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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading[edit]

Alphabet to E-mail: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Very few Google results, none of which are indicative of a book which is notable on its own. Should maybe be merged into the currently nonexistant article for the author. Rampart 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is a little thin and sales-like but the book is listed on some sale sites and seems notable. [2]. meshach 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the book is notable and with reliable sources such as Amazon, this article just needs an expansion as well as a cleanup. Terence Ong 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of Information An Amazon.com listing is not a reliable source. It's not that hard to get - whether through vanity publishing or other means. Still there after a year (yes I've emailed Amazon about this - twice. Nothing happened.) Bwithh 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge to stub as per nom There is no substantive claim made in the article that this book is encyclopedically notable. There are numerous authors and books - most of them academic - on the history of the English language, the effect of new media on language, styles of internet communication etc etc etc out here. Not every one of these is encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not a book catalogue and having a listing on online bookstores is certainly not evidence of notability. What needs to be shown is that this book is regarded as "smarter than the average bear", so to speak. Amazon.com sales ranking is currently above 1.02 million. This does not rule out that the book is influential, but the Amazon listing is not a persuasive argument in favour of such an assertion. No prejudice against merging some of this content to a stub for Naomi S. Baron, although whether she passes WP:PROF is a matter for later debate (Baron does not have the profile of say, the British linguist David Crystal). Bwithh 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Merge to what stub? Make up your mind. Delete and merge are mutually exclusive. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "/" means "or". Also see nom. Stub can be created Bwithh 13:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, looks like a nice little book with reviews in professional circles but not a very notable work. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, not sure this meets WP:BK and the article is in pretty bad shape but Worldcat shows that this book is in many university libraries which is indicative of some interest. However, it's important to remember that database listings such as Amazon's are not reliable sources. Yes, they confirm that the book exists but beyond that they are of no use since the book description is most likely written by the publisher (not reliable because of conflict of interest). What would convince me is some indication that the book has been cited as reference often enough to merit a mention here. Pascal.Tesson 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree as above. --PremKudva^Talk 10:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pascal.Tesson and professional reviews mentioned. They just need to be included. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the notability test --Orange Mike 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per a conversion table for Amazon rankings [3] a sales rank of 1,000,000 out of the 4,000,000 books for sale would indicate about 3 sold every 500 days. Was it ever relatively popular, like a ranking of above 100,000? I could not find any published reviews. But I would take a look at it if I saw it in a library. Edison 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just because its on amazon doesn’t mean its notable Fledgeling 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The deletionists are arguing either that its not high enough on amazon, or that an amazon listing is meaningless--two contradictory propositions. Serious book, importuant publisher, likely to be of interest to WP people. DGG 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, published book, reviewed in notable publications. Needs references, but they are available. Proto::type 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, non-vanity book by well-known publisher. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We're not a book directory. Books that change the world in a meaningful way maybe merit an article. Catalogs don't. --Improv 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Simeon Jackson, delete Eyre and Wilson. Majorly 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Eyre[edit]

Nicky Eyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:BIO as hasn't played a first-team game for a professional team. For this reason I also nominate his team mates Glenn Wilson (footballer) and Simeon Jackson HornetMike 01:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. HornetMike 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Simeon Jackson as he played for Rushden & Diamonds 17 times when they were in League 2, when R & D were a fully professional team. As for the others, a weak delete.Daemonic Kangaroo 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Aren't Rushden & Diamonds still full-time pros despite relegation to the Conference? (Although that would still not make the league fully professional, there's at least three or four semi-pro teams in it). - fchd 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wilson and Eyre only per WP:BIO.Catchpole 07:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jackson, weak delete of the others. WikiGull 09:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Woops, re: Jackson. My mistake. Re: the other two, whilst Rushden are presumably still professional, the Conference isn't as standard. As they've only played for them in the Conference, and don't have any other League appearances, they fail WP:BIO. HornetMike 12:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rushden and Diamonds are Conference North but professional. Many teams in the lower Scottish Leagues (SFL 2 and 3) are both semi-professional and have lower crowds. I think this should stay. Gretnagod 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Eyre and Wilson, weakest keep possible for Jackson, as I don't feel League 2 players to be notable enough for a standalone article on Wikipedia. --Angelo 12:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Simeon Jackson, he has made appearences in the Football League, a professional league, which is worthy of notability. -- Mattythewhite 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jackson - and Delete the others Kingjamie 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Rushden & Diamonds are still fully-professional, as is 75% of the Conference Superlinus 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - So we're keeping Conference players now, are we? Blimey. HornetMike 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All R+D are still a professional club, I really dont see the harm in allowing fans of the smaller professional teams to make squad navboxes. Thousands of people go to see teams like R+D every weekend and its not like Wikipedia is short of space.King of the North East 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki, since that's already been done. --Coredesat 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing for pike[edit]

Fishing for pike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as nom. Article reads like something which should be on an uneditable enthusist's website or a fishing wiki. Offers no information as to the subject's notability and does not seem to follow the manual of style. Seems to be a perpetual target for spamming. This is simply not the kind of article for a free encyclopedia. If a more appropriate sister project would be a better location, Transwiki. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is original research (since it's not cited well) and is a how to. -- Mikeblas 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever relevant info is left to Pike (fish) after a MAJOR overhaul. Right now it reads like a Field & Stream article, but once all the POV and "how to" garbage is removed, there actually seems to be some decent content. PS: this article has been around since 2002, and this is the best we've got? Wavy G 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki or delete as a how-to, which Wikipedia is not. MER-C 04:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. JIP | Talk 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to pike. How to fish it should be in that article, not outside. --Fred McGarry 10:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Transwiki to WikiBooks and leave link in Pike. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - merging this kind of stuff would simply disrupt a perfectly good article on pike, which are more than "things that swim around waiting to be caught". --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wikibooks. It sounded like wikibooks material the moment I saw the title. Confirmed by the article. Dolive21
• Delete As per Elaragirl. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article is a how-to guide. -- Whpq 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's original research and how-to; by no stretch of the imagination encyclopedic. --Orange Mike 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article is not fit for an encyclopedia. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom, unencyclopedic fishing lesson.--John Lake 18:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki-After consideration I change my vote to Transwiki to WikiBooks.--John Lake 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I sent the delete voters a message and I would like to ask anyone who makes a comment after me to explain why they prefer not to transwiki if they vote to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. The content doesn't fit in with Wikipedia guidelines, but it would be a shame to lose it. Fits Wikibooks remit. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Now imported -- has been transwikied to wikibooks (b:Transwiki:Fishing for pike). In the future, if transwiki is urgently needed, please list on b:WB:RFI. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus to redirect/merge. Majorly 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Markle[edit]

Meghan Markle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable model who appears on a gameshow with a non-speaking role. This model has a few other credits on IMDB, but none appear to be substantial (that is, plot-involved) roles, mostly appearing as an irregular guest on series shows. Mikeblas 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Deal or No Deal (US game show). She appears to be one of 26 models designated to hold up cases. I'll remove the redlinks from that article as well - the last thing we need is someone coming and filling them in. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete per Dolive21. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) opened the case at 02:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC): redirect and fold into Deal or No Deal (US game show).[reply]
• Redirect and merge to Deal or No Deal (US game show). Terence Ong 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If I found this on new page patrol I would tag it for speedy deletion. A redirect would be confusing, as she does not belong in the article for Deal or no deal. Dolive21 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. and not other work of note to base an article on. -- Whpq 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kesse Wallace[edit]

Kesse Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show. The contestant was eliminated fairly early, and didn't go on to do any notale work -- she's now just another struggling fashion model. Mikeblas 01:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1. Not notable on her own. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. 15 minutes are up. meshach 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable reality TV reject. MER-C 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not enough notability for an article of a reject. --Terence Ong 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Per reasons stated above.--SUIT 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Nothing that would be useful in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1. Dolive21 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Whpq 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom nn-notable, non winner contestant on a reality show.--John Lake 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mindmatrix 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beirut Spring[edit]

Beirut Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is on a blog with no notability and no verification. There is no press that has featured Beirut Spring, thus it violates WP:WEB. Diez2 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - there is nothing to redeeem it. LittleOldMe 12:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, there was a short mention on German chanel 1 TV in a program called Weltspiegel, but then again, that does not acertain notability- only that somebody noted.Rough 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mansonite[edit]

Its been three years since this article was started, and after all that time we've yet to receive any reliable sources for this article. It also reads much like an over-glorified dictionary definition, failing WP:NOT. Of the two external links provided, one is for Encyclopedia Gothica (not reliable) and the latter is a BBC article which does nothing to support the existence of this neologism. My suggestion would be to delete as unsourced original research. RFerreira 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dahn 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It really doesn't matter how long the article has been lacking good sources (I've seen pages tagged with notability since 2004), but it does fail WP:NOT, so delete this sucker. Diez2 02:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 10,200 Ghits, so it should be sourceable. Lack of sources is not presently a deletion criterion. The article goes into more detail than a simple dictionary defintion would, so does not fail WP:NOT, as claimed. dryguy 02:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cite the speedy deletion criteria, not the regular deletion criteria. Try again. --Dennisthe2 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, it's a proposed criteria, and the point is that it is failing to muster consensus. There is no regular deletion criteria that says lack of citations is grounds for deletion. If there was, the majority of Wikipedia would be up for AfD. The closest existing regular deletion criteria I can find to support those who want to delete this, is that unverifiable articles should be deleted. Since this term has 10,200 Ghits, it may be verifiable. If someone wants to argue otherwise, I'm all ears. dryguy 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What? Lack of sources can well be a valid deletion criterion, if the article cannot be transformed into something verifiable by the close of this discussion it can and should be deleted. RFerreira 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiability is a criterion for deletion. Simple lack of sources is not currently a guideline for deletion. If I'm wrong, then cite the guideline that explicity says this and I'll change my vote. If you want to argue that Mansonite is unverifiable, you should do so, and lay off the spurious argument that lack of sources is a criterion for deletion. dryguy 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, which is not really relevant here. My reasons for deletion are clear and I'll stick with them, thanks. RFerreira 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clear, but contrary to guidelines. dryguy 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the last time, speedy deletion has nothing to do with the Articles for Deletion process. Stop citing policy that has no bearing on this discussion. Danny Lilithborne 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced the talk page, not the proposal (it isn't policy). If you read through the comments, you will see that there is not a consensus that lack of citations is a criterion for deletion, speedy or otherwise. There is no relevant policy to cite, simply because there isn't an existing policy that states that lack of references is a criterion for deletion. dryguy 13:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The page is up for AfD as "unsourced original research", not for lack of citations. See the criteria for deletion for more details. Lack of citations is grounds for putting a banner that says there are no citations for the work. Your policy cite still has no bearing on the discussion, and you've been asked by Danny above to please stop doing this. --Dennisthe2 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ignoring my point. 10,200 Ghits is likely to be evidence of the existence of external sources, which might well show that the subject of the article isn't OR. There may be parts of the article that are OR, which is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. dryguy 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Now in some articles it might be that the sources exist but haven't been added - given that it's been three years, this seems unlikely here. If someone finds a reliable source for mansonite in future, they can always add a new article based on that. Mdwh 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Just H 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Almost a Transwiki. Almost. --Dennisthe2 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism with little to no sourcing. Danny Lilithborne 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Per above--SUIT 05:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a subtype of Marilyn Manson fan? Almost BJAODN, except it isn't funny. Besides, we had some mansonite in our kitchen and it was really hard to get out. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per above. Kukini 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even though I've contributed to the article. Although I certainly believe that everything in the article is true, unfortunately, it is very hard to find documented sources for these kinds of things. Although I believe that the information in the article deserves to be on Wikipedia somewhere, perhaps as a segment of the Goth subculture article, AFAIK the term "Mansonite" is not even in widespread use-I can rattle off a half-dozen alternate terms for the same thing which I've heard both on the Internet and in local scenes, whereas I never heard "Mansonite" until I came to Wikipedia. The behaviour/stereotype described in the article is not limited to Marilyn Manson fans, either. Perhaps a more useful, similar article can be created in the future. --Halloween jack 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep Lots of google hits. Seems to be in common usage in some groups, and the article provides useful insight into that aspect of the culture. Per proposal at WP:ATT it could probably be sourced with less reliable sources than we would require for most articles, too, which might make some sources become available. JulesH 09:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong keep The more I think about this, the more I feel we shouldn't be deleting stuff based on a lack of sources, when a proposed policy change that looks likely to succeed will make the sources we do have acceptable. JulesH 09:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC):[reply]

What policy change is that? If you mean WP:ATT, that still requires "reliable, published source". If anything, I'd say that policy strengthens existing policy, and would be all the more reason to delete this article. Mdwh 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if WP:ATT becomes policy, the "Encyclopedia Gothica" would seem to be what it calls a "questionable source". The BBC link doesn't contain the word "mansonite" at all. Demiurge 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Yes, Encyclopedia Gothica may qualify as a "questionable source" (although I'm uncertain; it seems to have an editor independent of the content creators and to require a minimum standard from its articles, but as to what fact-checking processes they employ it is hard to tell), but I feel this particular source would still be usable on this article despite these reservations, due to the exception for subjects "where professional sources offer shallow coverage". I don't think there are many professional quality sources on attitudes between different subsections of the goth subculture. JulesH 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Encyclopedia Gothica is probably about as questionable as the Jargon File - even if the JF has been around longer. It kind of becomes one of those things that are questionable only because it's something that documents particulars of a community. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not having sources is not a reason for deletion. Reliable sources not existing is. The first needs cleanup, the second is a violation of WP:V. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. dryguy 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable evidence that it exists as a term outside the article creator's head, in which case it's a neologism and/or Original Research. --Orange Mike 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The term does exist outside the author's head (it's not rare in the goth community as a disparagement) but this is stuff for a slang dictionary, not an encyclopedia; at best, it rates a small mention on Marilyn Manson, but not sure it rates even that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator. Linuxaurus 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The term certainly exists, but it's already mentioned in Goth slang, and I'm not sure what else we can say about it that would be notable and verifiable. Mdwh 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian National Vanguard[edit]

Romanian National Vanguard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The entire article is obvious fascist propaganda copied from the official site (very likely, buy the very same person who created that site). There is no notability to speak of: the name will show on google searches only once outside of the wiki article (twice, if you count a post on a "Stormfront White Nationalist Community" thread...). The Romanian-language version of the name gives... no links whatsoever. It looks like they are only gathering followers in this manner, and wikipedia should not be helping them achieve the notability needed for them to have a wiki article... I mean, if you ask for someone to balance the text, but you would have to find someone who has heard of them or cares about them enough to criticize them. I could just as well create my own couple of "Vanguards", and start wiki articles on them. Dahn 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fascist cells with only one proud member that don't even have a connection to the nation their name would imply that they're based in are not notable in any way. Of course the Romanian name gives no hits, it's one guy in Michigan.
• Delete Aside from the article making no assertion of notability, the organization makes no sense. If I'm reading this correctly, it was founded by some unnamed man, who is not accepting, nor has not accepted, any new members from its inception until the present. So basically, it's not an organization, but ONE guy??? Wavy G 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You create an article once you have notability; you don't create an article to generate notability. As an aside, how did you happen to choose the name of Romania for your inane project? Couldn't you sully some other country, like Lilliput or Oz? Biruitorul 02:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. A particularly ludicrous (if obnoxious) "one man and his dog" "let's hold our party conference in a phone booth" outfit. --Folantin 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not because of notability (which is, remember folks, not policy) but because of the complete lack of verifiability. Cynical 12:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. (If there's only one member, how does it have a vice-president?) It's interesting that the World Union of National Socialists website does list this, but under Romania, not USA, so perhaps they've been hoaxed as well!. Emeraude 14:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One man who believes that the jews are ganging up with the commies to come and get the whites is not notable. Dolive21 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete solidly per nom and Biruitorul.--John Lake 19:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough for listing. Linuxaurus 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely vile. Non-notable advertising. Moreschi 21:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete TSO1D 20:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berg-Munch[edit]

Berg-Munch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a "prominent" Scottish/English/Irish family. Hmm...A little vague? No notability and no verification. Diez2 01:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The author used the word "prominent," which means absolutely nothing, except that it can't be speedy deleted. Wavy G 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, can't be that prominent if our article is the first google result. WP:VAIN. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Sure it can. Saying the word "prominent" without explaining why something is prominent does not equate to an assertion of notability. Serpent's Choice 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article does not cite reliable sources WilyD 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator. Linuxaurus 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Not really specific, and don't see how it can be improved.--SUIT 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. DrKiernan 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Bryan[edit]

Betsy Bryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about Betsy, who is best known for leading an excavation crew somewhere in Africa. It would probably be better if she was best known about her Johns Hopkins employment, but there is no verification on that. Diez2 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Source or delete. MER-C 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article already cites a Johns Hopkins University page identifying her as holding a named professorship. I added some books that she has written and some other references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Good work. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --- RockMFR 00:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TT's good work as usual. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per MER-C's request, it got sourced. --Oakshade 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mindmatrix 03:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stick It Comic[edit]

Stick It Comic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recreation of previously deleted Stick It! (comic). Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Should be tagged with db-repost if it was a recreation. Warn the author about the 3RR rule. Diez2 02:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as repost. MER-C 02:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discuss possible merging on the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 11:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashgrovian[edit]

Dictionary article (and the etymology) that should belong in WikiDictionary. Diez2 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. It stands for improvement, as far as noting what constitutes Ashgrovian. --Dennisthe2 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to be a unique style with regional notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I'm no architect, but if this is a distinct style of building with definable qualities (as it seems to be at the moment), then it seems notable enough. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum, I've never done the image-uploading thing before, but if it will help move this beyond the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" argument, I've got a good enough idea (courtesy of Google and a whole series of photos I don't want to try to get copyright details of) of what this looks like to find an example and upload a photo thereof. It's the sort of thing this article will need anyway, so it can only help in the long run. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Fred McGarry 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge - May be more appropriate to merge as a section highlight on the vernacular architecture and/or Ashgrove, Queensland articles. I've placed a note on the apparent creator's talk page giving him/her a heads up that this is up for discussion. --Keesiewonder 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with either Architecture of Australia or Australian architectural styles or most likely, Australian residential architectural styles. Notablility established Here. This is clearly a recognised 'style' in Australia. The article in its current form is very stubby though and a merge with either of the above articles seems appropriate. The 'dictionary article' rationale doesn't really bear close scrutiny, the article is much more than a definition. Popularity is discussed, the relationships of the parts are examined and we are told how the buildings were adapted, that's encyclopedic in my book (if too stubby for an article on it's own). If it's significantly expanded in the next seven days (more than just adding a photo though) then I'm a keep. If the decision is keep then the article needs renaming to Ashgrovian style. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given references as it seems to be an architectural style of some significance. Possibly rename as per McGinley. Capitalistroadster 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G1). Renesis (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better Books[edit]

Better Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:LOCAL. This is borderline nonsense about a bookstore somewhere in London. Diez2 02:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and tagged as such. This article is nonsense because there was no bookshop of that name at this address. The confusion is with 84 Charing Cross Road based on a bookshop with a different name, Marks & Company. TerriersFan 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per TerriersFan. Even if there were a bookstore at the address later, it wasn't individually notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Might I add: we're not the Yellow pages. Pascal.Tesson 07:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xwrits[edit]

Xwrits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted on A7, undeleted per request. Concern is WP:SOFTWARE. - crz crztalk 02:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep with waffle, but solely on account that it's in Debian Sarge. --Dennisthe2 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, seems like a decent enough article. But why is the software's name spelled Xwrits instead of Xwrist? JIP | Talk 08:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting article, and notable.Dolive21 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Did google search and found it in MIT's database as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkoldyk (talk • contribs)
• Keep as per above. –– 30sman 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cool, but not yet notable, web content. This isn't the place to spread the word about new software, only to write about it once it becomes more entrinched. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 04:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created the article. Of course I think it should be kept. :-) --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erdős–Bacon number[edit]

The concept is total original research, only discussed in jest by unreliable sources. --SPUI (T - C) 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm compelled to agree. The two numbers composing it have acquired a wider recognition, but this is just a silly synthesis of the ideas for comic effect. Deco 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOR broken here. Just H 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates both WP:NOT and WP:NOR.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Totally useless, as per Deco. — flamingspinach | (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. Sr13 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOR vio, if one can call it "research". Belongs in WP:BAD - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - appears not to be OR for Wikipedia, but an in-joke among mathematicians. The article has a reference to the Daily Telegraph so it's not completely made up just for here; and the table is interesting information not available in this format anywhere else, which is always a plus for me. But we lost Yellow Pigs Day, so I don't suppose we'll save this one either. Newyorkbrad 06:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article has been around for a long time and is interesting. I've greatly expanded it with what seems like "original research" to someone who hasn't actually read the policy WP:NOR. All "research" is taken from known sources and compiled, just as any encyclopedia article would be. If people want to use a stricter definition of OR and scale this back, that's fine. If people want to contribute specific criticisms about the tone or layout of the article, those criticisms can be addressed. But the actual reasons given for deletion are perplexing. Are Bacon numbers used in any fashion other than "in jest"? Why not delete that article, too, or any of the thousands of other articles chronicling humorous phenomena? And I've yet to see someone describe how this is OR or what the sources lack in terms of reliability. The sources are IMDb, the Erdős Number Project, and the like, which are very reliable, and the references as to notability are the The Daily Telegraph and Boing Boing, not exactly obscure sources themselves. Please, base your recommendations on actual policy and actual facts, not on a knee-jerk reaction to an article about a phenomenon unfamiliar to you. Calbaer 06:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. You convinced me, though I still think this is a pretty stupid idea. — flamingspinach | (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few mentions of a joke does not equal "notability". Only a few people are mentioned in the articles, and so the choice of who else to include is original research. Maybe it should get a few sentences in Erdős number, though I still doubt that it's any more than a minor joke that got a bit of press coverage. --SPUI (T - C) 07:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The choice of whom else to include is made by the definition of the term. Synthesizing primary and secondary sources is not OR; it's what writing an encyclopedia is all about. Again, it's hard to see what part of WP:NOR this supposedly violates. And clearly if notability were the main concern, it would have been mentioned in the initial AfD call. The concerns were NOR and RS, and the article satisfies both of these. Calbaer 08:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or merge with Erdos number. Danica McKellar made a circular reference to our article so that's not really a citation. Even with Mayim Bialik doing neuroscience, it's not likely to expand quickly. --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Erdos number, I don't know what on earth this thing is talking about. Not notable in its own right imo. Terence Ong 14:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting and I think notable. Dolive21 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sourced, ecyclopaedic. Goofy is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Calbaer.Trystan 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Enough is enough, and the only sources are unreliable. Voretus^talk 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we get a better reference for the Daily Telegraph? Like what day it appeared? Morwen - Talk 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be nice — I don't know myself — although note that Simon Singh's website should be a reliable source in and of itself, given that he is a top popular mathematician. Calbaer 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find a link to a Telegraph article (I don't have a searchable database handy), but both the article and Singh's site only assert that the reference was written for the Telegraph; not that it was published there. I'd call Singh a science writer rather than a mathematician. Still, I think this one is a weak keep. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was published in the Daily Telegraph.[4] Not sure if that link will work for everyone, but it should turn up using their search engine.--Trystan 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good, thanks for the link. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - A trivia enough notable, but at the edge of enclyclopedicty, - Cate | _Talk 18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Not a great deal to be found, but what I find on this is often of high quality. It's in a scholarly article on the Small World Phenomenon put out by the University of California, San Diego--T. Anthony 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • T. Anthony, that seems to be a poorly-researched undergraduate paper, because it misuses "Erdos-Bacon number" where it clearly means "Erdos number". --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Surprisingly, this does meet WP:RS. --- RockMFR 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Although the sources may be reliable I think this I see no signifcant support for this being a notable widely used neologism. Yes, it is out there but I would say fairly non-notable. No dispute about the various Erdos-bacon numbers just about the notablility of the subject. Gets 334 ghits with many wikipedia mirrors. Kind of weak. --Nick Y. 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I would merge into Erdős number or Bacon number if either had a clear claim. But as it is, better to leave it in one place and have them both link here. I see no reason why WP cannot explain jokes; and there is no reason why anyone interested in the handful of examples should have to regenerate the figures from the separate articles. Septentrionalis 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is reliably sourced. However, this topic isn't notable nor encyclopedic. This is the equivalent of something made up in school one day for math professors, one of which happened to convince someone to write about the subject. VegaDark 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made up in school one day by some professor who then convinced someone to publish it is often notable - convinced someone to publish it is the most obvious sign of notability. WilyD 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you implying that everything published is notable? VegaDark 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm stating that the argument you present is flawed. I'm not sure that's there's a generic criterion for notability (nor is lack of notability a generic criterion for deletion) ~ but published isn't something that can be tossed aside when asserting non-notability with no real evidence. WilyD 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're saying that if something is published it is assumed notable until proven otherwise? That's a rather naive assumption. I've seen tons of published things that aren't notable or encyclopedic enough for an encyclopedia. VegaDark 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not suggesting you assume anything. Instead of assuming notability, why not evaluate it? I'm only suggesting being published is an indicator of notability, and one that can't be easily thrown aside (especially when no real argument of non-notability is made) WilyD 20:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did evaluate it, hence my original "vote". I determined it to be not encyclopedic enough for inclusion, despite being published. VegaDark 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • On what grounds did you make that decision? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I thought to myself "If a (non-paper) encyclopedia could choose to include this or not, would they?" Common sense told me no. VegaDark 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, no matter how well it is referenced. --- RockMFR 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:N, those two criteria are the same. A topic is notable by the definition there "if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That is met here.--Trystan 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Erdos number per flamingspinach. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable, OR. Jonathunder 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Amusing, interesting, and perhaps unique in its tying together of history, statistics, and cinema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.252.10.203 (talk • contribs)
• Comment I've made the references more obvious for those thinking that this is OR on non-notable. The topic has been the subject of BBC radio, a leading British newspaper, a notable blog, and blogs by a notable persons. Again, any advice on improving the article would be appreciated, but please don't vote it down on aesthetics rather than policy. Calbaer 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with either Erdos number or Bacon number. (in fact, Bacon number itself should be merged with Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but that's a discussion for another day.) Spebudmak 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : I heard of this concept outside of WP, thought it was notable hike395 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Newyorkbrad and Septentrionalis. JamesMLane t c 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. OR claims have been debunked. As for notability, it's notable enough. --C S (Talk) 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Newyorkbrad and Calbaer (though without the vehemence). --bainer (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per VegaDark. WMMartin 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a funny and interesting curiosity and I enjoyed reading it. I think it's a fine piece of trivia and should be kept. KDevaney 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rain Day[edit]

Rain Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trivial, unsourced, unlinked Robotsintrouble 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per all of the above. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though the term is not entirely disputable the lack of links to the article may not justify it to stay.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Here is evidence that the holiday is real, at least. But I don't think it's really significant enough for an article, and would at least need a substantial rewrite not to look like a poster for the holiday. The part about "rain day" as opposed to "rainy day" seems trivial and not necessarily true. Heimstern Läufer 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, despite being real. Not notable enough to have an article. Terence Ong 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the festival can be mentioned in the town's article (after considerable rewriting), but notability for one town's festival is not established.-- danntm ^T _C 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn notable, unsourced. The first draft consists only of a description of a rainy season or monsoon time and could have took a redirect. The edits added about the festival are poorly written and seeing that it ends with a drunken lifeguard smells like vandalism and is magnum unencyclopedic, nor does the festival seem notable enough for keeping in any event.--John Lake 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Rain Day is an accepted definition as used by the UK Meteorological Office and features in their Meteorological Glossary (ISBN 0 11 400363 7}, as an accepted measure in climatology. See AMS Glossary. Article could definitely be improved however. Yorkshiresky 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ISKCON devotees by status[edit]

List of ISKCON devotees by status (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable list of members. Wikipedia is not a directory. Sfacets 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: most list members appear notable, which leads me to believe that the list itself is. -Drdisque 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is a catagory for ISKCON, having a list as well, though adds slightly more detail with the person's status, isn't required. Also, ISKCON has over 100,000 members - Being a list of "ISKCON devotees by status" it certainly could get very long. Chopper Dave 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to List of notable ISKCON devotees. I hope there isn't another list that isn't by status out there, but we only need one. --Dhartung | Talk 07:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge notable members to ISKCON Sfacets 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article seems against the basic aims of Wikipedia - I can't see that it suits any purpose more than a simple category list would. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep An organized list of notable members in a relgious succession. If a list of bishops can get in, so can this. DGG 06:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per original nom. WMMartin 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per CSD G10. Xoloz 05:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi[edit]

Epsilon Chapter of Beta Theta Pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable frat house Bm gub 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -Drdisque 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per about 100 different criteria: the article asserts little-to-no notability, and could fall under db-club. The first half of the article is an admitted copyvio (though I guess this is not speedyable, as the article has existed for more than 48 hours). The second half is nothing but a blatant attack. -- Kicking222 04:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 05:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sheehan[edit]

Sam Sheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-Notable youth amateur driver -Drdisque 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN driver who fails WP:BIO's criteria for sportspeople. To the closing admin, don't miss the redirect, Sam sheehan. -- Kicking222 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable, fairly succesful in his field.Dolive21 15:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, 5th place in a small amateur series is not notably successful. -Drdisque 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Kicking222. --Simonkoldyk 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being the best 11 year old kart driver in a London suburb is not notable. If he's good enough, he'll qualify for an article for real in a few years. In the meantime, NN. WMMartin 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems like a pretty average racing record. Not notable. Glendoremus 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hethersett Middle School[edit]

Hethersett Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not show notability for this obscure small school, fails all Wikipedia notability tests. wikipediatrix 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nominator. Jacob1207 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is nothing more than a directory entry. The school's name also gets only 100 total hits on Google, and most of these are also directory listings (if not even more trivial mentions). -- Kicking222 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hard to see notability here. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to find any independent non-trivial sources with which to expand this article. No assertion of notability. Directory entry. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and even the more-inclusive WP:SCHOOLS. Would not be opposed to a merge/redirect to the village's article, though there's no significant information here. Shimeru 07:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shimeru. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SCHOOLS and per previous debates.--WaltCip 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Article was originated by the Chair of the Governors, so possible COI. Emeraude 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Redirect or mergewith Hethersett - useful addition to that article. Emeraude 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:SCH, more like a directory. Terence Ong 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another sad little school article which can barely speak its name. Denni ^talk 00:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hethersett. Article fails WP:SCHOOL, with little near-term prospect for expansion. There's no viable content to merge, but there's no valid reason to delete the article without changing to a redirect. Alansohn 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the village. redirects are cheap. But otherwise agree with sentiments given by Shimeru, Terence and others.JoshuaZ 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hethersett article per Alansohn. Redirects are cheap. Use them. Silensor 07:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hethersett. -- Satori Son 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hethersett. There is nothing notable in this directory entry masqurading as an article - it gives the school's name and location. It then gives the age range the school serves and its location, both of which would be better in the Hethersett article. The address and headteachers' names are not relveant to an international encyclopaedia. Thryduulf 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very obviously written by some middle schooler who goes to that school. 2Pac 04:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fail to see why that is a reason for deletion. JoshuaZ 23:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harris (Pennsylvania politician)[edit]

Mark Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsuccessful candidate for State House in PA. Non-notable person otherwise. Holds no other office. I actually supported the guy and sent him a few bucks. But the reality is that he won't be running for any notable office until 2008 so maybe in two years, he can be brought back. Montco 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and don't bring him back until after he's elected to something. Candidacy is not, in itself notable. Fan-1967 04:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Thousands of people run for their respective state legislatures every two to four years. That fact alone does not make them worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia Jacob1207 04:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, failed candidates are usually non-notable, unless they made something very well known or assert notability before. Terence Ong 14:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being an unsuccessful candidate does not notability make.-- danntm ^T _C 18:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Island Elementary School[edit]

Cedar Island Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not show notability for this obscure small school, fails all Wikipedia notability tests. wikipediatrix 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Osseo Area School District 279. Just a directory entry and nothing more. -- Kicking222 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Kicking222. Denni ^talk 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Osseo Area School District 279. I'd love to include a merge, but there is no useful content to move over. Article fails WP:SCHOOL with little prospect for expansion in the near term. Alansohn 05:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't developed an opinion on this one yet. The school appears to be a Blue Ribbon school [5] but I can't find any other detail about the school at all. I would suggest making of note of the ribbon in the school district article. Can someone else possibly find more sourcing about the school? JoshuaZ 05:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Osseo Area School District 279, which I've already done. Care to close this or should we drag this on forever? Silensor 07:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Viridae^Talk 07:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F.F.F Los Unicos[edit]

F.F.F Los Unicos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No clear assertion of notability; no sources per WP:RS and WP:V. Doesn't seem to meet the sports inclusion standards. Crystallina 04:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - I'd say this falls under CSD-A7. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP: RS, V, NPOV and AWW. Sr13 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy red-card per Nuggetboy, 5-a-side amatuer street football team inherently NN. Article doesn't even say what country they're in, no way to verify anything. Tubezone 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per db-club. Hell, I'm not even sure if we're talking a group of real or fictional players, but it doesn't matter either way. -- Kicking222 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - early shower for this one, I think. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Roese[edit]

Neal Roese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-29 04:08Z

• Delete. Wikipedia has a guideline WP:AB about autobiography. This article may violate it, since the user is named Nroese and this is the only article s/he has edited. The danger with being too permissive here is of course an escalating self-promotion phenomenon. --IslandGyrl 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:COI. Just misses a speedy recommendation with its unsourced assertion of notability. B.Wind 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't consider WP:AUTO or WP:COI to be deletion criteria in themselves, but if the book he'd written had been reviewed seriously I'd consider whether he met WP:PROF. I don't believe he does even with this particular book. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Autobio + no serious indication that he meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 07:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ennis National School[edit]

Ennis National School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Significant enough to warrant a page? Sad mouse 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't appear so. Unless anyone can show that it is, delete. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added a few points to the article, including a link to media coverage of the campaign to rebuild the 100 years-old school. --Mereda 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite Mereda's impressive job of sourcing, the article still makes no real claim to the notability of the school. In its current state, fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and, ignoring the ridiculous age criterion, WP:SCHOOLS. Do not oppose a merge/redirect to the appropriate school district or locality article. Shimeru 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shimeru stole my answer. Denni ^talk 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WIthout an official policy or guideline, there's no basis for stating here what is and is not "notable". I think the article as it stands now is sufficient for inclusion based on the aforementioned sourcing and the obvious historical nature (over 100 years old) of the place. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's located in Europe, where 100 years isn't that much, historically speaking. Certainly not enough to call it "obvious" without any supporting sources. And while there are no formal guidelines in place, it remains true that the article does not assert notability. Regardless of what may or may not constitute notability, it's general consensus that a claim of such is required. Shimeru 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some (like me) would find stating that it opened in 1897 is stating notability. Some would even find simply stating that it is a school is stating notability. Until a guideline/policy exists, we're all talking in the dark here anyway. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is WP:NN. This school has not been shown "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Shimeru 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight a bit, it should be pointed out that WP:N is a "disputed" page that is directly part of an ongoing RFAR and arbcom has expressed concerns over its status [6]. Regarding your comment about sources, it is clear that you have not looked very deeply into press coverage of Ennis. In fact, Ennis has been at the heart of a national scandal involving sanitation and dangerous health conditions in the schools that has been extensively covered in the Irish press for years. --JJay 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about any sources. I merely pointed out that none of them were cited in the article, and subsequently that the school cannot be called "obvious[ly] historical" without such sources. As for your source... I suppose "one of the most dilapidated schools" in the area could be considered noteworthy, on reflection. It's not the sort of accomplishment I tend to look for, personally. As for WP:N, it may be disputed, but it is not (yet) rejected, so, to the best of my knowledge, it remains a guideline. Shimeru 08:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Shimeru actually meant WP:N not WP:NN which is what the dispute centers around. JoshuaZ 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My link and comment directly concerns the disputed WP:N. For further info, see the WP:N talk page and the entire arbcom case. --JJay 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With Mereda's efforts at expansion, sufficient additional sources have been added to demonstrate compliance with WP:RS and WP:V necessary to satisfy WP:SCHOOLS. Alansohn 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and WP:SCHOOLS which this article now meets, verifiably. Silensor 07:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment above. Article needs to be developed to include the health scandal, the threatened teachers strike over the issue and the church's windfall from the rezoning of a new site for the school (registration or pay required to view articles but google news gives an idea [7]). I shouldn't have to remind people that we do not delete articles just because they are stubs. Finally, to answer Sad Mouse's question: yes, this school is more than significant enough to merit a page--JJay 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay presuming someone adds the sources. JoshuaZ 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete on the absence of sources at this time, which is when we are commentingDGG 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks to me like every single sentence is sourced. --JJay 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons cited above. WMMartin 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RHaworth 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wowza Media Systems (Media Server Company)[edit]

Wowza Media Systems (Media Server Company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-29 04:32Z

• Speedy delete as spam, corporate spa Wowzamedia (talk · contribs) created the article. So tagged. MER-C 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. You would think that living in the same city as they supposedly work from, I would hear something about them if they were notable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge to List of films by gory death scene. Merge has already been performed and the other article is an entirely appropriate place for the material. If that article is not appropriate then a second AfD nomination is required. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've undeleted the article and redirected to the page where material was merged, so the contributors are attributed as the GFDL requires. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movies that feature head explosions[edit]

Movies that feature head explosions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-encyclopedic list. Not only is this a list of dubious value and unlikely to ever be comprehensive, it also suggests having similar lists for every other type of death or similar event depicted in a movie. Next we'll have List of movies that feature talking babies, List of movies that feature bears, etc. Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists: To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies that feature talking babies and List of movies that feature bears would be far too large to be useful compared to this one. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really...hmmm. There are 10 movies listed for exploding heads, how many times more can you come up with that have talking babies? :-P —Doug Bell ^talk 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. My head explodes at the cruftiness of this list. MER-C 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and User:MER-C. Additionally list does not conform to the Manual of Style -- wtfunkymonkey 05:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Amusing, but a new low for listcruft. Slightly leaning towards BJAODN. —Cuiviénen 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I feel it should be added as a section to List of films by gory death scene, which technically already covers a few of these.--Tenka Muteki 06:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Kinda makes me think that's another list that ought to be deleted, but if it is to stay, then the merge would make sense. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Your head a splode. Danny Lilithborne 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as comprising an indiscriminate collection of pointless information. Vizjim 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not required. --PremKudva^Talk 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Fred McGarry 10:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep exploding heads are uncommon enough to have a short to the point list about the topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the nom that this would set a precedent. Also, looking at the list the criteria is shaky -- it includes a head being blown off by a shotgun and that happens in a lot of films and that's not a head "Explosion". Plus there are a couple of examples that appear to be speculative or at least uncited. 23skidoo 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yay for WP:OR. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:OR, listcruft, nonsense. Terence Ong 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I am the creator of the article and I think if anything, it should be merged either to List of films by gory death scene or exploding head. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so that was actually my first article. I was unaware of any list rules, but now I know. Lemmy12 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that List of films by gory death scene had already been up for deletion, but survived. Lemmy12 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, in fact.--Tenka Muteki 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Explode the head (delete). Seems a bit obvious, actually. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmaintainable crufty OR list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been merged, I don't see how this debate should be continued further. I'll edit the newly-added section in List of films by gory death scene to be in alphabetical order. Lemmy12 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marakay Rogers[edit]

Marakay Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable candidate. Ran once for PA office as a green in 2002. Wasn't on the ballot for governor in 2006 even though article claims she was a candidate. Holds no other office. Montco 04:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 05:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable candidate, don't see any reason for this candidate to have an article here on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 14:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Featherman[edit]

John Featherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable candidate. Did not even appear on GOP primary ballot in 2006. No other notable factors. Montco 04:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 05:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable candidate, don't see any reason for this candidate to have an article here on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Wofford[edit]

Dan Wofford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsuccessful one-time candidate for congress. Nothing else suggests notability. Montco 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable candidate, don't see any reason for this candidate to have an article here on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, are we going to start deleting the pages of every candidate that lost a Congressional election? That could be quite a task if we're setting such a precedent. User:Bruceberry
  • Comment You don't think its a poor precedent to have pages for every single candidate under the sun whether or not they are notable? I have no proposed deleting every single losing candidate. Some individuals are indeed notable outside of their failed candidacies. Some are not. Montco 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being a major-party nominee for Congress is notable, ipso facto. JamesMLane t c 08:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 05:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infra-progression[edit]

Infra-progression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Original research with no non-Wikipedia Google hits. Not a dog 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:V. MER-C 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as article clearly indicates it is OR. WMMartin 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - Author basically admits it is original research.Glendoremus 20:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cotobo[edit]

Cotobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nom - Prod & Prod2 removed without explanation; Prod read: This topic is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. "Cotobo" has not been mentioned in any third party sources, and there also isn't any proof that "Cotobo" isn't a password-stealing program. There aren't pages for the several RuneScape bots that exist. As a minimum, this should be merged with Conquer Online; it certainly doesn't rate its own article Rklawton 04:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per mer-c meshach 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no google hits from useful third-party sources, clearly not notable. JulesH 10:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Avillo[edit]

Phil Avillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsuccessful one-time candidate for congress. Took only 33.5% of the vote. Non-notable otherwise. Montco 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep- Slightly notable, he got some votes... Could be worked on, though.--SUIT 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Getting "some votes" would be a rather extreme loosening of notability guidelines. I think its generally prefereable that candidate wither win an election or make a big enough stink during an election that he gets tons of press coverage. Montco 07:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Now that the election is over, this entry seems to have very little valuable information. If we don't want to delete, maybe we could even redirect to another page dealing with the Pennsylvania 19th district congressional elections for 2006? Lois Murphy, who ran in PA's 6th district, did way better than Avillo, and she no longer has her own page. Instead, trying to get information on Murphy will redirect you to the Pennsylvania 6th congressional district election, 2006 article. --WayneNight 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Losing political candidates seem to represent an interesting challenge for the notability policies. By virtue of running in an election, a person will inevitably garner some media coverage. But, will it matter in five years? So, I think losing an unremarkable election is insufficient grounds, in and of itself, for inclusion. I might have suggested merge to Todd Russell Platts, but almost the entire contents of this article are already there. -Kubigula (ave) 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Romanelli[edit]

Carl Romanelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable political candidate, briefly ran for Senate in PA, never even got on the ballot. Nothing else in background suggests notability. Montco 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pennsylvania United States Senate election, 2006. —Cuiviénen 06:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable because of the unusual circumstance that an opposing party tried to get him on the ballot. JamesMLane t c 17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That can be covered briefly in the election article. It doesn't make Carl Romanelli notable that Rick Santorum tried to use him to save his skin. —Cuiviénen 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pennsylvania United States Senate election, 2006, given that what's in there is warmed-over campaign-speak and stuff that belongs in the campaign article. Non-notable beard, otherwise. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep Alex Bakharev 09:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Foundation for Civil Liberties[edit]

From speedy. It is a marginally notable fund, I have heard its name a few times. Besides it might be involved with Alexander Litvinenko poisoning Alex Bakharev 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The organization is mentioned by legitimate news sources. [8] [9]. It also has 518+ Google hits [10],some of which are encyclopedias [11]. The organization appears to be quite wealthy and somewhat influential. Let it stay. --Ineffable3000 06:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's no Amnesty International but it easily meets notability. Article should be expanded and sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Vedova[edit]

Strong Delete - Completely devoid of almost any information; valueless; poor grammar and spelling ("Espressionism"); what is "corrente"?; no links or explanations of terminology; etc. 216.194.4.255 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this nomination was found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Foundation for Civil Liberties. It's now in the correct spot. MER-C 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, Emilio Vedova was not only one of the most significant figures of Italian avant-garde art of the immediate post-war period but also an artist whose continuing experiments with a wide range of diverse techniques and media exerted an enormous influence on subsequent generations of Italian artists. Demiurge 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for God's sake! I have added a link to his bio at the Peggy Guggenheim Collection's site. I may add some more material, but anyways the guy is certainly notable. Just to give an idea of his fame and prestige, Luigi Nono composed an "Omaggio a Emilio Vedova" in 1957. Stammer 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Terence Ong 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, all of nom's reasons are now invalid. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not see any valid reasons to delete presented.--Nick Y. 00:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42...delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of flashbacks on Lost[edit]

List of flashbacks on Lost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is unencyclopedic fancruft and does not present information better than List of Lost episodes or individual character pages. -- Wikipedical 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADDED FLASHBACK SUMMARIES TO ALL EPISODES - WORK IN PROGRESS --SilvaStorm

No that won't solve the issue...and that is strange logic seeing as nobody has presented lack of material as an argument. It's the nature of the material, and adding more doesn't make it better...quite the opposite in fact. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, check user pages of yours, mine and Spawn Man - somewhere there they mentioned lack of material! I have added details to every flashback episode. --SilvaStorm

No, you're confusing lack of material with uselessness, (from before you added the details in any case anyway...). As I said before, every episode has a flashback, so you may as well see the list of episodes list. Whatever the case, the article is fan cruft & its contents can be seen in any of the episode articles... Spawn Man 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft. Information already present in other articles, such as the list of episodes, anyways. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Redundant, not in keeping with Wikipedia, etc. Better suited to lost.wikia -- PKtm 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, quickly before it multiplies. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a really useless list. JIP | Talk 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notice for deletion was removed by SilvaStorm and replaced with a Underconstruction label.PremKudva^Talk 10:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I restored the AfD notice on the page. Rafy 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lost. Flashbacks do not warrant their own article. Please keep Wikipedia's high standard by not creating pages that cover minor issues. --Fred McGarry 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Those flashbacks are already covered in the individual episode articles. I don't see why we need a list of them. What would it be used for? = Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination... also interesting to note when I asked for some justification for having this article on the talk page yesterday, SilvaStorm blanked my request... guess that meant he/she didn't have any.--Isotope23 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, another piece of fancruft, and non-notable, unencyclopedic material. Does not warrant an article on Wikipedia, isn't there a Lostpedia? Terence Ong 15:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lumaga 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --theDemonHog 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Lost WIKIA thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Simonkoldyk 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are multiple flashbacks in every episode of Lost, making this unremarkable. --Canley 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator. Linuxaurus 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Unnecessary in my opinion, and as stated above, it's unencyclopedic.--SUIT 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OMG! Delete! - Ummm, the whole show is a flash back. Shouldn't there be an article called "Shows on Lost that actually show present events"? It would be a stub too... ;) As per nom... Spawn Man 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 01:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: redundant information - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lost. Just H 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Scoles[edit]

Paul Scoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable candidate. Ran unsuccessully for Congress in 2004. Nothng else to suggest notability. Montco 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this article is deleted, the title is a plausible misspelling of Paul Scholes, and should redirect there. Oldelpaso 09:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Paul Scholes. Vizjim 09:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because he fails WP:BIO. Sure to the redirect, as well.--Kchase T 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/withdrawn. Well, the articles definitely need to be improved, but I'll take all of your words for it that the book and person are notable. —Cuiviénen 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Riesman[edit]

David Riesman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

with The Lonely Crowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Author and lawyer, doesn't seem to quite meet notability requirements. Tagged as unreferenced for over a month with no edits whatsoever, but really the lack of references makes it difficult for me to see notability. Google and Amazon don't turn up much. Also nominating The Lonely Crowd, the article on his book that reads like a book review and has also been untouched for a while. Neither seems to manage notability, though I'd be happy to see otherwise. —Cuiviénen 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The book was influential and popular in its day; the title has been re-used as well. --Orange Mike 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks like he was quite notable, espeically from his book. [12] (ref inserted into article) --Oakshade 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep- This book is a biggie in academia - I am too lazy to find citations at the moment but I assure you 3/4 of my classmates in different disciplines in college had to read this thing.--Dmz5 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]