< April 23	April 25 >

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Anthony.bradbury: "NN pornbio". Zetawoof^(ζ) 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Brooke Ownbey[edit]

Non-notable. Subject has not been the "subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," failing WP:BIO. Only sources given are rundowns from the Howard Stern show. —Ocatecir ^Talk 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be redirected to The Wack Pack#Miss Howard Stern. Actually, I see little in the article other than a list of partecipation to the show. Tizio 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO --GreenJoe 05:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not only does this fail WP:BIO, but it appears to just disparage this woman by listing all the ways Stern has made her look stupid over the years. Tagged for speedy. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Erm, I'm not sure how this fit under the CSD, but this discussion should be closed as the article has been deleted. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:40, 24 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 11:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carucha L. Meuse[edit]

Contested prod. Subject is an "emerging photographer" whose notability is not asserted. No sources listed at all. Only 20 Google hits, most from photo credits on the site of the newspaper she works for. Can't verify award claims. May be autobiographical. Realkyhick 09:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Photographer for B-list newspaper. No publications. Awards are typical of anyone working in her profession. No indication of third-party articles etc. about her. Herostratus 11:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO, WP:V. Only 31 G-hits [1], as per Realkyhick almost all photo credits from the NY Journal News. There is nothing suggesting she has the "solid international reputation" she claims (if no one's ever heard of her, that is), nor verifying the article's assertion of numerous awards. Ravenswing 19:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. 31 G-hits does not a verifiable (or notable) photographer make. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Mukadderat 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wenli 23:01, 24 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. Krimpet (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation cast members[edit]

Indiscriminate list of names that gives no context to how they are relevant to the show Sandtiger 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No context, I guess this could be a category but as a list completely useless. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is unusual in that there are no dead links on it. Which is good... but would anyone really search for this article? --PrincessBrat 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list was created from a category (using my bot account) which had been listed on CFD. The consensus there was to listify the category. At the moment, the list may be of marginal use but I have seen other lists expanded to include characters the actors portrayed in the series. Now, if this list gets deleted then perhaps there is no point in listifying the rest of the 80 categories in Category:Categories to be listified then deleted but then that goes against the CFD consensus. Personally I think there is way too much fan-cruft with television series on Wikipedia including long lists of actors that appeared in whatever series. The lists are of marginal value in my opinion for the most part but they tend to be popular for some reason. RedWolf 02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for pointing that out. I can see the list being of some value if it was expanded to something like this. It would take a lot of work though, and I'm not sure if it will be worth the effort.Sandtiger 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps no use now, because it's a simply listifying of the category, but it has potential to grow into a better article, and then it will be much more useful then a category can ever be. There is widespread concensus for this methodology per CFD. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no useful purpose for gathering this information. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary and lacks any added value.-- danntm ^T _C 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it contains no information beyond what a category could communicate. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that these categories are no longer "allowed" by concensus. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Keep, then, at least until consensus changes on the categories. It would certainly help things if this was more detailed/referenced, though; example: # of episodes the character has appeared in, character summary, etc. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists are useful, no reason to delete this. It should be expanded to include useful information and to replace a deleted category. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't anything that the iMDB can't handle. Not to ONUnicorn, might want to check WP:USEFUL as a counterpoint to your !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – these lists deserve to be kept only if they provide better information than the equivalent category. The consensus at the Actors by series CfD was that guest roles do not count (per Radiant, who closed the CfD). This list was created by a bot, and I don't see that an effort to prune it and add good tabulated data (like that in List of Highlander cast members, linked to by Sandtiger, above) is forthcoming. — mholland (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Remi 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to elaborate, Remi? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent; the corresponding categories were deleted and are to be replaced by lists; they will look crummy for a time, fix 'em don't delete them. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep. My first response was only a comment although I may have been leaning more for delete than keep. However, after reading some of the comments and with further reflection, I am swayed a bit to the keep side now. This list is not even 30 days old and other similar lists have been allowed survival because they have been expanded to list characters and such so the list might be more helpful. Also keep in mind that the CSD debate was to listify and not simply purge the category so there was perhaps some consensus there was potential for a decent list article. I think the CSI fans out there (I am not one of them) need to be given a reasonable length of time to expand the list into more suitable content. However, if say in a couple months, the list remains in almost the same state as it is now, then I would vote delete. RedWolf 07:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this list can be indiscriminate, it has clear criteria for inclusion and the subject looks non-trivial to me. It serves a purpose (since the main article cannot possibly contain every single actor) and doesn't violate any policy. Yes, there is room for improvement in term of context, but that is not a reason for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My bad then. When I nominated the article it was really just a list of names. I was actually the one who added headings in an attempt to organize the list. But the question still remains, is Wikipedia the place for something like this? Should we really have an article about every guest star & cameo appearance? If this eventually gets expanded to something useful like List of Highlander cast members, it will just be a copy of info from imdb.com — Sandtiger 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another Comment. For the past few weeks I've been monitoring all the CSI related topics and I can say that there has been very little activity. Looks like CBS has successfully lured all fans away from wikipedia through its Official CSI wiki, which they actually furnish with official photographs & behind-the-scenes info. I don't think anyone would be interested to fix this list, especially not if it's already been done in another website. — Sandtiger 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentI think your general concerns are valid, but that's more of a matter of adjusting policy. Under current policies I think this article should be kept. Pax:Vobiscum 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I guess we can keep it then, until consensus changes on List of (TV show) cast members.— Sandtiger 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to conform with previous consensus on the CFD. Lists can be much better than categories, and this is a good example of why. Fixing should always be a bigger priority than deletion. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a maintainable article and can be improved by adding a description to each name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clayoquot (talk • contribs) 06:20, 28 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 11:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Montegna[edit]

Notability asserted by having a published book here, however the book itself appears to have never sold particularly well or been well known. I'm not sure simply having a book published covers notability guidelines. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One book, ranked below 3,000,000 on Amazon. Sorry, no. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there's nothing else other than one book, which I haven't read. Has anyone? Just 179 ghits would suggest not. Moreschi ^Talk 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:BK. If the book itself fails to pass WP:BK - and I didn't think the Amazon sales rankings GOT that low! - then an author whose sole assertion to notability comes from the book sure doesn't pass. Ravenswing 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:BIO; her book doesn't appear to have attracted any press attention or reviews. — mholland (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it fails WP:BIO and the book she has written is also not notable. — Wenli 23:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, did anyone else notice that her book is published by "Self Esteem Shop II" ? NawlinWiki 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear delete. Self-published book, vanity article. --Tony Sidaway 07:34, 26 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 11:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transitional shoguns[edit]

Neologism. Better explainable in the shogun article. Once pointed out by an editor in 2003 in its talk page without any response at all. I have included the "essence" of what the article creator probably wanted to mean there in shogun.--8de8 12:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. All the useful content in this article has been merged into the "Oda Nobunaga and the Toyotomi" section of the Shogun article. --Richard 07:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and WP:NEO. That is, unless some reliable sources are added. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to stand alone, and completely covered by not only the shogun article , but by the articles about these two men. No need to relist a second time. --Bejnar 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Narrow neology term, contains elements of WP:OR. Information have been merged to Shogun#Oda_Nobunaga_and_the_Toyotomi (AQu01rius  Talk) 22:31, 24 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. WinHunter ^(talk) 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firmdale Hotels[edit]

Article reads like a brochure, it's all but orphaned, and has no substance - Tiswas^(t/c) 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 - spam, no assertion of notability. YechielMan 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per YechielMan. Looks like advertising to me. --Cyrus Andiron 12:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably could fall under G11. Why hasn't it been tagged? Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, clearest case of G11 (advert, no content). So tagged. -- Ekjon Lok 18:03, 24 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/redirect. Krimpet (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Unlimited Talk[edit]

Can't find a thing to indicate that anything in this article is notable, or for that matter even verifiable. There's not even anything worth merging to the main Guardian article, it appears to be pure OR written by forum members. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete absolutely no assertion of notability. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 14:35Z
Redirect to Guardian Unlimited. Not notable enough as own article. Anything useful can be merged into Guardian Unlimited article. Davewild 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge lead section into Guardian Unlimited, then ~~delete and~~ redirect to Guardian Unlimited#Talkboard. It's plausible that the forum is independently notable, but the present article doesn't establish that. More importantly, almost all the article's content outside the lead is unreferenced and/or OR, and what would be left after removing that would be too short to need an independent article. EALacey 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If any material is merged, we can't delete, that would violate the GFDL. Deletion followed by redirection is acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood. In that case, merge the verifiable content and keep a redirect to preserve the edit history. EALacey 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Artw 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. There just isn't anything to merge. Mr Stephen 16:08, 29 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!) 00:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben D Quinn Elementary[edit]

Notability not asserted. Not enough reliable GHits to judge notability. Unreferenced. soum (0_o) 14:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Elementary, my dear Soum. :) Though it does have the greatest mascot on the history of the earth. YechielMan 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All the high schools where I live have decent wikipedia articles; are public grade schools not supposed to? Rashad9607 03:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Not if they're not notable at the start; Delete per nom as failing WP:NN, WP:V. Ravenswing 19:43, 24 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 06:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney 365 (second nomination)[edit]

Different content but previously deleted through AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney 365. The article is a promotional piece airing on the Disney Channel with no independent notability or independent sourcing. Whpq 15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable promotional programme. Davewild 17:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as re-created content. If it doesnt' qualify for speedy, then Delete. Otto4711 15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This article is clearly pretty bad, and the topic may not be notable.. but then again, it might be -- it does after all appear on television with some regularity. I'd want to see some independent sources, though, not just "disneychannel.com." Closer: consider my !vote a keep if any independent sources are found. Mango juice^talk 17:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. this came up, but I'm not sure what it says (have to pay) Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Based on the leader text 'The Disney Channel's "High School Musical" has already conquered TV and music, and now it is expanding to yet another ...', it would appear that the article is about a Disney show called "High School Musical", and Disney 365 would likely be only a passing mention. However, this is just speculation as we don't have the full article text. -- Whpq 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt The deletion log indicates this page has been deleted 3 times before. Still no evidence to show that this program is any way notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:19, 24 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 06:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mission: Bossou[edit]

Completing a nomination. Original reason was given in the talk page: "Seems not to be notable". Tizio 15:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources, such as newspaper articles about this group, can be found within the next five days. YechielMan 19:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they've shipped 20 tons of food so far, which isn't that special. - Richard Cavell 15:50, 24 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 11:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YIFF[edit]

There are only two sentences of content, and a link to the website. I don't believe this is encyclopedic -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 15:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; notwithstanding the fact I denied speedy deletion, I'm not really sure of this package's notability. There's a modicum of notability in that it is included in Debian (yiff-server, liby2-14, liby-dev), but it's definitely one of the least-used of the *nix networked sound servers. Popcon by_inst main rank of #13084 is a bit debatable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We aren't sourceforge or freshmeat. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A blatent attempt to gain some of furry fandom's popularity. ;-) GreenReaper 00:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was. If I'm not mistaken, the developer of YIFF is himself a fur. Gee, I wonder where the name came from.... =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the consensus was Delete! -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 12:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline G7 for lack of assertions of notability. But since it's here we may as well say "it has no notability" and be done with it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Yiff. May as well, if we're going to have the article history hanging about anyway. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... after which we can remove the "This section of the article is about sexual activity in the furry fandom. "YIFF" is also a term for a UNIX sound system." redirect on the Yiff page! -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 23:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Included in Debian, but never caught on - the developer's web page only counts two applications which use YIFF... both of which he wrote. A quick look through Google doesn't turn up anything further - this really just looks like a project that never caught on. Zetawoof^(ζ) 18:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect. Not notable at all. Voretus 15:21, 25 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 11:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Banana Stand[edit]

seems to fail WP:MUSIC, can't find this label anywhere. ccwaters 19:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For what it's worth, I think they may have a chance at a good article. =) --Emevas 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only refs I can find are myspace and the like, it fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, appears to fail WP:MUSIC to boot. WilyD 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flag as Stub and/or unsourced Assuming it's kept, it needs cleanup and refs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.179.85.132 (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No way this fulfills WP:MUSIC. In fact, it fails all around. Also, to respond to the two keep votes above: a) the reason for an AfD is to determine if an article should be kept or deleted. If the article has a chance of becoming good, prove it. b) Now is the time to add cleanup and refs. If, by the end of the five days as a listed AfD, it remains unreferenced, it will be deleted. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, no sources. Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 19:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it fails WP:MUSIC — Wenli 23:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto others. --R e m i 00:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found a reference on this band, a band interview done last month. Just thought it was worth noting. [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.179.69.188 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- That is not a reliable source. Please read WP:ATT, or just the section in the FAQs explaining why blogs (especially Blogger/Blogspot-powered blogs like the one you linked to) aren't reliable sources. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, Just posting what I found. --76.179.69.188 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the contributions. Unfortunately, there are still no available reliable sources for this article. Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For 10 points: What 1972 Robert Redford movie is this phrase from? --Infrangible 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know the answer, but 10 points isn't enough for me. ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Idioma 03:47, 26 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!) 00:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Christianity[edit]

Page of empty sections created 3 months ago and since edited only by contributors pointing out it is a useless page Ros0709 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless some one decides to come and fill the articles sections and add references. Tarret 23:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incomplete article. And btw, it has a accompanying category that will need to be deleted as well. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This has the potential to be an intersting article. It would be a pity that it should be deleted, but if no one is going to write it, I suppose it must be. I assume the creator has been warned of this debate; if not, he should be and deletion delayed. The article should also be tagged as a stub for a reasonable time before deletion. If nothing happens within (say) a month, it should be 'prod'ded. Peterkingiron 09:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (the nominator for the article's deletion) agree with your comments. I am hoping the nomination will prompt the completion of the article. The creator was notified by a bot but one other contributor (user:Ayokunle) vigorously defended it in the edit history and at your suggestion I have added a comment to his talk page. I have also added a stub tag. Ros0709 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page has now been given content and the original reasons I cited for deletion no longer apply. Ros0709 13:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is ample information available on this topic if one looks online, but doing so also reveals that this is essentially the same topic as Social Gospel and the terms appear to be interchangeable. This article itself appears to be a original research piece that attempts to unify a number of disparate Christianity topics together. While some, such as Social Gospel and Christian Socialism do obviously share some common roots, tying things like Ecumenism and Liberation theology is a bit more specious and almost certainly OR. Given these articles already have a decent start of their own, the author(s) of this article ought to focus on improving those through better sourcing rather than attempting to create an umbrella term to bring them all together. Therefore, without any sourcing to suggest that this is anything but the authors original research, it must be deleted. A subsequent CFD and TFD ought to be filed on the category and template if this is closed as a delete, and I may in fact do so before hand. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just silly. It's a mass of unsourced original research, attempting to shoehorn a bunch of groups with nothing much in common together. I'm sure every faction of every religion ever would "feel that they should be an ethical voice" - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Social gospel. It seems to be the same general idea. Bearian 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, OR, othing to merge (unreferenced), simply redirect to Social gospel Mukadderat 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful per Bearian. --Kirby♥time 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan. --Greatestrowerever 10:37, 26 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 11:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel French Playwrights Competition[edit]

The correct title of the article should be Samuel French Canadian Playwrights Contest. Of course, that's not why I'm submitting it to AfD. But it's also a very very minor competition organized by a publisher and whose grand prize is... being published by the publisher. In other words, entries in the contest should be from previously unpublished plays which sort of makes it no different than your ordinary publishing process. In any case, the contest seems to have very limited visibility (see [3]. Pascal.Tesson 23:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Samuel French, Inc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. A Lexis Nexis search reveals no independent media backing notability claims. --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

del nn promo. Mukadderat 21:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.Gloriamarie 22:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. — mholland (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable article. — Wenli 23:06, 24 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. Krimpet (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12 Days of Brumalia[edit]

Not a notable internet event. 96 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 04:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per doesnt assert any importance. the_undertow ^talk 08:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Almost all of The Residents' 62 other albums have their own articles, and I assume the recent albums that are still redlinks will get their own pages soon. Why on earth single this one out for deletion? This is The Residents for heaven's sake, not a couple of teenagers recording in their dad's basement. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- I created this page solely for the fact that it was an internet event that RESULTED in an album, and I figured I would post both the event and album on the same page.

Alicecooper150 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Alicecooper150[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Not even sourced. GreenJoe 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What kind of source do you need? WP:MUSIC clearly states that if the creator's notable (and I again reiterate, this is The Residents for god's sake), their albums automatically pass WP:N - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into a list of minor Residents albums. The Residents are very notable IMHO, but we do have a few articles on their works that aren't particularly expandable, such as the Buckaroo Blues & Black Barry rehearsal cassette. If it can't be merged though, there's not much reason not to keep it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My delete is stronger than your delete! Just fooling, but neither the album nor the event on which it's based is notable. It's typical internet blarney, and nothing more. YechielMan 05:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Just barely fails WP:NOTE and I would probablly be a waek keep if it was sourced.--St.daniel ^talk 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Iridescenti is right. This derives notability from its creators. Delete it and logically you would have to AfD The Residents, which would be patently ridiculous. BTLizard 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with BTLizard. The Residents are definitely notable. However, that does not make every project that they are involved with instantly notable. This article does not cite any sources. How are we to know that the Internet releases actually happened if there are no reliable sources to confirm it? WP:MUSIC states that Albums produced by a band which meets this criterion (notability)are likely, though not certain, to meet this requirement. That means that not every album will be notable just beacuse the creators are considered notable. This article has to assert notability on its own. Unless some reliable sources can be produced to verify this, then I belive it should be deleted. --Cyrus Andiron 12:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough to prove that the album exists (although most of the hits are reviews saying how bad it is). I think the nominator and some of the people above are under the misconception that this is some kind of event rather than an album; while the album was released first as a free internet download to subscribers to their mailing list (hence the "internet event" bit), it was also released as a CD (catalogue number RA17). I don't see the lack of sources as a problem since it's easily provable that it exists (Yellow Submarine technically fails WP:MUSIC by relying on a single source, and London Calling has no references at all). This probably isn't the place to discuss it, but would it make sense to merge the album articles into sections of 1970s Residents albums, 1980s Residents albums etc with the titles as redirects to the sections? That way none of the content would be lost but we'd avoid the 50+ individual pages - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was disputing the releases on the Internet as being unsourced. I knew the album existed. My concern is that the article focuses more on the Internet events than it does the fact that it is an actual album. That is why I was concerned that it was not sourced. I would definitely support a merge as a way of salvaging some content. --Cyrus Andiron

18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no merge. This is an official release from a notable band, and therefore notable. A merge is a bad idea- everywhere else on Wikipedia, albums have their own articles, and even relatively non notable albums can become decent articles. J Milburn 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm trying to add sources to this one and it's proving a real pain. I've no doubt the album exists, but because it was sold mail-order & download only, none of the press - even the specialist publications - have covered it. I don't see any point in having sources back to the bands website or the record label - unless it's purely to prove that it exists - does anyone have any suggestions? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a review - but you're right, it's a real pain to source, even though it obviously exists EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

del. nonnotable Mukadderat 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I just think that we should have a complete discography for such a great band. I also created the "I Murdered Mommy" album page(and a few others), and none of them had any problems. I just don't see why all those albums can have their own pages, and this one is having such trouble...I don't get why we can't just leave it, to be expnaded on. AliceCooper150.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary fighting arts[edit]

Self promotion - I call WP:SPAM. Single contribution by creator. Peter Rehse 09:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I rewrote it as a sourced stub. It has been described in detail by The Washington Times and The Washington Post. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 10:24Z
Keep. Sourced. Ab e g92Hokies! 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Written up as local color does not make something notable (I could make the same claims about my own group). This appears to be one martial arts club.Peter Rehse 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This stub has reliable sources which therefore satisfies notability. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Just because it is sourced does not mean it is notable, this seem's to be a single club with little importance outside of its general area. Seems like an advertisement. Also is oddly edited by one or 2 users. DBZROCKS 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep I'd love to delete, but it is sourced. Can be trimmed.DGG 07:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. I could not see a way to strip the advertising/POV and retain a viable article, but someone else might be able to do it better. Eldereft 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another martial art that has not spread beyond the schools of its non-notable inventor. - Richard Cavell 15:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep: Unfortunately, the sources hit the fundamental verifiability bar: that there are multiple, reliable, published sources explicitly about the subject, and that these sources are not mere trivial mentions. I'm able to check the links out, and they are what the article claims they are. That this fellow may be a peddler of bullshido is irrelevant; we just have no grounds upon which to delete. Ravenswing 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Probably important only within one area, but it's been covered in multiple independent sources and so meets Wikipedia:Notability. If the fighting style and "Academy" are a one-man enterprise I would consider moving the article to Sammy Franco and rewriting in biographical style. EALacey 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete promo. sole refs from newspapers means just what I say: promo. Not a single expert cited. Mukadderat 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nor does WP:V require it. Plainly there are tens of thousands of articles on people who both pass the notability bar and are charlatans of one sort or another. Whether someone's allegations are true isn't the dividing line; it's whether the outside world has taken notice. Ravenswing 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If it is throughly rewritten, then it would be an OK article. — Wenli 23:09, 24 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. — CharlotteWebb 13:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Hotel[edit]

Non-notable hotel –– Lid^(Talk) 10:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 42 Google hits when searching the name with Van Wert - can't see it being an encyclopedic topic on a wide scale. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- appears to be a historic hotel associated with George Marsh. Per this article on downtown Van Wert, the hotel was a control station for the Lincoln Highway. The owner, George H. Marsh, apparently was the founder of a foundation that operates an orphanage (now a treatment center) in town, which is now on the National Register of Historic Places. If nothing else, a merge to Van Wert, Ohio might be appropriate. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this was nominated since the article was weak. I have cleaned it up some and it now has a high quality reference for part of the material provided by Elkman. It still needs work. Vegaswikian 06:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Van Wert - does not look notable enough to warrant an article of its own, unless buildings that have survived for a century in Ohio are notable per se. Peterkingiron 17:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Peterkingiron. Besides the notability issue, it doesn't look like there's enough to say for the hotel to need an independent article. EALacey 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some information about the hotel serving as a station for an interurban railroad. --Eastmain 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per changes. Historic notable hotel. --Oakshade 15:52, 25 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/merge. Krimpet (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottineau Boulevard[edit]

Completing a nomination. No reason for deletion has been given; however, it is not obvious to me that we should have this article, so here we are. Tizio 11:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' This article is about a proposed transit line that does not exist yet. There is no evidence that it is notable enough to have an article. Edison 14:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Proposed transit line" leaves me with the feeling this might not be built. Is there anyone who can confirm this line has progressed beyond the planning stage? If so, keep; otherwise delete. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 14:40Z
Merge to Hennepin County Road 81, maybe. I don't know if the line has progressed beyond the planning stage, but they're doing some pretty significant construction in Robbinsdale, Minnesota right now. According to the Hennepin County construction page, though, they're just rebuilding County Road 81 throughout most of Robbinsdale. (As an aside, I grew up a block away from this road, back when it was still U.S. Route 52. But I digress.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as stub I fixed a typo. It was obviously hastily put up. Bearian 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hennepin County Road 81. I really don't think two sentences on a rail line that may or may not be built can stand on its own. --Sable232 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find these proposed projects to be important. When you look at the range of projects under consideration by the Metropolitan Council it makes sense to me to have a stub article for each of them. --Appraiser 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As this corridor has its own website and generates news articles, it seems like there's enough information for a short article. That said, there seems to be some problems with a few Minnesota transit articles that were added over-eagerly. I posted the following at WikiProject Minnesota's talk:

Elkman, it looks like there may be some bad-faith editing going on in Template:Twin_Cities_Transit and a number of articles linked to it. I detailed some of the problems on MegaHL90's talk page. Some of the articles linked from the transit article are completely unsourced (Google searches turn up only the articles themselves). Additionally, some reasonable-looking edits were marked by MegaHL90 as 'Vandalism'. Finally, unless MegaHL90 comes up with some citations, a couple more articles may need to be deleted or at least renamed.

As an aside, I don't have any problem with transit corridors having articles -- if there had been Wikipedia in the 1970's, the article for the Hiawatha Corridor might have been interesting, even though LRT took another couple decades to come to fruition.

- Afiler 14:52, 26 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!) 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Avelino[edit]

Unnotable actor, a contestant on reality TV show StarStruck (Philippine TV series), only two credits, both bit parts. --Howard the Duck 14:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The TV ads are worthless except to his own paycheck. YechielMan 05:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the comments above. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 09:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starstruck tv show. I was the one who created this article, making it a redirect. Then HappyJam turned it into an article. Redirect it for the meantime and when he becomes notable in the Philippines, I will be the first to turn the redirect into an article. Berserkerz Crit 09:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Better leave a user warning on the talk page of the editor who did this, para madala (so that they'll take notice and heed the warning). And, yes, I'm voting for a redirect. --- Tito Pao 12:49, 25 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. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 12:14Z

Simon Rich[edit]

~~NN person~~, article created by editor with history of being less than truthful, prod removed without comment by random IP— RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Changed to Keep based on new edits and information. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete: I don't think a single New Yorker piece passes WP:BIO. No other sources, practically no other information. Change to Keep per Kubigula. RGTraynor 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Frank Rich; at this point in his career, a sentence or two in his father's article should cover him. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this profile from the Boston Globe and this review from the NYT. The second one may be a slight COI (for the Times, not us), but he appears to meet WP:BIO despite his youth.--Kubigula (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kubigula's sources point to enough notability to pass WP:BIO. Darkspots 08:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now falls under WP:NOTE --St.daniel ^talk 11:57, 24 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 11:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Day 2007 Nor'easter[edit]

Blatant copy of existing Spring Nor'easter of 2007 article, changed to an unsourced title - I haven't heard anything about this storm being called "Tax Day" probably because that in itself is incorrect: the IRS changed "Tax Day" to 4/17 after the storm. Wl219 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tax Day became April 17 because of a new District of Columbia holiday which fell on April 16 this year.[4] The storm may have extended the deadline for federally-declared disaster areas but Tax Day was already April 17 for this year. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then given this info, the name "Tax Day" clearly has nothing to do with the storm, which lasted 4/14 to 4/16. Wl219 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.... where is source that this was called the "Tax Day" storm? Calwatch 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, who makes these things up??? Even if it had a proper name, not every snowstorm is notable. (Trust me, I grew up in Boston, and we had no shortage of them.) YechielMan 05:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough useful information to merge into Spring Nor'easter of 2007. no sources for "Tax Day" moniker. Darkspots 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No new or useful content, in fact less than April 2007 nor'easter as they didn't copy over the wikilinks and references. Improbcat 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not the way to give a creative name for a storm.-- danntm ^T _C 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Redirect it. Bearian 18:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wenli 23:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Infrangible 03:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Alvestrand 19:58, 25 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 11:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emanager[edit]

Minor software, has been tagged as an orphan (only 1 relevant incoming link) for months, I can find no evidence of notability. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidenced of third-party coverage or other signifiers of notability. Google brings up mostly references to another product of the same name by Acer, at least at the top. Herostratus 12:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking notability. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 00:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable or verified. Add reliable sources and everyone will change their tune. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:52, 24 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 11:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Stevens[edit]

Article doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 23:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking notability. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 00:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication she passes PORNBIO provided, ditto WP:N. Fails WP:ATT. Moreschi ^Talk 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For now, there's no sign of notability. If that changes, we can resurrect it. Tabercil 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough films per IMDB...Just a sec, What? No, I'm not looking up porn, I'm doing research for an AfD on Wiki...hey! Don't hit me! Ouch!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 07:10, 25 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 Kodeń. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:19Z

Koden[edit]

This looks like a hoax, given the lack of citations and the user's previous content, which all appear to be hoaxes as well. Despite being published by Viz Media according to the infobox, I find no indication that Viz even knows what Koden is, let alone publish it on a weekly basis. Might qualify for Speedy Deletion under A7 as the article doesn't actually assert any notability or G11 as User:Majinsharingan seems to be the only one to edit the article aside from a DAB toplink placed by another user.Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and JuJube. Utter nonsense. ---Charles 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incomprehensible hoaxy cant with no notability asserted. Moreschi ^Talk 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds like gibberish. Leave a redirect to Kodeń though. Balcer 18:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsense. Period. Peace man, The Hippie 02:19, 28 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:21Z

Bra day[edit]

Smells fake. 0 Ghits for "yay-D-bra". Prod removed by author. JuJube 00:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is this... Lets delete until there are some sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is very amusing, but I don't see any sources which support notability here. --Haemo 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of Bra Days out there, but this one doesn't exist. Hoax. Darkspots 09:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not Notable and smells like a hoax espically without Sources. --St.daniel ^talk 12:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No "Swedish lingerie company" = hoax. BTLizard 12:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. ---Charles 16:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe a hoax, maybe not, doesn't matter. It's just non-notable promotion. Moreschi ^Talk 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whether or not it's a hoax is irrelevant, this is a piece of OR about an even that doesn't even happen any more and even when it happened was only "an annual event to a few of the most die-hard yay-D-bra customers". Such events do exist but I can't see why this particular one's of any note - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Google hits for Yay-D-Bra (except this AFD) renders this at the least non-notable original research and very possibly a hoax. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:39, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:27Z

List of postal codes in India[edit]

This article and all similar articles in Category:Postal codes of India do nothing but list hundreds (maybe even thousands) of Postal Index Numbers and their corresponding geographic areas. As Wikipedia is not a postal directory, I propose that these articles be deleted. Please note that a similar AfD discussion regarding postal codes in the United States (see here) was concluded on April 21 with a decision to "delete". The closing of that AfD discussion was challenged at deletion review here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Strong delete. We are not a postal directory for India, either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far better to have an article on the postal system of that nation with a link to their website, where one could find accurate and up to date postal codes. There is no merit in Wikipedia attempting to replicate every list to be found on the web, and then to try and keep them updated as they change. Edison

Keep - unless this AFD is expanded to include List of ZIP Codes in the United States and everything else beneath Category:Lists of postal codes. No reason to single out India here. Neier 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state. This is one step in many. MER-C 04:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is one step in many, then, to deflate any claim of WP:BIAS, why start with India, France, and Austria? Why not the US, or any one of a number of English-speaking countries which are disproportionately represented here to begin with? Neier 04:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We did start with the US, that's my point. MER-C 04:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all that was nominated here were the sub-lists List of XYZ PIN, then, I would agree with you. If the nominator wants to remove the parent List of postal codes in India from this nomination (or add List of ZIP Codes in the United States), then, I will vote delete. Getting rid of the individual by-state lists, as mentioned at the top, is one thing; removing all of the country's info is another. And, the two are not quite the same thing. Neier 06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also mention that my dissent only applies to the main article. Technically I don't think it is a good idea to split a keep/delete vote in a mass deletion like this. Thus, my Keep vote. Neier 09:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete as per Eldereft below. Neier 10:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. MER-C 04:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - What Neier said. It could useful. Perhaps move to Wikisource if it is from government documents. --R e m i 07:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Postal Index Number has an article describing the layout of the system, and individual states and union territories can detail the mailing addresses. While WP is my vehicle of choice for a lot of not quite encyclopedic information simply because it is better organized and easier to use than many "official" sites (no criticism of the Indian Post, just a comment), this falls pretty clearly under 'not a phonebook'. Eldereft 10:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all. WP:NOT#DIR covers this one fairly well, and if a list of postal code numbers is not a directory-style entry, I don't know what is. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per AFD precedent regarding United States Zip codes. Wikipedia is not a directory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyrus Andiron (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all - this is about as directory as you get, and WP:USEFUL is no valid reason to keep information of no encyclopedic utility. Moreschi ^Talk 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There should be a WP:OTHERCRAPUSEDTOEXIST, but I think Black Falcon already covered it, as the List of Zip Codes in the US was already deleted. Furthermore, WP ain't a directory. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As noted, WP:NOT#DIR covers this one fairly well. Also, delete any others you may find here. -- Jreferee 21:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly certain I've included all of the articles. There are a bunch of redirects, but I can just tag those for speedy deletion once this AfD closes (assuming it ends in deletion). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: these are directory listings, and wikipedia is not a directory. Ohconfucius 05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:NOT#DIRECTORY couldn't be more applicable. Pax:Vobiscum 17:11, 26 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. Might be better to restart the AfD when the article is stable. Majorly (hot!) 11:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth canon[edit]

Article is nothing more than an essay, full of unsourced opinions. A list of the works of Tolkien, or of works set in Tolkien's world, would be appropriate for Wikipedia, but op-ed pieces of this sort are not. Mr. Darcy talk 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless adequate sources can be found, if so, then merge into an article on the Middle-earth books over all. I'm not sure which one that would be, but I don't think this subject stands well on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V--Vintagekits 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete into the Sammath Naur: A big whopping failure of WP:NOR. This is an interesting essay that should go to a blog, perhaps, but not here. RGTraynor 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOR, can't be fixed. Jay32183 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ for now, anyway, as it's clearly OR. The concept might be salvagable, if there are reputable sources that have attempted to define a "canon". Djcastel 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. After three substantial rewrites/trimmings, this article now has a well-defined subject and most of the essay qualities have been removed. Djcastel 13:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deleting this will break a link used in dozens (see "what links here") of Middle-Earth pages that make use of the ((ME-canonstart)) and ((ME-canonend)) templates. I'd strongly suggest that this AfD be withdrawn for now and give notice over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth so that they are given a chance to salvage the article with sources, if possible. Tarc 14:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect; I find only eight articles that use ((ME-canonstart)) (list) and, oddly enough, only seven that use ((ME-canonend)). That is quite easily remedied after this article is deleted. In fact, only fifty articles (mainspace, excluding talk pages) link to this one. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not incorrect, as I was referring to what links to the Middle-earth canon page. Tarc 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read your own post, please. You claimed that dozens of pages use those templates; that is wrong, as only SEVEN articles use both of those templates. And only fifty (50) mainspace articles link to the article itself. Are you disputing either of those facts? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The terms 'about fifty' and 'dozens' do not seem contradictory - and most of those 'about fifty' are substitutions of the templates in question. So yes, what Tarc wrote was entirely correct. --CBD 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting, but Wikipedia articles are not essays.— JyriL ^talk 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per this very first edit, which includes: "For the sake of consistency, in this encyclopedia the following writings are considered canon:" - From that self-reference,it seems clear that this was never intended to be an article, but a set of critera for inclusion. I suggest that it be moved to be a sub-page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. - jc37 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is it possible to preserve the talk page somewhere, as that contains useful discussion? Carcharoth 00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - From what I remember of the history of this article, it started off as a set of criteria, and then became its own article. It then got heavily rewritten into the version you see now. Maybe, instead of deletion, it should be rolled back to the point before it was rewritten, which seems to be around about here. Unfortunately, that version is not really that much of an improvement, so I propose to pare this article down to practically a stub, and then see if something useful can be worked back up again. Would this be acceptable? Carcharoth 01:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful as an outline of the various arguments as a sub page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth, it won't and can't prevent canon arguments in a publication series of the size of Tolkien's but may save some typing during one Tttom1 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start over - I believe we should have an article on Middle-earth canon just as we do Star Trek canon, Canon of Sherlock Holmes, Buffyverse canonical issues, and various other items listed under Canon (fiction). However, the current article is not it. Info on how we structure Wikipedia articles in relation to questions of 'canon' should be maintained on a sub-page of the Wikiproject. The article itself should discuss issues of why there is a dispute about 'canon' and some of the common views as referenced to various books. --CBD 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other, similar articles is not in and of itself grounds for keeping this article. If anything, your argument favors deletion of all of these "canon" articles as NOR violations. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't looked at Star Trek canon and Buffyverse canonical issues, have you? They are well-written, well-referenced articles, and I fail to see how you can justify calling them NOR violations. What CBD is saying is that it is possible to write NPOV, well-referenced, articles about canon (fiction) referring to one particular topic. I agree this article is not it for Middle-earth, but that is a reason to rewrite the article, not a reason to delete it. AfD often fails to understand the difference between a rewrite and a delete. A delete is for something that we should never have had an article on in the first place. A rewrite is aimed at removing POV and OR and ending up with something useful. Carcharoth 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Project Subpage preserving text and discussion, but Delete from article namespace per CBD. // FrankB 21:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Project subpage and return to article space when it has been rewritten to a suitable state (make Middle-earth canon temporarily redirect to Canon (fiction)#Middle-earth in the meantime), leaving behind guidelines in the Project pages. Carcharoth 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the issue with this 'canon' article, and/or other canon articles, that they are insufficiently referenced, or that the article's subject itself somehow violates Wiki guidlines? Or is it the treatment of the subject? Tttom1 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment. The tone and style of Middle-earth canon is very different from Star Trek canon, as well as the latter being heavily referenced. If you could provide references for Middle-earth canon, that would be great. Bascially, a opinon/editorial (op-ed) piece on Middle-earth canon is not encyclopedic, while an encyclopedic article on the subject is (obviously) encyclopedic. The tone would have to be dispassionate and neutral, and it would have to be short and to the point, and, crucially, would have to show that reliable sources had written about the topic. Would you like to take up the challenge? Carcharoth 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as written seems generally, to me, a fairly balanced view of the opinions regarding 'what is canon in M-e'. It certainly lacks refences for those described opinions. Personally, I wouldn't know where to find references on those as in my own experience canon debates were off the record or peripheral to other debates such as Dwarf Lady beards, Elf ears, Balrog wings, or Hobbit tea cosies. But that isn't to say the article doesn't describe the canon debates acurately. It has some primary world primary source references from Letters of JRRT. What kind of secondary and tertiary sources are sufficient and exist? Tttom1 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - OK, I'm generally reluctant to do this on AfD, but I'm going to be bold and carry out an extensive rewrite of the article, and add sources. Hopefully any closing admin will see this comment and give me this evening to finish the rewrite. Then I will let them judge whether the article has changed enough to justify a re-listing for a further 5 days. Carcharoth 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In deference to Carcharoth's substantial rewrite of this article, I am relisting to allow further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Thanks for the relisting. I didn't get as much done as I had hoped, but I have stripped out a lot of the more opinionated wording and some of the rank theorizing and speculation. What is left is mostly factual statements that can be referenced. Except I don't have time to do that tonight. I will continue to rewrite the article tomorrow and add in the references. Carcharoth 00:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some refences Tttom1 05:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't know what was there before, but the references and the fact that people are actively improving this article make me loath to stand in the way. YechielMan 05:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The rewrite attempt is commendable but it is still an essay. The crux of the problem is that there still does not exist a reliable secondary source to attribute the claim as to what is (or is not) "Middle-earth canon". This is an attempt to create a definition and not expound upon an existing one - the highly verbose footnotes are an indication that an attempt is being made to create and clarify a definition from scratch. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article still reads too much like an essay trying to define the concept, but that is probably a result of it being rewritten from the earlier "essay" version. Starting from scratch is often best, but I was attempting to preserve the information contained in that essay while turning it from an essay into an encyclopedia article - turns out that this is invariably a very difficult thing to do. Starting from scratch is sometimes best to avoid this problem, but I prefer blanking and rewriting, to deletion. Deletion should concern itself less with the current state of the article, and more with whether there should be an article at all (in practice, unsalvageble messes are often deleted to allow starting with a clean slate - but I don't think that is justified in this case). Carcharoth 10:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, this article needs to move away from "defining" the term towards a "historical" article documenting (using reliable secondary sources) the history of Tolkien's writings and the history of their publication and the response of scholars and critics to the entire corpus of work. The concepts of "secondary world", "Tolkien's legendarium", "Middle-earth canon", "Middle-earth cycle", "mythology for England", "the Silmarillion concept versus the published Silmarillion", would then naturally be clearly understood in the context of that article. Carcharoth 10:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Project Subpage per >Fra nkB's suggestion. ---Charles 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See nothing wrong with this article. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Purge of OR. It's acceptable under current standards, but could really be stripped of all the OR and POV. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it read like a literature essay before and still does. Gazpacho 06:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's impossible to present Tolkien canon without falling into a canonicity issue discussion, and the topic is far more important than many other wikipedia articles and wikipedia should be lacking without it. The references are mostly justifiable Pictureuploader 08:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Christopher Tolkien, as Literary Executor and editor, has both the legal authority and the author's explicit permission to publish JRRT works in his name. C.Tolkien has used 4 methods to do this and their factual, in print, existence bears on 'canonicity'. Lost Tales presents JRRT complete stories in their original earliest form; Unfinished Tales presents incomplete stories; The Silmarillion presents an editorially developed conclusion to certain works that were not, in their entirety, completed and had to have editorial additions; and the new Children of Húrin presents a complete tale compiled from writings that alledge a minimum of editorial intrusion using only material written by JRRT. To some extent these publications 'frame' possible aspects of canonicity. As this sort of thing happens to authors and their work, the issue would need to be addressed, at least in an article on Me canon. Tttom1 14:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Actually, there are 5. Most of the History of Middle-earth series presents JRRT's writing for the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings in the chronological stages of their development. Tttom1 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still fails WP:NOR, still reads like a fan's essay, still totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Unless there's a single, independent, recognized source on what is and is not "canon," this article will always fail the OR and verifiability policies. Delete, userfy, move to the Wikiproject, but let's get this out of mainspace. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Link to Tolkien Estate is independant source that establishes canon described in article. Consistency within the canon itself is a separate issue and needs further rewrite. Tttom1 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with YechielMan. Not a great article but it is being improved. - TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 06:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the subject matter is notable and the OR issued are being addressed in a better manner than deletion would. Tarc 13:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last two people. Uthanc 13:54, 27 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 Da’ T.R.U.T.H.. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:33Z

Moment of Truth (Da’ T.R.U.T.H. album)[edit]

This album does not meet WP:MUSIC standards. Idioma 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If not kept outright, redirect to Da’ T.R.U.T.H. per standard practice. --W.marsh 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with W.marsh. YechielMan 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moment of Truth, a notable album located at a properly capitalized title. It would be a tad silly for Moment Of Truth not to point there, regardless of the fate of this article. GassyGuy 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are many similar enttries in Moment of Truth (disambiguation), so I'd say also these two albums here should be renamed. --Tikiwont 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've meanhwile cleaned-up the related articles and dab pages and also moved this article here as well as its Afd discussion. --Tikiwont 09:46, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:29Z

Austrian postal codes 2000-2099[edit]

This article and all similar articles in Category:Postal codes of Austria do nothing but list hundreds of postal codess and their corresponding geographic areas. As Wikipedia is not a postal directory, I propose that these articles be deleted. Please note that a similar AfD discussion regarding postal codes in the United States (see here) was concluded on April 21 with a decision to "delete". The closing of that AfD discussion was challenged at deletion review here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A previous discussion on these articles was held two years ago and ended in "no consensus". See here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete Far better to have an article on the postal system of that nation with a link to their website, where one could find accurate and up to date postal codes. There is no merit in Wikipedia attempting to replicate every list to be found on the web, and then to try and keep them updated as they change. Edison 03:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. MER-C 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the segmented/detailed listings per precedent. Neier 09:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. We could have similar articles for every country. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Textbook example of WP:NOT#DIR. Need I explain further? Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: these are directory listings, and wikipedia is not a directory. Ohconfucius 05:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I don't know if I can say this without sounding like some sort of parrot, but wikipedia is not a directory, and I see no reason for an exception to be made here. Pax:Vobiscum 15:39, 27 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. Daniel Bryant 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Light Plane Crash[edit]

Lacks notability. – Zntrip 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, independent published works. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it non-trivial? Small airplanes crash every week. Why is this one special? – Zntrip 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it has to be special? Coverage is coverage. And the coverage is non-trivial because both sources are dedicated solely to covering the crash. I generally do not like to see these kinds of articles (sourced with multiple sources, relatively well-written) nominated for deletion solely on grounds of notability. A proposed merge is much more defensible in this case, I think. However, a merge is an editorial decision that is better discussed on the article's talk page (as there are multiple possible merge targets) and not at AfD. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is really nothing unusual or noteworthy about this crash which establishes notability. While there isn't yet an established formal guideline for aviation accident inclusion, the generally accepted criteria in the Aviation Wikiproject is that for an accident to be included, there has to be a particular aspect of it which makes it encyclopedic. As the other person already said, there are mulitple fatal general aviation accidents every week, often every day world-wide. What makes this one special? The text does not identify anything of note in this incident...the circumstances were not unusual, there was no significant impact on the industry (as in, changes to policies or procedures, etc). It really is up to the article's creator to establish why - beyond the fact that several press outlets reported on its happening - this article is notable. Akradecki 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Because this discussion directly impacts two wikiprojects (Aviation and Disaster Management), I'm noting this AfD there so that project members can have a chance to comment. Akradecki 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you agree that a selective merger to List of disasters in Australia by death toll is a better option than deleting? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you really understand what you saying. You don't merge an article into a list. Yes, you might list the incident on List of disasters in Australia by death toll, if it meets that list's inclusion criteria, but you wouldn't then convert this article to a rediret to that list. As tragic as a crash like this is to the people involved, on an encyclopedic level, there just is no reason to have an article on this incident.Akradecki 02:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think 5 fatalities warrant inclusion on the list. Also, I don’t think the incident can appropriately be called a disaster. – Zntrip 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the list titled "Significant incidents resulting in fewer than 10 deaths" includes numerous plane crashes. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you still haven't said why this is even a "significant" event. Sad, yes, but what makes this crash significant? Akradecki 03:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what makes it significant? Do we only include articles on only the top 10 most significant countries? It was the subject of multiple sources ... ergo, people outside of Wikipedia considered it worthy of note and therefore it passes our notability criterion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a strong sense of deja vu, in having said before that a plane doesn't crash "in a dam." It might crash INTO a dam, but in this case it seems to have crashed into a LAKE. In any event, a small plane crash, unless it means The Day the Music Died( the demise of Buddy Holly , Richie Valens and The Big Bopper), is just another sad everyday event like a car wreck. Several editors' views that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newsmagazine is expressed in the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you would be saying that for a crash to be important it has to kill someone notable? What about this crash? It would be just another 'car wreck'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. It would be a shame for a sourced article to go completely. Perhaps there should be a List of fatal plane crashes in Australia. There aren't that many - a handful at most a year as opposed to car crashes which are a daily event. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the subject of multiple, non trivial sources. I don't see the grounds for deletion. The idea that because there are a lot of plane crashes, all told, this plane crash shouldn't be included is fatuous. Do we say only the hundred most important TV shows get an article? Nick mallory 03:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only subjects of notability have an article. Having sources does not automatically make a subject notable. Perhaps you can explain to us why this particular subject is notable? – Zntrip 04:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a big news story in Australia, where I happen to be. It didn't make the news in the USA, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Plane crashes are not daily occurences here. Nick mallory 10:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally Zntrip, the presence of multiple reliable sources is in fact how notability is proven per Wikipedia:Notability. A topic about which there are such sources is notable. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable to Brisbane as the occurance of plane crashes like this are not common with 5 fatalities. This was a notable event in Brisbane as shown by news articles. Rimmeraj 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary criterion for inclusion is multiple, non-trivial coverage - this article has demonstrated that. Multiple coverage which is all about this specific crash - it isn't mentioning this crash in passing in talking about aircraft safety, or this model of aircraft, the sources are talking about this crash.Ga rr ie 06:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of significance in the article. Other articles in the relevant categories (Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Australia & Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2006) are indicative of the notability criteria. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 06:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The presence or absence of other articles do not affect the merits of this one. Notability on Wikipedia is not determined relative to other articles ... it is determined by the objective standard of the presence of multiple reliable sources. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GarrieIrons. DXRAW 06:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for whatever reason, this was pretty big news here in Brisbane. There was lots of non-trivial news coverage of it. Lankiveil 10:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep this does appear to have got a fair bit of media coverage so probably does warrant an article — maybe plane crashes are rarer in Australia than here. I agree maybe there ought to be a WP:PLANECRASH guideline since they happen so often (although I don't know how you'd work it — a plane crash that killed 11 people could easily get far more coverage in the English-language press than a crash that killed 150) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing notable about this particular GA crash. Plane crashes are almost always automatically notable if they involve commercial, scheduled flights, but light planes crash somewhere in the world every day. The US FAA doesn't even keep track of all the GA crashes in the US. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not notable why did various news sources write about it? --W.marsh 20:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Garrie but rename if nothing else to fix the capitalization. --W.marsh 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - while we've yet to develope the aviation accident notability guidelines, we do have naming guidelines. This one should be renamed "2007 Brisbane Cessna 206 crash". Akradecki 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you meant "2006". I don't think there is a need for a separate aviation accident notability guideline ... an overproliferation of guidelines for each class of objects or events would probably be counterproductive. But, that's a different discussion altogether. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon. Passes our guidelines. --Oakshade 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a bit of a rewrite, but Black Falcon is right, it is covered by multiple non-trivial sources and passes the primary notability criterion. JRG 05:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sentiments of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS.--cj | talk 12:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can someone provide me with sources showing how many light plane crashes there are in Australia and what sort of fatality levels they have - as if it is sufficiently low, that may create some notability where there would be none in, say, the US. Note to closing admin: if no-one has provided such sources by the end of the discusion, then my opinion is weak delete as a tragic but trivial crash Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a case where regardless of being the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, independent published works it still is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Perhaps there is a case for a new article - List of aviation incidents causing fatalities in Australia or some such that this could be merged to. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:03, 28 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 06:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

116 Clique[edit]

This artist does not meet WP:MUSIC standards and has no articles linking to it. Idioma 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found 10,000 Google hits, but the top few of them were not "multiple non trivial sources". YechielMan 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable. It appears that as a group the 116 clique released only one album which has an Amazon sales rank of about #60,000. Not to mention that the only sources in a google search that turn up are various promotional websites. Non-notable, in other words. Cool3 18:32, 27 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:34Z

List of postal codes in Brittany[edit]

This article and all similar articles in Category:Postal codes of France do nothing but list hundreds of postal codess and their corresponding geographic areas. As Wikipedia is not a postal directory, I propose that these articles be deleted. Please note that a similar AfD discussion regarding postal codes in the United States (see here) was concluded on April 21 with a decision to "delete". The closing of that AfD discussion was challenged at deletion review here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete Far better to have an article on the postal system of that nation with a link to their website, where one could find accurate and up to date postal codes. There is no merit in Wikipedia attempting to replicate every list to be found on the web, and then to try and keep them updated as they change. Edison 03:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. MER-C 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Or move to Wikisource if it is contained in government documents. Seems unfortunate to make someones good faith efforts a waste. --R e m i 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the segmented and detailed subarticles, or move to Wikisource. ~~List of postal codes in Austria~~List of French postal codes contains enough info for an encyclopedia article. Neier 09:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As unfortunate as it seems to delete so much good-faith and hard work effort, good faith does not equal good article and these are a clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR and have no place on Wikipedia. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: these are directory listings, and wikipedia is not a directory. Ohconfucius 05:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Textbook example of a violations of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Pax:Vobiscum 17:12, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:35Z

Malaysia Airlines Flight 91[edit]

Lacks notability. – Zntrip 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no information beyond what is already at Malaysia Airlines#Incidents & accidents. Agree with nominator that it is not notable. Flyguy649^talk_contribs
Delete Agree - lacks notability → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 06:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 11:00Z
Delete Wikipedia precedent is that accidents causing significant loss of life (this varies depending on the era) are notable. Generally, those that cause a major change in the aviation industry (in terms of manufacture, design, regulation, or even corporate ownership) are also notable, as are the first accidents of any type or design and any acts of terrorism. An engine exploding on takeoff is not uncommon enough to be notable unless it is related to one of the above. I don't see that this incident caused Malaysia Airlines to sell off its fleet of 777s or prompted a redesign of the aircraft or engine type. It was just an engine explosion. --Charlene 12:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Charlene said it better than I could. In the grand scheme of aviation incidents, this is just a blip on the radar. Thank God, nobody got hurt. YechielMan 15:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know I'm a shameless hypocrite as I'm contradicting what I said five minutes ago, but in this case even though it does have multiple independent etc I don't see any grounds for keeping it - it didn't cause any redesign of the aircraft, change of policy, drop in passenger numbers or anything else to affect anything else other than the aircraft's insurers - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability criteria. Was quite a minor accident. Instead, it can be briefly mentioned under the "Accidents and incidents" section of the main article. This had basically no impact in the industry. Terence 12:05, 25 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!) 11:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani gangs[edit]

Complete original research, no reliable sources at all, Non-NPOV Soapboxing. Contested prod. Leuko 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burn and spread the ashes over the Seven Seas. Major six-alarm NPOV violation. YechielMan 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the page certainly needs alot of work. I just added some references to news reports regarding Paki Pantherz. I agree the page is not acceptable in its current state, but the content is of some use and not original research, just badly referenced. Also the page title is very problematic. Maybe it should be merged to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_England#Modern_London_Street_Gangs Paki.tv 08:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wildly unreferenced original research; contains statements which may very well be libellous. BTLizard 12:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, well known subculture - if its POV just fix it, if its unreference tag or remove and if then there is nothing left THEN delete it.--Vintagekits 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hopeless pile of POV OR. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not just original research but incorrect original research - the Paki Pantherz's membership is closer to a dozen than 5000 - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've changed my view on this. I've found more references - all in national brpoadsheets and have removed some of the bits of the article that are unreferenced eg. membership numbers. Otherwise the article is ok, just needs a new name. The real problem is that the 'gangs in england' page needs alot of work. I will try and get round to it too. Paki.tv 01:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rewrite There are articles about gangs in other geographic places, so it is encyclopediac, but it needs a complete rewrite becasue of the lack of sources.--Sefringle 04:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is merely a recreation of an article that was deleted a few months ago due to an AFD proposal just like this. Although there are external links at the bottom of the page, not one sentence in the article has a footnote to back up its verifiablity. Just in case the article stays I corrected some glaring problems (such as an inaccurate title that didn't specify that the topic is only about the UK). Spylab 13:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, I would lean towards keep if the article got better sources, was tidied up and renamed.--Vintagekits 15:20, 26 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 19:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teenhelp[edit]

This page in unverifiable, as it does not have any secondary sources. The only secondary source which exists is from 2002, which was a news article relating to the "ShyGuy" incident. However, it is debatable whether that can attributed to Teenhelp or Helpingteens. It rarely even outlinks from wikipedia. It is nominal importance, as only one article links to it (Saying that Oklahoma is the state of its founder). Because of its lack of verifiability, I nominate it for an article for deletion.

Delete as unverifiable forumcruft. Whenever a forum article gets into listing all the moderators and such, that's a bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a quick check for sources and did not come up with anything other than the TeenHelp website itself. It may have 38,000 users, but without any sources none of the information in the article can be verified. Also, no assertion of notabilty is made and the subject appears to be just another forum. --Cyrus Andiron 16:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced WP:OR as written. Might survive with a rewrite, but not like this. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't seem to have much notability. r.y.right 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as patent nonsense, chemically and biomedically speaking. Also, someone could get into deep shit (pun not intended) for trying to synthesise it... —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 11:06Z

Marmofecal cure[edit]

Contested prod, but no comment by creator as to why. Article is unsourced and unverifyable, but claims notability. Zero ghits for "marmofecal" other than the article. Likely a hoax. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 02:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bunch of unreferenced marmoset shit. Edison 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cure for cancer, totally lacking in sources of any type, yep, it's marmoset scat. Pete.Hurd 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one gave me a laugh. Someguy1221 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced and completely nonsensical (hydrogen chloride is a gas, not part of "an enzime" [sic]). Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. HgS is also quite poisonous. Additionally, mixing with hydrochloric acid could form mercuric chloride, which is also...quite poisonous. Someguy1221 09:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. LeRoy[edit]

Non notable Canadian scientist, no reasoning given for notability and does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. Cat-five - talk 02:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. YechielMan 05:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article obviously needs sourcing, but "no reasoning given for notability"? It says pretty clearly: "Dr. LeRoy is renowned for two major achievements in the field of chemistry: the development of the 'near-dissociation theory', alongside R. B Bernstein, and the derivation of the LeRoy Radius." There clearly is reasoning given for notability. It's just a matter of whether we accept that reasoning. Here are the Google hits on near-dissociation theory, and here are the hits on the Le Roy radius. That certainly doesn't make him Marie Curie or anything. But (to someone like myself, who is admittedly out of his element when it comes to advanced chemistry) it does seem to satisfy WP:PROF #5. Mwelch 07:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scientists are usually established as notable by their work, with the presumption that full professors at research universities like Waterloo have gotten their positions by having published work judged notable by their peers. LeRoy has published 98 peer-reviewed papers, listed in WebofScience. The 5 most highly cited of them received 325, 185, 160, 147, and 132 citations by other peer reviewed papers, which is a very high degree of professional recognition.

I can understand some reluctance to accept the claims because of the totally unsourced nature of the article. Google Scholar lists only 31 papers, but even so one of them has 131 references, which should have been an indication of notability . The reason for the low counts, of course, is that he was born in 1943, and thus almost all of his career antedates Google Scholar (that typically also is the reason for the absence of a web site). For scientists with a large part of their career before 1999 or so, WebofScience and similar professional indexes are the only reliable sources. This creates a problem for documenting them here, because these are almost all extremely expensive databases, and only major university libraries have access to the complete runs. In biomedicine, PubMed can be used instead, which is free, but there is no counterpart for other subjects. But local sources should be tried--if the author is associated with the University of Waterloo, that library has access to the complete run of WebofScience. If there is no other way, I and others with access to them will help fellow editors when necessary with occasional individual searches that fall within the acceptable use policies of the databases.DGG 08:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable for more than just a single concept or theorem. Me and my grand total of five professional references (different field) added a link to his university homepage. Will rewrite rest of article for encyclopedic tone and proper sourcing over the coming day or three. Eldereft 13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The text of the article clearly asserts his notability. The lack of sources could allow some of the sections to be disputed, then removed, at which point an AfD on the basis of lack of notability could be more warranted. Though a full professor at Waterloo almost certainly is more notable than average. (As a comment, WebofScience isn't even a fully reliable source for publications before 1980.) --Myke Cuthbert 23:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above discussion convinced me that there's notability there but please flag it for being in dire need of sourcing. Canuckle 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - evidently a scientist of some distinction. Metamagician3000 23:36, 29 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 that aren't stricken. If you wish to have the pages restored to "projectify" them, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. Majorly (hot!) 14:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alberta-related topics[edit]

On April 3, 2007, User:Piotrus initiated a mass AfD against hundreds of "list of topics" articles. The discussion was closed as a "procedural keep" ... there were simply too many articles to process. So, I am nominating for deletion a smaller subset of articles, grouped together due to particular similarities; in this case, all the articles are lists of topics by region. I propose that the articles be deleted for the following reasons:

They are inferior to existing categories in terms of organisation. Many of them list articles alphabetically as opposed to by topic.
The lists are hopelessly incomplete. They have not been maintained for a long time and given Wikipedia's rate of expansion, it's unlikely that they can be maintained. As I understand it, the lists were created before categories existed and once the category system was devised, the lists became useless.
As User:Piotrus noted in his initial nomination, the lists are "are dead weight that may occasionally distract a new user and make them waste their time adding something to those forgotten ... pages". -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Regions of Canada

Other regions

delete per nom. Pete.Hurd 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 03:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Haemo 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has its uses.--T. Anthony 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, the ever-persuasive "has its uses" argument notwithstanding. Otto4711 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh. I just didn't feel up to giving my full reasoning at this hour. Maybe tomorrow.--T. Anthony 05:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - List is useful for monitoring recent changes in a particular topic. Articles in categories cannot be monitor recursively. Category cannot give one page summary of all articles under that category tree as list does. If Wikipedia can generate the lists automatically, no one need to care about missing items. — HenryLi (Talk) 12:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the thing ... the list isn't updated or maintained. Also, whereas categories are usually organised by topic, most of these lists are just alphabetical. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it somehow contradictory to your third argument? In fact, every article in Wikipedia is updated or maintained occasionally. Yes, list is not complete, but there is no replacement for summary purpose right now. The function of category is pretty limited at this moment. An incomplete list is better than nothing at all. If one day an improved category module can serve equivalent purpose, say recursive listing all sub-categorised articles, it is the time to make these lists obsolete. — HenryLi (Talk) 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A summary can be added to a category, by editing the category page. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm undecided on whether or not I think the list should be deleted, but a category can be very limiting when compared to a list. A list basically has the full functionality that a wiki entry has. In a list, you can change the text of a wikilink, you can give a short summary of each item in the list, you can have red-links, etc etc. A category cannot achieve any of these. However, I do recognise that these lists above are very long and difficult to maintain. I'm not sure if that is criteria to delete anything though. It seems to me a lot of things on WP are nominated for deletion when what they need is just a lot of editing work. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A list is superior to a category if it can provide information that the category cannot. All of these lists are alphabetical and provide no details about the articles. Normally, I do not consider "redundant to a category" to be a valid reason for deleting lists for all of the reasons you've stated above. However, I don't think these lists should provide details on the articles. Category:Alberta alone includes thousands of articles. A list that included all of them, with descriptions, would be awfully long, messy, and effectively unusable. More importantly, the purpose of such lists is only to aid navigation. ... Is it really worth the effort to improve all of these lists when an equivalent navigation system already exists? Would that time not be better spent improving other articles/lists that provide information beyond simple navigation? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand that something being "useful" doesn't necessarily mean it should be kept, per WP:USEFUL. But conversely, is it cause for deletion if a list is not useful? That seems to be what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong. Some of the reasons cited for deleting these lists seem to me to actually mean that they need editing work instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The argument that a list ought to be deleted because it is "not useful" is a rather weak one, as it can be invalidated by a single person claiming that he or she finds the list useful. In this case, my argument that the lists are not useful was invalidated by T. Anthony. However, I'm also arguing that lists are harmful by distracting editors from more useful editing. Why spend time to develop a navigation system that is redundant and inferior to an existing one? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Editors would work on this because they wish to, just like most everything else. The idea they'd be making better use of their time without it is plausible, but ultimately just speculation. Lists also can allow for expansion on topics. (Admittedly Canada is not a good example of that as it's very well covered at Wikipedia, but List of Xinjiang-related topics might be an example) Lastly I kind of prefer scrolling down to clicking various "next 200" deals. So I often prefer lists when it comes to navigation.--T. Anthony 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is speculation, but as you noted, it's rather plausible. Lists can be used for article development, but these lists contain few if any redlinks. In those cases that they do have redlinks, they do not state why an article on the topic ought to be created (or even what the topic is). I also prefer scrolling to clicking through multiple pages ... but I don't think any of the main categories (e.g., Category:Alberta and Category:Xinjiang) contain more than 200 entries. If such situations do arise, it's probably necessary to move articles to appropriate subcategories or create new subcategories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a question - is difficulty in maintenance a criteria for AfD? Because for some of these lists, it's nearly impossible to keep them updated at all times. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it can be, although I'm generally wary of such arguments, as technically all articles are difficult to maintain in that they require constant updating. Perhaps the argument carries more weight if an article is especially difficult to maintain, is currently not maintained by any editor(s), and no one volunteers to maintain the lists. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - They can be replaced by categories. Keeping these lists is unnecessary duplication. (Well... this AfD could already be assumed as a mass deletion to me...) --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. This is the sort of thing that categories are for. That it may be useful to someone - or even an entire WikiProject - is not a valid argument for keeping something. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all even the well organized California list is a senseless mishmash of natural science, history, culture, links to other lists, transportation articles, and miscellany. Categories can organize these geographically-similar articles much more effectively. --Helm.ers 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant Delete - I did not like this concept when I saw it long time ago. They are nearly impossible to maintain, and overlaps the use of categories. 22:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is any difficulty in maintaining these lists. Appropriate articles can be added once created allowing for constant expansion which in itself these lists are far from done and need to be worked on. NorthernThunder 23:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. They are neither useful nor encyclopaedic, and are functionally unmaintainable.Sarcasticidealist 00:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ and use categories as they were intended. This idea of listing everything is getting out of hand. --Ezeu 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projectify to Wikipedia:WikiProject Alberta using Wikipedia:WikiProject India/List of India-related topics as an example. --Ezeu 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a question about striking out the Taiwan list - the reasons that are listed here to support deletion, wouldn't they be applicable to lists for countries as well as "regions"? I don't understand why lists for countries are not part of this AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well ... I had started another AfD on lists of countries here, but the consensus is overwhelmingly to keep. The reason is that countries, unlike regions, have active WikiProjects. These lists serve as a sort of watchlist for members of those projects, allowing them to monitor recent changes via the "Related changes" link in the sidebar on the left. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of these "regions" have WikiProjects themselves. Wouldn't the same reason to keep apply to these lists? I can safely say that WikiProject Hong Kong is active. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If any WikiProjects are willing to move the articles to their subpages, I certainly won't object ... in fact, I may just drop a note on various talk pages to see if any are willing to take these pages. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all even if they are ugly and of little use, there's still no valid reason for deletion. They eventually will be organised and put to a better use. --Qyd 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In order to achieve a compromise between those who wish to see the content deleted and those who wish to see it kept, I have begun projectifying those lists which have an associated WikiProject. That achieves the dual goals of removing the poor-quality lists from the article mainspace and preserving the content for use by those editors most involved in the subject. Please let me know if you find this to be an inappropriate compromise and if I should stop or perhaps even undo my actions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to projectifying "country-related topics" articles because of the prominence of some articles and the desire to make them accessible to readers. Understandably, if the country-wikiproject wish to projectify it, then they should have the choice; but it would create an awkward situation with articles in different namespaces. As for "region-related topics" articles, i currently have no strong opinion. However, please note that after making the move, there are some mainspace links to the wikipedia-space (e.g. [5], [6] ); are you going to fix those links and how? --Vsion 04:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to projectify the "Lists of country-related topics" articles or even to try to argue that they should be projectified. I am even considering asking WikiProject India whether they would agree to let me reverse my move of List of India-related topics to the Wikipedia-space. In regard to the cross-namespace links, the standard at Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is that cross-namespace redirects are to be deleted only if they contain no useful history and do not serve as plausible search terms. The redirects resulting from projectifying do not contain useful edit history, but do serve as plausible search terms. Thus, I am inclined to see them kept, at least for the near future. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not refering to the redirects, but rather to the wikilinks. In general, with some exceptions, articles in the mainspace should not have links to the wikipedia-space. For example, the article Ontario now has a link (redirected) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ontario/List of Ontario-related topics. --Vsion 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I checked this for various articles and found that almost all of the links are either from "See also" sections (those can be deleted) or from templates like Template:Canadian provinces summary table and Template:Topics on Alberta (these can be unlinked/removed). I will not take any additional action regarding these lists until it is closed. If the discussion is closed as "keep", I will undo the moves I've done so far. If the discussion is closed as "projectify", I will projectify the rest and take care of any cross-namespace links. If the discussions is closed as "delete", I will appeal to the closing admin to projectify the lists. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:12, 26 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. — Scientizzle 03:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johny Hendricks[edit]

Asserts notability but no sources. Fails WP:BIO. Violations of WP:BLP. Lots of unsourced information. Note: user removed afd tag. Simpleton101111 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have decided to withdraw this nomination.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simpleton101111 (talk • contribs).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!) 11:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halflife2.net[edit]

Just a fan site, while large, it is not notable on its own. Malamockq 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article doesn't meet notability criteria, unless someone can verify that it played a significant role in the development/history of Half-Life/2. The Nameless 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced article about a video-game fansite. Maybe worth an ext link in the Half Life article, but definitely not an article on its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Half-Life 2 Which, given the material already there, will consist of an external link at the bottom. There is no added value to the information in the seperate article. Turlo Lomon 11:38, 26 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!) 14:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GERMS[edit]

This was deleted as a speedy (db-spam) and recreated. This nomination is procedural, as I saw the article before and the notability looks a little spotty, but it's not a speedy. No opinion on this. JuJube 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We recently had a similar AFD about a volunteer ambulance group in Western New York. I don't remember what the result might have been, or where to find it. I generally have some tolerance for these groups having articles if they've existed for a while and have a large presence in the community. YechielMan 05:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be a notable organization, but that is not asserted in the article. Also, according to WP:ORG, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. I certainly did not see any sources in the article. Unless some sources can be produced, this article should be deleted. --Cyrus Andiron 14:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will add secondary sources if that is the only issue. GERMS is certainly notable, even unique in its operation, such that other school have used it as a model in emergency preparedness.--Patrick 15:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My name is Nathan, I am the Director of PR for GERMS. I began posting this article last week and have not had time since to update it. I hope that now you will see it updated and it will continue to be updated through the summer.--141.161.107.106 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrickneil (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Spam created by the organization it details. Not newsworthy, no sources or evidence to back it up. --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While these are fair criticisms, it may be helpful to provide more advice on how to make the article more legitimate. Would a link to the home page of the organization be enough? Perhaps suggestions of types of sources that could be used would be helpful. In addition, newsworthiness is not the same as encyclopedia-worthiness (forgive my poetic license, but the point stands.) Anyone that reads into what sort of example the organization has set for other collegiate EMS groups or what sort of presence GERMS has in the Georgetown community will have no trouble seeing its place in an encyclopedia.--Jaboswick 02:57, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:37Z

Unicist ontology[edit]

Somewhat disguised vanispamcruftisement for the Unicist Institute - check the history and the majority of external links in the articles. Don't think these are notable and widespread concepts either, with the phrase "unicist ontology" getting only 109 non-wiki ghits (let alone the sub-topics). MER-C 03:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - and please pardon my brevity in saying so. — Athænara ✉ 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and give me back the 10 minutes I just spent reading this gibberish and trying to find some reason to make a case for it. Self-referential spam for a sub-scientologist pseudophilosophy, apparently formed by cherry-picking the coolest-sounding bits of quantum mechanics whilst ignoring all context - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all, as not notable, POV, COI autobiography, spam, and a weird mess. And it isn't even wrong. Bearian 18:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No reliable sources, no third-party commentary as to the importance of this material. EdJohnston 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing more than grammatically correct nonsense. Someguy1221 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as advertisement. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 11:19Z

Ulbrich stainless steel[edit]

This is PR for an unnoteable company. Fcsuper 03:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. The speedy deletion criterion greatly sums up the article, in my opinion. Speedy delete it. Kevin_b_er 04:06, 24 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!) 11:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional organizers and events of Model United Nations[edit]

This article consisted of simply links to various websites for model UN organizations. The article has simply been used to advertise various conference and contains few links to other articles within of Wikipedia. I have attempt to cleanup the article however I only encountered more attempts to use the article as an advertisement, and have since questioned its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astuishin (talk • contribs) 04:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. I have almost no tolerance for external link farms, and that's what this article is. YechielMan 05:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Or move to Wikiversity. --R e m i 07:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This isn't a vote. MER-C 08:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - directory of external links. MER-C 08:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete external link farm, fails WP:NOT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, clean. Please allow me to disargee with some negative votes:
- this is not linkspam. These are educational organizations that deserve respect.
- this is not link farm. This is list of organizations, with brief desctriptions, potentially expandable. By strange coincidence each of them has a website.
- I fail to see how it is used to "advertise" more than any other article. Also, annual conferences are quite notable things, in opinions of many.

A better approach would be to establish stricter criteria for inclusion, in accordance with wikipedia rules. For example, the title says "regional". What does this mean? What is the size of the region? Monucipal district? Country?. I wold say that at least statewide orgs have right to be listed, together with orgs sufficietly notable to have a wikipedia article. `'mikka 16:10, 24 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 Stormie as CSD A7. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 11:20Z

SepLove[edit]

Non-notable person VerruckteDan 04:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no specific assertion of notability. MER-C 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 per Mer-c. YechielMan 05:38, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:38Z

Dryve[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Created by band member and wiki user Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has since been banned for spamming and sock puppets. A group that hasn't been active in nearly ten years whose biggest claim is it won one local music award (unsourced) with questionable importance. One self release and one indie release of inactive local band, means delete. Arbustoo 04:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vanispamcruftisement per nom. MER-C 04:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity David D. (Talk) 05:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the Gastrich connection, the band fails WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity/COI violation, and fails WP:MUSIC to boot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources found. Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 19:39, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:39Z

Blitzin[edit]

Delete. Not notable, needs extensive cleanup, and reads like a middle school fan's writing.Nousernamesleft 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hopelessly bad article, hopelessly nonnotable band. YechielMan 05:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely a notable band would have a notable album? --Infrangible 03:15, 25 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!) 11:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda towns[edit]

She may be up and coming, but she fails WP:MUSIC. One album is not enough without further information to show she's notable. Also missing sources. YechielMan 04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Category:Towns in Rhondda Cynon Taff, which (at this stage) is more likely what someone searching for this is looking for, especially with the "towns" in lower case; nothing to indicate she's big enough to pass WP:MUSIC yet - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear notable enough per WP:MUSIC and there are no reliable sources mentioning her. Do not redirect to the category, cross-namespace redirects should be avoided... WjBscribe 23:50, 29 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:39Z

List of Infidel Guy Show Guests[edit]

Unsourced, unimportant list. Arbustoo 04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#INFO. I'd almost say speedy A1 for lacking context. YechielMan 14:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Bearian 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The "Previous guests have been..." paragraph at Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr. could legitimately be expanded, but a comprehensive list is indiscrimate information. EALacey 20:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No way to source the content of the article. Pax:Vobiscum 18:49, 26 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!) 11:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kemet[edit]

Months of attempted cleanup has produced no workable article, no sources, no scholarly debate, just lots and lots of ugly POV. The one or two lines that are worth keeping ("Kemet" is a name for "Ancient Egypt" should be merged there and the rest junked. Stlemur 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given a reliable source on use of Kemet/Khemet as the name of the country or region, that and that alone should find its way to Ancient Egypt. Calling that a merge would be overly generous, though, as most of this article seems to be a content fork of Ancient Egypt and race defended with non-policy on the Talk page, such as "look here this is the real place for the definition for kemet. please no redirection and all that crap" and the often-held misinterpreation that "turning a whole page into a redirect is often seen as equivalent to blanking". Serpent's Choice 08:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this comes from the "Metu Neter" or "Black God" movement of Ra Un Nefer Amen. That's another article it could be integrated into, and of course it's related to Ancient Egypt and race. IPSOS (talk) 09:19, 24 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!) 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Chopin Piano Competitions[edit]

This is a rather superfluous page, as it is essentially a list comprising only three elements. Not much more can be said about this than what is already said in the main Chopin article, and details about the specific competitions reside on the respective pages. ALTON .ıl 04:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --Kleinzach 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems pretty spammy, actually. Mak (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the very famous Warsaw one Johnbod 20:44, 28 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!) 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Av-Alarm[edit]

Possible advertisement. Primary contributor is User:Av-Alarm. --Uthbrian (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable sources and no assertion of notability. There is also a conflict of interest judging by the user name. Looks like advertising to me. --Cyrus Andiron 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all spam. Bearian 18:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit/merge/redirect I agreee that as it currently is, it is a conflict of interest and reads like and ad in many spots. However it is not beyond repair. If edited to remove the ad-like tone and add other technologies for scaring away birds it would be a good addition to the bird control article. –radiojon 00:17, 25 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 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box Stacker[edit]

A fictional video game mentioned once in the satricial newspaper The Onion. And that's about it. Maxa megalon 2000 05:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no other Onion articles have Wikipedia articles, and what made this one notable? --Dhartung | Talk 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Onion is notable, individual one-off Onion gags aren't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This one had a definite ring of truth, though - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 09:19, 29 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. Krimpet (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Ferns[edit]

I don't think Allison's sufficiently notable - she's a minor presenter on a minor radio station. In fact, her presenting role is usually to fill in for absent colleagues. (Hope that doesn't sound cruel, because I quite like her!) A bit iffy 05:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a heart, Iffy. She won't be minor for long. And she does feature quite a lot on the Tommy Boyd shrine website, so she's not obscure. Surely that's the springboard for a larger article? --Fred FuManchu 07:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Yes she's a BBC DJ so possibly just squeezes her (admittedly delectable and lovely) self through WP:N by the width of a hair, but when all's said and done she's one of those people who only turns up once a week or so to cover when Neil Pringle or Tommy Boyd calls in sick, and is probably best known for (allegedly) turning up drunk to work. With the utmost reverence to Tommy Boyd, he's not exactly Chris Tarrant (or even Timmy Mallett). If it is deleted, delete without prejudice, as there's a reasonable chance she'll rise at some point (personally, I think she's far more entertaining than Tommy, but that's neither here nor there) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There - is that not reason enough? Go on, let's give the gal a chance! I would have thought not being Chris Tarrant or Timmy Mallet was a credential! --Fred FuManchu 19:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about the man who replaced Janet Ellis and Timmy Mallett here - to have been second choice behind those two takes some doing — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as failing WP:BIO. "She won't be minor for long" is an argument extensively used in AfDs for 15-year-old garage band drummers and freshman video auteurs, and the answer they get is not one whit less pertinent here: if she does get famous, then people can write an article about her. What elements of WP:BIO does anyone claim she meets? She's not now notable, and doesn't merit an article until she is. Ravenswing 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Nobody except the creator's saying to keep her - all I'm saying is leave space to recreate if she does make it, since in the BBC structure people generally rise quite fast — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For someone whose notability is in dispute, Allison Ferns is certainly garnering much debate here. My comment about 'minor' was tongue in cheek. I do not believe she is minor.

My argument for her notability is that her name is widely known to the people who listen to BBC Southern Counties radio - Let's not forget that doesn't just include the Southern counties area of England, her work is accessible world wide as the station is broadcast online. But if this article is to be deleted, I hope it will not be due to bias from those who have nominated it to be so. Vast swathes of her professional history is available to hear at the shrine website. As a final mention, she is also very popular - 3 out of the 4 wikipedians taking part here have stated that they are fans. That sounds like a majority to me.--Fred FuManchu 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescenti - Not sure what the Janet Ellis mention signifies (Hope you're not confusing Magpie with Blue Peter) and I also believe you are confusing me with the creator of the article. Unfortunately not, I am merely a fan.Fred FuManchu 22:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I am. Hang my head in shame — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are hundreds of local radio DJs and even TV presenters across the country without an entry because they are simply not notable enough.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vozhd (talk • contribs).— Vozhd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
weak delete The notability question was answered. Her name is well known by the listeners who follow the BBC station (That's BBC - the world's largest broadcasting corporation, anyone?) Let's all sleep on it for a while and re-think about whether articles should be deleted just because they can.Olaf Legend 17:56, 27 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 Trekkie fishhead64 05:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trekdom[edit]

Mostly an indiscriminate catalog of clubs whose notability is not verifiable, to say nothing of the various histories that some include. Includes at least one fan website -- TrekBBS -- that originally had its own article that has since been deleted; some content was merely copy-and-pasted here and, like the other entries here, is a series of unsubstantiated assertions. Article has been tagged for lack of citations since September; still, the closest thing to a reference is a mention of a Fox News report that uses the term "trekdom". Lacking any verifiable assertion of notability for the groups mentioned, I believe that the bigger-picture notion of "Star Trek fandom" -- e.g. its influence on popular culture -- is sufficiently and more appropriately covered at Star Trek#Cultural impact, and additional information that meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (none of which is visible at Trekdom) should be added there. --EEMeltonIV 05:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Trek#Cultural impact, per nom. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, else Delete. Absolutely no reason this needs an article of its own, and as written it mainly seems like an excuse for the enormous chunk of external linkage at the end. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Set phasers to kill and replace this with a redirect to Trekkie. A bunch of Trekkies are still Trekkies and creating a hodgepodge list of Trek fanclubs is rather directoryish. I think it's a better redirect target than suggested previously but would be OK with that too. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Set phasers to kill and replace this with a redirect to Trekkie.Same reason as above.--Star Wars Freak Star Wars Freak 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trekkie seems more appropriate than Star Trek#Cultural impact due to the fact that Trekdom is more associated with Star Trek fandom than the program's influence on the culture at large. I agree the article is more a directory than something that looks easily verifiable and notable in major news sources. TransUtopian 15:39, 29 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 fishhead64 05:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Beck[edit]

I saw that this page had been nominated for deletion but no discussion created. As already stated by another editor: "This is clearly a vanity bio by an over-confident college pol. There are thousands of local city councilors across the country who do not all deserve mention on Wikipedia. Delete." One mention each in his college paper and town's local paper do not establish notability. The creating user also added his own name to his college's and town's wiki entries. Abommer 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to list it on AfD. I did it for you. Grand master ka 06:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a local politician. YechielMan 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Harry Beck who is far more likely what anyone searching on this is trying to find. City councillor is not WP:N; if he makes it to the House of Representatives it can be recreated (although in that case I'd keep this page as a disambig with his entry at Henry E. Murphy Beck - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious personal advertising without a legitimate claim to notoriety. AsadR
Keep This would normally not be noteworthy, however the success that this kid has had at such a young age is certainly wikipedia-worthy. (Cgascoig 09:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Not notable and probably self-promotional. Being on the city council in a rural area is his one achievement - and doing so during college is not unheard of and definitely not wiki-worthy. Dyergin

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fishhead64 05:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stairlift Trivia[edit]

The very definition of WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information that is unsourced and unencyclopedic. Judging by the username of the creator, this might be some sort of odd WP:COI issue as well. PROD contested, so here we are. Delete with prejudice. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no cites and looks like nonsense to me. the_undertow ^talk 07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Trivia within actual articles is bad enough, let alone articles devoted to trivia. We may as well have a page about Welcome Back Kotter trivia or Tandem bicycle trivia. --Bongwarrior 07:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or even Trivia trivia. MER-C 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This is support information. Very little sources of information exist about stairlifts as a pure subject. This page refers to articles and mentions of stairlift in various media to show they are an important type of aid.

The word "trivia" is defined inter alia in The Wikipedia itself and it should not be used wrongly to justify dismissal of researched work. Th epag etitle can be changed but th econtent should remain and be enhanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stairlift (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stairlift into trash bin per nom. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 11:21Z
Delete I've seen everything now. A cocktail called "Stairlift Swizzler". Oh, my. Anyway, should be preserved for posterity somewhere as a perfect example of WP:NOT. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps BJAODN? Iridescenti seems to have that one. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt but surely warrants a move to BJAODN. Normally I object to anyone AfD'ing an article within 2 minutes of its creation, but this one's indefensible - iridescenti (talk to me!)
Delete. This is information better contained in the stairlift article, but it needs to be distilled to no end first. I'm not calling WP:COI - the creator of the article appears to pretty much be a fan of the devices, rather than somebody with a direct interest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in the small amount of useful content. I do not share the view that it's nonsense, but certainly not an appropriate article. DGG 03:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB has Trivia sections in many of its pages. The stairlift trivia can be viewed in the same context.

Much of the IMDB information is educational, for example, how to pronounce Joaquin Phoenix's first name. Stairlifts have been on sale for over 75 years but "stairlift" had no definition until a few years ago.

There are no text books about stairlifts but the page shows links to historical facts. Someone researching stairlifts as pure subject may find this helpful especially if the main stairlift page has a link to the addendum page.

Compared with trivia such as someone posting their fave pop song, or detailing every porn star who ever existed, on the Wikipedia, stairlift facts are not trivial at all. The comment "I've seen everything now. A cocktail called "Stairlift Swizzler" illustrates the point that the Wikipedia has unique information on a popular subject. The page should not be deleted. Renamed perhaps, not deleted. 86.131.66.165 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone posting their fave pop song or detailing every porn star who ever existed would find their article deleted very quickly unless they could provide multiple independent non-trivial sources for them — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Me and Bobby McGee" as a pop song example and Claudia Ferrari as a porn star example. The Wikipedia is replete with such things and replete with hypocrisy. Frankly The Wikipedia doesn't seem to know what it wants to be.

The Wikipedia definition of "Stairlift" existed before the stairlift page was created in 2006. It really doesn't matter what the creator's interest is provided it is not a vanity article or to promote personal interests. There have been a number of attempts to introduce spam on the main stairlift page and such entries were edited out by various contributors. The list of manufacturers does not favour any individual concern and no hyperlinks were used so as to avoid anyone gaining competitive advantage. The "trivia" page provides additional information on the topic of stairlifts without any bias. There is too much information to place on the main page but for someone who wants to research how stairlifts have evolved and are fast become a commodity there is a lot of information. It touches on Art, Humour, Technology and other subject areas. If it is deleted there will be no other source of such information in one place anywhere in the world. It is likely that sometime in the future one or more Wikipedia editors will need a stairlift. Those who use them already will understand the humour and the importance of assistive devices. Stairlift 05:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell whether this is serious or not, but I'll bite. Let's compare. From Me and Bobby McGee: "Joplin's version topped the charts to become only the second posthumous number one single in rock & roll history ... ." From this article: "A number of stairlift animations have appeared on the internet, one showing a stairlift and passenger travelling over a giant roller coaster, with the passenger's hair standing on end after the ride." One of these is encyclopedic; the other is not. The purpose of Wikipedia is not and never has been to provide random trivial information. It is to provide reliably sourced facts that are encyclopedic and contextual in nature. Just because it's true and exists doesn't mean it belongs here. I refer you to the first bullet at WP:ENC. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, Stairlift, I feel it prudent to refer you to WP:PORNBIO for Claudia Ferrari, and in general, give WP:WAX a good read. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 26 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 06:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Barr[edit]

i don't see how any of this can be verified as i get no ghits. fails notability. the_undertow ^talk 07:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 11:23Z
Delete - notability. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 06:47, 25 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 Hygiene in Islam fishhead64 05:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic toilet etiquette[edit]

Article is inherently unencyclopedic and is obviously being used to humiliate Islam and Muslims. There is already an article on hygiene in Islam, which is the appropriate article for legitimate and unbiased information regarding this subject, and preferably from mainstream Muslim sources. What else can I say? It's a terribly shoddy piece of work this thing. As I've written before, Wikipedia is increasingly being used by POV-pushers to attack, defame, and humiliate Islam and Muslims, which is contradictory to the mission of a neutral encyclopedia. Fortunately, articles as bad as this seem to be few in number, so the situation is not too bad. Khorshid 07:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What, exactly, is mistaken or false in this article? What is biased or untrue about it? Why is it inherently 'unencyclopedic? How can a supernatural belief system be 'humiliated' anymore than a belief in Norse gods or Quetzalcoatl? Do these rules exist in Islamic mythology or not? If they exist why shouldn't they have their own article? Nick mallory 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the fact that the article is almost entirely unsourced and is not written as an encyclopedic article (if you don't understand what "unencyclopedic" means, go look it up), your comment seems to me to be in bad faith. Anyone can see that this article is terribly poor. Incidentally, the issue of hygiene in Islam has nothing to do with what you refer to as "mythology". Khorshid 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are references and sources given in the article, are these sources untrue, and if so, why? It's simply untrue to say that it's 'almost entirely unsourced'. You keep saying the article is 'poor' but what part of wikipedia policy does it break to deserve deletion? Why do you accuse me of bad faith when I give an opinion different from yours? You say that Wikipedia is increasingly being used to 'attack' Islam then say, in the next sentence, that it's not a problem. Which is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs) 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC). Nick mallory 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I am ill-suited to judge the reliability of the source from which almost all of this article is derived (despite the vague and over-arching claim of it being "derived from hadith sources and the collected opinions of people throughout history"). As it stands, though, this article is a content fork with questionable citation. Regardless, to whatever extent this material may be able to be reliably cited, it should be pared down to an appropriate level of detail to allow merger with its existing parent: hygiene in Islam. Serpent's Choice 08:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Serpent's Choice, with prejudice towards treating a living religion with the same high standard we use for living persons. Also, not all atheists are like Nick mallory. Eldereft 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? People are people, religions are ideas. Ideas don't have 'rights' neither do ideas have any automatic call on anyone's 'respect'. I'm not saying this article concerning Islam should be deleted, I'm saying there's no reason to delete it. I'm not saying it's untrue, I'm saying there's no evidence that it is untrue. You seem very confused. Nick mallory 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hygiene in Islam as a content fork, but I do agree with Nick Mallory - if (big if) Quranic citations can be provided for every rule, than it's no more offensive than Etiquette in the United Kingdom or Etiquette in Canada and the United States. There's no earthly reason for it to be separate from the main article, though and I suspect whoever created it separately is trying to make a WP:POINT - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge This title seems to be unencyclopediac and just funny.--Sefringle 04:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator. --- ALM 10:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like an instruction manual with questionable assertions in the lead. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hygiene in Islam anything that can be sourced. Carlossuarez46 23:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this article is (pun unintended) crap. The vaunted references point to either a single, dubious source. Searching of the term "QADAAHUL HAAJAH" finds little but that and some blogs that point to it. Tarc 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with hygiene in Islam I disagree with Khorshid. It will be useful if it is written in the correct way.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:59, 27 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!) 11:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's School, Llanelli[edit]

A non-notable school whose article was created on 23rd of April like this and seems to be a target for constant vandalism by IPs. Edit: Looks like the article is being salvaged. Still doesn't have any references or shows an notability, and reads like an advertisement. Razor ICE 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save this article! It is a true picture of the 'independent' school this is!

Delete. Somebody has an incomplete understanding of NPOV. This tendentious nonsense would look embarrassing on the school's own website. It certainly doesn't belong here. BTLizard 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nonsense has been removed and replaced with something approaching an article, but unfortunately it's now a copyvio from the school website so Delete. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! That is the tendentious nonsense I had in mind. I didn't realise it actually was from the school's website! Just goes to show, doesn't it? BTLizard 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect for your £2,000+ a term? EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this rubbish Pathlessdesert 21:25, 24 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 06:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Radio[edit]

Non-notable internet radio station. No coverage from reliable sources, and as such fails WP:WEB. Pablothegreat85 07:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- Pablothegreat85 08:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Greatestrowerever 10:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of any non-trivial, reliable, independent sources. Possible WP:COI. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:55, 26 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 following creator request. WjBscribe 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Morris[edit]

Daniella Morris (born July 25, 1989) appears to be a non-notable teen pageant model. Her article was previously deleted, however this is not G4 speedy deletion material so we have to run this process again. I'll go ahead and dissect the sources presented in the current version of the article:

1. The Youthnoise site is a blog, her entry there is created and published by her. Every page invites you to join and post your own content: "Fast and free". Open blogs like this do not indicate notability.

2. "Turn for the Judges" is not a reliable source or any indication of notability at all, they have no editorial oversight on their open submissions, to "gain the exposure you need by providing the TFTJ audience with the compelling content they anxiously desire."

3. The supposed Portrait Magazine article is hosted on KiwiOlsen.Net, "An extensive fansite for the Olsen twins."

4. (Note: long load on this page, lots of unrelated pictures.) A politician, Carolyn McCarthy, did a photo-op with her. Does everyone who has their picture taken with a politician get a Wikipedia article? Let's hope that isn't an indication of WP:N.

5. Pride of Pageantry webmagazine guarantees: "Always Featured in our Magazine! ... Entry only $20.00 and $5.00 for additional photos". Vanity glamour press.

6. Miss New York Teen of America is hosted on Tripod.com. In case you're still on the fence, we had a deletion discussion for this pageant already; it was deleted, and so was the national pageant's article, in this other deletion discussion. "Miss Teen of America" is not Miss Teen America, but it is supposed to sound similar.

7. Someone named "Daniella" in New York was a Build-A-Bear Workshop 2007 Huggable Heroes Semi-Finalist.

8. She has an IMDb listing. This is nothing for notability, because IMDb strives to keep an entry on everyone who was ever in front of a video camera. It's indiscriminate. Looks like she worked as an extra on some soap operas.

9. Next is her website, owned by her or her agent.

10. Same IMDb link again.

11 and 12. Then two more "Turn for the Judges" links.

13. Finally a profile on 360flair, which will gladly host your Free Professional Website.

It's unfortunate that this deletion discussion is going to show up so high in google rankings, but that's what happens when your agent tries to advertise on Wikipedia: we delete. — coel acan — 08:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete really per nomination. BTW, AfDs don't show up in Google anymore, per our robots.txt exclusion file. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 12:54Z

Ah, that's probably a good idea. Although I can see many of our internal links to AfDs do show up, but there's probably no reasonable way to prevent that. — coel acan — 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator nailed it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and good work by the nom. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well researched arguments by the nominator. --Cyrus Andiron 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just wanted to let you know that the kiwi olsen thing is a magazine the link is www.kiwiolsen.net/portrait/ not just the kiwiolsen.net thats why

Hi again, Sorry to cause you so much trouble. I didn't mean to :( Anyhow I can delete Kendall Gaveck, Daniella Morris, Tara Conner, and Jena Sims pages I created so you guys won't have to debate it anyhow. Sorry again I hope you are not annoyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsaybabay (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 April 2007

Delete, I never could have written this as well as the nom.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:23, 24 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!) 11:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Sefton[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity entry Summertimez 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible smerge. Young actress whose only credited role I could find was a minor character on an admittedly well-established soap opera. So far, the character appears to have only appeared once. If that qualifies for an entry in List of Emmerdale characters, the character and actress could be included. No prejudice against recreation following wider career visibility in future. Serpent's Choice 11:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no verifiable information about this person. Just a couple of local newspaper articles that do little else other than suggest that she had a very small part in this soap. There is no mention of her on the ITV Emmerdale site or even IMDB.Summertimez 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far, and can come up with some verification of her existence and her Emmerdale role. But its almost all trivial,[7] and when its not, it still isn't substantive.[8] Again, I don't know the standards for inclusion in the Emmerdale characters list, but assuming they are low enough, she could get the standard one line there, and if her career continues, may have the potential for an article at a later date. I certainly agree that there are not grounds for her own article at this time under WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:CRYSTAL, et al. Serpent's Choice 14:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The link to the agent's website is blatant advertising Summertimez 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no grounds for stating this is a vanity project. If it was then there would undoubtably be more information. However, as it stands the subject doesn't pass any WP:BIO criteria and I see no reason to make an exception to the rule. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non Notable. --Loostick 21:11, 28 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. Krimpet (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNITED cRACKING fORCE[edit]

Largely unsourced article on non-notable cracking organisation. Only detailed write-up is from a cracker's online magazine (large text file - 921KB, article starts from the line "Subject : UCF Fixing Others' Mistakes") and it is an interview with UCF members, so it does not constitute "independent" coverage. Other independent mentions of the group are just that - short mentions of the group's name only. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 09:58Z

Obligatory links to previous AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNITED cRACKING fORCE (10 December 2005, nomination withdrawn), Talk:United Cracking Force/delete (19 December 2004, keep). —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 10:04Z

uNSOURCED and anyway unReMArKable so dELETE. (Gosh, this cApitAlization is so kewl!) -- Hoary 11:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has been around since 2004 and is still unsourced. Well, nobody can say we didn't give it a fair chance, anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe intervention by a certain sysop has been a factor in keeping this page up. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 15:11Z
Delete - definitely fails WP:ATT. The only non-trivial reference is not a reliable source. Unless someone can come up with some decent sources for this article, I think it's time it goes. --Haemo 22:18, 24 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 fishhead64 05:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Reynolds (ex-slave)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a genealogical record. Not notable. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this has a very strong feel of being a primary source. Even if it isn't, it's almost certainly OR. Even if it isn't that, there's nothing to show she's any different to the 4 million other former slaves. Someone's obviously put a lot of work into this but Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for it - maybe Wikibooks would want it? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems cribbed from [9]. A true slave narrative by Reynolds -- written or audio/videotaped -- would be worthy of Wikibooks. This is just an article (and not a very good one) about a single non-notable former slave, whose narrative is in a copyrighted book, The American Slave, vol. 5. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 24 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 06:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word Up (magazine)[edit]

Non-notable magazine with no mention in major media. Possibly no longer published. Mmoyer 02:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See [[10]]. This of course does not prove it's notability, and given the lack of other sources i am most inclined to say it should be deleted. --Jimmi Hugh 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am voting against for non-notability because a web page for the magazine does not come up on the first page of search engine results and the article is unsourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has been around for nearly two years. If it was going to amount to anything it should have done so by now. BTLizard 14:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation if a better article can be written. This article has no sources and does not include much information about the magazine (such as who publishes it, when it started, what its circulation is, etc.). --Metropolitan90 05:25, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:40Z

The ryston shield[edit]

Non notable school football competition. No sources. Prod removed by author. OnoremDil 10:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete per nom Stephenb (Talk) 10:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (All three Stephenb (Talk) 07:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete per nom. --Neigel von Teighen 10:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Delete The Linford cup too. --Neigel von Teighen 10:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both non-notable 5-a-side tournaments organised for the pupils within a single school, no different to the 5-a-side leagues run at sports centres up and down the country. No reliable sources ChrisTheDude 11:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ....and also delete the non-notable team which I didn't notice was also bundled in :-) ChrisTheDude 11:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as highly non-notable, unknown outside the school the players attend. Qwghlm 11:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - about as non-notable as you can get. - fchd 11:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - the names don't lead to articles about the footballers, just historical people who happen to have the same names. This is a 'pet vanity project'. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for all three. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three, as non notable.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 14:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot - so where are these "biggest talents in recent memory" who've apparently emerged from it, then? Those bluelinks are all false positives, unless the current holders really did have the governor of Iowa as centre-forward, the youngest American to climb Everest on the left wing and a 17th century pirate in goal - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 13:42, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:41Z

List of fictional alcoholics[edit]

Trivia, and original research. Lots of characters in fiction drink alcohol; the extent towards these characters are "alcoholics" is ill-defined in fiction, and it's generally not a defining characteristic for them. The page is rife with citation requests, as well as apologetic disclaimers for including people. Note that we don't have a List of alcoholics either. >Radiant< 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Determining whether the vast majority of alcohol-drinking fictional characters are "alcoholics" would be original research. To the extent that such a list would be possible, it would be an indescriminate list of information. Attesting to the lack of need here, we don't even have an alcoholism in fiction article or article section. Serpent's Choice 11:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the information in this list can be verified or sourced until all of the fictional characters on the list go en masse to an AA meeting and individually declare their bout with alcoholism. --Cyrus Andiron 12:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and irreconcilable POV/OR concerns. Otto4711 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some "fictional alcoholics" are pretty much a no brainer (like Barney Gumble) it's still OR-ridden. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any list including Elwood P. Dowd as an alcoholic has gone wrong somewhere. Obviously, this list includes too much OR. Phiwum 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alcoholic fictional characters are almost as much of a cliché as author fictional characters. Even a perfect list would be way, way too long. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:00, 28 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 06:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hernandez[edit]

An article on "a Amature skateboarder" who back in 2006 "would make a nusence of him self to other people" but seems to have advanced since. "Although Hernandez does not compete at the higher levels of skateboarding, his large sponsorship packages assure him of 'Am' status" ... hang on, I thought everybody was "Am" by default and that the difficulty was becoming pro. But there's assertion of some degree (slightly on the minuscule side, I fear) of significance: Anthony is currently filming for the video Broken Legs by Forever Skateboards which will be released in the summer of 2007 and Hernandez also appeared in a movie called We Push Wood also starring Adrian Palaya, Gavin Troung, and many more.

In its grandest state, this article had links to fourteen nonexistent other-language versions and to nonexistent Wikiquotes.

In this edit, User:Rappa pp (contributions) perhaps rashly added to the end: . Rappa pp has been the sole contributor of content to this article, and I have a curious intuition that ~~va–~~ conflict of interest might be a factor here. But most tellingly, I can't see any evidence for such bold claims as that Hernandez currently resides in "A Crap Hole," a large house near Interstate 87. Hoary 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my favourite bit - 'His grandfather nicknamed him "Dumbass" at the age of three after his habit of running into other people. He attends Andrew hill high school and cites friend Shawn Singh as his only reason for attending high school, and dropped out after Singh got expelled for Hacking the schools Mainframe.' Nick mallory 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Delete. I thought it was going to be funny but it's just boring. Reasons? Well, how about unsourced, original research, POV. Don't even have to think about notability. BTLizard 13:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidently we are all missing the multiple non trivial sources listed at the bottom of the page. Oh yeah, all four are myspace pages. --Cyrus Andiron 13:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wouldn't be notable if he skateboarded into Osama bin Laden's hiding place accompanied by Elvis Presley and Jimmy Hoffa. Cyrus, those aren't just any Myspace pages, they're misspelt Myspace pages - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable skater boi. NawlinWiki 02:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in a new development: User:Rappa pp has userfied the article (complete with categories). -- Hoary 02:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable, unverifiable article. TheMindsEye 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Anthony appeared in a movie, but is it notible? I haven't found any references to it. Also, why are there three completely different myspace links at the bottom, let alone an explanation stating that what is posted above is from them. There seems to be a loose connection. I am suspecting a vanity article or other type of conflit of interest. Turlo Lomon 11:46, 26 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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Artists Foundation[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- Freshacconci 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 09:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This seems notable enough (and pretty useful too!), but the article in question reads only as an advertisement. I'm not certain how it could be improved and my "vote" could easily change to delete: can anyone convince me either way? Freshacconci 13:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - mostly written by User:Trans Artists, only 196 ghits, but linked to by eg British Arts Council. Seems non-profit & genuine. Can't open their web-link. Needs a rewrite, if only for the English. Johnbod 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is spam. It serves no purpose. It should be mentioned in other articles on Wikipedia. Using the "Search" feature on Wikipedia a user would find it. But no purpose is served in it's having it's own article at this time, except, of course, to boost it's stature. It's sole purpose for being on Wikipedia is an advertising purpose at this time. If in the future a reason arose for it to have an article on Wikipedia, an article could be written at that time. Just because it is an organization is no reason that it should automatically deserve an article on Wiki. Bus stop 14:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I know what you mean, but these aren't really arguments against notability. What other articles should it be mentioned in, apart from Artist in residence? Johnbod 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't really say what other articles it should be mentioned in. I will leave that to others. The one you mention, Artist in residence, seems a reasonable choice. As for notability, I am not convinced it has been established. Has the Trans Artists Foundation been the subject of multiple, non trivial, articles, by sources without a self-interest in promoting it? The external links seem to me to be similar organizations to the organization that is the subject of this article. Bus stop 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Johnbod ffm ✎talk 13:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Johnbod Alf^Photoman 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this spam, start again if the subject is genuinely notable. Sources seem to be about the concept not the subject. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 27 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. Krimpet (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy Conway[edit]

Member of ZOEgirl, but not at all notable as an individual per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Utopianheaven 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as fairly notable musician, or merge into ZOEgirl. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A simple search on Google would indicate that Chrissy is not only a part of ZOEgirl, but she is also a songwriter and a short-story writer in magazines such as Campus Life. In addition, she was originally with the group Choice with Alecia Moore and Sharon Flanagan. That distinguishes her career from the other members in the group. Chrissy's article meets the WP:BIO guideline in that:
- She had significant roles stage performances, and other productions.
- She has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
- She has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to Christian pop music. --lov e laughterlife♥^talk? 02:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say that meeting 3 WP:BIO points is a good reason to retain. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:44, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:42Z

List of deceased superheroes[edit]

Delete - with very rare exceptions we do not maintain lists or categories on the basis of living or dead status. For fictional characters, especially superheroes, this is particularly problematic becuase of the notoriously impermanent nature of comic book death. There are also WP:NOT issues based on the indiscriminate nature of such a list and the loosely associated nature of such a listing, especially across publishers and franchises. Otto4711 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there were only two listed characters from what I could see. The rest of the article contained a link to another website. I agree, there is no reason to have this incomplete list. --Cyrus Andiron 13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually content-free. It's about six weeks old; I'd expect something a bit more substantial by now. BTLizard 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current status is impossible with fiction, especially considering big publishers like Marvel and DC have separate lines of comics running simultaneously like Ultimate X-Men, Elseworlds, whatever.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable even if it did pass - I can't think of a single dead superhero who hasn't come back to life later — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable list. Doczilla 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You all make good points (from the creator). --WTRiker 01:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the fluidity of "comic book deaths" (see: Barnes, Bucky and Todd, Jason) this is a transient category at best. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 15:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete With carchters daying and coming back in practically every otehr isuue of comics, this list is too hard too maintain. Plus, if it was kept, EVERY carchter, including the obscure ones would have to be included here, which would be impossible. The Placebo Effect 13:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the extreme prevalence of the comic book death effect. If it were deceased fictional characters in any other genre, I might consider the question. Not here. Inherently contradictory and impossible to maintain. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nae Nowts[edit]

There are a whopping 13 google hits on this, most linking back to this wikipedia article. No reliable sources, so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xyzzyplugh 13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slang dicdef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Adambro 13:45, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:42Z

Stunts performed in Jackass: The Movie and Stunts performed in Jackass Number Two[edit]

This is a list of descriptions of scenes from a movie. It is both unencyclopedic and trivia. An earlier AFD resulted in a decision of "merge", however nobody has bothered to do so; indeed, adding these many descriptions to the otherwise good movie article seems hardly feasible. See also this. >Radiant< 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable enough to merit it's own article, possibly merge if the closing admin can find anything notable to inclusion on the main page. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and delete Stunts performed in Jackass Number Two for the same reasons. Otto4711 14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this list detailed enough to be WP:CV as well? Eldereft 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable items. There's nothing on the list which warrants specific mention, as they're all pretty non-notable individually. I suppose this technically is just a plot summary with too much detail. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:27, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:45Z

Have You Got It Yet?[edit]

This is more of a procedral nomination than anything, it was originally prod'd, but I think it would be better to get a greater consensus before deleting. In my opinion, it is a non notable album failing WP:MUSIC Ryan Postlethwaite 14:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I prodded this originally... anyway, I still think it should be deleted. It's not notable. I mean, it's not even a primary bootleg, it's a COLLECTION of bootlegs (like a bootleg of bootlegs). There aren't any acceptable independent sources and only 11,000 google hits (only three or four of those are about the subject of this article). The Parsnip! 14:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ILIKEIT, but there's a lack of reliable sources and this compilation is almost certainly not notable. I think this could have been left to go through prod, but respect the fact that anybody can challenge a prod. --kingboyk 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]
Seems to be an obvious Delete, this is a compiliation CD put together by members of a Yahoo Group (a message board, more or less), making it about as non-notable as one can possibly imagine. Fails WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There does seam to be reliable sources; [11], [12] and a g-search provides numerous semi reliable sources [13] Ryan Postlethwaite 14:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Neither of the sources you mentioned say anything about this collection of bootleg CDs. One of the articles contains the phrase "have you got it yet", but it is not a reference to this at all. --Xyzzyplugh 14:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (this is irritating, I got throught after fourth edit conflict), I am not sure if WP:MUSIC applies to this or not. But I do not see it satifying the notability criterion. Hardly anyone keeps a track of its popularity among the fans (with definitive statistics), so its kinda hard to judge notability. Looking at Last.fm, I see only hundred odd listeners, which kinda seems low. From Ghits, I do not see much activity around it (only a handful of forums mention it). Applying the "attributible to reliable sources" policy, it looks even more bleak, as I did not see any such source which mentions it (the set of recordings). --soum (0_o) 14:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable (per Wikipedia standards; I might try to find a copy of this myself as it sounds interesting to a Pink Floyd fan). --ElKevbo 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as far as the bootleg. Not really notable. As for the legend behind the name (Barrett would play a tune and spontaneously change it when the rest of them had it)...well, I saw it discussed in an interview once, but that's about it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The consensus here seems pretty clear. The Parsnip! 13:42, 27 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 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirka dirka[edit]

No reliable sources on this, doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xyzzyplugh 14:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So flaky that you'd be hard put to establish an agreed spelling for this. Fails WP:NEO. BTLizard 14:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete as as neologism neologism. YechielMan 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC) YechielMan 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "A search will yield a result of "no camparible term found", or reference to the term "dirca", a North American shrub, or "dirk", which is a form of dagger or knife". Nuff said — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable gag from a couple of South-Park related media. --Haemo 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable phrase in pop culture, 1,080,000 G-hits [14]. --Candy-Panda 11:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase "blue shirt" has 850,000 google hits, while the phrase "lots of stuff" gets 1,240,000 google hits. We don't keep or delete articles based on number of google hits. Have you found any reliable sources on this? (and "dirka dirka", in fact, gets only 30,000 google hits, not 1 million) --Xyzzyplugh 13:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a neologism. I'd be very surprised if reliable sources could be found. Jay32183 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep notable pop culture phrase popularised by South Park and Team America. --NinjaBunny 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please list the reliable sources you have found about this notable phrase. --Xyzzyplugh 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xyzzyplugh. Captain Infinity 11:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Great movie, but there are no reliable sources, so I have to say delete for the time being. -- Scorpion 14:33, 28 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 closed. Article at the time of nomination was heavily vandalised. Reverted to last known good stub on the common-results presumption that high schools meet notability requirements. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake_Region_High_School_(Maine)[edit]

Content is childish nonsense, containing false names as well as actual ones. Even a death threat. School is non-notable (has far less than one thousand students) anyway. TonySt 14:11, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:47Z

List of one-off characters on South Park[edit]

Contested prod. The prod listed the following reason: Page is full of non-notable characters that are covered perfectly fine on the single episodes. Dr bab 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (The article was prodded by User: TTN)[reply]

Delete I must say I agree with the original prod on this one, all the information seems to be redundant to the individual epsiode articles. Note that there are a couple of redirect pages that redirect here, if this page is deleted, they should instead redirect to the correct individual episode page. Dr bab 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half-hearted Keep. I'd like to see the level of detail in the individual episodes bulked up enough to make this page unnecessary, but as a resource in the South Park Wikiproject's effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to South Park it does have some value. Captain Infinity 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has already been around for quite some time and has a sizable amount of relevent information. Most episode have very little information on the characters themselves that were featured and this gives people the opportunity to add such information that regularly gets deleted out of the episode pages. - Count23 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has info on single-episode characters not discussed in the episode articles and is good for reference. (On a side note, I contributed several images to this page & deleating it seems like a waste) --Frinko 03:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All characters appear notable, article justifies its self in length, etc... perfectly legitimate... not to mention the moot deletion reason (how is it nn?) Matthew 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good stuff, major notable series. Wikipedia not paper. AndyJones 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TTN doesn't like characters that aren't "notable" enough for him, and therefore either proposes a deleting or a merger. I am very much against this as I believe all articles that are well-written and notable enough deserve to be kept. What TTN is doing is vandalism! The Prince of Darkness 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep. It is very useful, and I saw absolutely NO reason to delete it. --98E 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting and complete stuff. DeansFA 13:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are minor characters and do not require comprehensive coverage, nor can it be achieved because there won't be enough reliable sources. A one sentence mention in the episode article is more than enough. Jay32183 20:03, 27 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. Krimpet (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bowles[edit]

The most recent AfD on this fellow closed as "no consensus." DRV overturned (very narrowly) on the rationale that BLP concerns were not sufficiently discussed. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The assertion that he is notable because he has worked with or has been involved with other notable people is nonsense. Notability isn't communicable like that, it needs to be established on its own merits. What is the primary criterion for notability? "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Mr. Bowles is not the subject of the reliable secondary sources given. In those sources, he is, at best, a trivial mention. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comment. He's not notable as an attorney; no significant bar association activity, no other clients, as far as I can tell. Bearian 18:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. The independent references look to be trivial with respect to their treatment of him specifically. Seems like there's a decent argument for notability the of Bowles and Moxon firm, but I don't see anything that establishes him as notable aside from that. If his name really wound up getting out there in these Scientology cases, then I guess I wouldn't have a problem with the encyclopedia being able to respond to his name being entered here. But from what I can see, even if that's allowed, it would be better for the page resulting from entering Bowles's name to be that of the law firm, rather than be a bio of someone who doesn't seem to really meet WP:BIO — at least not judging by what I see cited in the article (again, because what is cited in the article is trivial with respect to Bowles individually). Mwelch 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is one of the chief legal goons for Scientology. He is written about, not always favorably. Currently he is a commissioner on Scientology's Citizens Commission on Human Rights and director of Scientology's Youth for Human Rights International. He is not to be confused with Tim Bowles, former chief executive of MRB Group, the London-based parent of Simmons Market Research Bureau. --Bejnar 22:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bejnar. Notability for the subject is established in the article. Please also note the article has been significally expanded since first being listed for AfD on April 13; see DIFF [15] to address allegations of WP:BIO raised in the third AfD discussion, but not in the nomination statement itself. The fact the article was able to be expanded shows it was not a "hopeless case". Please also note this fourth AfD was started without the article itself being tagged as having a fourth AfD. I will now tag the article accordingly. Orsini 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , I think saying that there is N for the firm and not him is hair-splitting when he's one of the two principals. I see no BLP concerns with respect to the subject--he is an attorney doing his work in the public arena on a topic of general public interest. I wonder if the deletion will be attempted every week or so until it eventually succeeds by chance. . DGG 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd respectfully (and particularly respectfully in this case, since DGG is an editor for whom I certainly have respect) disagree. There is a law firm called Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca, Fischer, Gilbert-Lurie, Stiffelman, Cook, Johnson, Lande & Wolf. If that firm takes on high-profile work that makes the firm notable (it may already be; I haven't looked into it in any detail, but I think it's considered fairly heavyweight in entertainment law; heck, some might even argue it's notable just for the name!--lol), does that mean all ten of them now automatically satisfy WP:BIO just from that alone? Without any independent coverage of them individually or their individual work on whatever case(s) made the firm notable? I can't see that. Mwelch 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:DGG's excellent points. There have been (3) previous unsuccessful AFDs. And since then, even more citations have been added to the article from reputable secondary sources, and more will continue to be added. Smee 07:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete tinged with apathy. It's simple: does this guy meet WP:BIO? The guideline tells us to consider "the depth of coverage" - and the additional sources seem to mention Bowles in a line or two, at most. I still don't see that he's been the subject of non-trivial coverage in "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He is not automatically notable just because his firm is - see WP:NOTINHERITED. The prior AfD's have not generated a consensus (they've all been closed as "no consensus", not "keep"), so relisting is not as inappropriate as some of the above comments suggest. MastCell ^Talk 15:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable scientology attorney, formerly law partner of Kendrick Moxon. [16] [17] [18]. The two separated in the 90ies. Still lawyer for scientology causes today. He (or someone with his name) has confirmed this himself in discussion. Note also that the article has been improved a few days ago by Smee, so that there is even more documentation. --Tilman 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Let me add that the article has been greatly improved in the last few days, there are more useful details. Also, at least 6 other articles link to him, i.e. it is not an orphan. --Tilman 06:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely a notable person and a historical figure. I wonder why there have been four AfD's on this fellow.--Fahrenheit451 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Partly because of continual assertions that he's "definitely notable", without pointing to any non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, or explaining how exactly he fulfills the criteria set forth in WP:BIO. Arguments making use of Wikipedia's notability guidelines would probably help settle the issue. Counting the number of prior no-consensus AfD's or arguing that "he works for a notable organization, therefore he is notable" are less helpful. MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I believe there have been cases before of musicians where it was determined "Yeah, they were a member of this notable band, but it was the band that was notable, not each individual members." Then there have been cases of individual musicians who, while not achieving fame in their own right, were members of multiple bands that were each notable, and I believe that in those cases, the general verdict was that notability had been achieved. If Bowles was only a name partner in Scientology's lead counsel for their effort to attain tax-exempt status, or only a name partner in the law firm generally credited with bankrupting the original Cult Awareness Network, or only a Commissioner of Citizens Commission on Human Rights, or only a director of Youth for Human Rights International, then yes, I would agree, there'd be not much of an argument for notability. But I believe that there is precedent for deeming someone notable who has been involved in all these notable organizations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - It is important to note that a number but not all Keep votes in all his AfDs are bloc voting by anti-Scientologists that seem to be invoking the "but he is a Scientologist" hidden clause of WP:BIO. This clause states that depth of coverage need not be considered if the subject of a WP:BLP is a Scientologist. Obviously I am being sardonic and I am not going to go into my suppositions as to why anti-Scientologists vote this way. You can spot the bloc by looking at common voters in previous AfDs. And yes, Scientologists vote in a bloc too and I am sure that anti-Scientologists can come up with a mirror-image sardonic "reason". I do not know if this is the "partisan shenanigans" referred to by the closing admin in the 3rd AfD. I am nom for the 3rd AfD and still believe that his prior work as an attorney does not meet notability for this project. However, as Director of Youth for Human Rights, it is possible that he will at some point in the possibly near future be the subject of sufficient non-trivial coverage and an article can be created for him at that time. --Justanother 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, and frankly, I would suggest to Justanother that he stop claiming that he has some mysterious power by which he can magically divine the innermost thoughts of "anti-Scientologists". As his recent allegations about my religion indicate, he is not a good guesser about such matters. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Antaeus, if I misremembered something about you re your religious beliefs or lack thereof then I apologize. I think I said that it was what I seemed to remember from a past post. As far as the persistent intentions of anti-Scientologists to fill this project with articles about Scientology and Scientologists, notable or not, to, IMO, serve as vehicles for a sustained campaign of unbalanced POV-pushing and pointing to highly POV and non-RS external links; well, I think that speaks for itself. How many Scientology-series articles are there? Like 250? And how hard do I have to fight to get the articles to stick to RS and to get the crap EL's out? Not against you particularly or against some others that seem to have a decent sense of where "consensus" might lie but certainly against the continued reverts of a few of your friends that misjudge it or just don't care and ignore it as it is building. Oh well. --Justanother 16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 272 Scientology series articles. Steve Dufour 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Justanother, you come across as hypocritical to me. To quote from your user page:"Oh, I should mention that I most certainly do not the divide the universe into pro- and anti-Scientologist; I do not even divide the editors working on the Scientology articles here that way;" You seem to be doing quite a job of lumping those with a different POV on Scn than you into the "anti" category. --Fahrenheit451 17:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I, like most, am not immune to hypocrisy I do not think that you that have put your finger on any. 272 Scientology-series articles, huh? And a certain group will always vote as one to keep the most non-notable of them and to keep the most outrageous POV ELs in as "highly relevant and sourced" or some-such. The exceptions, those that do not blindly vote the "party line", usually simply abstain; they almost never vote against their bloc. All very partisan. The pro- and anti-Scientology editors are obvious. My point on my user page is that not all editors that edit in the Scientology-series articles fall into partisan camps. So I do not see the hypocrisy. --Justanother 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, I know it will do no good whatsoever to ask you to stop your personal attacks but I will ask you anyways. I know you will defend your continuing allegations with some combination of "but I haven't actually named any names" and "but it's all true" (as if anyone ever believed their own beliefs false?) I do not think these are adequate excuses. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a personal attack does, by definition, have to attack a person. wikipediatrix 04:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly what Justanother's personal attacks do, they attack people. If I point my finger at a group of twenty people and say "you people are dishonest, sneaking, snivelling rats with no integrity," I have made a personal attack. Does the fact that I simply pointed at that group to identify who I was attacking, instead of naming specific names, make it less of a personal attack? No, it does not. Does the fact that each one of those twenty people might think that I only meant eighteen or nineteen of them, and think him or herself the exception, in any way mean that I have not made a personal attack upon whichever eighteen or nineteen I did mean? No. It's still personal attacks and it's still just as disruptive and frankly just as noxious. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I dunno. I read the same thing you did and I wasn't offended. I didn't think he was disruptive. I didn't think he was noxious. But that's just my opinion of your opinion of his opinion. wikipediatrix 05:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Being a lawyer for a famous cause isn't sufficient in and of itself. Where is he written about, please? All the sources, both in this article and in this AFD, just give his name and profession. That's not sufficient for an article. Tilman's references are an excellent example, they don't mention him as an actual person anywhere, just say that he is part of his law firm. In fact, so does our article - it doesn't say what he did that was at all notable; not his company, or his religious group, he. So he was a lawyer for scientology causes, that's not sufficient in itself unless someone wrote about him being such a lawyer. Real writing, not just mentioning his name. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what I said the last time. Mr Bowles activities are notable and seperate from Moxon & Kobrin. As well I have just added a list clients to the article. AndroidCat 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not notable. He is a lawyer doing a lawyer's work. That as notable as a driver driving and a gardener gardening. COFS 23:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Weak Keep. The article's introductory paragraph describes Bowles as "an American attorney who has worked for the Church of Scientology and its related organizations for the majority of his career." Substitute any other entity's name for Scientology and it suddenly seems like a "who cares?" kind of thing. What if he worked as an attorney for the Lutheran church all his life? Or Westinghouse or General Electric? Of all of the "important" cases Bowles worked on involving Scientology, none of them were as big as the O. J. Simpson trial... and yet many of the O.J. trial attorneys to this day do not have their own article. It should be noted that I am the creator of this article, and that I now regret creating it because in retrospect, I just don't think Bowles is notable enough in the big scheme of things to deserve an article. This is not because I wish to remove information that may be unflattering to Bowles and Scientology, quite the contrary: all of the data in this article has a rightful place in other Wikipedia articles. Having said all that, I vote 'weak keep' because the article is a really good read now that AndroidCat has done a superb job of beefing up the info, and part of me wants to keep it that way despite feeling in principle that it nevertheless fails Wikipedia's criteria of notability. I realize this is illogical, arbitrary, and self-contradictory, but hey, so is Wikipedia in general. wikipediatrix 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very well said. I think you expressed my feelings on this AfD better than I myself did, although I come down on the weak delete side instead of weak keep. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bejnar, DGG, and AndroidCat. The combination of his legal work over the years and, increasingly, his profile as an international human rights advocate (and the attention paid thereto) appear to confer notability. Robertissimo 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per wikipediatrix. Metamagician3000 23:46, 29 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. Majorly (hot!) 14:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alameda County Probation Department[edit]

I'm nominating all the articles in Category:United States probation departments for deletion, except for Los Angeles County Probation Department (which the article claims is the largest in the world and the first in California, so it doesn't seem quite as clear to me that it should be deleted). All the nominated articles are stubs with no claim to notability.

Propaniac 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Another solution would be to merge them into a list. YechielMan 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article author). Although these are just stubs right now, it seems possible to make them more comprehensive. The articles cover companies (albeit government-run), that effect many people and are cited in local newspapers. I just haven't had the time/effort to put into it recently. They seem notable to me. Cmcnicoll 04:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the solution then is to combine the meager information into the articles for the county and then they can be expanded if you can find sources. I am not sure you can--I think you will get only directory information for most probation departments, but some of these may have been involved in notable scandals or other news events. There will be dozens of trivial accounts than a prisoner was released in care of one, or committed to one but that is what's meant by trivial source. Normally I support stubs, for many can be turned into articles, or can usefully remain as short articles. But with the sort of information that's given here, I dont think it likely. DGG 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per DGG. Every US county has a probation department in addition to dozens of other departments. These articles do little more than assert the existence of the department. If there is something to be said about the department, the better approach is to start with a section in the main county article. If the section grows, then spin it off into a separate article.--Kubigula (talk) 00:39, 30 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 a7, no assertion of notability; a Google search for "Mean Girls" + Swayze (name of their record label) yields one hit, their MySpace page. NawlinWiki 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mean Girls (band)[edit]

This is a very short article, written in an unencyclopaedic tone, about a band for whom no particular claim of notability is made. The first sentence says, in part, "They've released a few albums independently..." but no titles of said albums are given nor are the name(s) of the company or companies on which they were released. There are no references, hence the edit tags that have been placed, but even with references, there is simply no claim to notability---indeed, the tone of the article is almost dismissive, as if the author could not be bothered to write anything more or better on the subject. This being the case, I recommend delete. Charles 15:47, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:47Z

You Cant Always Get What You Carpet[edit]

WP is not a crystal ball. Episodes of a show that is still half a year from premeiring are just not notable, IMHO. TexasAndroid 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. A total 3 non-WP g-hits is a big indicator that this is either bogus or premature. - grubber 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there are sufficient sources available after the broadcast it'd be different. This article is definitely premature since the main article on the series is still quite stubbish. Jay32183 23:57, 26 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. --Wafulz 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Carver[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Subject has not been the "subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Only article content is a summary of Howard Stern show appearences. —Ocatecir ^Talk 15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to The Wack Pack, per my nomination. —Ocatecir ^Talk 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Wack Pack#Daniel Carver. His entry there is limited, so some of this page's info should be moved there before this is deleted. Optigan13 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep badlydrawnjeff brings up sufficient material to point out that individual is notable in their own right as KKK member, in addition to being notable for being a Wack Packer.Optigan13 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, over 20 years of material to work with regarding this highly famous individual. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If article can keep cleaned up to use those sources I will withdraw the nomination. —Ocatecir ^Talk 15:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Impressive, badlydrawnjeff. Thanks for that. hombre de haha 07:29, 26 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. Cbrown1023 talk 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K. C. Armstrong[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Subject has not been the "subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Only sources are from show rundowns, personal webpages, and other sources within the Howard Stern universe. —Ocatecir ^Talk 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's impossible to get reliable sources on this one. --Bill.matthews 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:BIO, a number of factors:

Producer AND primary character (differentiating from whack pack) on the Howard Stern show, currently a stand alone entrepreneur and entertainer
I disagree that rundowns are not "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" - there are actually two key writeups, both the one on the main stern site, howard stern, but also on marksfriggin. Take a moment to review the depth, detail and rigorousness of this latter "rundown". While you may disagree the show warrants this level of obsession - with daily show summaries that are typically 5+ pages long and with a 10 year daily archive - its hard to argue that it is not reliable and intellectually independent. In fact, I would further argue that the message boards act as a level of peer review on marksfriggin, as they rapidly correct any errors
There is a separate, stand-alone KC database providing details of his original tenure on the Howard Stern show: KC Database
Film and TV credits on IMDB: imdb
I also disagree that show recordings should not be considered sources. In this era, insisting that only text references count seems quaint, especially as Google and the other search behemoths zero in on indexing audio, video and image sources. Are Oprah, the Fox talking heads, the nightly news anchors not sources? If so, why not a radio show?
If the above is not persuasive, I note there is a particularly relevent exception to the primary criterion for notability cited by Ocatecir above:

- "Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities
  - With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  - Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  - Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

KC hits all three. He had / has a significant role on the Howard Stern Radio and TV shows, one of the most popular and successful radio shows in history. He has a large fan base and "cult" follow, and he has made unique and prolific contributions to the Howard Stern show.

I further refer people to the Talk:K._C._Armstrong. Prior VFD and NPOV arguments have been rejected, and I think many of the reasons remain persuasive.

Final note - this is the first time I've engage in a VFD debate, while I have reviewed the precedents, I may still have made some unitentional faux pas', so apologize in advance.

Nowhitenoise 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Nowhitenoise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak keep. While it probably is possible to create a properly sourced article about K.C., I'm having trouble finding good sources myself. He was once a significant member of the on-air cast of The Howard Stern Show although his fame seems to have decreased in recent years due to his departure from the show. If the article isn't kept, it at least should be merged to an appropriate article about The Howard Stern Show or a related topic. --Metropolitan90 05:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - KC is known by millions and deserves to be included in an encyclopedia of this size. As to reliable sources, millions hear the shows, including reruns each Friday which include KC and which include phone calls which update us on KCs status. Mark's Friggin is a primary reference. This page should be expanded and sourced to Stern show broadcasts, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 (talk • contribs) 13:00, April 26, 2007 (UTC)

Merge to The Howard Stern Show. No reliable sources evident to support an article seemingly composed of trivial events and radio bits. Serial incompetence does not equate to notability. Caknuck 07:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge as above - no independent sources. Nowhitenoise, I value the points you make, but I've found in AfD debates that the Wikipedia community doesn't typically consider those things enough to prove a following - you have to prove that the outside world (outside of this following) has called him notable. If, say, he was featured on 60 Minutes, I bet that would be persuasive. Although I suspect he's had his 15 minutes and won't achieve that level of fame ever again. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, with respect to Nowhitenoise for a good argument. The thing is, this is a biography of a living person, not an article about a character on a show. As a character on a show, he's clearly important enough, but the article is a biography, and includes some rather negative claims with nothing to back them up. I actually think the guy might be notable enough for an article, but we need to find the reliable sources first and write the article after that. Mango juice^talk 19:04, 1 May 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!) 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of country-related topics[edit]

There is already a category having the same function as this list. The existence of this list is unnecessary duplication. :Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The category page does not list the missing pages. --Vsion 03:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vsion. This list aids navigation and article development and is thus in compliance with Wikipedia:List guideline. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:03, 29 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!) 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hongkongers[edit]

The reasons for this AfD are as follows:

A category is already abundant to maintain a list of Hongkongers. It is unnecessary duplication to keep such a list.
It is not feasible to maintain such a list in the long-term. It is not even possible at all for such a list to be completed. :Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 15:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of Hongkongers already exists, it's called the phone book. Wikipedia isn't it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Hongkonger" isn't a proper term in the first place. Also, List of people entries are useless and violates WP:NOT#DIR. (AQu01rius  Talk) 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you may not fully understand how lists work here. This place has something called Wikipedia:Featured lists and it includes Lists of people. See List of HIV-positive people or List of Dartmouth College alumni. The idea of lists of people is not to be a directory, but to list the notable people associated to a thing. Lists are useful in academia and encyclopedias. (My set has an index and it also has pages which are pretty much just lists of technical terms or events of a given century.) Bibliographies are, in a sense, lists. The main reference work with lists is the Almanac, but unfortunately there is no Wiki-Almanac. I believe though Wikipedia itself is seen as having the function of an Almanac until a Wiki-Almanac is created.--T. Anthony 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Change the article to its proper name and keep. It is potentially informative, directional, and developmentally useful (Wikipedia:List_guideline). --Remi 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia:List guideline isn't a notability criteria but a technical article on how to format lists. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE are criteria, both of which this clearly breaches by a huge margin. We may as well have a List of people with brown hair or List of cars with a registered keeper in Rutland — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Change and Keep. Change the name to List of Famous Hong Kong People or some other thing and keep the article. --Jacklau96 10:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - By definition all things in a [[List of people by nationality are to be notable. Adding "famous" is considered poor style or POV. However "Hong Konger" might be wrong so switching to "Hong Kong people" is worth considering. If people really require things being spelled out then "notable" is preferred to "famous", although neither is deemed warranted.--T. Anthony 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Voters on these lists fairly often seem sadly clueless as to what a list is or is used for. I direct you to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people, which will maybe help you. Read it carefully. I also direct you to Category:Lists of people by nationality, Category:Lists of Indian people by city, List of Dublin people, and the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people of Oakville, Ontario. Also note I vote delete on Oakville, Ontario one because I felt the city was not sufficiently notable. I lost. Hong Kong is about 40 times the size of Oakville, Ontario and has a political position that's far more interesting. A rename for this list, however, is worth discussing.--T. Anthony 05:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those lists should be deleted for long. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cited two categories worth of "those lists." So what you're saying is we should just have a major change in Wikipedia and wipe out over a 100 of the things? Sounds ambitious. I'm skeptical you'll succeed, but feel free to try.--T. Anthony 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still maintain that general lists of people (as opposed to "lists of members of" type lists) are pointless, since at best they're a content duplication and at worst a divergent content fork from their equivalent categories — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Cleanup - First of all, change the title to "List of Hong Kong people". "Hongkonger" is definitely an invented word, and a loosely defined idea (The article named "Hongkonger" has been merged to "Demographics of HK" recently). Second, keep notable people - and only notable people - whose notability should be defined by the corresponding policies of Wikipedia currently. When I take a glance on the article, I would feel that this is a "list of mostly HK showbiz people plus some HK footballers plus a few HK politicians", rather a "list of HK people". There are too many less-known celebrities (A good example would be Cerina Filomena da Graca, which is on the list and linked to a heavily biased article.) with entries everywhere in Wikipedia added by fans. If even those less-known celebrities (some even without an article, just their names in red) are worth being on the list, why shouldn't we add those really notable people? I don't even see Li Ka Shing on the list! Third, EITHER remove all Chinese names after the English name (this is an ENGLISH Wikipedia), OR, add Chinese names after ALL English names (better do this in a table). What a messy article it is with Chinese names scattered everywhere in the list. --supernorton 03:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some work on it.--T. Anthony 06:03, 28 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. Majorly (hot!) 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss postal codes 1000-1999[edit]

This article and similar articles in Category:Postal codes of Switzerland do nothing but list hundreds of postal codes and their corresponding geographic areas. As Wikipedia is not a postal directory, I propose that these articles be deleted. Please note that a similar AfD discussion regarding postal codes in the United States (see here) was concluded on April 21 with a decision to "delete". The closing of that AfD discussion was challenged at deletion review here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Please also note that these articles may constitute a copyright violation of the source (download the zip file titled "plz_l_20070401.zip"). However, I don't believe that it meets the criteria for "blantant" infringement as set out at WP:CSD#G12; therefore, it's not subject to speedy deletion. In any case, I am confident that the argument that the articles fail WP:NOT#DIR will suffice to ensure their deletion, and feel that it is better to allow a discussion on the matter so that we can move forward via consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutral, as the creator of this page. Lists are not copyright-able (in Switzerland), so this is not a problem. Originally the pages was created to remove the list of postal code on the original article (no so encyclopedic, but the articles was good to include more text), and also to have a cross reference for Swiss names (these articles did a good job). Now I'm neutral. But there is Category:Lists of postal codes, so IMHO it is better to do a CfD of this category and than AfD of all articles. Cate |_Talk 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles in Category:Lists of postal codes do not list all of the postal codes and their corresponding geographic areas in a given country. You may note that I have not nominated the article Postal codes in Switzerland and Liechtenstein, as it addresses the general topic of postal codes and could therefore be encyclopedic. At this time, I have no intention of nominating all of the articles in that category for deletion nor am I convinced that they should be deleted. I am only nominating for deletion those articles which provide a directory-like list of all postal codes in a given country. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the category is list of, so I think also the category should be deleted. Articles can belong to more categories, so I agree we should not delete all articles, but most of articles (or the part of article with the list). My comments was more about the procedure, as you see in the USA case there is not a clear consensus, so I would prefer to unify somewere the discussion and not to do separately for every country. Hold until DRV USA ZIP codes closes. (personally I'm disappointed that I'm a deletionist but with articles in AfD ;-) ). Cate |_Talk 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yup, that sounds good. As soon as the DRV and these AfDs close (waiting a few days won't hurt), I will do the following, which I think ought to take care of the issue.
      1. Delete directory-like lists from all of the articles, converting them to shorter (i.e., more generalised) form if possible. If this means that there's nothing left of the article, I'll probably just ((prod)) it. See, for example, the article on Canadian postal codes. I don't think I could improve these articles that much, but I think that shows the potential that country postal code articles have.
      2. Nominate the category for renaming at CFD. I think a better title would be Category:Postal codes by country. That title shifts focus away from listing postal codes and toward describing the system of postal codes across countries, a more encyclopedic topic.
      3. Rename all articles from the format "List of postal codes in X" to "Postal codes of X". Again, this shifts the focus from listing to analysis. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the minutiae and keep the parent as Black Falcon mentioned. Neier 03:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: these are directory listings, and wikipedia is not a directory. Ohconfucius 05:31, 25 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!) 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So. Missouri Splash[edit]

non notable basketball team [19] Ojxn 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete tried alternate search terms on 2 news searches and found nothing... sources do not seem to exist --W.marsh 17:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note it is a team in its early stages of existence, hence why this is a stub. The only info for this team is on the league website currently. The league is starting in 2008 so the lack of info is to be expected sense they have not started playing yet. --MJHankel 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then this should probably be a redirect to the league page for now. --W.marsh 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If this page should be deleted, so should all the other UBL pages. All the teams are equally notable, and if this team's page isn't, no team's page is. Tom Danson 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. -- Satori Son 16:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:ORG. Insufficiently notable and no evidence of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 16:43, 30 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. - Caknuck 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FS Metta-Latvijas Universitāte Rīga[edit]

non notable football team [20] Ojxn 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2° division national leagues and their teams seem to be notable on wikipedia, see Serie B, Segunda División, and 2. Fußball-Bundesliga. Mystache 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a 2nd division team but a top flight team now having just clinched promotion. Definitely passes. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FS Metta-Latvijas Universitāte Rīga is one of Latvian football team. I had see so many articles, what looks like this. I adding information about all Latvian football teams. I want know, what in the concrete is wrong and than I try to redeem an error. Treisijs
- Comment Treisijs, what you're doing is completely correct — all the 1 Līga teams ought to have their own article, and all the 2 Līga teams that are professional (all the players are paid rather than playing for nothing). This should never have been nominated for deletion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I get information than I try to add it in those unaccomplished articles about Latvian football. Treisijs
Strong Keep, professional teams are notable. Incidentally, the deletion tag on this page was broken at some point, the link to 'this article's entry' doesn't lead here. Can someone fix that? --Darksun 17:13, 28 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!) 14:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of China-related topics[edit]

Category with the same function as this list exists, keeping it will be an unnecessary duplication. Moreover, a list of such kind is impossible to be completed, and is also impossible to be maintained in a proper way. :Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This list could potentially never end. If there is already a category by the same name then let's remove the article as being redundant. --Cyrus Andiron 16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unmaintainable, virtually boundless. Otto4711 23:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a navigation page and should not be deleted on its own. Its deletion should be considered along with sub-articles List of China-related topics 123-L and List of China-related topics M-Z Ohconfucius 05:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are already nominated for AfD by somebody else (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Angola-related_topics) --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 07:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:15, 26 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 Move to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Australia subpages pending consensus fishhead64 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory[edit]

This article and similar articles in Category:Postal codes of Australia do nothing but list hundreds of postal codes and their corresponding geographic areas. As Wikipedia is not a postal directory, I propose that these articles be deleted. Please note that a similar AfD discussion regarding postal codes in the United States (see here) was concluded on April 21 with a decision to "delete". The closing of that AfD discussion was challenged at deletion review here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: These articles were previously the subject of a VfD discussion in August-September 2004: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postcodes: New South Wales

I am also nominating the following related pages:

To be projectified:

Removed:

Delete per AFD precedent regarding United States Zip codes. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Cyrus Andiron 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 02:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BUT we need a community discussion on what to do with them - I have never been terribly happy with them, and agree that there is an issue and that a list of every postcode, which is after all available for download at [21] is not terribly encyclopaedic. However there is another issue, that literally thousands of articles link to these, and that to some extent they are useful (see the intro I wrote for WA, for instance). The precedent from US doesn't strictly apply as postcodes have a different conception in Australia to ZIP codes in the US - the latter are far less useful for geographical purposes. AfD is not really the place to decide WikiProject standards which affect potentially 1.7% of the entire encyclopaedia's content. Orderinchaos 02:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot see a case for these lists which are probably out of date anyway and easily accessible through the Australia Post tool. I presume almost all of the links are from the ((Infobox Australian Place)) template which would be 30 second fix to point to List of postal codes in Australia. (See also old discussions at Talk:Lists of postal and ZIP codes of the world/Delete and Wikipedia talk:Do lists of postal codes belong on Wikipedia?). —Moondyne 02:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have modified said template to point to Postal codes in Australia. Orderinchaos 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, provides little information not already available directly from Australia Post, which is where most people would go for it rather than Wikipedia. Euryalus 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of postal codes in Australia is encylcopedic. The sub-articles, not so much. Neier 03:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a street directory. Rimmeraj 04:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic. -- Chuq (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with due respect to Orderinchaos's comments above, but this is fantastically unencyclopædic. Lankiveil 05:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: these are directory listings, and wikipedia is not a directory. Ohconfucius 05:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong keep - there is definitely room for an article on postcodes in Australia, and these are NOT unencyclopedic whatsoever. There have been links from geographic articles to the postcode lists in the past, and the articles should stay. I would agree to a general "towns or suburbs in X State" comprehensive list which include the postcode that could be upgraded to a Featured List in the future, but until then, these articles are to stay. There is no other way to do it. Let's stop being lazy and just deleting everything because we don't know what to do with it on spurious grounds of being "not a directory" (and who knows what that means)...; let's improve Wikipedia instead. Deleting this is not an improvement. Who cares about the US precedent - it makes no different, and just because some people in the US think we should do something, doesn't mean we should. JRG 07:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, the comparisons to using Australia Post are not relevant. There isn't anywhere that we can find a list of the specific postcodes and the regions which they cover, which is an interesting phenomenon (of postal districts and areas, that is). It's not something that you look up, it's something that you can learn about the postal area usage in Australia to have lists like this. Australia Post doesn't display them all at once. JRG 07:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised a proposal to that extent in WP:AWNB in the hope we can get a seriously interesting article on postcodes in Australia. In particular, WA and VIC are quite fascinating. I don't believe a *list* of the kind we have now is useful (most of the links are redlinks and the article tells the viewer very little), but I have opposed this deletion on the grounds that if something can be improved on, it should be. Orderinchaos 07:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It just they're currently two dimensional lists with little that you could call encyclopaedic. I say rewrite so it is about postcodes and then link to the source. The Canadian system is interesting List of postal codes in Canada and Canadian postal code. —Moondyne 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the existing article Postcodes in Australia has all of the information about postcodes that is not just reformatted lists from Australia posts website. These articles are, for all of the effort that has gone into them, directories of information. Wikipedia should not have articles that are simply copies of information stored elsewhere, especially as the information on the australia post website is likely to be more accurate and up to date. There is plenty of room in Postcodes in Australia to add sections on postcodes in parts of Australia then split them off if it becomes too ungainly - Peripitus (Talk) 10:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all basically agreed that what we have now is not ideal, but that postcodes in Australia is a topic worthy of coverage in an encyclopaedia. I think even the cited article is too listy, I'd like to see more text, like the Canadian postal code article which actually got to GA. Things like - what was the need? why did it happen? why did they go with four digits and not 5 like the US, or a city system? was it innovative technologically for its time? what evolution has occurred since? (eg NT splitting away from the SA range) also find sources for the sort of info I put in the header of the WA article. Orderinchaos 10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move into subpages of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Australia to keep for information/reference purposes and then create a new Australia wide article about postcodes. The information should be kept on wikipedia because it is used for writing the suburb articles ...maelgwn talk 11:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I was actually writing the same suggestion when you did, but got an edit conflict. JRG 11:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a new article, why not just improve Postcodes in Australia?? Neier 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clear example of What Wikipedia Isn't. —An gr 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how it's a "clear" example - can you explain further? Please stop randomly citing policy without explaining your answer. JRG 13:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or move to project space. While these lists are identified as lists of postcodes, they are also lists of town/suburb names, providing a reference for spelling and naming of new articles, and giving searchers a result to know that they have correctly spelled the name of a place without an article (yet). It is not clear that these articles breach WP:NOT#DIR, although it's not clear that they don't, either. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator. If the Australian WikiProject (one of the more active ones, I believe) can find use in these lists for developing articles on Australian towns and settlements, I see no reason that they ought to be deleted. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY applies to pages in the mainspace, not to WikiProject subpages. I also see no reason to allow this AfD to continue for the full 5 days. I think this is a case where we can safely ignore process for the sake of efficiency. So, I propose that the 9 remaining articles be moved to subpages of WikiProject Australia, that the 4 deleted articles be recreated and also moved, and that the resulting 13 redirects in the mainspace be deleted. Would anyone object to that solution? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Restored NT & Tas (and updated them). Left alphabetic breakups deleted and merged into parent articles. Updated all to present (most hadn't been updated since 2004-05) Orderinchaos 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object (to Black Falcon) - that's an abuse of process. ~~You can't just impose your opinion on an AfD where others don't agree with you. You're not Australian, and you probably don't understand the differences with Australian and US postcodes.~~ The best result is not to delete these, but to work towards something better that is an improvement on the current lists. No one has really offered a proper opinion about why we should delete these anyway, other than a vague notion of it being a "directory". JRG 00:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is certainly not my intent to take over the process or to impose my opinion. I merely proposed what I perceived to be a reasonable compromise between the two extremes of keeping and deleting ... specifically, to remove the content from the article namespace, but preserve it in subpages of WikiProject Australia. I even asked whether there anyone would object and will certainly not try to push my way through. Regarding the second part of your comment: I am not claiming that the topic of postal codes in Australia's states and territories is an unencyclopedic one. I am merely noting that these lists are directories as defined by WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Following Scott Davis' comment, I no longer view deletion as the best result; rather, I see projectification as the more positive outcome. If, at any point, these lists are modified per the Canadian model (as you've suggested below), I certainly would not object to their presence in the mainspace. I hope my rather length response clarifies my position and the intent of my proposal. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are merely stating your opinion that these are "directories". This does not mean that you get to override process and install said opinion on the encyclopedia without getting a consensus to do so. These are useful reference indexes generally, not just for editors (for starters, they're a lot clearer than the Australia Post data, especially the properly formatted ones), and if you try to move them to project space of your own accord, I will immediately revert. Rebecca 07:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I've stated above, I "will certainly not try to push my way through" in the presence of opposition. Given that there is opposition to the move, I will not perform it (I may be bold, but I'm not reckless). Regarding my claim that these constitute directories, please see my comment here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I'm sorry. I still don't get this whole "directory" thing. It's explained badly, and every time I have asked no one seems to be able to give an adequate explanation for what it is. That criterion has been cited without reason to justify a lot of deletions, and I'm not happy with it. Thanks for clarifying your position though - I thought you were just applying the US decision to these pages, which is obviously not what you are doing. So sorry for any misunderstandings on my part. JRG 04:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - why can't we have a page like the Canada page which has each postcode and an indication of the geographical area that it covers (and a map maybe too?). That way we could get something more encyclopedic than the current list, which I agree does need work, even if I don't believe that it is unencyclopedic. That way we could have a good list with an indication about the placement of postcodes for geographical areas in Australia, which is an interesting thing to read about, rather than just a suburb list, which could be put into a category. How about we work towards something constructive like this, instead of just deleting this because we don't know what to do with it? JRG 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space. I like JRG's suggestion, but it sounds like a big effort. Until then the nominated articles should be moved to project space.Ga rr ie 02:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful list pending review. I would also like to point out that our guidelines allow for material suitable for an almanac such as this is. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. These have been put up before, and kept for good reason. This is useful reference information, and entirely accurate. (Post codes do not change except in exceptional circumstances. It would be nice if people would check their facts before voting to delete.) Rebecca 06:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope my housekeeping on these articles has not been overly controversial - CSD G6 (housekeeping) and WP:BOLD appeared to allow some rationalisation - what we have now is one article per state/territory, which have (apart from VIC and WA which I'll do today or tomorrow) been updated to 2007. Postcodes rarely change in an Australian context - a few do every few years. The fact that these lists badly need rationalisation and some sort of meaning to readers, as I've argued since October, does not seem a good reason to do away with them. The talk page of the Postcodes in Australia article is probably the best place to deal with these matters. Orderinchaos 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:NOT#DIR is quite clear, wikipedia is a place for encyclopedic articles, not telephone-number style directories. Those of you who thinks that these articles should be kept need to explain why you think that the policy doesn't apply in this case. Pax:Vobiscum 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've made it very clear why - the articles may not be good in their current incarnation, but the suggestion to clean them up and use them as a reference-based source like the ones on the Canada page is a valid suggestion (and even some people arguing for the articles' deletion have agreed on this point). Postcodes are a good indication of geographic area in Australia (unlike Zip codes in the US), and can be used for that purpose. JRG 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or Move to project space, per Scott Davis. These are a useful resource.--Grahamec 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. why is australia singled out here? There are many countries with postal code articles: Austria, France, India,Switzerland,United Kingdom, plus the US zip codes are still in Category:ZIP codes of the United States, and there are about 30 other countries in Category:Lists of postal codes --Astrokey44 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That similar articles exist is not a valid argument, every article must be judged against wikipedia policies on its own. If you don't think that those articles conform to policy you are free to propose them for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vedivi[edit]

NN company per WP:CORP, contested prod. Existence of the page here can only serve a promotional purpose but I wouldn't call the text spam. Nonetheless, no sources, no claim to be important. Mango juice^talk 16:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet notability guidelines. Gillyweed 11:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguably a speedy as I don't see any assertion of notability here. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:25, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:49Z

Loebage[edit]

Non notable "position." Neologism. No sources. Search for Loebage returns 1 ghit that isn't WP related. Prod removed by author. --OnoremDil 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- as this is someone's idea of a bad joke. Neologism, non-existant, non-notable. Bearian 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hystlen Caeth is a possible vandal; see his talk page. Bearian 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant WP:BOLLOCKS and hoax - can't see any grounds for a speedy though unless it's some kind of complicated attack page on someone with the same name — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as worthless garbage. Burntsauce 22:18, 24 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 reliable third party sources to confirm notability. WjBscribe 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find The Pint[edit]

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

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

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

This non-notable drinking game has been speedily deleted four times in the last month. I list it here in order to allow fair debate on its merits. LittleOldMe 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a disgusting non notable drinking game. The article lacks multiple non-trivial sources, thus none of the information can be verifed. No wonder it was speedied four times. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. --Cyrus Andiron 16:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t see the problem. It seems to be just as notable as some of the other drinking games on here. Cyrus Andiron 'disgusting', 'things made up at school on day', could you perhaps elaborate on these comments, to me they seem to be unnecessary and not at all valid to the deletion of this article. The previous reasons for deletion seem to be due to the fact that the article was not appropriately sourced, but in this case this criteria has been met. I would therefore see it as an appropriate article. Hugsi 18:05, 24 April 2007

Comment Okay, this is what I meant by Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. Basically, resist the temptation to write about the new, great thing you and/or your friends just thought up. That is what this game sounds like to me. As far as notability is concerned, there is only one source (if you can call it that) in the article. So how do you disagree with my statement that notability is not asserted? According to WP:NOTABILITY A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. As there is only one source in the article, it fails that test. Further, the source listed in the article does not meet the reuqirements of WP:RS. Thus, it cannot even be credited as a soruce. Until more reliable sources can be provided, this article fails WP:NOTABILITY --Cyrus Andiron

17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the signature was faked. The editor was actually anonymous operating from IP 84.13.243.156. If you are indeed Hugsi then please login and sign correctly. LittleOldMe 17:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about my point regarding the notability of some of the other drinking games on wikipedia. Surely if you feel this article should be deleted, the others should to for the same reason. Also I am unsure what you mean about the fake signiture, I am signed in. Hugsi 18:23, 24 April

Comment Show me some examples, and I'll be glad to comment on them. --Cyrus Andiron

17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Postings are signed and date-and-time stamped by using four tildes (~~~~). The out of sequence time on your posting was what alerted me to the fact that you type your signature instead of allowing the system to do it for you. This is regarded as a faked signature. When I checked the history on the page I found that the edits were made when you were not logged in as it shows your IP address, not your user name. As to the points you raise, I have no comment. LittleOldMe 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Truth or Dare?, only has one source. Liar's poker, has none. Goon of Fortune, has been sourced from the same place as this game, Find the Pint. You can take a look at more yourself, there are more examples. I have no comment, so you have no problem with this article? I am still unsure by what you mean regarding the signiture and time, maybe I am doing something wrong? Hugsi 18:39, 24 April 2007 (GMT)

Comment You are welcome to nominate those games for deletion. However, while the games you mentioned may not have many sources, they are all well known. Truth or Dare is an iconic game that has been referenced many times in popular culture. It is well known in the United Sates. Liar's Poker has also been sourced many times in pop culture and is well known. These games are notable in that they have attracted notice by the general population and the media. The same cannot be said for Find The Pint. --Cyrus Andiron

17:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So because you do not know about this game because you are not from Northern Ireland it should be deleted?YellowSnowRecords2 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So would I be correct when I say your point is that you have never heard of this game, and so it could not possibley be a valid article? I have heard of this game before, we play it in Ireland. Although I have never heard of Liar's poker, it would be absured for me to assume that it was not genuine for this reason. Sorry previously I was typing out my signiture and time code by hand, therefore was using my time zone, is it now correct? --Hugsi 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment YellowSnowRecords2 to whom are you referring to? Cyrus Andiron I presume? --Hugsi 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its only been deleted because of people not hearing about it before and just deleting it before even discussing it or considering that it has been talked over in the drinking games discussionYellowSnowRecords2 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i was referring to Cyrus Andiron not you hugsiYellowSnowRecords2 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point does not seems in my opion to be valid. The only reason it is being considered for deletion is due to the fact the user that marked it for deletion has never heard of the game. If this was the case for every article on wikipedia then the website would not serve as an encyclopedia of knowledge at all --Hugsi 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I'm saying is prove it. I pointed out the various references in each of the articles listed by Hugsi. They have been mentioned and played in movies and publications. As far as I can tell, Find The Pint has not. If it is notable, then show me some sources that discuss it. If you can do that, I'd be more than happy to change my vote. It has nothing to do with the fact that I have not heard of it. It has to do with the fact that none of the information has been verified yet. --Cyrus Andiron

18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You pointed out the various references in each of the articles listed by me? Where? You linked to a book and an article i used to question your use of invalid sources as a reason for deletion. From what I can see your reasoning could apply to numerous articles on wikipedia.--Hugsi 18:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here [22] is what I was talking about. I discussed why the other games were notable. --Cyrus Andiron

18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes I read your comment, and am well aware of its contents. The 'where' refers to the fact that these articles do not validate the point you are trying to make and is merely questioning the fact that you commented "I pointed out the various references in each of the articles listed by Hugsi. They have been mentioned and played in movies and publications.". Re-read my previous comment. --Hugsi 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A drinking game celebrated by bar staff is unlikely to be notable (due to the lack of a wide audience). It has no notoriety or fame that I'm aware of, neither is this game readily citable. At best this could be kept in a section on lesser-known drinking games in the main page, with a link to a collection of the lesser known games. Personally I would think this is an invented game of two very bored bar hands. RichyBoy 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - something made up in a pub one night. Completely non-notable. - fchd 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Drinking_game#Find_The_Pint , thought i should bring awareness to this discussion aswellYellowSnowRecords2 19:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This [23] is an example of canvassing. Please Stop. --Cyrus Andiron

19:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-comment Um, no it isn't. Asking another editor or even a small few, that you already know have been involved in a topic or whom you know well enough to be certain they will be interested, to weigh in on an AfD, and even asking them to take a specific side is not WP:CANVASsing; the scale is much too small, and the result completely nondisruptive. Please do not abuse bad-faith labels like "canvassing" (or other ones like "disruptive", "sockpuppet", "vandal", "wikilawyering", etc. - there are many such terms, and they all have narrow, specific definitions). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you even read the discussion? If you did you would have noticed that Bart_Versieck was in this discusion i was making him aware of this discussion but makes no difference as i have realised that he has been blocked. I did not tell him so that he would say keep i asked him to come and give another point of view to the discusion to either add to keeping or deleting the article, he has shown in the past an interest in this article so i felt he would be an apropriate person to give his opinion.YellowSnowRecords2 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Funny, you only mentioned keeping it on his talk page, I don't believe I saw the word delete in your comment. Also, he only showed up to this AFD discussion after you put it on his talk page. --Cyrus Andiron

15:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fchd - "something made up in a pub one night". Obviously, how else would a drinking game be made up, not a valid point. However I can see where RichyBoy is coming from, perhaps another section for lesser known drinking games. Although I have heard of it, maybe it is not big in America, or wherever the widest range of wikipedia users are from. It is however a popular game both at partys and in a bar enviorment where I am from, but then how do you determine how well known a game is, and does this apply to other games in the drinking game catergory, for this reason I feel it should just be kept where it is. Cyrus Andiron, I do not see that as a form of canvassing. --Hugsi 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you determine how notable a game (or any other subject of an article) is, by using reliable sources. As far as I can see, there are none. The site quoted on the page as an external reference does not count, as it is merely a compendium of self-submitted drinking games. This belongs on a personal website, or myspace or something like that, not Wikipedia. Nothing, I repeat nothing, in the discussion at Talk:Drinking_game#Find_The_Pint adds anything like a reliable source either. - fchd 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to show notability. That you are trying to make it notable is not what Wikipedia is here for - Wikipedia is here for things that are already notable. Prove that it is notable or my vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is demmend as not notabile, then many other articles in the catergory drinking games should be deleted for failure to show notability as well. Could someone please outline what needs to be done to achieve notability and I would be happy to do it. --Hugsi 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there probably are. Go to WP:N for notability standards. As for the other articles, if we find them, we bring them here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe User:YellowSnowRecords2 is a potential sockpuppet. See here[24] and here [25]. I think he / she is trying to sway the AFD. It is quite odd that Hugsi was the first one on the scene to defend an article written by YellowSnowRecords2 as no communication between the two occurred and Hugsi has not contributed to the article [26]. Also, I find it quite odd that Hugsi made a couple of edits while not logged in,[27], [28], but signed for Hugsi anyway. --Cyrus Andiron

19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cyrus Andiron what are you on about!? --Hugsi 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sigh, read the posts above. Obtain records of coverage in (multiple) reliable sources. In essence, notability is something confirmed on you by others outside of those directly involved, rather than something you confirm on yourselves. - fchd 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thankyou fchd we will try and do this, we are also trying to bring attention to a lot of various other drinking games that have the same content references etc as our game but yet have not been considered for deletion,Thankyou P.s Talk:Drinking_game#Find_The_Pint was not posted in my above comment as a source it was just to show people of another discusion on the articleYellowSnowRecords2 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fchd, I know what everyone is saying 'needs' to be done, but it has not been done to the degree you have suggested in other articles, notably some within the drinking games category, perhaps take a look and you will see what I mean for yourself. All I am saying is this article is just as well sourced as others. --Hugsi 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fchd, I just looked at your user page, you have things that have no sourcing what so ever, Bryan Fogel, so would you be willing to delete them due to notability? This would perhaps help me to see where you are coming from. --Hugsi 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Bryan Fogel entry on my user page is under a heading of "To Check Notability" - meaning an aide-memoire to myself that when I've got the time, to check the notability of these articles to see whether they merit posting here at AfD. No support of these articles is given or implied. - fchd 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then why arent they deleted? Can we not be given a certain amount of time to get sources?YellowSnowRecords2 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they aren't deleted because a) They've not been nominated for deletion, or b) they've been proved to be sufficiently notable to survive. The contents of my user page should have no effect on the outcome of this AfD, and the only reason they're listed there is, as I said, an aide-memoire for me to investigate when I've got more time. Deletion debates usually last for five days, unless they are closed early due to WP:SNOW, but really the sources need to be there BEFORE the article, not the other way around. - fchd 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We had a discusion on the article and we decided where to put it etc and then it just got deleted! Wikipedia is just all down to Admin's whatever they want to post they can and everyone else gets hasseled by everything they want to post, if we cant post the article here where can we post on wikipedia? Posibly it is not wanted here but i guess that is wikipedias lossYellowSnowRecords2 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm not an admin, I've created several dozen articles, and I haven't yet had one deleted. Oh, right: I made sure the subject was notable and sourced at the time I created any. RGTraynor 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YSN2, please see WP:CABAL and be enlightened. My !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think that sarcasim is needed here if your not going to make a positive remark towards either arguements don't botherYellowSnowRecords2 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you seek an elevated, cordial tone to this discussion, claiming that Wikipedia is a cabal of insiders harassing otherwise innocent folk for "everything they want to post" possibly isn't your best way about doing so. RGTraynor 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:V, WP:NFT. Perhaps the two gents fighting so hard to save this article should devote their energies to providing the sources that would save it, rather than in trolling the user pages of other editors to use as debating fodder. RGTraynor 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aye, agreed with the above. Totally fails WP:V, WP:NFT, and WP:ATT. --Haemo 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable (and miscapitalised). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've moved it per naming conventions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to assert notability. Maxa megalon 2000 05:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per user "Hugsi". Extremely sexy 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that User:Hugsi doesn't really give any policy based arguments, and has struck a number of arguments up as found in WP:AADD in their argument of keeping the article. If you wish to wish to lean on that, per your notes on your own talk page, you are right, it probably is hopeless. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable random local bar employees' recent invention which cannot be sourced at all much less reliably so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:00, 26 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 Social rejection. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:50Z

Rejection (emotion)[edit]

Original research (also psychobabble if you ask me). A merge with social rejection was discussed on the talk page; a redirect should be considered, but nothing here worth merging, I don't think. Chick Bowen 16:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Social rejection. This article is complete OR. --Cyrus Andiron 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Moved to ~~Kotani Yasunori~~ Kotani Kenzo. Sandstein 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kotani Yasunori (Takenori) of the Yasukuni Shrine 1933-1945[edit]

Fails to assert importance. I tried to clean it up as best as I could, but even a search on the Japanese Wikipedia fails to bring to light any relevance to this article. Nekohakase 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 00:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently non-notable and not enough context for anyone to expand. I often try to "save" Japan-related AfDs, but I see absolutely nothing that can be done from this one. Google searches below cab 00:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kajiyama Tokutaro (梶山徳太郎, maybe? 1 ghit [29]; spelling the given name in other ways like 登久太郎 or 篤太郎 gives no Ghits)
- Miyaguchi Shigeru (these 8 GHits on 宮口繁 appear to be about him [30], but no reliable sources; other ways of spelling the given name like 茂, 卯, 秀 get no GHits)
- Yokoyama Sueyoshi (横山末吉, 3 GHits [31])

Neutral comment A connoisseurship involvement might be needed. For your reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 8de8 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC).--8de8 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough within the limited context of Japanese swordsmithing. Do a Google search on "Kotani Yasunori". I got over 16,000 ghits. --Richard 04:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article survives AFD, I would move it to Kotani Yasunori. The title is too long. It's like saying Tony Blair (Prime Minister) of the United Kingdom (1997-2007) --Richard 04:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 16:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the assumption that the references cited actually contain the information. Lack of ghits for an article on a subject like this is perhaps not an appropriate argument. DGG 03:50, 25 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 a7, no credible assertion of notability; no sources; the 6 previously deleted versions of this article didn't make these claims of notability. NawlinWiki 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LewisTjustice[edit]

Non notable gamer. No sources provided (just like the previous 7 times when it was deleted speedily) Search for LewisTjustice returns 5 ghits not WP related. --OnoremDil 16:56, 24 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!) 14:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin C. Washington[edit]

Someone speedy-delete-tagged this page ((db-attack)), but the only thing like attacking that I found in it was two mentions of gay groups. Anthony Appleyard 16:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is a hoax. The Federal Judges biographical database lists no such person, and there's nothing relevant on Google. andy 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not a hoax.~~[32][33][34][35]~~ Administrative law judges are not "federal judges" in the judicial sense, they are glorified hearing officers for administrative (i.e. neither civil law nor criminal law) disputes, such as the application of a federal regulation. I don't think they are automatically notable. Washington seems like a fairly well-connected ~~Seattle~~ personage but I would want to see real proof of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Texas, not Seattle. The only listing for this guy is the Chorale, so sorry. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further research indicates that ALJs are not appointed by "regions" but by federal agency (e.g. EPA, FCC), thus, his "focal points" go beyond the purview of any one federal agency, so this probably is a hoax after all. Very carefully crafted to fly under the radar. --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is a hoax, though it may not matter if more notability isn't shown anywhere. Federal ALJ's are appointed most often by agency, but they are often appointed for a given region as organized by the agency, and sometimes an ALJ works for more than one agency. And the regions specified do seem to include Texas, see [36]. The comment that ALJ's are not Article Three Judges included in the Federal Judicial Directory is also well-taken. Having said that, I don't see his name in either of the links in the article. Newyorkbrad 01:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line here is that I failed to find what I was looking for, a basic adulatory press release on appointment. If the subject is real, he has proceeded to date without note. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question though apparently not relevant, are all ordinary federal judges considered notable? DGG 03:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to my knowledge, but we just kept a certain editor's article on a certain Texas state district judge whose territory is smaller than a county, so potentially sub-county judges are notable if sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think all present and former US Article III judges would be notable, and the last time one was up for deletion that was closed as Speedy Keep. (At least I hope they are all notable, as I've created articles for about 30 of them!) Newyorkbrad 09:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I now think it's not a hoax, but the guy certainly isn't notable. He is on the board of North Texas GLBT Chamber of Commerce [37] (not in itself enough for notability) and his email address is thetxjudge@yahoo.com [38], which sounds like he at least thinks he's a judge. But there's no evidence of notability.
Delete - I tagged the article for speedy delete under db-attack, though I'm pleased that it is being discussed here. Before tagging, I checked the contribution history for urbanmetroguy and saw a 24 hour blitz designed purely to add this guy's name and sexual orientation to WP under as many categories as possible. But there were no other contributions to WP. This spree included a biographical entry directly on the Category: LGBT judges page [39] which I reverted. It also included an entry on the page listing famous and/or influential countertenors [40] which was also removed. This user originally created 3 pages - Kevin Washington, Kevin C Washington and Kevin C. Washington. Two of the pages have since been merged with this one and turned into redirects. The original contributions have since been edited by the original user and some information was lost during the merges. However, they included a lot of unlikely biographical detail about Kevin the boy soprano. See this revision for example [41]. The original articles were written quite poorly - perhaps written by someone other (much younger?) than Kevin Washington. A lot of the information seems to be exaggerated [the World reknown (sic) Turtle Creek Choir?] and possibly written tongue in cheek. I believe that these articles are a subtle hoax created with the sole purpose of disparaging the subject as per Attack page. However, exactly what is disparaging about the information only Kevin and the author know. Perhaps this is a disgruntled relative or student playing a joke. Paxse 12:24, 29 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Bannon[edit]

Singer for non-notable (or at best, marginally notable) band. Flunks WP:N. No verifiable references or reliable sources, none appear to be available. THF 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even the band probably doesn't pass WP:MUSIC and the singer certainly doesn't. I do like the combination of "He specialises in extreme metal and hardcore punk and is co-founder of Deathwish Inc" with "He has created an advertisement for vegetarianism for PETA", though. Rock hard! — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come now, let's not be ignorant of "the scene" :) Many hardcore bands are into vegetarianism and animal welfare (see the PETA2 website). I would have to disagree, also, that Converge are not notable. They have released records on many notable independent punk labels (in fact, there are only a few left and they will have the full set!) However – I would have to agree with the nom that the individual is not notable enough for their own article. A merge of salient information to the band article wouldn't be so bad. – B.hotep ^u/_t• 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be tagged as A7 because A7 states that bands do not assert the significene of Wikipedia. Harry Jolly

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shotokan Disco[edit]

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC; meets WP:COI and WP:SPAM. GlassFET 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of multiple non-trivial sources. The references used make no mention whatsoever of the subject's alleged involvement. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a bad article. YechielMan 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources requested by Andrew have not materialised. Sandstein 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Police[edit]

Contested prod. This is an article about an obscure band from the early 1980's. They produced a bad music video which was posted on YouTube. The article says they gained notoriety -- but that's not really the case. The video has barely 100,000 views on YouTube, and while it is spectacularly bad, it's hardly notorious. 100,000 views is trivial on YouTube. Literally dozens of videos achieve that level of notoriety every day. More importantly, the rest of the article is unverifiable. The band is so obscure they don't even appear at AMG. I can't verify the claims in the trivia section. Or even verify that the album mentioned in the article actually exists. As far as I can tell, aside from this Wikipedia article virtually nothing has been written about this band. With no information whatsoever, this could easily be a recent hoax. --JayHenry 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To cite specific policies: fails WP:V and WP:NOR and probably most other policies as well. --JayHenry 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I remember seeing the video on MTV and this site backs up that MTV played it. Here's a site (PDF, page 15) showing that they're remembered well enough to inspire a basketball team's name. There's an Andrew Sullivan column in which the band is featured, but unfortunately it's not coming up for me just now to check the extent of the reference. I think that taking all the minor mentions together there's just enough to push the article over the threshold. But I love the irony of a band whose eponymous song includes the lyric "nobody knows who you are" being challenged on the grounds of being too obscure. Otto4711 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you joking? I thought this would be the first time that Otto and I agreed on a deletion. Hitler's dog with hundreds of mentions doesn't make it, but Dog Police does? Hahaha, I totally don't get it. The reference you provided describes the band as "unknown." --JayHenry 19:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unknown" is clearly hyperbole on the part of the author, since obviously the band is known to have existed. Unlike Hitler's dog, at least as far as I knew until I saw the AFD. Regardless, the existence of the Blondi article and my opinion on it are not relevant to this article or my opinion on it. Otto4711 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it lightheartedly, sorry. I wasn't suggesting it as deletion criteria. If we strip this down to what's verifiable right now we have "Dog Police" is a band from the eighties who had a song that was played on MTV." That's all we have verified, via a trivial NPR mention and a college newspaper. I just don't think that's enough. --JayHenry 19:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like the basis for a stub. Otto4711 19:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well boys and girls, Dog Police is real and the video is a true work of 21st century art.

You jealous folks should find other things to do with your time besides being critics. You can visit www.dogpolice.net but you cannot stop the Dog Police! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogpolice (talk • contribs) 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Delete. I found the video hilarious, but unfortunately the band doesn't qualify as notable per WP:BAND, and there is insufficient verifiable material to sustain an article. EALacey 22:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak provisional keep I'm gonna say Keep if, and only if, a source can be found for the claim of having placed second on MTV's Basement Tapes contest. That along with having released an album pushes them just past WP:MUSIC in spirit if not quite in letter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't verify that they actually did produce an album. That's what prompted me to prod it. There appears to be no record of it anywhere. The one link we do have above says they were never signed to a record label. So if they do have an album, it must have been self-released, which I thought didn't really count. --JayHenry 23:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't really see that this 'band' fulfil WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. YouTube does not equal notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:07, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:53Z

Tricket[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, also speedy tag was deleted a total of four times, by two different editors. I vote Speedy Delete, possibly with a dash of salt. Improbcat 19:18, 24 Aril 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete "I have been researching games played at my high school..." Get it off our encyclopedia as fast as possible!Dr bab 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Don't Speedy delete I'd rather not... and I believe this is for everyone not people who think their hard like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breno8ncfc (talk • contribs)
Delete - when the first four words are "I have been researching" you can see where this one's going — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ...and when the words following "I have been researching..." are "...games played at my high school", you just have to laugh a bit. Or a lot, if you're hard like me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, can't speedy because WP:NFT is not a speedy-able criterion. Article self-admits it pretty much was something made up in school one day. In fact, it looks like it was made up this past Saturday. Also note the initial admission of original research. Wikipedia is not the place for this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's not wait for irrefutable sources for statements like "Tricket was invented on the 21st of April 2007...". Thuresson 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Original research on a sport made up in school. Maxa megalon 2000 05:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It is an actuall sport and there people need to know about it so it has to be kept--Smiley2605 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)— Smiley2605 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What policy says that Wikipedia is a place to promote things that are made up in school one day? This is, in essence, what you are arguing - and in fact, there's already policy in place that says that this is not what we are for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete How did this article get to this point? Breno8ncfc repeatedly removed the SD tag. No one gave her a warning. It even admits it was made up at school. Why is this even up for debate? Turlo Lomon 11:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, technically, Breno8ncfc was right - WP:NFT is not a speedyable criteria, as I indicated above. This is the best place for it. Let it go through, and if it pops up again, we can ((db-repost)) it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:07, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:51Z

Interreligious antisemitism[edit]

Editor created this original research article as a WP:POINT while edit warring on 3 articles. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, created as a soapbox. Google search returns no results.[42] Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates orignal research, WP:NPOV, soapboxing, WP:POINT, neoligisms, etc. Avi 19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely pure content fork from Judaism#Judaism and other religions. Not worth a redirect — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an obvious case. // Liftarn
Delete - It's lowgrade-home made-ranty-soap. <police chief cliche>It breaks just about every rule in the book </police chief cliche> - Tiswas^(t/c) 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply for containing no information not very well elaborated in other articles, not to mention all the guidelines that have been mentioned. Someguy1221 22:09, 27 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:51Z

List of Angola-related topics[edit]

On April 3, 2007, User:Piotrus initiated a mass AfD against hundreds of "list of topics" articles. The discussion was closed as a "procedural keep" ... there were simply too many articles to process. So, I am nominating for deletion a smaller subset of articles, grouped together due to a number of similarities; in this case, all articles in this nomination are:

lists of topics by country that:

~~are listed alphabetically,~~
~~lack ordering by topic,~~
~~lack any summaries or descriptions, and~~
~~lack any significant number of redlinks (i.e., they cannot be used for the purpose of article development).~~

~~I propose that the articles be deleted for the following reasons:~~

~~They are inferior to existing categories in terms of organisation. They list articles alphabetically as opposed to by topic.~~
The lists are hopelessly incomplete. They have not been maintained for a long time and given Wikipedia's rate of expansion, it's unlikely that they can be maintained. They were created before categories existed and once the category system was devised, they became obsolete.
~~As User:Piotrus noted in his initial nomination, the lists are "are dead weight that may occasionally distract a new user and make them waste their time adding something to those forgotten ... pages".~~ -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am withdrawing my recommendation to delete these articles, having overlooked the potential use of these lists in monitoring recent changes, and instead view a mix of keeping and projectifying to be the optimal solution. As others editors have already recommended deletion, the AfD cannot be speedily kept. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and move them under WikiProject: The purpose of these pages is to help recent change patrollers watch for changes in articles related to the project they are part of. Related changes on a category does not help here since articles are stored in sub-categories. These pages are usually manually updated. User:WatchlistBot is helping many projects automate this function. These pages need to be moved into Wikipedia space, preferably under a related WikiProject. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What if there is no corresponding WikiProject or the WikiProject is inactive? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then such a list has next to no chance to be maintained. I agree with Ganeshk, delete the rest. Pavel Vozenilek 22:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Doesn't WatchlistBot operate via the category system instead of these lists? Besides, Africa and India, for instance, already have much more comprehensive lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Watchlist and Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - These lists do help with patrolling whether or not they are part of a WikiProject. They need to be moved into Wikipedia namespace either under a existing project or their own. Watchlistbot operates by looking at the articles that link to a project template. In India's case, the comprehensive list was recently created using Watchlistbot's help. The project will need some more time to migrate to the new list. I request the older list be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject India/List of India-related topics. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done! I am not recommending the resulting redirect for deletion as various pages link to it and also because it's a plausible search term. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - That seems to be a policy related debate: "do we really want want this type of article?" I don't think that Afd is the right place to discuss such sweeping changes. --Latebird 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ganeshk (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (unless better alternative pages already exists). These are useful pages for several purposes, but especially for counter-vandalism using the Related Changes feature. We can't do the same with the category pages. These pages also function as a topic-specific "index" page, similar to the "index" section in most non-fiction book. --Vsion 23:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories also possess the Related Changes feature. They can also serve as an index page, either alphabetically, or topically using subcategories. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you use "Related Changes" to examine all the articles in the sub-categories? For example, when i tried the recent changes for Category:India [43], it only shows the changes in that specific category. Is it possible to show changes in all the thousands+ sub-categories articles? That would be a great tool to have.--Vsion 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Btw, List of Singapore-related topics by alphabetical order is maintained and up-to-date. It's not that difficult actually, just need one committed user from the project or an automated bot to do it. --Vsion 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have removed that one from the nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, pending improvement of the category system. Looking at the very first item on the first list nominated for deletion, the list of topics related to Angola leads to an article about a politician named Agostinho Neto. Going in through the index of Categories, or through the main article Angola, I could not find a category linkage which took me to the article about the same individual. The category system seem sparse and not nearly fully enough linked to replace lists at this point. The same held true for other comparisons between finding a topic for other countries on the list and trying to find the same article from categories. If there is a better way to use categories, I have not found it yet, even in WP:CAT. Lists also allow redlink items and suggest the creation of the articles. which categories apparently cannot do. They also allow explanations and definitions in the introduction, to clarify what the items in the list are all about, abd they can be organized geographically, chronologically, etc.Edison 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all lists of topics by country - Why discriminate between countries? At certain stages in one's study, these lists are invaluable. Perhaps User:Piotrus has simply not had the opportunity to use these lists to do his or her studies, as I and many others have. They are really useful, and if one tries to use categories to peruse a group of topics, one must constantly shift between pages of categories; it is a very unwieldy process. As far as the "much more comprehensive list(s) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Watchlist" is concerned, it is so comprehensive as to be incomprehensible. And, in looking over the list in fine print at the top of the page, it seems that the countries are predominantly non-European......It makes no sense at all to delete these lists, I am sure if they are left in place they will grow....Why do deletion people always attack the things that other people use to get their work done? They must be the same people who go through other people's desks during the lunch hour or after everyone has left work. It is quite illogical; I am tempted to say "Keep your hands to yourself." --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 23:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure that there is no bias against non-European countries in my nomination (perhaps in Wikipedia overall). The countries that were selected are those that meet the 4 criteria (alphabetical, no ordering by topic, no summaries, and no redlinks) I noted above. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yet the list itself is biased. Not to mention, your user name, "Black falcon", is a militaristic, nationalistic symbol used by extremist regimes in Iraq and Germany in the past, a fact which makes the extant bias all the more apparent. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow... Should we call Godwin's Law on this? Barno 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, the bias of the list probably reflects the overall systematic bias whereby topics related to Anglophone countries and wealthier countries are more represented. As regards my username: I had never actually considered that "black falcon" could be interpreted as a militaristic or nationalistic symbol akin to the Bundesadler or the Reichsadler. I do speak German and have resided in Germany for some years, but the German coat of arms was not the inspiration for my username. My username, and this may come across as rather anticlimactic, references a tattoo of a falcon whose color is predominantly (about 60%) black (I won't reveal on whom the tattoo exists or where). Additionally, the tattoo looks like the real bird rather than the distorted characterisations found on various coats of arms, such as here or here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's apparent by now that an alternative method of handling these lists is needed. I think projectifying is the best solution but, rather than performing 40+ potentially controversial pagemoves or placing comments at two dozen WikiProject talk pages, I'd like to ask what (if any) solutions you could offer. As I see it, we have several options:

Keep all in the mainspace.
Keep some, projectify some.
Projectify all.
Keep some, delete some.
Keep some, projectify some, delete some.
Projectify some, delete some.

Which of these options (or others if I've missed any) would you suggest? If you suggest a mixed solution (e.g., keep some, projectify some), please also specify how you think individual cases should be judged (e.g., which types of articles should be kept and which projectified). I am not including "delete all" as a viable option. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If the lists are left in place, they will be built over time, like the lists that are well-populated, by people who find in the Wikipedia a great place to study Africa and other countries. If they are not there then students won't be attracted to these Wikipedia areas in the first place. It takes time. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Keep all in mainspace" to make it more accessible. Other users, readers or researchers, who are not members of that wiki-project, might find it useful as an alphabetical index. These articles are not strictly for wiki-project-use only. --Vsion 02:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep all and improve the ones BlackFalcon has mentioned as inadequate. There might perhaps be a useful discussion somewhere on a standard arrangement within these lists.DGG 04:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the lists can be improved, they are still no better than categories. The latter provides a more easier way to maintain than the former, while still retaining most of the functions a list gives (including the summary function). There is not much room to improve these lists. Also, categories automatically have a standard arrangement, which is an advantage over lists (lists were merely articles). --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 08:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists and categories; apples and oranges. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still don't think that Afd is the right place to discuss this, but is there no way to generate such alphabetical lists automatically from the respective category trees? That would eliminate all maintenance questions. --Latebird 06:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - As I have already stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alberta-related topics, the lists can be substituted by categories. To keep them would be unnecessary duplication. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 08:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is ridiculous; if you actually used categories as a substitute for lists you would know how klunky the categories are to use. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 13:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ and use categories as they were intended. This idea of listing everything is getting out of hand. --Ezeu 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projectify. Wikipedia:WikiProject India/List of India-related topics is a good example. Where there are no specific projects, put them as a sub-section of regional projects. --Ezeu 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All I think they are very useful for many reasons. I've been working on one to eliminate red links and look for further articles that need improvement. Incidentally there are still 3 red links (not none as claimed above) in List of Cambodia-related topics. And I'll get to them shortly :) Paxse 15:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and move them under WikiProject; and don't move if WikiProject for that country doesn't exist. I have been using such list for Thailand topics to patrol for vandals regularly. Category sucks for this purpose. We simply lose track of article if the category is removed from the article. -- Lerdsuwa 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alberta-related topics, initiated by User:Black Falcon as well. It seems the common reason cited here for keep is that these countries have active WikiProjects. I believe many of the "regions" listed in the other AfD have active WikiProjects devoted to them also. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am puzzled by the attention being paid to whether the lists have redlinks or not. If any of the people voting to delete had ever used the lists to write, they would know that redlinks can be very useful; in fact, to my mind, one of the ideas of these lists is to post important topics that may not have articles and use the list as a guide to developing a country or region's set of articles. I wonder if any deletion people ever actually write Wikipedia articles, given their ignorance of the function of these lists. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's a fair criticism. I proposed the lists for deletion, but myself have started over two dozen articles. In general, lists have more potential and can be infinitely superior to categories. However, these lists currently are not, and that was why I nominated them. I have essentially withdrawn my nomination since then (I don't consider deleting a viable option anyomre), but would like for us to come to some solution of keep, projectify, or a mix of the two. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I am actually pleased that you have essentially withdrawn your nomination. I spend most of my time on Africa-related areas, and I think that the thing of it is, is that Africa-related Wikimaterial gets less traffic than other parts of the Wikipedia, and therefore, lists don't grow and develop as quickly as one would expect if one were in another area of the Wikipedia. And, there are a lot of lists involved. I myself would spend my time sprucing them up, if there weren't such a dearth of articles in the first place, especially in corporate Africa where I like to work. I spend time writing new articles for companies on African stock indices, and generally only a tiny percentage of articles are written, and it is a vast continent. So I thank you for the essential withdrawal, and as an experienced Portal:Africa Wikipedian, I can sincerely urge patience as regards these lists. In other words, as far as a future plan is concerned, time is the best remedy; there is nothing functionally wrong with the list articles, it is just that there are fewer people working on them. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, Falcon, but I was surprised by your proposal and I am used to the slower pace here. As Brian describes in the next vote, List of Cameroon-related topics is a perfect example of a topic list that has been well maintained. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Was the rather obvious pun intended (ruffle your feathers, Falcon)? :) I assure you, my feathers are unruffled and I can certainly understand the frustration at having one's efforts undermined by someone who just stumbled in on the issue (see below). I would not have suggested these lists for deletion had I thought anyone actually used them ... I (mistakenly) thought that they had been abandoned. Had I known that people still used them, I would have raised any concerns on the articles' talk pages before even considering a nomination for deletion. In fact, the only reason I encountered these lists was because I stumbled across a number of them at Category:Proposed deletion. I did not feel that deletion was entirely uncontroversial and it is readily apparent that deletion via WP:PROD would have been inappropriate. Given the use of these lists in keeping track of related changes, deleting makes no sense at all. I think an argument can still be made for projectifying, but completely deleting pages that serve a useful maintenance function is, to put it mildly, illogical. I cannot speedy close this AfD due to the fact that at least one editor has approved deletion, but I hope the admin that closes this discussion will take everything into account and close the debate as keep. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let me say that Angola is one of the first countries I look at when I look at the map of Africa; I live in a sort of Portuguese-speaking area of America and I read the Chinese newspaper; Angola has now passed Saudi Arabia as the number one importer of oil to the PRC due to a number of large long term contracts, which news is just great for Angola... in looking at Karbala provincial headquarters raid, I can definitely say that what I said about your user name was definitely very antithetical; sorry. And as for me, I vow to spend time at the country topic lists so that they don't look so untended. I sometimes think that I should be involved in writing about the ongoing conflict, but I am not as qualified as the many people who already are. The black falcon is definitely a serious symbol to deal with, as per your comment above; consider also the American eagle and Polish coat of arms - it is a universal-type symbol. I struck out my accusatory comment; I am not sure about protocol as regards these discussion pages, but it should probably be deleted as it is irritating in retrospect; but then again, I wouldn't know, I am not the expert on the image of the Black Falcon. I got involved in writing about Buddhistic images of the swastika when "Swastika" was the article of the day a year or so ago - the symbol is normally rendered in pastels and is normally adorned w/floral imagery, at least that was the sitation before the 1940s - it is just not an easy discussion to participate in. When it comes to discussions of the recent past, I would prefer to just listen to European dance metal, but history is so serious. Godwin's Law definitely applies. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't find the comment irritating; rather, it made me think a little about the series of coincidences surrounding it. I speak German, have lived in Germany, and my primary interests are nationalism and civil conflict. However, despite all that, the black eagle (which is what actually appears on nationalist emblems ... I don't know of any that depict a falcon, but I digress) was not the inspiration for my name. Regarding the lists, I'm not entirely sure what to suggest. Part of me would like to see them projectified, if for no other reason that the lists won't be deleted in a future nomination by someone else. But then ... what about the other 80 lists of country-related topics in Category:Lists of topics by country? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I authored List of African stock exchanges by copying the original article from German Wikipedia.....In the case of no action being taken, the following would happen: As time goes by, month by month, the number of articles for Barbados and Laos grows, and a list that is deleted through a discussion page in the present will be re-created in the future by the people involved at the project. I am not familiar with the projectifying process, but it seems from what is being said that it will give the list articles a secure place. I don't suppose there's anything I myself could do to 'projectify the lists'....I suppose I could put my name on a committee.....I took a look at Image:Austria Bundesadler.svg - that's a heck of a falcon. I know "The Falconer" from Saturday Night Live, and it is interesting to see that the Austrians are setting the falcons free in order to have them work harvesting grain and working in metallurgy shops. I'm more familiar with this or with this. Seriously, what has to be done to create this project placement? It seems to be an efficient course of action. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a good article ... far better organised, more informative, and easier to navigate than the category. In fact, I think it could potentially be a featured list as it has the potential to meet all of the featured list criteria. ... To projectify any one of the lists, just move it to a subpage of an existing WikiProject. For instance, I moved List of India-related topics to Wikipedia:WikiProject India/List of India-related topics. Many African countries don't have their own WikiProjects, so in those cases, it may be appropriate to move the lists to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa. The move will result in a redirect from the article mainspace to the Wikipedia-space, but that shouldn't be much of an issue. Cross-namespace redirects are generally allowed if they serve as plausible search terms, which they would in this particular case. Given the consensus at this AfD, I will defer to the appropriate WikiProjects and the people who've been working on these lists as to which lists (if any) are projectified and which are left in the mainspace. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ty, List of American stock exchanges, List of East Asian stock exchanges, List of European stock exchanges, List of Mideast stock exchanges and List of South Asian stock exchanges followed, using the same model. There are still some stock markets in Australia and Kazakhstan that aren't really on any geographical list yet.....As far as lists of topics are concerned, here is the concurrent relevant link at the Africa Project: Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board#News and announcements, which is more or less in line with the discussion here. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        FYI::I have just now placed a "WP Africa" tag on each African country list in the list at the top of this page. I have also left messages at WP China and WP SE Asia telling them to fix their lists. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 19:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. List of Cameroon-related topics hasn't been maintained? The what have I been doing on Wikipedia all these years? In all seriousness, if this list gets deleted, it will be a serious blow to me and my efforts to expand coverage of Cameroon on Wikipedia. The list comes from the historical dictionary on the topic, and it shows me and other editors where we need to focus our efforts. — Brian (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Cameroonian list is not a part of this nomination. I deliberately excluded it as it has multiple redlinks that can be used for the purpose of article development. Also, please see my reply to McTrixie above. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. I wouldn't object to moving them to appropriate WikiProjects, as long as they are kept. — Brian (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also do not object to projectifying the lists. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these lists are extremely useful in monitoring changes. I myself use the Thailand-related list to monitor changes and vandalism of the Thai articles quite often. Also, such mass deletion like this should be discouraged. Many of these lists were created and maintained by relavent projects. Did the nominator notify the projects that their lists are going to be deleted? We can't just go around and delete the wikiprojects' works without even hearing from them. --Melanochromis 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, absolutely. Now it's not among those "blacklisted", but for example I can tell you that the List of Chad-related topics is for me of immense help in my work on Chadian articles, and I would be in great difficulty without it, because, as more generally noted by McTrixie, with these words of which I endorse every comma, "if one tries to use categories to peruse a group of topics, one must constantly shift between pages of categories; it is a very unwieldy process. As far as the "much more comprehensive list(s) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Watchlist" is concerned, it is so comprehensive as to be incomprehensible." I will only admit that the lists being organized alphabetically is a weakness, because organizing the lists topically there usefulness would be greater still.--Aldux 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to worry, the big Africa list is as essential as any other mentioned here and I would work against its deletion just the same as the individual lists; it is just that it was being foisted as a motive for deletion. Sorry. "It offers a scope and a continent-wide academic grandeur that the individual lists can only project a small part of; there are so many multinational and interregional issues involved in Africa that Panafricanists would find themselves building the list anyway were it to be absent." Etc. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that each individual list in question should absolutely be posed to the relevant WikiProjects, regional noticeboards, or wherever else there may be a grouping of editors interested in the subject. Keeping track of what does and does not exist may serve certain groups better than others, but the important part is to let the relevant editors make that decision, and not to (a) consider all of these en masse, and (b) to continue to discuss it here, with editors who tend to watch AfD or whatever instead of bringing the discussion directly to the relevant parties..LordAmeth 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lists are useful and helpful in monitoring changes to articles. I myself have been active in using and maintaining the list of Thailand-related topics and its deletion would be a huge disservice to myself and other editors. Just because it doesn't have a parent project doesn't mean it won't be maintained. — WiseKwai 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all They are certainly more useful for editors of those specific countries of interest. It could be very difficult without them. --NaiPiak 08:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that most of those lists were created fairly recently, most of them by the same handful of people, and that many of them are either seemingly abandoned, or edited at a very low rate – can you explain how "it could be very difficult without them", especially since they are apparently being used merely moreorless as personal holding spaces for potential articles, moreover without clear and demarcate criteria? --Ezeu 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, just consider the lists that are sizable and detailed, and assume that the lists that haven't reached that status just need some time. As far as clear and demarcate criteria are concerned, the number of articles on Chad or Equatorial Guinea, for instance, is so low in the first place, that merely putting every article that relates to the country in the list results in an easily manageable list; the title of the article is clear and demarcate enough at this point in time; the reason being that we just don't have enough sincere people working on Africa-related material in the Wikipedia.. At least, that is my experience from working on the articles. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not accuse other editors working on Africa-related articles of being insincere. --Ezeu 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is good advice. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons stated so far, but certainly make a WikiProject to organize these better. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 20:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful Anarchism[edit]

I had originally mistakenly listed this as a PROD. I believe a discussion is warranted. However, my concern is that a) ""George Wattson" and the cited book do not in fact exist and b) as the article itself admits, no one follows this "variation." Is this notable? Does Wattson or this movemment actually exist? Shawn in Montreal 20:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I thought I should just point out that the above red link to a non-existent Afd page for "Craig David" is not mine. I believe an anon IP user just pasted the text into the list without following any nomination steps. Can I just delete it? I know non-admins are not supposed to delete stuff from the list but this is not really ON the list. Shawn in Montreal 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peacefully Delete - OR and total WP:BOLLOCKS. "The name was coined early in the 1990s shortly after knowlege of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto became well known to the North American general public". I can't quite put my finger on why, but I suspect one or two of the North American general public had heard of Communism before that. (Apparently there were these countries called Russia and China. I believe the public could conceivably have heard of Cuba and Vietnam, too.) Zero Ghits on the alleged book governing this "movement", unsurprisingly. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God, I'm embarassed to admit that I kind of glossed over the blatant nonsense about the Communist Manifesto becoming well known in the 1990s. I'm more convinced that this is a simple hoax by a junior high school student. User:I AM BORED hasn't responded and his user page "I am so very bored... poetry is gay" doesn't exactly inspire confidence.Shawn in Montreal 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looking at the article it seems many of the articles related to anarchy use improper capitalization. Maybe should be more like: Anarchist_communism --R e m i 00:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork--Sefringle 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems that if this is a philosophical stance that a reasonable (even if relatively small) percentage of Anarchists take, and it can be documented through published sources that it should be kept or... perhaps, the peaceful stance of "Peaceful anarchism" could be noted in the main Anarchy article. --R e m i 08:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. My only comment on that is that the main Anarchism article already has a wealth of info on "peaceful" anarchism. It's not like violent anarchism is the baseline and this peaceful business is something new. Shawn in Montreal 14:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. I think the complaint about this being spam has been addressed. The article may have further issues, but unless deletion is the remedy, that can be worked out via discussion and editing and a possible ((mergeto)) tag. Mango juice^talk 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushmaster Knock-Off[edit]

Reads like a product flyer, sourced to a manufactuerer's site and a fan forum, no citation indicating notability. I don't see why this particular model of paintball gun is notable, why would not a general article on paintball guns be sufficient. DES ^(talk) 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article was speedy tagged and the tag was removed, with some discussion on its talk page. Note also that a previous version of this article was speedy-deleted as "spam". DES ^(talk) 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Possable relayable source out there.

Im the newest member of the wiki paintball project, and well im focusing on finding sources for paintball articles that dont have sources. If you will permit i want to find a relyable source for this article so if you please give me by the end of today to find one it will be much appreciated. if i cannot find a relyable source then my descision will be changed. User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 16:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge cannot find sources as per my above statement my desision has changed. User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 13:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My final decision. Cleaned up the article fixed ad sounding paragraphs and corrected some images along with the help of Ip person and the canadian. Article still lacks some sources but they can be searched for. User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 14:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article really does need multiple non-trivial sources to prove this isn't original research or spam. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment im the original creator of this site , and mavericks i really doubt you will find sources to this article. I already know where i got all the information to write this so u dont need sources. I just dint post up all the sites where i obtained the information because wiki doesnt want to many links and sites. thanx for the help BKO THECANADIAN 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment a article may have as many sources as required to properly source and explain the topic. the exeptions are Popupsites, Advertisement sites, sites with the only intention to sell items, or sites that lead to virus infected data. other then that if it has the information then it should be ok. User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is this read like a product flyer... it goes into great detail about how every part works.. it has a timeline how it changed and also was dicontinued so what exactly do u expect me to sell???????? I created this page about this specific marker because just paintball gun doesnt go into specifics... PAINTBALL GUNS are very diferent between eachother some are open bolt , spool valve , ram operated.. its diferent. This article is only to educate and help people on this specific marker; also the notability part.. this is a distinct gun , it not like every other gun. It is really a gun that got the whole icd company started and i really dont understand how this gun wouldnt be aloud if the Promaster or ICD freestyle would be!!BKO THECANADIAN 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment now that the article is being cleaned up we should post pone the deletion. i will help in the clean up process if you all will give us some time. User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 02:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I seem to be a little stuck on what to do next can anyone point anything else out that needs to be corrected? User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - seems like a very good article. I also feel that in the original argument for deletion, the statement "I don't see why this particular model of paintball gun is notable, why would not a general article on paintball guns be sufficient" is a bit dangerous - should we delete every Simpson's episode article? Every article on every other TV show? As it stands, it is a device, it has been sold, that seems to provide some notability. Addition of sources would be very nice, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bushmaster 2000. First of all, I am deeply troubled by the opening: "The ICD BKO (rumored to stand for Bushmaster Knock-Off) is part of the B2K (Bushmaster 2000) series...". We have an article named, by non-reliable sources, after a rumor - which seems terribly unencyclopedic and has got to be in violation of several wiki-policies and/or guidelines. If it is "part of the ... Bushmaster 2000 series", then it belongs there. At the very least, the article MUST be renamed to BKO (except that is already an airport article) or Bushmaster BKO; otherwise the entire premise of the name is totally speculative and cannot be allowed. If the Bushmaster brand marketing representatives (or Indian Creek Designs) admits that BKO means "Bushmaster Knock-Off", which would seem highly unlikely, then we have an encyclopedic name. Otherwise there is no way this can stand as is. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:06, 1 May 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 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murdar Street[edit]

Possible Hoax article. The programme mentioned seems to have no documented existence outside this entry on Wikipedia and is not on any of the television channels in Northern Ireland, nor can it can be found on Youtube. Flowerpotman talk|wot I've done 21:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Note: I am also nominating the following related pages because as they are related articles or versions of this article:[reply]

delete all an obvious hoax. A show with 100+ episodes surely would have left a trace. Mukadderat 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 23:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lame hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale for ((prod))ding three of the articles: "A suspected hoax. Even if it's not a hoax, the article is unverified and does not prove the notability of the subject." -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per above comments, except for the first 'Sunny side' entry, which can be redirected to On the Sunny Side of the Street as a plausible search term. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My hoaxity detector is pegged. Coren 21:53, 28 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 deleted as nonsense. Newyorkbrad 01:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johannian[edit]

Johannian is a nickname for a student at a non-notable secondary school in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Thuresson 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Delete Non-notable, wildly unencyclopedic. Appears to be a bunch of high school students messing around with wikipedia SirBob42 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete Why on earth wasn't this speedied? It's a clear cut A7, not to mention borderline vandalism/patent nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:32, 24 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 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Drummond[edit]

Junior hockey player with lack of notability. Junior players are only considered notable if they are a top draft prospect or have accomplised extraordinary feats. Flibirigit 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Flibirigit 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Players are not considered notable enough until they have played atleast one game in the NHL (or equivalent) unless they are notable for some other reason. --Djsasso 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In other words 'Robbie who?' GoodDay 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This person defines what it means to not be notable. Orangemarlin 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. He hasn't even been drafted, one of the major qualifications to be listed. Kaiser matias 04:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Unlikely to ever play in the NHL. BoojiBoy 18:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Resolute 19:11, 26 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lalande[edit]

Junior hockey player with lack of notability. Junior players are only considered notable if they are a top draft prospect or have accomplised extraordinary feats. Flibirigit 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Flibirigit 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Until a player has played atleast one NHL (or equivalent) game he is not considered notable enough unless some other aspect has made him notable. --Djsasso 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per JamesTeterenko as he has signed a pro contract. --Djsasso 02:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kevin who? GoodDay 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need we say more?Orangemarlin 23:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mid-round draft choice who hasn't played a professional game, and so fails WP:BIO. RGTraynor 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not too hung up on keeping this article. If the consensus is to kill it, fine. I just don't see much point in deleting an article that is likely to be recreated within a year. He has signed a professional contract and unless he has a career ending injury, he'll be playing professional hockey in the fall. No, he won't be in the NHL next year, it will be in the AHL or ECHL. When I take a look at the roster of the Omaha Ak-Sar-Ben Knights (where he would likely play if he plays in the AHL), I see other players that are not much more notable that have an article. Some examples include: Warren Peters, Brett Skinner, & Brett Palin. These were all created by different people, so it isn't as if one person went out to create a bunch of players on his favourite team. As a side note, I actually did a search on Kevin Lalande in Wikipedia earlier this week to see information on him. That is when I noticed the prod, and figured it might be better at least as an AFD discussion. Granted, I am unique in that I know who he is and can name the five top goalies in the Flames system. I just wanted to know what junior team he is playing for this year and figured Wikipedia was as good a place as any to look this up. -- JamesTeterenko 22:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. James makes a good point, however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we do not know that he will be playing somewhere for sure, as likely as it is. Kaiser matias 04:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't played a professional game, per WP:BIO [44] It looks like the Flames have at least 3 other goalies in the system above him in the pecking order [45]. If he plays actually next season (probably in the ECHL) I wouldn't be opposed to recreation of this article, but I won't be itching to create it myself. ccwaters 12:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pending what the Flames do with other contract, Lalande will have to deal with Krahn, McElehiny (SP), Keetley and Irving. He will be in a low minor league (likely the ECHL) for sometime, which I believe would place him below the notability threshold at this time. Wikipedia policy is that articles are created after notability is achieved, not before. As it does not appear that Lalande has any outstanding argument for notability in the OHL (ie: won a major award, etc), I have to vote delete. Resolute 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can always be recreated if he ever does anything significant at professional level. Metamagician3000 23:40, 29 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. This requires cleanup, not deletion. --Wafulz 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Eunan's College[edit]

A ridiculous, sprawling, "conflict of interest", unencyclopedic page that has been maintained periodically by the sockpuppets of a single editor. The talkpage for this article will reveal that several editors have attempted to improve the article, before finally giving up in despair. A sample of quotes from the article follow:

"The school is also notable for having a monkey puzzle tree in its grounds..."

"Also on board are Kevin Bowdren (a former chef in the galley of Ireland's largest submarine) and Clive O'Sullivan whose quick thinking averted an international war between Ireland and Spain..."

"A recent change has involved the splitting of the two female secretaries that frequent the school. One of them has been assigned her own office in a small cramped room by the front door of the school whilst the other has remained in the older larger office. This has been more convenient for parents, visitors or tourists to locate the office or to request help."

... but the article is, in fact, composed entirely of material along these lines. I had previously believed that the page could be salvaged, but it has simply become a playpen for the editor who maintains it. Pathlessdesert 21:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The college itself is notable , with past pupils including notable actors, government ministers and notable sportspeople.
- Comment However, I agree with the comments on the state of the article made by Pathlessdesert above. The article needs to be overhauled and monitored.Flowerpotman talk|wot I've done 22:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article doesn't seem to be looking for AfD, but WP:DR. WilyD 18:47, 27 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, defaulting to keep. The level of sourcing available is neither clearly too little nor clearly enough to consider this topic notable. But fortunately, people seem to be focussed on sourcing issues now, hopefully it will improve. If the problem is the editors, not the topic, I suggest Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Mango juice^talk 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People of Praise[edit]

If Wikipedia is not a battleground, publisher of original thought, soapbox, or advertising venue, I have difficulty seeing why this article is here. So far hardly anything in this article is verified. In fact it is doubtful that enough has been written about the subject for it to be verifiable. The People of Praise does not meet the notability requirements. All of the google results I found were from People of Praise created websites. Hardly anyone has seen fit to write about it. And those who have written about it are of dubious credentials and cannot provide fuel for an unbiased article. Most of the editors of this page are members or ex-members with axes to grind. This page should be deleted or stripped down to a stub and built up by real editors. Theredhouse7 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and the editing which is probably necessary can be done, since the nom,. seems to think it a good alternative to deletion. DGG 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think the editing necessary can be done. You can't make an unbiased article with the sources that are available. And Theredhouse7 makes a good point, this doesn't meet WP:N. (I am one of the primary contributors to this article.) Danbold 04:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have also nominated River Ridge (building) and the category People of Praise for deletion. Theredhouse7 04:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Theredhouse7: Indeed, almost no objective, secondary sources that specifically mention the People of Praise have been produced by some of the editors. However, this hardly means that the article should be scrapped.

At least one source that is used on the People of Praise wiki page, "More than the Devil's Due - Adrian Reimers - Cultic Studies Journal, 1994"., can potentially be seen as an adequate source. Wikipedia: Reliable Sources states that "[r]eliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Although the author, Mr. Reimers, is an ex-POP member, his is a scholarly, reliably published article in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, the Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View page states that "All editors and all sources have biases." Due to the accepted process by which Mr. Reimer's article was published, it seems to be that this source indeed can be counted as valid.

Many other published and verifiable sources exist, but with a catch: they have been produced by the People of Praise and/or ex-members with these "axes to grind" as you say. I fully agree with you that Wikipedia is not a battleground, publisher of original thought, soapbox, or advertising venue. Despite this, the information available is sufficient to provide an excellent wiki article, although certain foundational documents from the POP must still be produced, possibly due to editors' currently restricted access or current lack of any access thereof.

Finally, there is an argument that the People of Praise meets required Wikipedia: Notability guideline, which puts forth that "[n]otable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"." Your statement that "Hardly anyone has seen fit to write about [the People of Praise]", aside from being inaccurate (many people have written about the People of Praise), seems to connect "notable" with "importance," which does not fit the definition used by Wikipedia.

Definitions aside, an organization that has affected thousands of people both positively and negatively, one that can produce so much discussion and desire to properly communicate its nature, is simply not unnotable. I can only hope that members and ex-members can treat this wiki page fairly and maturely, and follow the editing guidelines. Thanks.

Aufklaerung 05:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Aufklaerung[reply]

Keep but fix. Its been around for more than 30 years and has a bunch of branches? I'd say it's notable enough for an article to exist. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That sounds like WP:BIGNUMBER Theredhouse7 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An religious denomination with many branches throughout the US. Third party references, like the Gresham Outlook article, demonstrate "notability." --Oakshade 05:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy." I still do not believe this requirement has been met. The Reimer's source might meet it, although he is a former member and the journal is not necessarily reliable. As for the Gresham Outlook piece, that is not even about the community, it is about a member of it. Theredhouse7 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment it will obvious take a good deal of editing--it can be shown to exist--and i think all religious domination of splinter groups are notable, as long as they have a real name and an existence, for WP is not the place to decide on their true notability. But frankly, I don't believe the numbers given. Groups of that size are noticed more than this one has been. DGG 07:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Greatestrowerever 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a vote?. Care to elaborate? --Oakshade 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not have the sources necessary to support it to the degree that would be required for the existing structure and content. I concur with the request for deletion. JustinW 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After more thought, this article is too controversial for members, ex-members and non-members who have an affiliation with the People of Praise to edit in a mature (i.e. NPOV) manner.

The langauge used in the edits from Tropicality and D1xrfgf3 were too extreme. In addition, Danbold, "one of the primary contributors" to the article, is a POP member. JustinW, who has in fact just nominated the article for deletion, has also frequently edited the page in the past. The changes made by Justinw, also POP member, do not seem to properly balance the language of the article, but rather tip it more in POP's favor.

Nevertheless, one source listed as "further reading" on the wiki page, the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988) could qualify as a reliable, secondary source. After reading the information on the POP/Catholic Charismatic Renewal in this book, it seems to me that substantial improvements could be made to the article. It's actually pretty astonishing that pro-POP editors have not cited it yet; they could have avoided a fair amount of controversy. Right now, I'm still for deletion, but I'll try and make some changes in the coming week and it'd be great if everyone could voice their opinion.Aufklaerung 03:36, 1 May 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 09:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Tivoli Directory Integrator[edit]

Blatant spam. WP:PEACOCK terms in most paragraphs. If this was a newish page I would have taken it straight to CSD. A promise to 'clean this up after Easter vacation' hasn't been kept. Spammy from the first version. Mr Stephen 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamdelete Pavel Vozenilek 22:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture of a power tool may come handy somewhere, though. Pavel Vozenilek 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads a whole lot like a four-colored glossy for the product. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - looking through the history, there is not a single version that doesn't llok like ad copy. The latest version is in fact a copyright violation with text copied directly from ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/tivoli/tivoli-advisor/Tivoli-Advisor-Issue-10.pdf

-- Whpq 13:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A smaller page could later be written. --MarkWahl 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At a glance, I can't see anything that isn't sales pitch and/or copyvio. This doesn't mean 100% that the subject is non-article-worthy, but there's nothing here that asserts it and as we'd have to start from scratch, may as well delete this one. Fourohfour 17:41, 29 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!) 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shadow Raiders planets[edit]

WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOT an indescriminate list of things Part Deux 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't hurt to redirect it to Shadow Raiders, as there's a list of the planets there too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator gives no deletion rationale, and remember: WP:NOT#PAPER. Topic appears notable enough, merging wouldn't help. Matthew 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOT an indescriminate list of things aren't a rationale? Part Deux 18:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hole in one! "WP:FANCRUFT" and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE are both opinions, your opinions... hence unsupported by actual clear-cut policy. Matthew 18:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This isn't really a list, despite its name, so I don't think WP:NOT#DIR applies, and I can't see what in WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE this article would fall under. It is in bad need of sourcing and clean up though, but that's a different matter. Pax:Vobiscum 11:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each planet looks like it is getttin g an article and they are all linked too from the main page. The Placebo Effect 12:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic notable enough. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:27, 28 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. Necademic, please understand that wikification is necessary on every article in the project, and keep in mind your contributions are licensed under GFDL, which allows other users to edit them. --Wafulz 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Aja'ib al-makhluqat wa-ghara'ib al-mawjudat[edit]

The page was initially speedied and recreated as a nonsensical textdump and plot summary of the book; the user has removed the bulk of the article and removed the speedy tag. It now seems to consist mainly of "this guy told that guy this and that and the book is great" and a bibliography. I still can't make sense of it, but it's not a textdump. Taking it to AfD. JuJube 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's not a title which is immediately significant to me (although my background isn't in that particular era of the Middle East), which suggests that it's "just a book". Neither does the author appear to have much in the way of notability on a cursory check. That said, the fact that it's been preserved might mean that it has some level of significance. I'll keep looking later today (my time) and see if anything comes up. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~In light of the new evidence provided, weak keep, tending stronger after I've had a good look at the information provided. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Following the bad-faith actions of the original author, strong delete with no prejudice against a recreation by someone who is prepared to accept that he or she doesn't own the text and to avoid making a point of the whole thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Change that again. Keep as a notable book. The stylistic aspects of the article need to be addressed and are being progressively so. Page-blanking on the part of the article creator is a bad-faith action, but not a particularly nasty one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable medical, veterinary and geographical work of major significance. English language title, "Marvels of things created and miraculous aspects of things existing". This book was the first major illustrated work in the Arabic language. Description and example pages from various editions:

[Islamic Medical Manuscripts at the National Library of Medicine Natural History 2], [Islamic Medical Manuscripts at the National Library of Medicine Natural History 3], [Islamic Medical Manuscripts at the National Library of Medicine Natural History 4], [Islamic Medical Manuscripts at the National Library of Medicine Natural History 5], [Islamic Medical Manuscripts at the National Library of Medicine Natural History 6] Mosura 05:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JuJube, you don't explain why my entry is a textdump? I am a historian of the Middle East and sat down to write this article and gave a proper bibliography. Mosura rightly points out that this 'Aja'ib al-makhluqat is an important work. - Necademic

I don't want to put words in JuJube's mouth here, but looking at the article as it currently stands, I would call that a text dump as well. It may well be a perfectly decent explanation of what the book is about and so forth, but the lack of wikilinks and other features makes it particularly unattractive. The overwhelming impression is that it's just been "dumped" here indiscriminately from somewhere else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If the problem is that it does not have Wiki links and other features - which you can enlighten me about - that those can be added by me or someone else. The whole idea of Wikipedia that somebody starts an entry and other continue it. I don't see a problem really. I have no problems in withdrawing my entry. As to the "dumping": I am happy to send my original article with all the footnotes. - Necademic

True enough, but (for me at least) when a mass of text just "appears" from nowhere, it's often a bad sign. Where wikilinks are concerned and that kind of thing, this is probably a conversation we'd be better off having on my Talk page. Just click on the link marked "Schreit mich an" and then click on the plus sign to leave a new comment and I'll be able to help you out with that kind of thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I can't judge the notability of this article very well, but it appears to need work in order to be properly encyclopedic. Much of the text seems decidedly preachy. — RJH (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not opposed to keeping this article if it can be rewritten to be legible. However, I do wonder if it requires this title. There's no English translation? JuJube 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started work on wikifying and copyediting the article - although it's going to be a long process. There's an English translation of the title at any rate, and now that I know what I'm looking for there may be more than just that. Legibility et al will cease to be issues soon enough. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have removed the article gentlemen; I agree that the English needs to be improved but it was supposed to be academic. And it seems some people here do not appreciate that or they do not understand because they don't have the "background". Whatever the case, dear BigHaz, please do not "wikify" my text but start a new entry if you wish so. - necademic

- - I've restored this comment for clarity, so that anyone involved in closing the debate can see what happened. What I was doing was improving the English to the extent that it would need to be. You're welcome to correct me where I'm wrong, but the edits I was making were the exact edits that would need to be made by anyone else at some point along the line. At no point was the meaning of the text being knowingly changed, and if it was being unknowingly changed, I apologise and would have been perfectly happy to revise what was going on. Wikification is a process which should by rights be done to any and all articles, and I do thank you for providing the information in the first place. Remember, however, that nobody owns any article written here and the text was in need of copyediting and the like anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:33, 26 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. yandman 09:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal muscle[edit]

non-notable book (see WP:BK for guidelines): no independent critical commentary, etc. the user who started this article has the same name as the article of the book. Calliopejen1 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination, and note that the sentence "Collins, who edits the site at www.steroidlaw.com, is a recognized authority on the topic..." makes the article look like self-promotion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:07, 29 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. Nearly all delete votes coming from apparent SPAs and IPs. - Caknuck 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hippolyte Mège-Mouriés[edit]

Article should be deleted because it doesn't list references. I can't see how with only 711 Google Results, it could adaquatley list references. Also this man isn't notable because there's very few google only picked up 711 results, compare that to someone famous like George W. Bush who has 91,000,000. Etten joe 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Google is not the only possible source of references, aprticualrly for historical subjects. A good library might do it. Perhaps the creator can say where he found the info in the first place. Lack of references, again particualrly on a historical bio (as opposed to a recent one) is not a good reason to deelte, at elast until a reasoanble search ahs tried to find refs and failed. Assuming that the stated facts are accurate, this subject seems quite notable enough to me. DES ^(talk) 23:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a little puzzled by the comparison--is it perhaps intended to be taken as satire on the use of ghits?DGG 04:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so -- the same editor previously tagged this for speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 (Bio article not asserting significance). DES ^(talk) 12:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While his name does not appear to be spelled consistently, the subject is notable per WP:BIO. Various sources confirm that he invented margarine. [46] [47] --Metropolitan90 05:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've never heard of this man prior to this. I can't see someone needing to do research on him. When I checked the history, very few people made edits which means not very many people are looking at him. Why have an articl on if no one looks at it? (It's a waste of space). Harry Jolly
- comment Wikipedia is not paper It is a short article, we have the space, and no one makes you read it. This AfD is already takign more space than the article. Anyone intested in the history of food chemistry or of inventiosn in general might well find this article of use. it is accurate, it is sourced (although better sources would be good), what principled reason is there to delete? DES ^(talk) 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Deltete. Inventing margarine isn't as important as other things such as saving the world or running for President.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessy sir (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 April 2007
Keep per DGG and Metropolitan90. John Vandenberg 22:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable (strangely enough, he doesn't have any article on fr.wp). 800 google hits are a lot for a person that lived that long ago. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to margarine. Pretty much any information about "him" happens to cover margarine and its various adventures. This article isn't informative on its own and can easily be summed up in margarine's. --Wafulz 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm very surprised to learn that "I've never heard of this man prior to this" (above) would be a reason to delete the page. I thought that such a situation would be the exact reason to use the Wikipedia.... :-) For me it is, at least. Anyway, if I google Mege-Mouries (without any accents) I get >12000 ghits, so he can't be that unknown. I - the original author - would propose therefore to retain the article. Mege-Mouries invented a product that is very common nowadays. I use it more often than, say, an airplane. But I don't think that anyone would seriously propose to remove the Wright brothers from the Wikipedia. By the way, I wrote the entry because the margarine article used to have a 'red' link to Mege-Mouries. User:Hippolyte. 83.162.21.103 09:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a worthless little stub. --Loostick 20:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC) — Loostick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. About ten pages link to this article. It is appropriate that an article exists about the inventor of margarine and his life, as margarine is worldwide an important product. It is no use to merge it now with the margarine article, as the biography article might be extended in the future. For example that he sold the patent and died a pauper, as mentioned in the references that have just been added. Ceinturion 14:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few people have been making changes, could it possibly expand to a good article? --Travisbent 14:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Etten Joe. --24.181.176.224 17:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable. --71.235.43.75 19:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer the last edit is 2nd edit by vandal - see his 1st edit. Whilst I'm here, Keep per DGG. Johnbod 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who cares about margarine, we can live without it! --Listen up friend 19:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)— Listen up friend (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak Delete. Although I believe it is ture, no one needs to learn about this guy. To reply to the creators comment, several great articles have blank links, there still good articles, this article wouldn't make the article margarine better. --Barringtonbo 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)— Barringtonbo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It seems like may of the delete votes here are from anons or newly registered users with few other edits. Why would someone would go through the trouble of sockpuppetry for something so silly? Oh, and keep, by the way, the article establishes notability and passes WP:BIO.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inventing margarine seems notable in itself. Using Hippolyte Mège as a search term generates more Google hits, but of course, that shouldn't be a major issue anyway. Living in the 19th Century tends to be a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to achieving Google hits (It's not really his fault that he doesn't make the news any more.) Very strong keep.Flowerpotman talk|contribs 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has some historical importance. Google hits not relevant in this case. Metamagician3000 23:49, 29 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.