problem, that there is no objective definition of "fat." Otto4711 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor. to add a random thought, is there any rationale I can see to accept the definition from the cited opinion piece as authoritative. Otto4711 19:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment please note that the "essay" was a chapter in a published book, which should satisfy WP:ATT. The term used for the genre varied over the years. In the obituaries of many of these men or in reviews from the 40's they were often referred to as "rotund character actor" or "roly poly charactor actor" which seem more objectionable than "fat" but if the collective wisdom is to term the genre "obese" I could live with that. It was and is clearly treated as a genre like "leading man" in reviews and casting calls. At present it is still a genre. The IMDB bio of John Banner refers to him as "roly poly character actor" [17]. Ditto for Buck Taylor [18]. Please check the references for documentation of references to all the names listed as "roly poly " or "rotund" character actors. Edison 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think Genre means what you think it means. That a number of actors shared a physical type and as a result may have played similar roles in a number of films does not mean that a genre exists. There is no "fat man" film genre any more than there is a "scared Negro servant" genre or a "sultry French maid" genre or "stock character of your choice" genre. The actors on the played a wide variety of roles across a wide variety of genres, everything from menacing murderer to comedic foil to romantic lead, and they cannot be classified as "fat actors" on the basis of a genre that simply doesn't exist. Otto4711 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Grouping actors by physical type could serve a useful purpose to anyone studying acting, including actors and comedians themselves (but others, too). The footnotes show that some actors were known for being fat and the proper use of sourcing provides an adequate way to regulate the list. Whether or not you want to use the word "genre" it's clear that some actors have used their fatness in at least some of their roles. Noroton 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument to keep an article. Otto4711 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you want to use the word "genre" it's clear that some actors have used their fatness in at least some of their roles. Noroton 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep (1) because the existence of the character type (or types) in the movies is shown in the footnotes; (2) because the list is well regulated by insisting that any actor included on it must have a citation showing at least some responsible party out there thought the actor was known for being fat; and (3) because there is at least one serious purpose to the article (it is a good first step in looking into how fat actors use their size in their roles). "Strong" because the article is cited so impressivly and because insistance that there must always be some objective outside standard (other than citations) for who can or can't be included in a list would unnecessarily restrict Wikipedia. Noroton 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (minor change made in first line Noroton 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• So if I wanted to make a List of black American presidents and add Bill Clinton to it, you'd be OK with that because I have a citation from a responsible party that says so? Or should that list maybe be subject to some objective standard, like this one should be? Otto4711 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your point is a classicly bad Reductio ad absurdam argument. If such an article were nominated, it wouldn't be nominated for improper sourcing but as a hoax (if it treated the claim seriously). If it didn't treat the claim as true, or more precisely treated the "Clinton is the first black president" meme as an encyclopedic subject, it could potentially make an interesting article (if a bit trivial). If, say, you were to find a more serious example, where a bad article had sourcing that was seriously deficient, then you'd have something to discuss. But you haven't argued that the sourcing is deficient, and if you did, the first step would be to tag it as poorly sourced and explain yourself on the talk page, not to go first to an AfD discussion. Noroton 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (edited my first sentence Noroton 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• As I said in different ways twice above, "proper" sourcing from "responsible" parties. What you're looking for Otto (correct me if I'm wrong) is a Wikipedia standard where we can't list anything unless some outside authority certifies all of its items as being on the list. Cultural lists can't work that way, so it seems you want them all out. Well there's a value to lists that aren't quite like the Periodic Table of the Elements or some genus of fauna or family of flora. You make some of the same points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christmas dishes. Noroton 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But I'm not saying that there are not sources in which these guys are called "fat." The problem with this list is not sourcing. The problem with this list, as I've said repeatedly, is that there is no possible objective standard for "fat". There is, infamously, a published source that calls Karen Carpenter "fat" (or "chunky" or "chubby", I don't recall the exact word, doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion). 95% or more of the population would not have considered her "fat" at the time the source was published or thereafter while she was starving herself to death, yet because it exists she would by your standard be eligible for List of fat musicians. It's not unreasonable to expect that lists like this be restricted to things that are objectively defineable. Compare this to the aforementioned list of actors who put on or lost weight for a role. I have no problem with that article because it restricts itself to factual, defineable entries that don't rely on the opinion of either Wikipedia editors or external people. Otto4711 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Objective" is not the proper standard. "Fair" is the proper standard and it is necessarily going to have some gray areas on the edges. If that results in some debates on the article's talk page in the future, why not let the editors who are interested in the subject deal with that — they certainly are willing to take the risk of that. And the risk seems a fair price to pay in order to keep the article. If some editor puts Karen Carpenter on a list and provides the citation, other editors can counter that with other citations or pictures that would convince 95% or more of the population. Noroton 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fair" is the standard? I'm not familiar with WP:BEFAIR, but if you say so. So if it's not "fair" that actors are listed as "fat" then I can take them off the list? Fine, then in that case it's not "fair" that any actor is listed as fat so the entire list should be deleted. Or, we could use an actual standard that makes some sort of sense, which would be objectivity. Expecting that a list article have an objective definition for existence and inclusion may or may not be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than sitting around trying to figure out whether it's "fair" to put someone on the list. Encyclopedias are not supposed to be popularity contests or votes and the idea that editors should spend time trying to convince each other that it is or isn't "fair" to call Karen Carpenter "fat" is bizarre. Expecting editors to spend time trying to convince one another that an actor is fat enough to be on a fat actors list is ludicrous. Otto4711 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, here's what you sit around and do: You discuss whether or not the authority being cited is correct. You do that by first trying to find other citations that either help or hurt the assertion made in the questionable citation. And when you've exhausted other resources you only have your common sense to rely on and you use it. That's being fair. When we sit around and do that, we do the actual editing that Wikipedians are here for. What's bizarre is that you don't think Wikipedians can use their heads. There is an area between rote rule following and complete subjectivity and you don't appear to recognize that, but it's in that area of reasoning things out and judging what weight to give the opinions of particular sources where encyclopedia editors make many of their most important decisions. The solution is not to run away from subjects where this kind of work needs to be done. Noroton 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well referenced with external opinions of who's fat Fg2 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list does not arbitrarily claim some actor as fat. Most of the entries are externally sourced. However, if one needs an objective definition of fat, there is Body Mass Index to calculate that. For that, every actor's weight (at a particular arbitrary age) and adult height have to be known! It goes without saying the process would be cumbersome! With such detailed referencing, the list should be kept. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I agree that the current title doesn't imply the kind of selectivity that's actually being used in this list. Should probably be renamed somehow, but I'd rather let someone be WP:BOLD than try to make consensus happen on it. Mangojuice^talk 12:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Keep, they're all known for their talents and for their weight, but an article? I would recommend making a category of Fat Actors, which would serve the same purpose. There are lists of American actors, Jewish Actors, i.e., so why not this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mghabmw (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Exactly, even you're unsure. This article doesn't belong here. This coming from a fat guy. Bigman17 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as other seem unsure above, let's get real. First of all, it shouldn't be fat, it should be obes or something like that. Secondly, it DOES NOT belong here. Bigman17 06:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the name of the article is completely wrong. Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If kept, rename to List of obese actors. Obese is at least defined. Vegaswikian 04:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Imo the name should reflect that it is about the golden age of Hollywood, not became list of every fatty actor. The word list itself is inappropriate. Pavel Vozenilek 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No objection to List of obese actors. If the article gets deleted (looks now like there might be a consensus for Keep) could those on the list then be added to a category such as Obese actors? Dead obese actors?corresponding to the list? Does it seem right to restrict it to male actors (some actresses refer to themselves as "actors") and would it be ok to limit it to nonliving ones (takes out some WP:BLP issues and maintenance issues everytime a present day actor puts on a fat suit for a Saturday Night Live sketch.) Input welcome on the discussion page of thee article. Edison 04:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I believe overweight is the more appropriate term here, as not all the actors are necessarily obese. –Pomte 05:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In theory justifiable, but that doesn't make it a good idea. --Dtcdthingy 23:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because some actors' whole identity are sometimes focused on their weight, such as comedians type-casted as a loveable fat guy. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:04Z

Calvin Dean[edit]

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

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO either in terms of general notability or under the specific criteria for entertainers. Otto4711 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to National Youth Theatre On second thought, just delete it, as there are hundreds of National Youth Theatre participants .--TBCΦtalk? 08:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Eh. He's a non-notable, obscure stage actor who fails WP:BIO by a furlong. Ravenswing 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable... yet - grubber 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO —SaxTeacher (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:05Z

Tokgrum[edit]

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

• This article seems to be a joke, and made into this article, I removed irrelevant images and alot of other stuff. Artaxiad 04:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as very sophisticate hoax, unless someone can post an RS that this is real. --Selket ^Talk
• Delete. At first glance, the article seemed to be legitimate. However, going through the article's history, it clearly was a hoax, as evident by inaccuracies in the original editions of the article, such as the captions which inaccurately labeled Iraqis as Armenians, Uyghurs as Tartars, etc.--TBCΦtalk? 08:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense. Grandmaster 08:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A high class hoax, it is very good, but still a hoax.--Longend. 09:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No Google hits. Very good hoax - a shame that the author cannot do something more positive with his clearly significant IT skills.--Anthony.bradbury 11:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No such area exists, this is clearly a joke. -- Aivazovsky 00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. --Lockley 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking WP:ATT, which could be because it is a hoax. I have notified User:Lilidor of this afd in case they can provide some insight into why this word is unknown to google (inc. news, scholar, etc), amazon and worldcat. John Vandenberg 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am from Azerbaijan and I can confirm what you all already know, i.e. that such place simply does not exist. This is WP:HOAX. Grandmaster 10:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a speedy for this. Artaxiad 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:07Z

Alaska![edit]

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

Initially prodded with concern "Don't appear to be very notable," but article does seem to assert some notability, though the claims are unsourced. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong Keep Notable band, though I did just strip the article of some blatant allmusic.com plagiarism. That said, they've got a full entry on allmusic, they're selling on amazon, they've been singed to two indie mainstays, the frontman is Russell Pollard for pete's sake, and they've had at least one national news story (not to mention they've been on at least one national tour). Needless to say they meet WP:MUSIC sans problem. That said, the article should be cleaned up a bit and expanded (and have some references too), I'm not arguing against that. But it's definitely Wikipedia-worthy. And I'm generally a stickler for that. But the band has Russell Pollard! :) Rockstar915 06:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as it meets most of the criterias at WP:MUSIC. The band has recored two albums with Columbia Records [19], and most of the band's members were previously part of other notable bands.--TBCΦtalk? 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same reasons that others have stated--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Alaska! (band) to clarify that it is another band article and not an article about something else. Most band articles on Wikipedia need to be so labelled to avoid confusion. Edison 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree about the renaming. Do we need an article with a name as specific, as, say, Emerson, Lake & Palmer to have the (band) put on the end? I don't think so. This suggestion goes against Wikipedia's naming conventions.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand. The article is a stub, however is is not neccisary to delete it. Kelseyak90 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does meet Music bio criteria, so it can be improved. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:07Z

Psychological resilience[edit]

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

Not a notable subject. Almost all linking references are simply "See Also" and provide no context, in an attempt to generate credibilty to a non-notable non-subject. Published reference are nothing more than self-help propaganda, using WP for promotion. Shoehorn 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Certaintly a notable term [20], but the article does need to be cleaned up with a lot more references and citations.--TBCΦtalk? 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep based on the existence of the University of Minnesota National Reliance Resource Center. Frankly, I'm a little surprised at the sponsorship, but that's my opinion only and we can't second guess them. If they think it's N, that's sufficient--along with the other refs. DGG 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Resilience" is a commonly used term, and there is no reason to suspect that the National Resilience Resource Center is using the term for anything but the ordinary everyday meaning. Other than as a definition, this page is essentially an orphan that doesn't need to be here. Shoehorn 05:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons given by TBC and DGG.--DorisH 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has sources enough to establish the term's use. (Editors are always welcome to add more) It is a stub, but may be expandable. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to LOL (Internet slang). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:08Z

Lolsy[edit]

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

Neologism. References in article have nothing to do with the word, so it is unreferenced. Has been speedied at least twice [21]. At first I prod-ed it, but when I saw that the warnings on the creator's page, I decided to go for the AfD, with a request for some salt. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dave Callan LOL (Internet slang). Not notable enough to merit a seperate article.--TBCΦtalk? 05:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Manderiko 06:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terms "lolsy", "lolzy", "lulzy", and such like are common internet slang, probably originating in the usenet days. A redirect to some comedian who borrowed the coinage is likely to confuse. Deranged bulbasaur 06:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then redirect it to LOL (Internet slang).--TBCΦtalk? 07:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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} 09:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva goals[edit]

Gilberto Silva goals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Does Wikipedia need an article merely listing the goals scored by a not-especially high-scoring player? Daemonic Kangaroo 05:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i would presume you saw the talkpage of the article and disagreed with the reasons stated there. also, if this article is indeed deleted it would merely be transposed back to where it once belong, the GS article itself. a separate page was created to deal with the length/layout issues of the GS article. Chensiyuan 05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I did read the talk page, but I am not convinced by the arguments. I feel this needs to be considered by the wider WP community. If they're happy to keep it, then so be it. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of soccer statistics. Nor is Wikipedia a directory of links to the locations and dates in which a soccer player scores a goal, especially when there's essentially only one line of actual context.--TBCΦtalk? 05:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the link you directed me to does not convincingly preclude the existence of this page. Chensiyuan 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to the the reasonings listed in the talk:
      • This is the most comprehensive football|soccer player's article on Wikipedia, and just because Pele's article is not so comprehensive, it shouldn't mean that others are limited to its size. It seems like an unnecessary bottleneck. It doesn't matter how "comprehensive" the derivative article is, if it doesn't pass WP:NOT, than it doesn't deserve a seperate article.
      • The goals which Gilberto have scored are encyclopaedic information And why? Please explain.
      • The information which is listed on Gilberto Silva goals was listed on his main article (Gilberto Silva) for a number of months, proving it is indeed fit for Wikipedia, and... Though an article's subject might be notable, by no means does it make every section of said article notable enough to merit an individual article as well.
      • It was only moved to a separate page because it was too chunky for its parent page. If the goals page is deleted, the information will only be pasted back onto the main article; I feel that would be less tidy/organized that it having its own page. At 43.5 kb, this page is defanitly not "chunky", especially compared to articles such as the United States, which is currently at 118.9kB, or David Beckham, who's article is currently at 56kB, even without any of the statistics like those that this article has.
      • The reason Pele doesn't have his own goal page (or table) is due to the sheer number of goals that he has scored. Some of the details of the goals are probably lost to history. Gilberto will only ever score about 50 goals, and they are all fairly recent, so his page can exist quite easily. The information is readily available. This is not to say that just the fact that Gilberto has scored LESS goals than most allows him to have his own goal page. Quite the opposite. There is even more reason that Pele should have his own page; the only reason that he doesn't though, is that nobody is willing (or able?) to compile a list of his many hundreds of career goals. This is a first step to more comprehensive soccer player articles; it shows editors a new added level of useful detail which can be attained. It doesn't matter whether Pele does or doesn't have a goal page. None of these articles should have a seperate goal page, as Wikipedia is not a directory of links to the locations and dates of when a soccer player scores a goal.
      • Maybe Gilberto's goal page will lead to Pele (and other notable footballers) having their own statistics/goal pages. Maybe not. But the fact that no other editors have taken the time to compile such lists which require their own pages, surely does not mean that those editors which have, cannot have their pages exist. See my comment below.
      • Some Basketball and American Football players do have their own 'statistics' pages. See Career achievements of Dwyane Wade or Career achievements of Michael Jordan. True, this page isn't on the same scale as said career achievements pages, but the fact that Gilberto is so much less famous means his small goals page is correct to scale.I usually dislike citing essays, but note please note that inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Due to Wikipedia's nature of being an "encyclopedia that everyone can edit", many articles that violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines exist, as there's nothing stopping them from creating the article.--TBCΦtalk? 07:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've also clarified my original objection.--TBCΦtalk? 07:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOT Matthew_hk tc 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in NOT please. Manderiko 06:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per talk. Chensiyuan 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - far too detailed. A list of every goal someone has ever scored? If there's a textbook example of "cruft", this may well be it. A season-by-season tally of appearances and goals on the individual player article should suffice. - fchd 06:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Original counter-arguments outweigh weak objections. Manderiko 06:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've extended and clarified my objections. I hope that helps.--TBCΦtalk? 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for bothering to explain. Chensiyuan 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of goals scored by a soccer player? How does thet not fail WP:NOT? TJ Spyke 07:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per fchd. Punkmorten 08:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Since when has goals scored by a soccer player deserve an article? --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 08:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely unnecessary detail for an encylopedia, more suited for a sports almanac, which wikipedia is not. I don't like the precedent that would lead to full lists of goals for every football player ever. Robotforaday 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The intro states This page lists the details of goals scored by Brazilian football player Gilberto Silva giving the impression that it will be detailing all his career goals but that isn't the case, it details only the goals he has scored for Arsenal and Brazil and overlooks his other clubs, so at the very least (unless those details were added) it would need to be re-titled to something catchy like List of goals scored by Gilberto Silva for Arsenal and Brazil..... ChrisTheDude 09:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a list of everything. Good grief, if we do this for every well known footballer, where will it end? This level of informations is suitable for a Gilberto Silva fansite but not for an encyclopaedia. Jules 10:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I don't think this level of detail is appropriate. Qwghlm 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of informaition. HornetMike 10:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT an indiscrimate collection of informaition. And Wikipedia is not ESPN either. – Elisson • T • C • 13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - why not just include a link to his entry on Soccerbase instead? EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Wikipedia might not be paper, but it's not wastepaper, and I agree that this is information far more suited to a Gilberto Silva fansite. I'm also completely unconvinced as to how the career achievements of certain superstars equate to this listing. Michael Jordan's career achievements do not include an indiscriminate list of every basket he's ever scored, no matter how inconsequential. RGTraynor 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edison 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' - this goes well beyond providing encyclopedic statistics for a footballer, and into excessive trivia. Also, do not merge back to the main article.--Whpq 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kurt000 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Angelo 12:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. As the article currently stands I don't think it's particularly noteworthy. The most interesting notes about his goals should be included within the prose about his career (e.g. scoring the first goal at the Emirates). The complete tables are overkill though. aLii 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1998 season and other similar discussions. Neier 02:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, that is complete overkill... Robotforaday 10:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Without merging. That table on Nakamura's page looks really silly and is clearly far too much detail for WP ChrisTheDude 07:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:09Z

Douglas James Cottrell[edit]

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

File:Cottrell 2007.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Thumb cottrell2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Secrets of life.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Orginal research (see WP:OR), and somewhat promotional language. E.g. "... is among a select few who are able to genuinely demonstrate so many different mental/spiritual abilities: remote viewing, clairvoyance, prediction, prophecy, communication with disembodied souls, ... " --Vsion 05:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The person has published a book, thus I don't question the notability at this point. The problem is OR. --Vsion 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See related afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep trance meditation --Vsion 06:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do question notability. A search for the phrase "Many Mansions Press" turns up only 90 results, and the ones that actually pertain to a publisher are all about this book. Being published by a major, reputable publisher confers notability. Being published by a single-purpose publisher does nothing of the kind. Deranged bulbasaur 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:V. Article is verifiable. Self publications are not a judge of notability Change to Delete. Didn't consider WP:OR or WP:COI. WP:NN is a guideline not a official policy. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 08:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that says is that self-publication is not a definitive indicator of non-notability. That's far from saying that it is a positive indicator of notability. If we exclude the book as a source of notability and examine other factors, what are we left with, exactly? To be honest, I don't understand your reply. Deranged bulbasaur 09:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; NN, fails WP:ATT big time, WP:OR, WP:BIO. Cottrell has about 130 unique Google hits, his book is over 1.1 million in sales rank on Amazon, and I just found a full seventeen egregious enough unsourced statements on the article to warrant citation tags. Even stripping out all the self-promotional, unproven twaddle, on the face of it as a faith healer he's non-notable. Ravenswing 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he's verifiable, but still not notable. -- Whpq 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only non-self published information is from the forward by a journalist in one of his books. This is not independent sourcing. The only way to see whether a psychic is N or not is to see if there are significant references to him. An elaborate page with no such sources is advertising, not a WP article. DGG 17:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:10Z

Deep trance meditation[edit]

Deep trance meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research (WP:OR). Unsubstantiated claims, such as "The mind of the practitioner is in contact with the mind of the conductor."--Vsion 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Related afd : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas James Cottrell --Vsion 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The concept that one can meditate in a deep trance sounds reasonable, and if someone would like to find sources, they should write an article. That was not the case here. Delete as OR without prejudice to recreation with sourced content.DGG 17:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources, possibly original research. Dragomiloff 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion WP:CSD#A7. – riana_dzasta 03:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospecs[edit]

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

nn website Meakswerf 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the article has no citations or references to verify the subject's notability. Also, the article sounds a bit like an ad.--TBCΦtalk? 06:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources, and the article is an ad. -- Whpq 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not Notable, No Sources. Speedy delete per CSD A7, So tagged. Also may violate WP:SPAM. Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion A7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brickipedia[edit]

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

nn website Meakswerf 05:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD A7, as the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject"; has been tagged.--TBCΦtalk? 06:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SecWatch[edit]

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

File:SecWatch.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

nn website Meakswerf 05:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD A7, as the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject"; has been tagged.--TBCΦtalk? 06:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic Operational Readiness Security Evaluation[edit]

Holistic Operational Readiness Security Evaluation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

File:Redhorse.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

nn website Meakswerf 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD A7, as the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject"; has been tagged.--TBCΦtalk? 06:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile, Alabama People[edit]

List of Mobile, Alabama People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a generic list. This would be better served as a category. /Blaxthos 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to category as nominator. /Blaxthos 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as a category on the subject already exists.--TBCΦtalk? 09:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per how big is the population of Mobile, Alabama? Alf^Photoman 13:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About 200,000. --Charlene 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Such a list already exists. It's called a "phonebook." RGTraynor 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong if not Speedy Delete, Wikipedia isn't a phonebook, It should be a category, and one already exists, so therefore this article is pointless, so therefore delete. Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to category and smerge the most important ones into the Mobile article. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn' exactly a phonebook or directory. Yes, that's what the title implies, but the article contains mostly people who have WP articles. However, I agree that a category is a better replacement to this list, so delete. -- Black Falcon 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:11Z

Radio free colorado[edit]

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

Article lacks multiple non-trivial sources and is therefore unverifiable. The majority of the article looks like Original Research. The first 60 google hits are all web directories, blogs, forums and the like. I would have expected a notable radio station to have had the odd reliable source amongst that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources or citations evident to verify the notability of the subject. Nothing relevant found on Google News.--TBCΦtalk? 07:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable topic. Per WP:V. Smells of WP:OR --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 08:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:V Alf^Photoman 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per whatever article inclusion guideline - and WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:WEB, Simply not notable enough to be a Wikipedia article. Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:11Z

The scrunchers[edit]

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

No indication of notability, only reference is MySpace, article reads like a hoax. Apparently they have sold over 25 CDs [22]. Was a contested prod. —dgies^t_c 06:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With songs like "hasgfkajbgkhdgjiyri#", "Mitchell is a Pansy again", and "Brenton likes Ryan" it's quite obvious that the article is a hoax.--TBCΦtalk? 07:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Rockstar915 07:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Partly or wholly a hoax, and very unlikely to have sources independent of the subject. —Celithemis 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX and possibly because of the song titles, WP:NPA. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there's no way this band even comes close to meeting WP:BAND, and I am in favour of the inclusion of lesser groups. Unreferenced, too. We can't have articles for every band with a MySpace.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like a hoax due to the song titles. Fails WP:BAND, WP:HOAX. Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 22:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actually, I'm amazed my prod was deleted... fails WP:BAND, smells like WP:HOAX, fails WP:ATT.Garrie 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:12Z

She Walked down the Aisle with Me and out of My Life[edit]

She Walked down the Aisle with Me and out of My Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

File:Rock opera 2 (2).jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Rock opera 3 (2).jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

File:Rock opera 4 (2).jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Google is evil but in this case returned no results when searched on the whole name. lack of third party sources - well any sources at all except for the YouTube links to the article. Reads like a non-notable vanity spam crufty article and needs deletion. Also including associated images (or do they need to go to IFD?) Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Wikipedia is not for obscure "rock operas" made up and performed in school one day.--TBCΦtalk? 07:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Incorrectly named anyway. It should be She Walked Down the Aisle with Me and Out of My Life.--SeizureDog 08:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally lame —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.6.67 (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NOT. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 08:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per TBC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jules (talk • contribs) 10:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Enough said. - Richard Cavell 11:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NFT, nor for things less notable than said school. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete according to WP:NOF (no original fiction).DGG 19:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Dōjin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H dōjin[edit]

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

First, one needs to realize a few things about dōjin:

1. The majority of dōjin are H. They are the rule, rather than the exception.
2. Dōjin means that something was self-published, making it inherently non-notable unless proven otherwise.
3. There are literally thousands, if not millions of H dōjin out there, so having a list of all of them is futile.
4. The (incorrectly name) Category:Dojin and its subcategories takes care of any dōjin that actually might be notable in some way. SeizureDog 08:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nom, the term seems notable. A complete list would be pointless, but it doesn't appear to the the point. The article could use a LOT of help (what is a dōjin, what does the H stand for? Where is the term commonly used?) --Hobit 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably should have pointed out that dōjin is its own article, which pretty much answers what you're asking. Ecchi answers your question about the H.--SeizureDog 10:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if possible, otherwise delete. SYSS Mouse 13:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think the idea of this article is inherently hopeless. I think this could use some attention, probably just a few knowledgeable folks to reduce the list to a reasonable length and perhaps add some text about the history of this specific area of dojinshi. I would like to say "establish notability criteria for the list", but that is hard to do for self-published material. If deleted, this should definitely be merged back to dojinshi, which links to it. --Brianyoumans 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as presently constituted, this is nothing more than a dicdef. RGTraynor 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to dojin. Although I wouldn't say H dojins are the rule... _dk 17:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep doesn't have to be just a list like it is now: it can talk about the type of work, with perhaps discussions of some. DGG 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to dojin. I have never seen a non-H dojin, and the association between the two is storng. There is no need for a seperate article. MightyAtom 04:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Weak merge to doujin. OK... dojin is not dojinshi but a broader category of self-published works. Not all things dojin are sexually explicit and claiming as such is just silly. The article itself is a dicdef with a red-link farm of non-notable titles. Just mention it in the main article and be done with it. --Kunzite 04:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never claimed that all dōjin are sexually explicit. I specifically said that the majority are, which can hardly be argued. I've actually yet to even see a non-sexual dōjinshi...--SeizureDog 07:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 anyone would like this userfied to aid in creating a category, just ask. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of academic conferences 2nd nomination[edit]

List of academic conferences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Woefully inadequate list that has not improved since it's last AfD nomination in December 2005. The arguments then were that is was unmaintainable, but to see how it developed as it was nominated after just half an hour! Unfortunately it hasn't developed very far, and is full of redlinked articles (suggesting non-notability of the conference) and external links to conference websites, as borderline spam Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The idea of producing a useable list of conferences was never a good idea. There are ten of thousands of them so at best it would be highly selective and prone to spam, and in any case almost no-one ever edits this page. The conferences that are there are pretty unimportant - not a single major medical conference for example. There are some excellent commercial sites that produce these lists and also have an alerting service and that's what academics really want - Academic conference#Lists of conferences had been deleted as spam but I've restored it because these sites provide a far better resource than this page.

andy 09:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too vague of a subject for there to be a list; a category would be better suited. Also, as andy mentioned, the list is highly prone to spam due to the sheer number of conferences out there.--TBCΦtalk? 09:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace by Category to see the possibilities, see List_of_computer_science_conferences. there are more of these than in other subjects but there are reasonable numbers for other subjects; they could form reasonable separate lists, maintained by the subject people, which could then be combined using categories. This would probably be a cleaner way to do it than the present list. There is an existing category, Conferences, which could easily be reorganized for the purpose. I have started the reorganization by making the Category:Academic conferences, and will then make the Category:Academic conferences by subject, and follow up from there. I suggest that when developed this will replace Academic conference#Lists of conferences. Specific subject subject lists will avoid the spam problem to a considerable extent.

Comment a quick pass through List of computer science conferences shows that many of the conference abbreviations are actually incorrectly linked, mostly to the computer term rather than the conference, to disambiguations, and one even links to Damascus International Airport! So it may seem this is a well sourced list of notable conferences but that's not quite the case. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 05:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many uses for such lists besides that mentioned by andy: for example, the abbreviations for the names of these conferences occur in many articles, and are used in bibliographic references. Admittedly, they should probably all have articles, but this is impractical to do quickly with the present resources. DGG 09:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that lists would be adequately maintained. The number of categories is big and that of conferences is even bigger. If you had very narrow specialisations it might just be possible but I doubt it. For example, just on computer science conferences alone check out Google at [23] and then drill in to one or two of the directories listed there and you'll see what I mean. For example [24] - and that's just the letter A! The person who maintained the Wikipedia list would have to duplicate this list at the very least. So why not simply add a link to it from relevant places in Wikipedia? Surely Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to duplicate external resources that are already perfectly adequate? andy 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but restrict to links that are about a series of conferences, not one-off conferences. I have added two such conferences for chemistry but there are many more. These regular conferences deserve an article and a list can be a valuable link to them. Unlike a category, it could contain red-links to encourage articles to be written. --Bduke 10:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had always assumed that it would be about series--the vast majority of academic conferences are. In fact, all but one of the present list is about annual or biennial conferences. (In contrast to public affairs, where obviously one-off conferences have been of monumental importance), In science, there have been occasional times when a particular one in a series was of special importance, but I can think of no individually held ones that would be worth listing for their academic value.

This is therefore the opposite of the commercial lists mentioned by the nom., which are devoted to announcements and dates of particular conferences. We no more need lists of those than we do of lists of individual football games.

Suggestion: we Delete this category and let any ed. who wants to do a more specific list go ahead and try, and judge them on their merits. There is no point in a general list where only one or two sections are maintained. (A new Category: Lists of academic conferences) is enough to keep the articles together. I am not aware of any in WP except the one I mentioned, List of computer science conferences, and its related ones, List of cryptology conferences, etc. and those only include series. (There is also a related List of writer's conferences' which also includes only series of conferences. A "List of chemistry conferences" would fill the need BDuke mentions--as he says, there are enough for a list. Ditto in biology. But we do not need a general list. I used to think otherwise. DGG 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we are discussing the deletion of a list article here. That decision does not impact the associated creation and maintenance of conference categories, extending those categories that exist, and tagging existing notable conference articles with the appropriate category. I don't think any new categories have to be created, and it's against naming conventions to have "List of" categories. Putting the category against an article automagically creates the list --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of course--we have just been thinking aloud to try to keep this compatible with other things we're doing.DGG 05:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace by category Impossible to keep such a list manageable or up to date. A category would be the right approach NBeale 07:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmaintainable. Vast number of candidates for inclusion. --Folantin 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 09:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Hip Hop[edit]

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

Non notable. No evidence this form of hip hop is different from normal hip hop. No reliable sources. Michael Johnson 10:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks sources and barely asserts notability. --RaiderAspect 10:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems like part of a promo vehicle for Greydon Square (see below AFD). Guroadrunner 10:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:A Alf^Photoman 13:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely unsourced, seems to be a vehicle for promotional links. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or maaaaaaybe merge into hip hop. But whatever happens, don't forget the redirect Freethought Music http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freethought_Music&redirect=no. --Ali'i 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lol, who the heck made this up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigman17 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, just because music can be described using a certain adjective does not make it a genre. hateless 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, The page links to other pages that are up for deletion. Not notable and unsourced. Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The term is used in a major news happening: "...'Atheist' hip-hop track causes a religious stir..." and is notable in many blogs using the term as a new form of genre. --CrimsonSun99 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Note: CrimsonSun99 (talk · contribs) is the article's creator and primary editor.[reply]

Keep "Non notable. No evidence this form of hip hop is different from normal hip hop. No reliable sources." maybe not notable to you, but many have heard the term. I don't hear normal hip hop talking about anti-religion, unless you know of some? No reliable sources? If I was less half-assed I would find some.

"seems to be a vehicle for promotional links" It is only for people to understand what it is, I only provided links and names for people interested in those people. I am in now way affiliated with them other than knowing of them.

"Lol, who the heck made this up?" Multiple artists when there was no genre for what they were producing.

"just because music can be described using a certain adjective does not make it a genre." But it does when it can't be described by a adjective, it is similar to christian rap, but not christian.

"lacks sources and barely asserts notability." I'm just placing the starting off as a stub for people of knowledge of it to give their 2 cent.

"Delete or maaaaaaybe merge into hip hop" I bet you 1000$ that hip hop would be vandalized more due to the large ammounts of african americans that pretty much hate Atheists.

"seems like part of a promo vehicle for Greydon Square" Not at all, I just wanted to give him a wiki since I know him. I would have made wikis for others if I knew them more.

--CrimsonSun99 13:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Note: CrimsonSun99 (talk · contribs) is the article's creator and primary editor.[reply]

• • "I bet you 1000$ that hip hop would be vandalized more due to the large ammounts of african americans that pretty much hate Atheists." This is getting pretty rediculous and bordering on personal attack. For more of the same from CrimsonSun99 see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greydon Square where he makes the claim that "if you are christian i don't think you have the unbiasedness to even speak on deleting it" and other such unsubstantiated and divisive allegations. Deranged bulbasaur 08:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greydon Square[edit]

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

Non notable vocalist Michael Johnson 10:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-notable by what standard? Far better examples of obscurity exist within Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.69.2 (talk • contribs) — 24.150.69.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• The Christians don't like it so they are trying to delete it like most of their history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.59.241 (talk • contribs) — 72.152.59.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. hateless 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, this atheist says delete. We have standards for inclusion, and whether or not this guy rocks (he does) is irrelevant to our standards of inclusions, which he does not meet, yet. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - almost no assertion of notability, no indication WP:MUSIC is passed. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 08:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is a real artist, and if you are christian i don't think you have the unbiasedness to even speak on deleting it. he has sample music on his website if you want to know that he is legit. --CrimsonSun99 13:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Note: CrimsonSun99 (talk · contribs) is the article's creator and primary editor.[reply]
  • Please read WP:AGF and Ad hominem#Ad hominem circumstantial. Also, don't vote twice on an AfD. Deranged bulbasaur 08:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Criteria passed:
"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."
He has released 1 album and is releasing 1 more June 5th, that is multiple.
"Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble."
He is noted in a Magazine article: http://www.briansapient.com/images/newhumanistpage2.JPG
--CrimsonSun99 13:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Note: CrimsonSun99 (talk · contribs) is the article's creator and primary editor.[reply]

• Delete I think it's worth noting that User:CrimsonSun99 has exposed a conflict of interest at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atheist_Hip_Hop where he says "I just wanted to give him a wiki since I know him." Deranged bulbasaur 08:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It isn't even obvious where the image linked by CrimsonSun99 comes from, and a cursory examination of it does not reveal any mention of "Greydon Square." Deranged bulbasaur 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to notable. --RaiderAspect 02:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment More notablity via the web:
  

Institute for Humanist Studies (Segment 2)
Richard Dawkins .NET news article
No God Blog
Not A Blog
Rational Response Squad (Was a front page mention)
Digg Mention (Got to front page, 900+ diggs)
(Another Blog Mention)
(And Another Blog Mention)
(And Another Blog Mention)
(And Yet Another Blog Mention)

• Comment Blogs are not reliable sources --RaiderAspect 05:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 23:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Chirino[edit]

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

Notability - he merely recorded an incident. Guroadrunner 10:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, normally people from the 16th Century who make it into WP tend to be notable. Surprisingly, a simple Google search found plenty of references for Chrino on the web. hateless 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Someone from the early 17th century must be notable for them to be remembered 400 years later in history. But the article needs extreme cleanup, if not a complete re-write. --Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- he recorded something interesting, but that doesn't mean he's notable. But I am in favor of the slash-and-kill method if the AFD doesn't go through. Guroadrunner (original nominator) 13 March 2007
• Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now passes WP:ATT. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements by Carolfrog (see diff). -- Black Falcon 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Massachusetts Minuteman Marching Band. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:14Z

Umass drumline[edit]

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

Expired ProD. Well overdue for deletion, but strikes a small notability chord. No opinion here. Bubba hotep

• Merge into UMass Minuteman Marching Band. I don't see any reason why this does require a separate page. Spearhead 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect; neither do I. RGTraynor 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, It's the best thing to do. The concept seems notable, but not notable enough to stand on its own. Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 21:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hessian (social group)[edit]

Hessian (social group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is just a reincarnation of the infamous ANUS article under a different name. Non-notable organisation, Original research, and very POV. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spearhead (talk • contribs)

• This article was deleted before for plagiarizing this: [25]. I've also seen this article describe a type of skateboarder. Given the contested nature of the subject, its rather fuzzy description, and POV issues. I think Delete Steve-g 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unattributed to reliable sources, and unlikely to soon be (see talk page). Sandstein 12:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - little to no assertion of notability, no reliable sources cited to support notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I've found 1600 G-hits of "hessian" + "metalhead," and a cursory look over some of the links indicates that the term's in wide vogue in the metalhead community. The article itself is a turgid, scanty mess desperately in need of genuine definition and sourcing, but that's what the Pages needing attention list is for. RGTraynor 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Traynor and WP:NON. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another NN and NA. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. As per RGTraynor. I think this term was once as widespread as hipster is now, though referring to different people. The sources available for any part of popular culture won't be the same as those for something academic, but I don't know what they would be. If someone can find them, I think an article on this belongs here.--Parsleyjones 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources--Sefringle 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is an example of an episteme constructed by the crowd. As such, it praises that which is acceptable to the masses, and spurns that which is anathema. The 'knowledge' portrayed on this site is not a set of facts in one-one correspondence with reality, but rather a set of opinions which represent the current status quo in society. There is no need for this article, or those whom it claims to describe, to be on Wikipedia. To understand why, see this.--41.243.210.79 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. The comment on the article's talk page (that members of the group are the sources) does not particularly inspire confidence that the article's content is attributable. -- Black Falcon 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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