< April 11 April 13 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was dead : delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead rappers[edit]

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

Here we have a list of dead rappers (obviously). Normally, I'm apprehensive about AFDing recently-created articles...however, almost all the content here is copied and pasted from the various articles from them (a violation of the GFDL), and what isn't is unsourced and possibly unattributable. There's nothing to be merged since all the information is either unsourced or copied verbatim. Coredesat 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them died because they were murdered and not all rappers are American. - Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. All arguments on both sides taken into account. Metamagician3000 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Fenton[edit]

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

Technical nomination only. IP editor 203.10.224.58 (talk • contribs • count) started the nomination process with the following comment: "(AFD tag...Individual in non-notable other than being killed in Iraq...this page only serves as a memorial)" Eastmain 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The United States lost over 407,000 soldiers in World War II. A very substantial portion of them (99.9%) do not have their own articles. We've lost over 2,000 soldiers in the current war. Does every one of them deserve a page? Dead solderies are a tragedy, but they are only remembered for a few weeks (by the media) and then we move on. I understand the desire to celebrate and memorialize every life lost in the war. But, this is not the place for that. I think we need to keep in mind, that if he were still alive, he probably would not have a page. The fact that he died put him in the news for a couple of weeks. That does not substantiate his notability. I think we should focus on the long term. As sad as it is, he will not be remembered 50 to 100 years later by the general population. --Cyrus Andiron 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they do "deserve an article", if sources exist. Your argument was effectively that sources didn't exist, I was just pointing out that they do. I think people should be aware that deleting these articles does go against the letter of WP:BIO. Like I say below, I understand why people take that position, but I don't personally feel it's necessary at this point. --W.marsh 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In which case every single soldier ever who is KIA is notable. That's a lot of people. EliminatorJR Talk 14:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's a good thing Wikipedia doesn't have a size limit. --W.marsh 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment W.marsh suggested that the sources he provided asserted Mr. Fenton's notability. I checked over the 14 sources and this what I found:

1. [3] - New Jersey newspaper article. Basically, noting that a local man was injured in combat. (May 6, 2006)

2. [4] – New York Post article that notes his death. (May 10, 2006)

3. [5] – New Jersey newspaper article that talks about a protest rally for the families of deceased soldiers. (Aug 17, 2006)

4. [6] – Another New Jersey newspaper article. This one is about how his father is now serving as a public speaker. (Aug 10, 2006)

5. [7] New Jersey newspaper article that notes that people from Mr. Fenton’s hometown are remembering him on the 1st year anniversary of his death. (May 29, 2006)

6. [8] - Web page unavailable. The synopsis indicates that it is about another deceased officer. (Sep 27, 2006)

7. [9] - North Jersey website. Talks about his death and funeral service. (May 14, 2006)


8. [10] North Jersey Website - Another article that discusses his families protest of the war. (Nov 20, 2006)

9. [11] New Jersey Newspaper article that is the exact same as the source above. (Nov 20, 2006)

10. [12] New Jersey newspaper article that talks about the protests that occurred on the anniversary of his death. Very similar to number 5. (August 17, 2006)

11. [13] New Jersey newspaper article that talks about the 1st anniversary of his death. Mentions the protests much like #10 and #5 did and that his father is a speaker now (Aug 10, 2006)

12.[14] – Same article as #7. (June 29, 2006)

13. [15] – New Jersey Newspaper. Letter to the editor, written by Mr. Fenton’s mother. (June 4, 2006)

14. "matthew%20fenton"%20iraq&img=\\na0021\2590465\14359648.html|14 Article about another Matthew Fenton who was killed in 1949. (December 3, 1949)

The only nationally recognized puiblication that mentions Mr. Fenton is the New York Post. That article mentions the fact that he died and discussed the events surrounding his death. All of the other sources are from the New Jersey area where Mr. Fenton lived. I believe that he may have notability there, but not in the rest of the country. Additionally, nothing has been written about Mr. Fenton since September of 2006. Only two of the sources provided directly deal with Mr. Fenton's death and subsequent funeral (#1 & #2). After reviewing these sources I reassert my opinion that Mr. Fenton is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. He is mentioned only once by a reputable non trivial source. The local newspaper does not carry much weight as they tend to cover all deaths of people from the area. --Cyrus Andiron 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geeze, that comes off as rather trite. See above where I explained why this information is verifiable and notable, specifically so no one would cite that little page (which I wrote parts of). I guess I should have repeated myself loudly for people who just look for keywords and pounce. --W.marsh 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I examined the sources in one of my posts above. There is only one non trivial source, please see the examination above. The other 13 are articles were created by local newspapers, the sort of coverage you would expect out of the death of someone who lived there. Additionally, the following comes directly from WP:ATTRIBUTION: In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. The key word there is mainstream. The New York Post is the only mainstream newspaper that cites Mr. Fenton. Therefore, there is only one non trivial notable sources that refers to him. --Cyrus Andiron 00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the more recent wording at WP:N allows for a single source to establish notability; however, the source must be significant and there must be corroboration of neutrality and veracity. This source might be a bit weak here. However, the synergy between the small national coverage and the more numerous local sources may be enough to put this over the border. --Kevin Murray 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is only one source. WP:N says there need to be multiple non trivial sources in order to assert notability. The other 13 remaining sources do not assert notability as they were local news coverage (to be expected in regards to the death of a resident) or did not deal with Mr. Fenton himself as shown above. --Cyrus Andiron 11:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see what you mean - the criterion I used was to ask whether, if he had not died, would his life have met WP Guidelines? And now, was there something about his death that was any more remarkable than every other soldier who was KIA? I'm not seeing it, I'm afraid. I don't wish to appear heartless - I admire all members of armed forces who are defending their respective countries, I am just trying to interpret the guidelines here. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Weaver[edit]

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

Technical nomination only. IP editor 203.10.224.58 (talk • contribs • count) started the nomination process with the following comment: "tag for deletion...only notable for having died in combat....this page is a memorial)" Eastmain 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vilno programming language[edit]

Vilno programming language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, when googled few hits come up, of those many are Wikipedia and it's various alternate languages, with most referring to a different subject matter entirely. PeteShanosky 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played in trilogies[edit]

List of actors who have played in trilogies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate information; Any actor who has starred in a trilogy. Or any actor who has played the same role (however small) in a trilogy. Or any actor who has played the same character in four films in a series (ie Lethal Weapon), because four films are a trilogy if you don't count the fourth film. Or any actor who has starred in six films in a series (ie Rocky), because that's a trilogy if you ignore the last three films.

Anyway, the point is, appearing in more than two related films is not significant enough to justify a list of actors who have done so. Saikokira 01:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 05:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abject (band)[edit]

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

Article doesn't assert any notability, totally unverified and unsourced. All google turned up for this band was the myspace, and the wikipedia article EMP 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the organized[edit]

Church of the organized (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Been tagged for notability for several months now. It's apparent that the notability will not be asserted. If the group is notable, this page should still be deleted so that a proper article can be started. Sources are entirely self-referential. The asserted "source" of the Church of the Subgenius website makes no mention of anything in this article. To summarize WP:N and WP:ATT are simply not met. i kan reed 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Rosvold[edit]

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

Has all the hallmarks of an autobiographical vanity piece.RJASE1 Talk 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yusuke Oeda pupils[edit]

List of Yusuke Oeda pupils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. As the intro says, a list of pupils who have been taught by Yusuke Oeda in the game of Go. Yusuke Oeda is apparently important in the game, but that doesn't mean his students, or a list of them, are. Saikokira 01:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional misanthropes[edit]

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

Highly subjective and POV list was apparently salvaged following the deletion of Category:Fictional misanthropes and Category:Fictional human misanthropes at the Categories for deletion discussion last December. All the same reasons for which the categories were deleted also apply here. Any list that includes Montgomery Burns, Bob Kelso (from Scrubs), and Godzilla is bordering on the ridiculous. Saikokira 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, no consensus to create a category straight-out. Anyone who wishes to proceed with turning it into a category is more than welcome to as a normal editorial action. If you do wish to do so, and are a non-administrator, please ask me and I'll make the text temporarily available to you. Daniel Bryant 08:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neighbours and Home and Away actors turned musicians[edit]

List of Neighbours and Home and Away actors turned musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First AfD

It's Original Research to combine two unrelated TV shows into one article this way. Also fairly indiscriminate, and innaccurate; some of these "actors turned musicians" were musicians before they were actors; some of them aren't even musicians, but pop singers; and some of these actors were cast members of other series before - why not list those shows as well?

I was interested to learn that Russell Crowe is "Male", so there is some encyclopedic information here. But seriously, this was nominated for deletion last year, with a No Consensus result, although the only 2 attempts at a "keep" argument I could see were "useful and interesting" and "appreciated by Australians". I think it should be deleted this time. Saikokira 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them aren't even musicians, but pop singers. Oh well. StAnselm 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so source this much-discussed phenomenon. Pending that, this fails WP:ATT, so I can be counted upon for a Delete.  RGTraynor  16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Yes, but these are the only two shows on the list that are currently still being aired! I could make up a category "current Australian soaps" if you like... StAnselm 06:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Except that this is an encyclopedia that shouldn't make reference to a "current" anything, because we don't use a "current" point of reference. It's hardly an article that can age well. zadignose 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If they're a notable phenomenon they'll have their own articles (and they do). This article simply isn't required - this is what we have categories for. EliminatorJR Talk 14:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason that shouldn't be done now as a matter of course.  RGTraynor  06:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by User:Anthony.bradbury

Dan Tamarkin[edit]

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

Useless Contribution ReTSeM 02:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (50 Cent album)[edit]

Greatest Hits (50 Cent album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (hot!) 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog house[edit]

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

Mostly nonsense and self-promotion; term seems to mostly appear on the web with respect to how silly this article is Jonathan Williams 02:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Convert to disambig by User:Vicarious per consensus. PeaceNT 15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Booty[edit]

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

Article is a glorified dicdef, it might need to be replaced with a disambig page afterwards (including a link to wiktionary), it's current content needs to go. Vicarious 02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess Diaries 3[edit]

The Princess Diaries 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's no evidence the film was even in pre-production. Crumbsucker 03:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Prasad[edit]

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

Unverifiable. Of the movies listed which appear on IMDB (Devdas and Kal Ho Naa Ho), Mr. Prasad appears nowhere in the credits. If these were minor Bollywood flicks, I could understand, but given that IMDB's credits for KHNH list parts down to "hot dog vendor", for example, this starts looking like some sort of hoax. Even if it isn't, though, we're still left with a biography with no sources and no verifiable claims of notability. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). EliminatorJR Talk 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HRH Princess of the Netherlands[edit]

HRH Princess of the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge to her parents pages: Non-notable bio. Baby girl born on April 10, 2007 doesn't seem to be notable unless she does something notable. Tat Meng 03:14, April 12, 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horton Edward Cooper[edit]

Horton Edward Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author per WP:BIO. Sounds like a great guy, though.RJASE1 Talk 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.amazon.ca/North-Carolina-Mountain-Folklore-Miscellany/dp/0930230183 http://www.townsendthepeacefulside.com/cadescove/cultrural_history/curtural_history.htm http://www.library.appstate.edu/appcoll/manuscript/find.html http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ollis/MISC-OLLISES/averycountync.html

That there is cruft in WP is not an acceptable argument for a race to the bottom by adding more cruft, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your links above to his books do not show him coming anywhere close to the WP:BIO guideline: "The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Pete.Hurd 15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I'll try and incorporate the info that is relevant to Avery County into the article if it is agreeable by all to delete the bio.Brian0324 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there is a relevant quote and reading list on Avery County, North Carolina, now.Brian0324 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason that could be argued for his notability (as he was obviously not famous) is that he wrote a definitive history of a county that has been cited by geneaologists and researchers for the last 35 years. It is difficult to speculate on how significant his body of work was, but if it were the difinitive history of Los Angeles - it might make the cut methinks.Brian0324 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • G-hits are just not an indicator of notability for a minor historical figure. He wasn't on a reality show, he was reality in building a nation. --Kevin Murray 22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's why I said "I looked at the sources," and not "I counted g-hits." Not one of the sources provided above is an article that discusses this person as its main subject, which is what WP:BIO calls for. The provided sources are:
  • an amazon.com page which says that the author's book is unrated by amazon and out of print.
  • an article about local history that cites the author's book as one of ten sources, but doesn't specifically talk about the book or the author.
  • a library catalog confirming that a copy of the author's book is held by Appalachian State University
  • a genealogy web page which I just can't bring myself to spend the next half-hour searching just to see if this author is one of the names in the family tree.
  • absolutely nothing else, and nothing that even provides any information to verify the accuracy of what's in the article under discussion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Black/White people[edit]

List of Black/White people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Similar lists and cats have been deleted: multiracial people, Multiracial Americans, etc. Also, the title of this one is more problematic and criteria harder to define. It was previously redirected/merged to the multiracial people list, but recreated after that list was deleted. Crumbsucker 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment didn't "List of multiracial people" just get deleted, and per consensus that the topic was inappropriate/too broad? So I don't think that moving there is appropriate. In fact, this article looks eerily familiar, perhaps an admin can verify if it is substantially different than that deleted list. Anyway, I generally support lists like this organized by occupation, but in this form, I'm neutral. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filipe Araújo[edit]

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. The article has a major COI issue; the creator's username is the same as the article subject's production company.RJASE1 Talk 03:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Web 2.0[edit]

Enterprise Web 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a buzzword with no meaning -- Nexaweb uses this term on their own entry, which I suspect is an advertisement itself. Then, this page reads "Nexaweb says...". This is not a commonly used term, with any real definition, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Klondike 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Kawabi[edit]

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

I don't see why this is particularly notable, and has indeed been tagged as lacking any assertion of notability for months. Also unsourced and unverified EMP 04:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Memory Will Never Die[edit]

The Memory Will Never Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable song, not released as a single, being used at WM 23 doesn't cut it. Killswitch Engage 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NiGHTS into Dreams... Cameos[edit]

NiGHTS into Dreams... Cameos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancruft. Nothing but a list of trivia. MSJapan 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The heck this isn't useful! It's very hard to find an acurate guide for all of Night's apperances. He appears in very popular games released by sega and for those of us who have marked childhoods by this wonderful game character would be exceptionally upset if anything happened to this page, either merge it with the other page, but do not delete it! I owe everything to Nights for teaching me to draw so that I could have a career in my life time. =)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molae Trench[edit]

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

Prod contested without explanation from submitting user. I can't find any evidence that this exists at all. As I said in the prod reason: "WP:HOAX or WP:N -- one or both. Anybody care to provide a source?" So, here we are. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete - no independent Ghits. Orderinchaos 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Disaster (TV show)[edit]

Destination Disaster (TV show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax. 1. Created by a user who did create another hoax article which has since been speedy deleted. 2. Nothing at Google. 3. No mention of the compere or channel which is a little bit odd. 4. No references. 5. No-one other than creator has made substantive edits since it was created in December. 6. I never heard of it. —Moondyne 04:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 00:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo Shopping America Trust[edit]

Galileo Shopping America Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A company that buys shopping centers, G search in quotes gets 600 hits, non-notable in my opinion. This is from a cleanup list from 2005 killing sparrows 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. A Traintalk 00:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut Butter Manifesto[edit]

Peanut Butter Manifesto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Topic is too trivial to have its own article. I feel it should either be deleted or merged with Yahoo!. JianLi 04:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep all. Majorly (hot!) 20:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Zaghab[edit]

Al Zaghab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Al Eisa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Al Khalil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Al Hamad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Al Sheikh Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Al Sheikh Saleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Al Zeitawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Abdul Jaleel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Al Sharei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malhis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreferenced articles about a Palestinian tribe and its clans. Given the low number of Google hits, there doesn't seem to be sufficient notability given the lack of any sources whatsoever. YechielMan 04:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are discussing the nomination and not the nominator here. The distinction may be subtle sometimes, but for civilised debate it is an essential one. Stammer 12:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, changed my remark slightly. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Ravenswing  16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATT is a proposed guideline, hence not a requirement. Still, lack of any sourcing here is a problem. Stammer 17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and stems directly from WP:V, which is copper-bottomed official policy, so let's not be needlessly pedantic. To quote Jimbo in this official policy, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."  Ravenswing  17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't agree that the solution for lack of sourcing is immediate deletion; however, the author has stated a lot of rather trivial facts without an assertion of notability. --Kevin Murray 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment cab's argument is valid , but I see another side of the issue . I will give with an example first. Wikipedia provides a substantial amount of information about the Somali Civil War, the clans and the personalities involved and various aspects of Somali history and culture. Much of that is unsourced. Still, on the whole, the information available conveys a vivid and complex picture, where a discerning eye can at least try to separate the wheat from the chaff. I regard that as a truly remarkable Wikipedia achievement. While I think that a strict application of WP:V is essential for "mature" topics (such as, say, Physiocrats or Foucault pendulum), its indiscriminate application to borderline situations would simply destroy value. Palestinian clans are, IMO, a notable topic. I agree that sourcing is a serious problem here, but dubious information is better than nothing. Stammer 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree, but I don't see sourcing as the immediate problem. I just don't see the assertion of notability at most of the pages. Why the topic is notable should be apparent to the reader. --Kevin Murray 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I did a quick search, Jammain is a village of about 6500 (according to the municipality website. Another website http://www.zaghab.com/ mentions in the "Family History" section that "Zaghab زغب ( Al-zaghabالزغب) is a family lives in the village of Jammaeen, a suburb of the city of Nablus in Palestine. It is a branch of Zitawi زيتاوي ( Al-Zitawi الزيتاوي ) clan.Zitawi زيتاوي ( Al-Zitawi الزيتاوي ) clan is an Arab Clan that migrated from Jerusalem to settle in the village of Jammaeen. Zitawi زيتاوي ( Al-Zitawi الزيتاوي ) clan consists of 8 smaller branches Zaghab زغب ( Al-zaghab الزغب), Al Hamad, Al Sharei, Al Khalil, Al Sheikh Saleh, Abdul Jaleel, Al Sheikh Ahmed, and Al Eisa. In total the Zitawi زيتاوي ( Al-Zitawi الزيتاوي ) clan form a population of around 2500." Therefore IFF one article is to be kept it should be Zitawi, since it is the "parent" clan. --Fjmustak 22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fjmustak, could you explain to us the rationale by which articles on family and clan names are excluded from the Arabic WP? It seems from my (ignorant) perspective an unusual restriction, so I'd like to find out something about the reasons. DGG 04:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article on Jammain, into which this info can be merged, would make some sense. But c'mon, folks, what if this was a bunch of articles based around a small village in Ireland? "The O'Traynors are an old family and some people say they've been around since the time of the Milesians." That's not remotely notable, however much Irish family conflicts might be abstractly considered important, and so far there's no evidence that these are either.  Ravenswing  14:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squirbage[edit]

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

Transwikied dictdefs, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested prod. MER-C 05:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 Guy (Help!) 08:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banana pie[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines - '"Banana pie" pontyclun' gets 6 google hits, and the article states that the sole source of info is from the group's myspace page. I wasn't sure if getting 10000 myspace plays in a year is an assertion of notability EMP 05:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bioinformatics Research Groups[edit]

List of Bioinformatics Research Groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No content of note, was a directory, no meaningful incoming links, JetheroTalk 05:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma McCune[edit]

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

does not establish notability, sounds like a bio for 10,000 others in the Peace Corps, Doctors Without Borders... Chris 05:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have made her more interesting here than she reads in the article, which doesn't stress the weight you imbue her with. We don't, say, have articles on spouses of politicians or military folks, unless notable in their own right, and the fact that she was mentioned in a book did not seem to have gravitas when I read the article. If as you say there will be cleaning up and improvement, I would be sold on it being a keeper, and would then withdraw the nom. Chris 06:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] - Perhaps these will do as sources?-EMP 09:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't mentioned in a book -- she was the subject of a book, one which was widely noted and may be filmed. Anyway, if there are no other objections perhaps we should move to close based on WP:SNOW. --Dhartung | Talk 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The duluth truth[edit]

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

Non-notable student newspaper. 66 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 05:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kapell Sheida[edit]

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

Non-notable reality TV show losers. Contested prod. MER-C 05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Hussain Bokhari[edit]

Shahid Hussain Bokhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated a while ago and kept based on ghits and citation rate, which are weak indicators of WP:N. Considering WP standards have evolved since then and this article hasn't, please discuss. Potatoswatter 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) BTW: See WP:PROF for the guidelines. Potatoswatter 07:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That profile isn't particularly notable because he hasn't done anything of note. The website I've never heard of and their profiles are apparently all circa 2003. They don't explain their process at all, and the whole site is rife with broken links & formatting.
We're WP:NOT a list of experts, even very good ones. The list of papers seem to imply he mainly tries different methods of implementing biotech algorithms on different kinds of computers. That's the kind of thing done by most CS academics just making a living.
This is the first researcher at my university I found on their list. It's MUCH LONGER, yet of dubious encyclopedic notability. Potatoswatter 07:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the guy is an IEEE fellow, a title "conferred only by invitation of the Board of Directors upon a person of outstanding and extraordinary qualifications and experience in IEEE-designated fields, and who has made important individual contributions to one or more of these fields." [31]. Stammer 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good - that's what the IEEE thinks of itself. So then what has Bokhari done? Potatoswatter 09:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See IEEE. Potatoswatter 09:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to assess his work, but his notability. See WP:PROF. Beside being widely cited, his IEEE and ACM fellowships are significant independent acknowlegements. Stammer 10:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given this article, what can we say about him besides his titles and list of publications? There is not enough here for a worthwhile encyclopedia article, and we still don't have enough on him. We have some independent sources that say he's competent, but little else. Competence != notability if we have nothing substantive to note. Potatoswatter 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to add information about why he was awarded his awards. I'm sure an expert in his area could write at much greater length about his accomplishments. But my overall feeling is that you're making up standards that simply don't exist for other parts of Wikipedia. The article for Mathieu Turcotte, for instance, doesn't explain why he won his olympic bronze medal; it is sufficient that he won them, it is a significant award sufficient to make him stand out among other skaters, and the sources documenting that award are enough to justify his WP entry. Similarly, although it would add depth to the WP article and would in general be worthwhile to add, I don't see that we need to explain why Bokhari was awarded his ACM Fellow and IEEE Fellow awards in order to use them to justify his WP article: it is sufficient to state that he won them. They are notable awards the possession of which makes him stand out above the vast majority of professional computer scientists and electrical engineers. These societies don't award these fellowships except for good reason, and I think the article should explain what those reasons are (as I have now attempted) but an insufficiently detailed article on a notable subject is not to my mind a valid reason for deletion. —David Eppstein 22:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awards highlight notable accomplishments. Turcotte won his medal in speed skating in 2002; that is absolutely essential information.
Why do you assume I don't know about Bokhari's field? I arrived at this page because I am working on parallelizing graph algorithms. Maybe I'll even read one or two of his papers. However the page appeared when I searched for "Tera MTA" and so far it's irrelevant. What's there right now amounts to copy-and-pasted cruft, not the sort of summarized information I expect from an encyclopedia, and I consider it pollution. As an expert, this page is confusing and just doesn't belong.
To answer your other question on notability, there are millions of electrical engineers and, although they're the top 1%, thousands of IEEE fellows. The award is notable but giving it to a specific person is not. The order of magnitude of recipients is larger than Wikipedia can keep up with. But that's not my point so much as the importance of content, and the unlikelihood of finding anything generally interesting to say about the guy. His research is relatively unfocused. The notability guidelines aren't to be interpreted to mean he "deserves" a WP entry to go with his awards. Potatoswatter 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here, courtesy of Potatoswatter above. Stammer 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Thanks, I missed that. I struck out my conditionals in my above comments. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the objections raised are specious: that one Palestinian scientist writes an art. about another means the same as if one US scientist writes an article about another--such a comment shows POV, the probably not realized as such.
the comment by someone here in a related field, that he doesn't think him notable, is a good illustration of why we use outside criteria, the acknowledgment by the profession as a whole . We do not judge scientific notability by what we think personally of the quality of the work, no matter how expert we maybe. This is personal POV, & I cannot account for the reason. DGG 00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful info to its readers, not to assign credit. I concede that he may be notable, but this article needs work to explain what he's notable for. I want to see: Bokhari invented X. Every engineer, particularly academics, invents things constantly. I have not evaluated his work and cannot judge it, but the person who posted the article should've. Potatoswatter 01:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 06:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 303[edit]

Section 303 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a particularly passionate group of Nashville Predators fans. No sources cited in the article, and there doesn't appear to be any non-trivial coverage of the group in independent, reliable sources. Fails the WP:ORG notability guideline. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Addiction Disorder[edit]

Attention Addiction Disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. After a fair amount of researching, I couldn't find anything to verify any of the information, and currently is unsourced EMP 05:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta CFM[edit]

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

Hoax?? -- cannot find any (alleged) reports of this (alleged) organized crime outfit. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 06:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and lack of relevant sources. --Chris (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James A. "Jim" Jones, Jr.[edit]

James A. "Jim" Jones, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

was speedied tagged, editor contested with a hangon, non notable, nothing found per google, failure of WP:N, reposted content so to Afd Dakota 06:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was problem solved - deleted. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of unsolved problems[edit]

Lists of unsolved problems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft. There is no information here except links. Possibly a WP:CSD#A3 candidate (a rephrasing of the title). --Chris (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Original research (as a concept and as a synthesis, not all individual facts are OR obviously) and POV. The latter can be corrected, but not the former. Fram 13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The War of Turkish Presidential Elections[edit]

The War of Turkish Presidential Elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is an exact copy-paste of early created article; Turkish presidential election, 2007 Must.T C

it is not the same article.if you read.it is getting better.--3210 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Things are not to be seen in Turkey--3210 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It may be history part . But there is like a war in turkey--3210 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Re-Formed[edit]

Christianity Re-Formed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. The article refers to a "movement" but it seems to be just a website. StAnselm 06:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE♠This is an article for MySpace.com. Not hereShoessss 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that it's more than a website. Emerging church movement article exists if there is any verifiable qnd notable material about this to be added to the 'pedia, which at this point I doubt. Herostratus 17:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus, merged by Pottatoswatter, redirected (we may not delete after a merge for copyright reasons). Fram 14:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pin Khotchathin[edit]

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

A gruesome death but no claim to notability that I can see. killing sparrows 06:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs) 07:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

:Should we have a page for each civilian killed in every genocide? In every ethnic cleansing? In every war? Indeed that's not a viable option and pursuing it may be counterproductive. Herewith I change my stance to Neutral. Still, I have learned something through this article. Stammer 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. DGG's point appears quite strong to me, so I switch back and reinforce my previous stance. Changing one's mind repeatedly is still better than ignoring valid arguments. Stammer 15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just merged it (into context) at South Thailand insurgency#Escalating violence. Sad to see how small that is, but there ya go. Two references. Delete. Potatoswatter 18:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icy Hot Stuntaz[edit]

Icy Hot Stuntaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musical group which happens to be an internet meme. Fails WP:MUSIC as a musical group. Fails WP:WEB as an internet meme. Fails WP:V, which is non-negotiable, for having no sources. A previous AfD said keep, but that was a year ago, consensus can change, and all of the keeps were simply "I've heard of it!" which is not an argument to keep. - Chardish 06:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Di[edit]

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

Brief page about a non-notable company. Was this added to Wikipedia to advertise the company? Robinson weijman 07:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Ben Kennedy[edit]

BIG Ben Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but asserts notability in the form of external coverage. Looks like trivial local coverage to me, but you decide. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Per IMDB records, this TV work appears to be extra's roles:[41] Alvis 07:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor who linked those enteries appears to have been the subject himself, so we can't really trust whether he verified them or not before posting them on his personal website: [42] I second your sentiment - I just get a bad feeling about the motivations behind this entry. Alvis 02:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyke tyke[edit]

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

The article is glorified dicdef - if you cut out all the unverified, unsourced stuff, you've got a textbook dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. Also, lacks multiple reliable sources EMP 07:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep John254 02:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (third nomination)[edit]

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group. Most references are from blogs. There does not appear to be much coverage from notable sources. Pablothegreat85 08:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom from religion party[edit]

Freedom from religion party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 08:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have looked at the original user name that created this article which virtually proves it was created by someone with a conflict of interest. I've also taken a look at the contribs, and it seems the user is a single issue editor. If an admin could close this as soon as possible, i'll go off and have some fun cleaning up the mess the user's caused. -- Thewinchester (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of "Sideways DS" Games[edit]

Completely unnecessary way to list games. It is just a different way to play the game; it's nothing unique enough (like an add-on or peripheral) that would require a separate list. (It would be like a List of Nintendo DS games that use the microphone.) So few games require the player to tilt the DS (there are three listed) that this list would remain a stub and could not be expanded further. It is far, far better to discuss the uniqueness in the respecitve articles themselves. hbdragon88 08:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, I also noticed List of Nintendo DS Wi-Fi Connection games, List of Nintendo DS downloadable games, List of PlayStation Portable Wi-Fi games and List of PlayStation Portable Gamesharing games. There may be others I didn't see. FrozenPurpleCube 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all notable features, I wouldnt consider holding the DS sideways notable, Mattyatty 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider using it sideways any less notable than using the wireless features or microphone is myself. But heck, I would probably say they should all be merged. (In fact, if you look at List of Nintendo DS games it already has a tag for wireless games, making that page unneeded too). Is there some reason why it shouldn't be merged? FrozenPurpleCube 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's quite possible this list will be expanded as more games are release (and as more entries are added, note the age of the page, it's very recently started, so it could be very incomplete). I think it's better to just list the information as part of the main DS games list myself, but it is otherwise quite valid. FrozenPurpleCube 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the INFO is certainly valid, but it's not notable or exhaustable enough to have its own page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That might be why I proposed a merge, don't you think? FrozenPurpleCube 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still feel this is a case for deletion. Sideways Nintendo DS games are a function of novelty and not of playability. Playing the game in "book format" means that pretty much all of the DS's buttons are eliminated as functional methods of input. I imagine that there's going to be less than ten games released in the "sideways" format throughout the entire span of the Nintendo DS's life, which means that an article on games like that is not necessary. I'd support this as a category (something like "Vertically Oriented DS Games", since "Sideways" is a strange term to use), but not as an article or as a list. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 02:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I am saying: Merge. Merge to List of Nintendo DS Games. This means add a tag like [SW]] to any games that are held sideways (or V, or whatever is decided as appropriate). This would be even easier than a category and far more useful. Is there something unclear about what I'm saying, because it seems people are completely missing it? FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just propose the new tag at Talk:List of Nintendo DS games directly? I don't think you need to wait for the outcome of this AfD for that. Dancter 17:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that someone else is supportive of developing a category option. Regardless of what happens with List of "Sideways DS" Games, I still think there should be a category. If you have any additional input on the matter, I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#new handheld video games sub-categories. I'm willing to go it alone if I don't get any responses, but I'd prefer getting some approval and/or suggestions beforehand before I proceed. Dancter 17:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am probably going to add it, but I figured I'd try to get people's perspective on the issue directly. Sadly it seems to have gone past people's minds. FrozenPurpleCube 21:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikuláš Petrašovský[edit]

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

I'm decidedly unconvinced that this person/group is actually significant in any way. While there's a decent number of references listed, they all seem to be mass listings with Petrašovský mentioned only in passing (although I'll freely admit my knowledge of Eastern European languages is non-existent). As such, delete --Pak21 08:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Geographic nit: Slovakia is located in Central Europe, Eastern Europe is Ukraine and Russia. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment WP:VERIFIABILITY says that: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Basically, this article does not adhere to this policy. I'm not sure wether that qualifies it for deletion or not. Perhaps some sources could be produced in English so that we could better understand where the information is coming from. --Cyrus Andiron 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes assume good faith and by doing so we have multiple sources that look at least more professional than an AOL homepage. But this is substantially written by a single purpose user with the only other contributions from unidentified users. Seems a bit spammy to me. But are we setting as major precedent here and where is th risk? --Kevin Murray 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it would be better to delete it for now and wait until something better and more complete appears on Slovak Wiki and then to translate it here. Pavel Vozenilek 22:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DarkPole[edit]

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

The article itself hurts the eyes, but the question is - is the band notable? Author name suggests WP:COI, it's not sourced, and I can't find much bar the odd blog but as I'm wary of WP:CSB, here we are. EliminatorJR Talk 10:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment under a different name, presumably? This article has existed since 25 March. EliminatorJR Talk 13:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes - Darkpole. I would therefore suggest salting both this article and Darkpole. EliminatorJR Talk 13:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt Ah, the penny drops, the article was up twice. Probably best it gets salted as well as deleted (the other Darkpole has been). A1octopus 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with List of rail accidents. Can an editor experienced with this topic please merge the relevant information from the article history (after I turn it into a redirect). Thanks. Majorly (hot!) 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rail accidents of major historic significance[edit]

List of rail accidents of major historic significance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am concerned over the term "major historic significance", because that is not a well-defined term which can easily discriminate between what should go in and what should not. The article does try to give some examples (led to a major change in working practices, or a key example of a particular type or cause of accident) but it does not solve the problem, again the terms "major" and "key" are subjective. I would actually say that most fatal rail disaster leads to some sort of change in practice, and all fatal rail accidents are of historic interest, that is why we have articles on them. This particular list is little more than a subset of List of rail accidents which provides all the information here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Manor Training Center[edit]

Brock_Manor_Training_Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I would have prod'd this but I am not certain if this should be deleted or not. What does everyone else think? Postcard Cathy 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete's Eats Cafe[edit]

Pete's Eats Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable (or locally-notable) cafe. Article provides no references other than the cafe's website, explains no claim to notability. Mikeblas 14:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a couple of mentions from The Guardian: [44] ("one of the most famous mountaineering hangouts in Britain"), [45] ("another Snowdonia legend"), [46] ("If you want to experience climbing culture at first hand"). These are obviously only mentioning the place in passing, but I think they suggest some kind of notability within the climbing world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrabbits (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Which references? The one that says "many climbers stop off here for a mug of tea", or the one that's from their own website? Sorry, but that's not multiple independent non-trivial sources; I can find just as much coverage of my local (totally non-notable) transport cafe. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from The Guardian: "Just down the road at Pete's Eats, one of the most famous mountaineering hangouts in Britain..."[47] That reference. --Oakshade 01:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC) (see correct link here --Oakshade 02:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The only reference I can find in your link is "But I don't have much time, so instead opt for a cup of tea at Pete's Eats, another Snowdonia legend". If you have that link add it to the article. --Bduke 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Wrong Guardian link. see this one. 12th paragraph down. Thanks for pointing that out, Bduke. --Oakshade 02:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kilaécŭs[edit]

The_Kilaécŭs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
Speedy delete - I actually forgot to put it on. And by now, its almost empty anyway, except of a vague threat. MadMaxDog 13:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that not ALL entries within wikipedia are sourced by more than one website. Apparently not ALL of our FREE earth is as sourced as you:)Princess Elisabeth Vantar 03:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some entries are not sourced at all. This is something to be changed, not used as an argument for your own case. You have not proven notability. If you'd like your article on Wikipedia, please provide sources like books, newspaper articles etc... as references. Ad hominem won't make a good case. MadMaxDog 06:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, PLEASE! If you all feel that it should be deleted, then do it. we do not NEED this page. It does NOT matter that you think that we are a hoax, because all that matters is that WE ARE NOT! We are everything that you have seen. We are no different than the other Gypsies. PLUS: We use the letter "Ŭ" becasue we wanted to. We are not a Celtic tribe, we are an AMERICAN GYPSY TRIBE, but we ARE NOT A HOAX. LOL! Now that's funny. Princess Elisabeth Vantar 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elisabeth, we do not CLAIM you are a hoax. However, this is to be an Encyclopedia, and, partly because of complaints about Wikipedia's quality, we require references for our articles. It is YOUR responsibility to prove, by reliable sources, that your group is notable. I had articles deleted myself about stuff that I cared about, but could not reference properly. It smarts, but its necessary to demand references, for otherwise, this would end up just becoming a heap of "stuff" instead of an Encyclopedia. MadMaxDog 00:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We Gorgios have a similar concept; we call it "going on vacation". Tearlach 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eapos, editing another person's comments on a talk page to fit your views is a major taboo on Wikipedia. I realise that you are angry now and say you will not use (edit) Wikipedia anymore. But if you insist on such behaviour, this may well become fact in another way (ban). MadMaxDog 10:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALL I WANT TO HAVE MY ACCOUNT DELETED. CAN YOU GET MY ACCOUNT DELETED? I DON'T WANT ANYTHING *TO DO WITH WIKIPEDIA EVER AGAIN! I WANT MY ACCOUNT DELETED! I REPEATED MYSELF TO MAKESURE IT GOT THRE YOUR THICK SCULL. I CAN FIND EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN ON HERE...EXCEPT HOW TO DELETE MY ACCOUNT! TELL ME HOW PLEASE. Another thing: How long do these conspiracies stay on here? Does wikipedia store them forever?
Unfortunately, you can't delete your account once you've made an edit (see WP:U#Deleting_your_account) but you can ask for your userpage to be blanked out and locked. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to iridiscenti's answer - this is, among other reasons, to prevent vandals from returning later with a 'clean slate'. This is not saying that YOU are a vandal - but it is part of the reason why there are normally no exceptions to this rule of accounts not being 'truly' deleted. MadMaxDog 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for 'these conspiracies' as you call them - they stay on here 'forever' (or at least for the forseeable future) exactly to make conspiracies impossible. If we had treated you unfairly, you could at any point appeal to administrators or to various other groups on Wikipedia tasked with this for a review what happened. At that point, this page will come in handy to recreate what happened. MadMaxDog 12:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? NO! This is the second time I have been mistreated like this, the other was not even my fault! I am done with wikipedia and its cheapskate "administrators" who use their "power" to bully others. I want nothing to do with it any longer! Princess Elisabeth Vantar 18:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not suggesting you come back (you do not seem to wish to, so suit yourself) nor are we suggesting you contest this deletion (you would be exceedingly unlikely to succeed). We are just trying to be reasonable. MadMaxDog 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FUCK YOU! YOU ASSWHOLE MOTHER FUCKER! I eat people like you for breakfast. Oh by the way...can you block me please? I would like to be banned. :) Have a wondrous day you piece of shit! Thank God that he firgives, or else you would be screwed...along wiht most over-zealous administrators on wikipedia. :] Princess Elisabeth Vantar 01:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, I totally agree with a block for you. You earned it, if for nothing else than again trying to tamper with talk pages. Also, a ban might actually make you stop coming back, as you insist you prefer not to. MadMaxDog 04:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, guys, please calm down. Let's concentrate on the article at hand, rather than spewing invective. No need to assume bad faith, either about this article or about each other. GracenotesT § 13:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by User:NawlinWiki, and closed by non-admin --Sigma 7 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Bazilian[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 11:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N-Dubz[edit]

N-Dubz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band; the three sources don't establish notability, and it's unclear that anything could. No releases (they're rumoured to be "on the verge of signing with Polydor"). Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was disambiguate, the standard editorial process when any one of the possible targets is not exceptionally more notable than the others. That looks like what the original intent of this page was anyway, but without WP:MOS. This closing does not preclude other editorial decisions (like redirects) in the future, but the disambiguation seems most useful at this time. — coelacan — 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bage[edit]

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

I fail to see the rationale behind this page. A redirect to the Brazilian town should suffice. If any of the persons listed are really notable, they should have their own article instead. Egil 12:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial Don Imus quotes on women and minorities[edit]

List of controversial Don Imus quotes on women and minorities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete and transwiki to wikiquote per WP:NOT. Moviedone 12:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See response to this point below Ecostaz's "speedy delete" comment below. Noroton 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It won't be speedy deleted. The AfD can be closed early though, then the page deleted, but I don't want to close it just yet. Perhaps another admin will feel differently. Prodego talk 01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for being an "attack page", it should be kept in mind that this is a fully footnoted list of quotes by Imus himself; the only "commentary" is a description of the list as statements that have been called denigrating to women and various other groups. How can the article attack someone by listing that person's own statements? I suppose statements could be taken out of context, but if that's the case, the article could be fixed, and the overall context that Imus says he was making these comments to get a laugh on a radio show is something that has been added to the Don Imus article. This objection is groundless. Noroton 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some clear thinking is important here, and important for the record: In the law, truth is an absolute defense against the charge of slander and libel. Except for two quotes (involving Ifill and 60 Minutes), as noted in this list article, neither Imus or anyone else has argued whether or not the statements were made. The list simply asserts that the statements were made and does not comment on them other than to say that they have been called denigrating to various groups, something that is also not disputed (even by Imus) and is verifiable. Information about what has been made of these comments by others is in the main Don Imus page. Noroton 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable? Then what were those editors of TIME magazine thinking when they put this guy on the cover last week? Probably the same thing as the editors who put this controversy on the front pages of The New York Times, Washington Post and other newspapers. Probably the same thing the producers of the Sunday talk shows were thinking. And the evening cable talk shows. Those guys need to get a clue. Noroton 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why exactly should it be tranwikied? The list seems to conform to list guidelines.MikeURL 16:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the reason is here at WP:NOT#DIRECTORY: "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Now you could argue that the quotes in this article are not "loosely associated", which is what I was thinking when I created the article, but then every list of quotes on a particular topic would fit in under that definition and then why would there be a suggestion to take them to Wikiquote? (I'm not sure what the words "loosely associated" is even doing in that sentence, since they don't seem to serve any useful purpose. But that's another discussion.) Noroton 17:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but as official policy WP:NOT outranks Wikipedia:List_guideline. Noroton 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title is POV? You mean there was no controversy here? If it's the title you're concerned about, what would be an NPOV title, in your opinion? Noroton 15:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find that it's POV to start a collection of an individual's quotes which are specified as either favored or disfavored. The NPOV title could be "List of Don Imus quotes" but that really belongs at Wikiquote. - Gilliam 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we disagree that something identified as controversial can be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Each of the quotes was something Imus was criticized for saying. There is no dispute about whether or not he was criticized for saying them. There is no dispute that those kinds of statements were particularly important in the controversy that eventually got Imus fired. None of this is POV. Focusing on what's controversial about an encyclopedic subject is part of what an encyclopedia does. Since he lost his job for at least one of those quotes, it seems to me that the subject is important enough for an encyclopedia to focus on. {My sole reason for reversing myself and wanting to delete is that another, related Wiki exists that can cover the subject [as long as the links are adequate from the Don Imus article]). I guess this is academic anyway, but it's useful to understand everyone's reasoning. Thanks for your response. Noroton 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison_of_screen_recording_software[edit]

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

This article absolutely does not have relevant information on the mentioned topic/title, simply makes speculations, makes uncited recommendations and is written in non-encyclopedia language/informal way Xpclient 12:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places blurred out on Google Maps[edit]

List of places blurred out on Google Maps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The list is an original synthesis of material intended (one supposes) to support a claim of censorship by Google. None of the bits of information is reliably sourced. As far as verifiability goes, some entries, such as the one in the Netherlands, are pretty clearly manipulated, but others, such as the one on the Plum Island, are not obviously so. What standards are being used to define "blurred"? Entries are being added here according to whose point of view?

This topic is clearly of current interest to certain people following the New Orleans incident. The article is linked from nowhere— I came across it from a Reddit submission which is an obvious exhortation to create a piece of original research. I suggest moving the list to a relevant blog or site such as GoogleWatch. Wikipedia is surely NOT a corporate watchdog. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: According to Wikipedia:List_guideline, "Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." There are no sources for defining what "blurred out" means. Further more, in general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The topic of this list is not notable, is not sourced, and is not linked to by another article. 68.13.147.241 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a list, it must adhere to this policy from WP:ATT. The attribution policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references." Also, from WP:LIST Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. To say that you found thse places on your own and created the list constitutes OR. And finally, what asserts the notability of this list? --Cyrus Andiron 13:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me point out List of New Order Jedi characters. Is there a reliable source listing all of the New Order Jedi? As for notablity, yes, I can't prove it notable since I don't quite understand how would I prove that. How do you prove lack of notability that you state is evident? --83.131.103.18 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:NOTABILITY. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." You have no articles or sources that point out these blurs or explaion the reasons for them. You do not assert in the article why this information is important. As you do not have sources and you cannot explain why this article is worthy of being noticed, you have not met the notability requirements. --Cyrus Andiron 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of inhabited islands of Croatia has exactly one link from main namespace: link from List of islands of Croatia. And it is a featured list. So I presume the number of links is not a problem since this article could be very nicely be linked from Google Maps article (I won't link it myself because of WP:POINT). As for importance, I have in numerous times tried to find a list of this kind on the web. That is the primary reason behind the creation of this article: I would like to check this article from time to time to see if some new blurs popped out. Now, for me, this article is quite notable... but, of course, I am aware that for you it might not be. We'll se what closing admin has to say... --83.131.103.18 14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let me try and address some of your points.
  • Your reasoning is incredibly circular. You cannot say it wasn't made to make a claim about censorship when you say it lists places censored by google. Regardless, this is not the reason for deletion.
  • The links themselves don't constitute a source, circular reasoning again.
  • The definition of blur is important because inclusion on a list MUST be backed up by reliable sources that say "this is a blur". Since there is none, how can you have a list?
  • Reddit discussions don't really make it for notability.
  • Yes, there are works that list minor Star Wars bounty hunters in the forms of the countless Star Wars novels and such. This list has no such source and is infact nothing but original research. Your very admission for the reason you created this article is evidence that this is nothing BUT original research. For more detailed information please read WP:OR. 68.13.147.241 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia's guidlines for lists says that the list entries must be vetted against a source that can constitute what membership in the list entails. I've not seen a source which describes what a "blur" is. Is it a sat error, censorship, dust on the negative, etc? Also, a list of places with locally reduced resolution isn't going to help. How much is fairly reduced? How big is locally? What if the area simply is old low res imagery, not reduced by some accident, omission, or censorship? What about the fake forests, that's not really reduced resolution? Who decides all this? You? This is why the maps themselves are not sufficient in any way as a source. 68.13.147.241 22:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "thought to be intentionally altered" is not encyclopedic. What someone "thinks" is irrelevant. This article doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a place for "blurs"...for censorship...for satellite errors...who knows? The fact is, you can find many sources on the internet with speculation on what these and other things on sat imagery may or may not be...but I have seen NOTHING in the way of a source that speaks to the true reason of any observed abnormality. As it stands, a source that defines what a "blur" constitutes would be needed to vet the entries on this list. An entry on a list is not its own source. 68.13.147.241 22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page has recieved a lot of attention and has been cleaned up, but the problem remains. Wikipedia editors should not be making image analysis, it is not always clear what is censored and what is not, case and point was the Ramstien airbase image, it served as the lead image on the page, yet I don't think it is actually censored, probably just over exposed. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pointed out earlier, according to Wikipedia:List_guideline, "Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." It doesn't matter what you feel is obvious, items for inclusion on this list must be based on a reliable source. Crypticgeek 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Red cardinal bird.jpg
Male Northern Cardinal
That's a valid point, but I would argue that interpreting obvious facts about a picture really is the same as reporting what the source says. For example, I would consider the image and caption at right a valid citation for the claim that male northern cardinals are red, even though the caption does not mention the color. —Ben FrantzDale 01:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your argument. However, let me reiterate that original research...where editors draw conclusions based on a primary source (source google maps...conclusion "this is blurred out") is not allowed on Wikipedia for a host of very very good reasons. And when you frame your argument like you did, the rule seems frivolous. However, original research is big trouble. What if I saw a bump on a celebrity's lip and concluded on my own that it was herpes. That's my conclusion, and I believe it to be obvious. So I go put that on his Wikipedia article. This is why OR is very bad. Things on Wikipedia must be verifiable by a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Again, this list could stay if a source for vetting these entries be found. But the very premise of "blurred out" makes this list in serious trouble. There is no standard for inclusion outside of Wikipedia editors deciding what is and isn't included. Wikipedia isn't information decided by random editors to be true, Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable information from reliable sources. 68.13.147.241 08:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your red cardinal example highlights a basic problem with Wikipedia's policy of citing sources... When do you stop? When is something so obvious and unambigous that it does not need a source? In the case of this article, I believe the term "blurred" is too ambiguous because it does not ONLY mean blurred. "Blurred" should/could also include areas covered by clouds, obstructed by reflections or photographed in low resolutions. The areas in this article are probably better described as "intentionally digitally manipulated" or, as we really seem to be talking about, "censored." However such terms would certainly make this an article that required expertise and original research. -- Ektar 16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this page belongs at Wikinews, then? It isn't a breaking story, but it is a news story of sorts. —Ben FrantzDale 17:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews has the same standards of citing sources as Wikipedia, so I don't think it would fly there either. Especially, now that the the name of the article has been changed to "Satellite images censored by Google Maps" it is much clearer why sourcing straight to the maps does not meet Wiki policies of citing sources. There is a discernible difference between showing that image of a cardinal and claiming it is red, and showing a list of images and claiming they are ALL censored. - Ektar 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's an interesting idea. It is notable if some sites censor some places but others do not. —Ben FrantzDale 01:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of votes on both sides that use inappropriate arguments like: (un)interesting, useless/useful. But the fact remains that this page is original research and unsourced as admitted by several keep voters and that is a reason to delete a page. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original Research? I believe this article is an effort to give facts, and nothing more - that is what Wikipedia aims to do isn't it? It is attributed by direct links to the sections in question on Google Map. Everyone can click on the links to see these facts.--Computor 05:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The text should make clear that the identified "blurs" may be either censorship or imaging malfunctions, and in most cases censorship cannot be definitively confirmed.
  2. The list could eventually morph into a List of places obscured on publicly available satellite imagery or something to that effect, if the same area is confirmed via other map providers or the proximate satellite data providers. KWH 06:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting article, but still not where we need to be. There needs to be some sort of source that tells us what is or isn't "blurred". There probably would also need to be a name change. This list seems more like "places with abnormalities on google maps" than anything else. There are places with blackness, places that are blurry, places that are lower resolution, ad infinitum. Again, this article badly needs a source for standard for inclusion. 68.13.147.241 08:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely.--Lucy-marie 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is going to be hard pressed for proper sourcing... I think this is a very, very rare instance we might have to use WP:IAR. And yes I'm already sorry that I brought it up -- but in this specific case -- sources are created by the entity itself. Google Maps/Earth are themselves creating the material and thusly the 'sources' of the information (aka the maps). I know this rule should be used very, very sparingly -- but in this case I don't see how we can find 'outside' sources -- Google Maps is essentially a database and the content of that database is where we get this info. MrMacMan Talk 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't see how this is is any way encyclopaedic content. Stuff like this belongs on a personal website or a blog - not Wikipedia. - fchd 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is a perfect example and development of the science of "how to lie with maps" --MoRsE 18:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A simple example of an outside source, which would satisfy Wikipedia citing policies, would be a New York Times article about how Google censors their maps. Such an article would, most likely, have a list of examples and those examples would be fit for inclusion in such a list. - Ektar 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok how about the material I just added about Basra? I give sources for the rational behind it's censoring, what do you think? MrMacMan Talk 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information in that article is interesting but unfortunately the problem still exists that the Daily Telegraph does not accuse Google of censoring their maps. If the Daily Telegraph isn't claiming censorship, how can we claim censorship and use that article as a reference? There are numerous blogs claiming censorship but they are not considered reputable sources. - Ektar 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please share with us what's censored on the White House shot? :-) --83.131.169.67 22:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you brings up a good point: Like any blogger, I could speculate for hours about what is censored, but that wouldn't be a solid claim of censorship. It's the reason why a reputable news source requires good research and not just a simple claim of "Well, it LOOKS like it's censored" as proof that an image is censored. - Ektar 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's relatively clear that google's image of the white house is 'modified'. I believe we can agree that the white house image was changed and that the roof of the white house is not a bunch of rectangular colors. See here for the history behind it. The thing is that other groups have satellite images that haven't been censored... by using them as references we can show the differences and signs of censoring. MrMacMan Talk 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing images and draw conclusions is complete original research, Wikipedia editor should not be in the business of image analysis. That is why this page should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's what makes this site an encyclopedia CoolGuy 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I see nothing wrong with articles like these. CaptPicard 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 7 of the 12 criteria for speedy delete (1-4, 10, 11, and 12) deal almost exclusively with content problems. And that's ONLY for speedy deletes. I agree the topic is sound, but the method of generating content is flawed and that is an article killer. Once an approved method of citing sources is used (e.g. when a reputable news source actually accuses Google of censorship) this article should be created and maintained with specific instances from those sources. But, until an initial source is found, we have no source of reputable proof of censorship. - Ektar 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. You have been trolled. MER-C 12:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia[edit]

Not nearly as notable as the deleted Encyclopedia Dramatica. ED is Good 23:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock/meatpuppet? --Minderbinder 12:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Looks like a massive copyvio... Majorly (hot!) 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment of the Colonial Marines[edit]

Nominating as per previous discussions on lists of fictional weapons such as those found in video games such as Battlefield2142, I am suggesting the same logic should apply here - WP:NOT. anything worth saving can be summed up on the main article in a couple of paragraphs. Fredrick day 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the policy-based reason for keeping it? ILIKEIT seems to what you are saying? --Fredrick day 13:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whats wrong with saying "I like it"? That is a good reason for including it in an Encyclopedia. 95% of Wikipedia use is recreational (my guess), so people saying "I like it!" is our main reason for an article. I am saying that the positive factors should be weighed against the negative ones, and that such an article need not be unsalvageable acc. to Wikipedia policies. MadMaxDog 13:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On one level ILIKEIT is fine as personal perference but as a reason to keep an article it's discouraged and is discussed in more detail at WP:AADD --Fredrick day 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in my first comment, I do not oppose the deletion with any vehemence. It probably IS overkill. However, the core elements should be moved over to the sourcebook article, if only to give a better indication what is covered in it. MadMaxDog 00:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may do some of that moving stuff over, but I am not sure I will have the time in the next days before it is deleted. MadMaxDog 00:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we could get the closing Admin to userfy it (if it closes as a delete) to a sandbox off your userpage, so you could work on it? --Fredrick day 09:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on closer look (especially on closer look at the monster it has become in the last day!) I have either decided that there isn't that much to move over, or I have given up. Whatever ;-) Anyway, I reworked the manual article over a little, and if I ever feel the need to do more, I'll have the original at hand. MadMaxDog 09:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which fool is currently extending that article like hell? MadMaxDog 09:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibia(game)[edit]

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

Delete - Unsourced web game, vague assertion of notability, but unsupported. Prod removed with assertion that game 'is fast becoming as popular as WoW' DarkSaber2k 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian State Cycling Team[edit]

Appalachian State Cycling Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college club. No reliable sources to confer any notability. It also appears to have many conflict of interest issues. By their nature, almost all clubs and organization of individual college campuses are not notable outside of the community of the college. Metros232 14:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created the page. Please tell me how to help in making it more credible. I could find some newspaper articles from our campus to show the team's involvement and awards from the past few years. I created the page after seeing that other teams, such as pro teams like Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team, had pages too. I just want to explain how a club sport competes and give people a general idea about competitive cycling on a non-varsity college level. Thank you for your help. -Appstatecycling— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.234.98 (talk • contribs)

But campus newspapers won't assert the notability of the organization outside the campus. Metros232 03:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Any advice for improving this page to prevent deleting by wikipedia? -appstatecycling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.234.98 (talk • contribs) 23:13, April 14, 2007 (UTC)

I think that anyone familiar with competitive collegiate cycling would assert that culb teams that compete in regional conferences, national championships, and world university games are viable beyond the bounds of their campus. Moreover, the aforementioned classification of the ASU Cycling team as "non-notable" is laughable as it has produced several professional cyclists in the recent past who have raced on both the domestic and international level. Furthermore, by participating in a sport sanctioned by USA Cycling, the national governing body of competitive cycling in the United States, the questioning of the "viability" of such an organization as ASU Cycling indicates that you have little if any understanding of the weight that USA Cycling carries as the body that determines which cyclists will represent the United States at World Championship events and the Summer Olympics. Although I understand the concern that Wikipedia has about the posting of articles that are not of "encyclopedic relevance," an article about the Appalachian State University cycling team, one of the most decorated collegiate cycling programs in the Southeast, is clearly more relevant and informative than an entry on the Super Soaker water gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.68.6 (talk • contribs) 16:51, April 16, 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article International Services Trade Information Agency. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Zombies EP[edit]

Astro Zombies EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax, My Chemical Romance WikiProject finds no mention of the EP, I can't either. Was tagged for speedy, but hoaxes and albums aren't speedyable in this case. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who tagged it for speedy. Sorry if that was inappropriate, it was late and I wasn't thinking too clearly about it. Anyway, as stated above, the My Chemical Romance wikiproject's members can't find any evidence that it exists, and if you look at the article's history, the track listing has changed over time. Being as it's almost certainly a hoax, I see no reason not to delete it.--Moralis (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A Traintalk 00:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimari Bastable[edit]

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

Delete as probable hoax. Article creator has made several attempts to insert subject as actor in contemporary television programs. Google search on name only brings up this article and references to a student by this name from Sydney Boys High School, coincidentally an article that this article's creator has also edited to include unnecessary info. PROD tag removed by possible SPA (very low edit count), with the reasoning I removed the deletion proposition because the book "Australians through the ages" by Sam Courrier, published 1963, John Wiley & Sons, names Bastable as one of the 19th century's most prolific writers - However, Google searches on "Sam Courrier" or "Australians through the ages" bring up no matching references, nor does a search on the claimed publisher's website. TheRealFennShysa 14:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melene park[edit]

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

Park that shows no signs of a notability. Prod was contested by a different editor from the author, who claimed "Significant Park. Editor doesn't know cultural significance of this article." Evidently, I do not, as my entire knowledge of the park comes from this article, and the article certainly doesn't tell me anything about its cultural significance. As far as I can see, this is no more notable than your average park. J Milburn 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was afd withdrawn. W.marsh 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tastes like chicken[edit]

Tastes like chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The dicdef has already been transwikied to Wiktionary, which is appropriate as it's a common expression. However, the rest of the content is nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of every time this expression is used "in popular culture". Krimpet (talk/review) 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. Krimpet (talk/review) 17:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bednar[edit]

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

There are no independent sources for the page, and it appears to be created as a fan page. He also doesn't seem to be a really notable athlete. Nyttend 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some minor competitions seems to be about it. No evidence that this person is actually notable. Mwelch 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Nyttend 07:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC): IP address 72.139.16.231 added the following comment on the talk page: "So, who are you people? Who are you to decide who is notable or not?"[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Port[edit]

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

I do not believe a small pizza chain with three locations is appropriate for Wikipedia, absent some other show of notability FrozenPurpleCube 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep per W.marsh and others. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Stoner[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. This page has had considerable editing by its subject so I've rolled it back to the most recent non-WP:COI non-WP:AUTO version. Either version has insufficient verification of notability claims, and the claims themselves probably fail minimum standards. DurovaCharge! 16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr.[edit]

Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The most recent individual AfD on this article was overturned by DRV on the grounds that the content was clearly unencyclopedic. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. The matter is submitted for new AfD consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is clutching at straws; WP:TRIVIA is an essay. Please explain what policy it fails or why Wikipedia is better without this article. John Vandenberg 07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sources? Rubbish! Each entry provides an exact reference to a work that is being mentioned, which can be checked. John Vandenberg 07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Security Forums Dot Com (2nd nomination)[edit]

Security Forums Dot Com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article has been tagged as lacking sources (save for one reference from Microsoft Technet) since October 2006. If that's not long enough to prove the existence of reliable sources I don't know what is. kingboyk 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy)[edit]

Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page duplicates material already covered in List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. It is full of fancruft, and was created to try and circumvent the will of the editing community at the above mentioned article, who have resisted attempts to create these pages. -- Elaich 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Such is not the case with Ed, Edd and Eddy. The three characters are covered quite well on the List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. They are not too long, and there is not enough substance to justify separate pages. As I mentioned at the top, the will of the community, as discussed on the talk page, is to keep things as they are. These pages were created in 2005 by a particularly disruptive editor, and have been kept alive by others who do not wish to accept the will of the community, at the same time refusing to work with the community. We will speedily delete any links to these page in the article anyway, so there is no reason for them to exist. They are just traps for fancruft. -- Elaich 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who have rarely edited or not edited Ed, Edd n Eddy-related articles at all, please note that the Ed, Edd n Eddy for much of its history has had serious problems with other editors adding cruft to the page. The problem can be traced back as far as November 2005, but I could be wrong about that. Also look at this version of the article. Some of the content in there, such as, "In one episode, we see Ed's mothers hand (which looks really big also) drag Ed away due to his bad report card (straight F's). In another episode, Ed had a dream with his mother having Jonny's face," would have been reverted if it was even added back today because it would violate the "rules" on Talk:List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. If you read the Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy archives (even the first one), you would also find that editors have been facing problems with other editors adding fancruft or irrelevent information. The page was repeatedly reported to WP:RFPP, but the requests were declined. This situation got so bad, that finally, an admin decided to protect the page due to content disputes.
I have a question I want to ask about you, Elaich. Do you have any reasoning for calling User:Wack'd About Wiki a disruptive editor? Any diffs or anything to back up that claim? I think I've heard the editor state that he/she used to be disruptive, but changed as he/she started to contribute to Wikipedia more (or something along the lines of that), but I don't remember what page it was. Now here's some advice for you: You did not follow the instructions at WP:AFD. You did not use the text that the page gave you. I'm referring to the one that enables you to put your reason for why you wanted the article to be deleted and that allows you to add a deletion category. You also didn't list the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 14. You did not follow instructions for nominating multiple articles that are related to this one (you nominated the other Eds, yet gave them separate AFD's).
Finally, you mentioned on my talk page to "vote" here. Are you aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy? If not, you should read it. It's very useful. Squirepants101 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered that User:71.138.27.12 (the IP who keeps experimenting with Linux. Mentioned above) informed User:DietLimeCola with the exact same message User:Elaich gave to me seven minutes earlier. Is this just a coincidence or is it a cause for concern? I believe it's just mere coincidence. Squirepants101 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't look back far enough. This page was created by Bobber1. And you are correct about the coincidence. Why would I be logged in when I posted on your talk page, and not logged in 7 minutes later? Also, I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that the decision to ultimately delete or not will be made by an administrator. However, isn't expressing your opinion on this page whether to "keep" or "delete" a vote? I vote to keep it. Or, I vote to delete it. That's the context of "vote" that I intended. - Elaich 08:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the characters from e.g. Camp Lazlo have separate articles, I definately think that at least the main characters from Ed, Edd n Eddy deserve theirs. The Prince of Darkness 08:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Camp Lazlo has a list of characters page just like EEnE. -- Elaich 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however, there are pages of the main characters: Lazlo, Raj and Clam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Prince of Darkness (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
And they all look like the same kind of pages that are being discussed here. The characters do not meet notability guidelines, so the separate pages were created to try and fly "under the radar" and not receive the scrutiny of regular editors. They are all full of fancruft, and are only linked to at the bottom of the list of characters page, where nobody is likely to pay much attention. I'm not buying it. The only reason these pages exist is because nobody has brought them to light yet. I see them as attempts to create "fan pages" on Wikipedia where fan pages are not tolerated. -- Elaich 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Battle of Los Angeles (album). WjBscribe 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes in the Fall[edit]

Ashes in the Fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncited fancruft and original research about a not-particularily-notable rock song. If a better article can be written, it might be worthy of keeping, but the current one is worse than none at all. Eleland 17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socialese[edit]

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

Completing nom for another editor No opnion yet DES (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinoco[edit]

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

This is a small fictional company that is used in Pixar movies. It has only played a small role in one movie (and a few cameos in others), and asserts no notability outside of it. Even if it were notable, it's still just a very minor part of that one movie. I had proposed merging it, but it seems best to delete it at this point. Nemu 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be applicable to list Radiator Springs along with this as well, or would that require another discussion? It's another concept bound to the movie. Nemu 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Acme Corporation is used in a LOT more films and cartoons, they're not quite on the same level to make it a fair comparison. - Mgm|(talk) 08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 15:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about homosexuality[edit]

List of songs about homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was nominated for deletion for the first time almost a year ago, and the nominator didn't present a strong argument, but taking a look at this list now I feel it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. It is:

(UTC)

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

The result was delete. Redirect not needed- the software automatically redirects as long as mixed capitalisation isn't involved. Typing "Wheatstone Bridge" into the search box and pressing GO will lead to the article on "Wheatstone bridge" once this article is deleted. WjBscribe 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheatstone Bridge[edit]

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

This entry fails the Wikipedia:Notability (music) standards. Bricology 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I Had Wings (Beyoncé song)[edit]

If I Had Wings (Beyoncé song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing incomplete nomination by Thearisimonbah: Hoax article. Procedural nomination only.Salahx 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy O. Martin, Jr.[edit]

Roy O. Martin, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Local lumber magnate, university donor. Dhartung | Talk 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does the continuing production of such articles become an obstacle to the proper functioning of WP? DGG 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "Almost none of the contents of the article are about him . . . " What can you possibly mean by this line? It's all about him! -- Billy Hathorn 05:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment: And some of us who don't know Mr. Hathorn from a hole in the ground are perfectly competent to apply WP:BIO for ourselves, thanks. As it happens, "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures" is the criteria, and an appointment to an obscure talking shop is well under the wire.  RGTraynor  06:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's a fascinating diatribe. Nonetheless the facts are as follows: That he was at least notable in Alexandria, LA, (population about 50,000, or population the metropolitan area, about 150,000) has already been granted. He was unquestionably a successful business leader, philanthropist and community leader in that area. For whoever feels that's good enough, and doubtless there are some that do, nothing else needs be said. They can advocate keep right there. But for those who would like to see a little more than that, I fail to see how any of the above adds much to his case. Where is KALB-TV? Alexandria, LA. Who co-authored that book? The wife of the lumber company's CEO. How significant is that book? Zero Ghits. Being profiled by LPB might sound interesting . . . because you left out the fact that he was one of their biggest donors. Where in WP:BIO does it say that appointment to some state board makes one likely to be notable? Nowhere. Where in WP:BIO does it say being mentioned in some honorary proclamation from the Governor (seriously, do you have any idea how many of those types of things governors and mayors spew out) makes one likely to be notable? Nowhere. Where in WP:BIO does it say that being honored by a board on which you serve makes one likely to be notable? Nowhere. I don't claim to know Louisiana history. But so what? If you have to be emotionally invested in Louisiana history before reading his bio in order to come away from that bio appreciating how he's WP:N . . . then he just might not actually be WP:N . Mwelch 08:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malouf Abraham, Jr.[edit]

Malouf Abraham, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Successful allergist who knows a bunch of important people, apparently. Otherwise non-notable. Dhartung | Talk 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is an art collector expanding his museum by $7 million "of trivial importance"? Dr. Abraham easily qualifies for notability.

Billy Hathorn 05:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diversified Technology, Inc.[edit]

Diversified Technology, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious and clear spam from the title down from editor with a conflict of interest. Originally uploaded as a copyvio, cut-and-paste from their website. No assertion of notability at all, just a few links added. Verifiability does not equal notability and does not equal grounds for free advertising in a not-for-profit encyclopedia.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wildness[edit]

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

Previously nominated for AFD. Article was significantly rewritten, and the nominator changed their mind. Instead of saying so at the AFD, they removed the tag from the article. Nobody opined in the AFD after the rewrite. AFD was closed as delete, and then the AFD nominator nominated the article for deletion review. Evidence there shows some still think it reads as a personal essay and/or POV fork. Please opine on the basis of the new article. This is a technical nomination; I have no opinion. GRBerry 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludmila Bereznitsky[edit]

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

Non-notable gallery owner, the creator of many rejected articles for apparently all of the artists that she represents. DGG 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think here rather minimal academic work makes her notable. As we have deleted most of the articles for the artists she represents as being NN and undocumented--and as all of them have referred for whatever documentation there was to the references in this article, I think it desirable to discuss this one (deprodded for the purpose of discussion)DGG 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you kindly! That returns 108 unique hits. Doesn't look like she's going to appear on the Ukrainian Wikipedia any time soon either. (Which, in fact, she doesn't.)  RGTraynor  06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WjBscribe 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George "Porky" Andrews[edit]

George "Porky" Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

seems totally insignificant, unsourced, etc Danlock2 19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Falco[edit]

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

Only four appearances, and solely because Jesse L. Martin had to go do Rent. It seems that a lot of articles in the Law & Order series only exist because they are a detective, chief of police, or DA/EADA/ADA, which really isn't a good criteria. A Link to the Past (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Not in a suitable form for tranwikification and lacks verifiability. WjBscribe 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yatheesh[edit]

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

This one is a little difficult to parse, but after wading through it, this seems to be at the very best a dicdef of some kind. I attempted to do a search on Google but it seems that this, as well as the suggested alternatives, are also given names so there's a lot of irrelevant hits. If someone can point to a reference showing this to be something more than a dicdef I'd be happy to retract this nom but to the best of my ability all I can make of this is a dicdef. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota United States Senate election, 2008[edit]

South Dakota United States Senate election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly written speculation that violates "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" Spiesr 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, some article have been relisted separately. Jefferson Anderson 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonis Ahmar[edit]

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

doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO: Delete. Jefferson Anderson 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because somebody seems to have added everybody in their academic department? Actually, it seems that they are all University of Karachi alumni...

Talat A. Wizarat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Syed Sikander Mehdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shireen M. Mazari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moinuddin Aqeel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sahar Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Abul Lais Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yunus Hasni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kaiser Bengali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WjBscribe 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What What (In the Butt)[edit]

What What (In the Butt) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is spammish/nn. SERSeanCrane 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Being an autobiography is not a reason to delete on it's own; consensus regarding his notability as a professional lies strongly at keep. Daniel Bryant 10:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nico F. Declercq[edit]

Nico F. Declercq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

does not meet requirements of WP:BIO Lunkwill 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Cowdrey[edit]

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

Unverified information, unencyclopedic style, looks to be a piece of personal family history. "Cecil Cowdrey" + "War" reveals no relevant google hits. Eleland 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Argenteum Astrum as that article has given Astron Argon as an alternative title since it was created in June 2004. WjBscribe 02:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astron Argon[edit]

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

Original research, citations do not appear to support claim in article Thiebes 20:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to American Idol (season 6). WjBscribe 02:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Ferl[edit]

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

A young girl who's only famous for being a crying fangirl? Her 15 seconds of fame are up. This article fails notabilty. dposse 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, her article was redirected to the incident she became known for. - Mgm|(talk) 08:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what should probably be done in this case. dposse 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sanjaya is notable at this point because he is a finalist on American Idol, one of the highest rated shows on TV. A girl crying because she met a "celebrity" is hardly notable. If that was the case, where are all the articles about the fangirls for the Beatles? Or Elvis? dposse 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the highest rated shows on American TV. American Idol has very little relevance outside of America. We all get our own national spin-off shows. Just because something is big in America doesn't make it notable to the rest of the world. This is a mistake that Americans seem to commonly make. Nobody outside of America has heard of Sanjaya. I only stumbled across this because I was wilfing on Slashdot. My point is that Sanjaya is not notable and that American cultural influence is distorting the free nature of the Wiki. It's not like we need the disk space so why delete when you're already compromising the quality of information through American culture? She clearly is somewhat notable because I found her Wiki entry, and there are 21,600 Google links for "Ashley Ferl" (yes, with " marks). To exclude her and include Sanjaya is irrelevant to anybody outside of America - both are equally unknown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.255.246 (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Did they get featured on multiple national television programs? If so, let's write the articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure i could find documentaries. And i'm not sure how you can call the few seconds where she cried and hugged Sanjaya a "featured moment". dposse 03:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, I'm talking about her interviews on places like MSNBC. If she was just "crying girl in audience," I wouldn't think we should keep her. But "She's crying girl who was an interesting enough story for the major media to devote time on," so it's different. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If any one of them has 127,000 search results on Yahoo!, then we probably should. Wikipedia should be a reliable source where people can find information on celebrities, whether or you not you personally believe that he/she should be famous. I don't think that she should be a celebrity, but the media played it up, and, now, she is, whether we like it or not. - hmwith 15:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She didn't just cry for Sanjaya. Not at all. If you read the article, you can see that she cried for several of the contestants. - hmwith 15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That may be true, but she became "famous" because of her crying during Sanjaya's performance, which was highlighted by Simon during his review. Malamockq 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not an American Idol fan, but I couldn't stop from hearing of her. - hmwith 14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not American nor an American Idol fan, however I too have heard of her. Aquatics 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FCYTravis wants the article merged, not deleted. --ALL IN (u t c m l ) 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am aware of that. However, the point made by FYCTravis appears to be equally good as a reason for deletion, hence my vote.
For clarity, this point is "We do not need and should not have a biographical article on every single person who ever was on the Today Show once. Why? Because as soon as the 15 seconds of fame wear off, what are we left with? A permanent stub about an otherwise entirely non-encyclopedic person who will probably e-mail OTRS in 5 years asking why a picture of her crying when she was 13 is now a permanent part of an Internet encyclopedia... and we'll have no real good answer for her." Euryalus 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bawk[edit]

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

Something made up in the back of a bus one day at school. Nekohakase 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Ben Kennedy[edit]

BIG Ben Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but asserts notability in the form of external coverage. Looks like trivial local coverage to me, but you decide. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Per IMDB records, this TV work appears to be extra's roles:[81] Alvis 07:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor who linked those enteries appears to have been the subject himself, so we can't really trust whether he verified them or not before posting them on his personal website: [82] I second your sentiment - I just get a bad feeling about the motivations behind this entry. Alvis 02:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Steel 11:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Car Championship[edit]

Mini Car Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No independent references WP:ATT or assertion of notability. Prod was put up 29th March with these concerns, but was removed without comment or addition of references. Marasmusine 06:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the related article;
NASCAR Virtual Reality Racing Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 21:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stripes (hairstyle)[edit]

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

Sounds like nonsense, non-notable, WP:COI, or all of these. A user tagged it for notability concerns, but the tag was removed by its creator with the edit summary "Just because YOU don' know about something doesn't mean it is not notable". The racoon remark is amusing though. Húsönd 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball alternate timelines[edit]

Dragon Ball alternate timelines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is another non-notable, crufty asset of Dragon Ball. Its only source is a random data book, and nothing else. Nemu 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Little Angel[edit]

No Little Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another speculative, unsourced, rumour-filled crystal-ball article on a supposedly forthcoming music album; this one is about Lindsay Lohan's next CD.

Also nominating: Overprotected (Lindsay Lohan song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extraordinary Machine 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, delete. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 21:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Directions: Nani? Baka Desu Yo![edit]

Directions: Nani? Baka Desu Yo! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promotion of some anime-fan's unpublished work. No hits on Google at all except Wikipedia. Nekohakase 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a conscientious objector[edit]

Becoming a conscientious objector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. Corvus cornix 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lover In Me (song)[edit]

The Lover In Me (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and speculative article about a supposedly forthcoming single by Jessica Simpson. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kleinrock[edit]

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

Contested prod by User:Kkleinrock, which speaks volumes. Non notable wrestling promoter, fails WP:BIO and WP:A. One Night In Hackney303 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The newspaper references aren't bogus, but they are definitely not non-trivial sources. The extent to which Kleinrock features in each one can be seen here, here, here and here. The relevant text of the book isn't available on Amazon Online Reader or Google Books, but I'll wager the XPW attempt to buyout ECW is covered in a couple of pages at best, and Kleinrock has a trivial mention just like the newspaper articles. Per WP:BIO trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. One Night In Hackney303 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Autry[edit]

John C. Autry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original Research, unverifiable sources WLDtalk|edits 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Young Perry Alsbury to this AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
April is just a bad month

Sorry if I was gruff or rude with you before. You see it was on this week a few years ago that my 8yr old son died in my arms from cystic fibrosis. And just one year ago my best friend of over 20yrs died during the first week of April from a heart attack. This is just a bad time for me. Do whatever you want with the atricles. They don't really matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nowonline (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Rodewyk[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You only addressed the least notable of her acting credits. What about her other roles? - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time. WjBscribe 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time[edit]

Characters in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think a list of characters in this game merits a seperate article. The article is simply a list of characters, with no descriptions, most of which are non-notable (a list of bosses in a game isn't relevant to an encylopedia). — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The GFDL requires a record of edits be kept, so when a merge is performed, the response is to redirect the page, so as to retain the history. FrozenPurpleCube 00:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Hooligan[edit]

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

These guys have 100k ghits, which is a lot, but the article is a total mess and doesn't make the notability clear, and doesn't cite refs. Maybe I'm in a deletionist mood; I could be convinced that cleanup is a viable option. YechielMan 23:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WarCry (website)[edit]

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

This article was previously kept once and deleted once. I had it userfied to improve it, and since I just put it into articlespace today, I want it to go through this procedural AFD to see if the community wants to keep it now. I've added a new paragraph on the exclusive interviews that WarCry conducts. This is intended to demonstrate that they are notable enough that many game developers and company presidents and CEOs want to give interviews with them. They have enough influence in the gaming world that these interviews are a worthwhile use of these people's time, reaching enough of an audience to generate considerable returns. I believe these numerous big-name interviews show sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, so my opinion is keep. — coelacan — 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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