< April 28	April 30 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mason Gougar[edit]

No assertion of notability, other than being a member of the Blue Angels, which in and of itself doesn't seem to be enough to me JCO312 15:38, 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 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help - I am Jack Mason Gougar’s granddaughter. I’ve read through the log and understand the criteria for deletion. The article, however, was written by Grandpa himself and constitutes a living record for my family, especially now my mom (Jack’s eldest child) has passed. May I please have a copy of the record to give to my children? I will go make sure my user profile is complete so you can reach me. Many thanks for your time. Muchadou (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has had numerous awards, one of the criterion list on WP:BIO. --Imaginationac (Talk | Edits | Email) 15:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but the article is a mess and needs serious cleanup. --Phoenix (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he is notable, but needs a rewrite/cleanup. Wow. The Hippie 22:37, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (US Season 7)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Dalejenkins 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless info exists that show is being dropped to supercede cited sources from last year. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burninate (delete) as there's no guarantee that there will be such thing as of this time. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bravedog 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it is guaranteed to be aired and/or filming begins. Thatguy69^talk 11:40, 29 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 10:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CRYSTAL concerns satisfied by use of Template:Future television and cited sources. Wl219 11:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Keep per W1219 --St.daniel ^talk 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per W1219. Last I checked, there were rumours of the show's cancellation. IIRC, they even talked about next season in the season finale. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Seed 2.0 12:21, 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. WjBscribe 03:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Pack Motorcycle Club[edit]

Non-notable motorcycle club. GHits are blogs, lists etc. Author has been asked several times to establish notability. Mmoyer 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was so far not listed because of a now corrected spelling error -- Tikiwont 12:50, 24 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 10:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 15:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably not notable enough. --Phoenix (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. My opinion would change if the article referred to any press coverage of this group. Brianhe 16:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree, not noteable enough. Ibanix 22:53, 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. WjBscribe 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House Hippo Inc.[edit]

Non-noteable label, already deleted at least once before Lugnuts 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is named as the 'private label of Chunk Audio, which should go as well. --Tikiwont 12:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since this article has been deleted in the past and there's very little content Thatguy69^talk 11:43, 29 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 10:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFirst it has no sources second it is empty and third the only listed artist is a red link. --St.daniel ^talk 12:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, probably never will be. This article can not be sourced or expanded and therefor needs to go. Poeloq 18:04, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken filets Sadi Carnot[edit]

NN dish. -- Y not? 18:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't Sadi Carnot one of our admins? Maybe this is actually a news headline, not a recipe. They probably got the chicken angry on another AfD - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ahh yes, I remember my nephew Marie cooking that dish many moons ago! What a wonderful aroma it had. --Sadi Carnot 03:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot is a French name -- Y not? 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close, the famous French mathematician and politician Lazare Carnot (1753-1823) had two sons: Sadi Carnot (1796-1832) and Hippolyte Carnot (1801-1888), and the latter had a famous son named Marie François Sadi Carnot, only I don’t know what his common shortened name is? The name "Sadi" stems from the Persian poet Sadi of Shiraz, a name which Lazare attached to the name of his first son. --Sadi Carnot 03:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn dish. Zero sources, not even an internet recipe: the sum of ghits for all three suggested titles is 4. Smells like something the chef mentioned made up one day. MER-C 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the information will not be deleted, as it's verifiable and will be placed elsewhere if deleted here. Inability to find a reference on the Internet makes it historical, not non-existent. I think it's best treated separately. Nunh-huh 04:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems yummy (I am hungry now, I don't thank you) but I fail to see how it is notable. Redirect to Charles Ranhofer? -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some AfDs are much more entertaining than others. However, this one should go because there are no reliable sources, a very prosaic reason, but one that we are obliged to follow, regardless of the wonderful aroma noted above. I am only sorry that I did not get a chance to vote on Mythical chickens. EdJohnston 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's a source: The Epicurean. A Complete Treatise of Analytical and Practical Studies on the Culinary Art Including Table and Wine Service, How to Prepare and Cook Dishes, an Index for Marketing, a Great Variety of Bills of Fare for Breakfasts, Luncheons, Dinners, Suppers, Ambigus, Buffets, etc., and a Selection of Interesting Bills of Fare of Delmonico's, from 1862 to 1894. Making a Franco-American Culinary Encyclopedia, New York, 1894, p. 591. But because certain people were unable to find it on the Internet (though it is readily available at [1]), they've chosen to assert it was "made up" and that the Wikipedia would be better off (somehow) without this information.-Nunh-huh 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no less notable than many other dish/recipe articles. Johnbod 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep..I feel the information is best treated as a stub article rather than incorporated elsewhere. - Nunh-huh 02:59, 29 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 10:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this juicy bit of culture. Congratulations to Nunh-huh for his superb sourcing. We need Tournedos Rossini too. Stammer 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really Incredibly Weak delete. No question it exists, but one, there's only an assertion of notability (no real verification and lack of WP:RS, though), and two, I always thought that concensus was that most articles resembling recipies are best put on Wikibooks? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a recipe (as I think you'd find if you tried to prepare it using only the article). The article is linked from the chef's article and from the list of dishes named for famous people. The alternative to having the information in one place accessed by both of these is to place it in each of the articles linked to it. I think maintaining it as a separate short article is preferable. - Nunh-huh 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 19:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'commentIt's not worth an article by itself, but it may fit into a group of recipes not just named after a famous person, but outrageously expensive dishes named after a well-known millionaire, diplomat,etc. Count the truffles. DGG 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not establish notability. Vegaswikian 02:00, 4 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 10:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th Heaven (dance)[edit]

Non-noteable label/person Lugnuts 19:00, 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, Mailer Diablo 10:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe even speedy as A7. Obviously not an easy term to search for. The subject of the article (ie. the track itself) seems to thoroughly fail WP:MUSIC. Article doesn't establish notability and seems to be more about the producer and his other projects (none of which appear to be sufficiently notable either, by the way). -- Seed 2.0 13:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Google, there are several more famous Alan Stotts than the one covered in the article. Article fails WP:MUSIC, WP:RS and WP:WEASEL. Caknuck 07:46, 4 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. Sr13 (T|C) 09:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seckford Trust[edit]

Does not appear to meet notability criteria FisherQueen (Talk) 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Woodbridge School. --Wafulz 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's been (or at any rate claims to have been) in continuous existence since the reign of Elizabeth I. It is surely one of the .n% of oldest among extant organizations, where n is some ridiculously small number. Does that confer notability? I don't know, I'm just pointing it out. But it must have enough history to make a decent article, you'd think. Herostratus 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added references. It's never going to be a featured article, but I think it can stand on its own.Chris Croy 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Notability. Um, it's been name-dropped by The Guardian and The Daily Standard, as my references would tell you. Neither referenced article focuses exclusively on it, but I think that's pretty good for a charity that only operates in a 65 mile radius of some English town. I can cough up some references to royalty dropping by their supported organizations if anyone thinks it'd help.Chris Croy 21:53, 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 10:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I added another ref to the notable founder. DGG 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is now more than adequately sourced. Seed 2.0 23:30, 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. WjBscribe 03:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Warfare[edit]

Non notable webgame (MMORPG), no claims to notability, no reviews from reliable independent sources. Fails WP:WEB. Previously deleted a few times through speedy and prod, but never a full AfD duscussion, so this seemed like as good a time as any. Author may have WP:COI issues based on username, but that's not the main deletion reason. Fram 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable third party sources. --Wafulz 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB, nothing to WP:ATTribute this article to. The case of WP:COI seems likely from the article's aggressive author namedropping. MURGH ^disc. 11:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to remove any excessive namedropping. http://xMillar.com 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, That does seem to be much better, but the problem remains with lack of sources. If provided publication mentions and/or reviews, it would help considerably to justify the article's WP presence. MURGH ^disc. 15:33, 25 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 10:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Article only cites primary sources. A Google search for "Standard Warfare" yields nothing reliable from the 220 unique hits; it looks like there are no good secondary sources that exist. Mitaphane _?|! 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To my eyes the article fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:WEB. DarkSaber2k 11:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 11:53, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creme 21[edit]

Lacks evidence of notability; prod removed by creator FisherQueen (Talk) 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a direct translation of the Creme 21 article from the German wikipedia. I've cleaned it up substantially, but I'm hampered by it being a skincare brand created by a German conglomerate that was raised from the dead 20 years later. Google's translation utility tells me they're quoting the original site fairly faithfully. As for notability and verifiability, I found this online marketting museum which discusses the product's original advertising campaign in some detail.Chris Croy 20:59, 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 10:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at the article post-cleanup, I'd say the brand is definitely notable. Even though the article talks about the historic context, it should probably include some attributable sources. There appear to be quite a few that deal with the business aspects of bringing the brand back, too. I haven't been able to find any reliable, English sources though. -- Seed 2.0 13:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tasneem Aslam[edit]

A spokesperson for the Pakistan foreign office, who had one critical article about her in a Pakistani newspaper in 2006. That's not enough for notability. NawlinWiki 21:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It usually takes a fair bit for someone who's essentially just a mouthpiece of government policy to achieve notability, and there's no indication that she does that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:12, 24 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 10:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Marginal coverage of a single incident does not make a participant notable. Coren 00:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 01:13, 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 ~ Anthony 01:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominoes on a chessboard puzzle[edit]

The body is almost certain a copyright violation of Martin Gardner's column and/or book. Perhaps that problem is fixable, but is the problem notable?— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My ((prod)) was removed by an anon editor, so I'm bringing it here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for no assertion of notability. Someguy1221 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This problem is pretty famous in computer science; I was taught it as an undergraduate and it frequently makes its way into academic works in a non-trivial way, as a sort of benchmark problem for automatic theorem provers. As the nominator says we can easily fix the copyvio (if any) by rewriting the description ourselves. — brighterorange (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((sofixit)), then. I see no evidence it has ever been other than a copyright violation. It's not subject to a speedy deletion as ((db-copyvio)), because there have been multiple editors, but it's still a clear copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were discussing its notability? We agree the possible copyvio can be easily fixed. (I am not sure it is "clear" due to the length but it's better to be safe.) Is this an AFD or a WP:CP? — brighterorange (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a notable example of a bijective proof and/or an argument from parity. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your reasoning? Do you see the academic works non-trivial sources as invalid? — brighterorange (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference and rewrote the problem to address the copyright concerns. — brighterorange (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new article domino tiling (created after AfD of a different article involving domino tilings of chessboards led to a move to the new name). This would make a good example in connection with that article's description of a test for domino tilability. —David Eppstein 05:11, 24 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 10:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now clearly notable. (But I agree with the argument that copyvio does not invalidate an article if there is other content showing norability)DGG 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. - Chardish 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of journals to cite; appears to be a notably difficult problem that tests automated theorem provers or whatever those are. –Pomte 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to mutilated chessboard (now a redirect to here). The new additions have convinced me that there's enough literature to make this a real article, so I'm changing my previous merge !vote, but I think the title should match the phrase this is commonly known under. —David Eppstein 04:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to mutilated chessboard - if, as you say, that's the phrase this is commonly known under. Then do we need to redirect this title to mutilated chessboard just in case? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 05:08, 6 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 10:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lotus (Command & Conquer)[edit]

minor video game character - requires a line at most in relevent C&C article. Fredrick day 23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete game cruft. Pete.Hurd 02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Command & Conquer: Generals series. Punkmorten 07:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, because from a notable and recognizable game that has an interested readership that we should alienate. --24.154.173.243 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (indefblocked user) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:42, 30 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 10:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable enough for its own article. As per the nomination, I think what little information is in the article at present could easily be added inline to the C&C Generals article. Jsc83 13:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --SkyWalker 07:54, 2 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 10:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian International Organization[edit]

Insufficient notability, uncited, promotional. — ERcheck (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed as ERcheck stated above. If editor could cite this article properly, it would pass muster for inclusion.--Fahrenheit451 00:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ERcheck (talk) Anynobody 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Phoenix (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No notability. Eaomatrix 09:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above and nom. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 09:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if valued with Libertarianism and Delete Not worth an article to itself. Emeraude 14:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.. 11kowrom 15:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not asserted. —Anas ^talk? 17:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 19:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The Hippie 22:40, 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. Sr13 (T|C) 09:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David West (tycoon)[edit]

Assertion of notability made, but the external links do not make good sources. Hard to verify via Google because there are many people named David West. Is being extremely rich good enough for inclusion? Personally, I would like some reliable sourcing, cleanup, and more material added, otherwise delete. →Ed Gl 00:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does exist & I think the article is essentially accurate, except for far too many 000s. I think he's worth closer to £9 million, or maybe 90, than 900. He's just your average millionaire businessman, so off he goes. Johnbod 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think being extremely rich is a good indication that there are likely to be sufficient sources to establish notability, but I don't think he necessarily qualifies. In any case, based on the BBC story, I think an article could be better written on the film, for which there are secondary sources in the form of reviews. ~~The article's rudimentary text is a copyvio from there, if we needed another reason for deletion)~~DGG 01:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize that thiswas not grounds for deletion if the notability could be shown otherwise. DGG 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, while not as rich as the article claims (he is not on the Times Rich List, so somewhere under £70M), he has been the subject of a documentary and there seem to be several articles on him[2], indicative of some notability. Nightclub entrepreneurs are likely to be noticed more than widget entrepreneurs. --Dhartung | Talk 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep article needs a serious overhaul, but there are multiple articles from reliable sources. the_undertow ^talk 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep while there are only a few sources the BBC coverage shows that some people might be searching for more information. Arbustoo 03:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnbod's comments. Jmlk17 07:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)d[reply]

Weak keep- some notability, but not much. Eaomatrix 09:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, just barely. Enough media coverage to meet WP:NN. Coren 00:46, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award winners[edit]

Do I really need to give a reason for this one? Though empty, in essense it aims to be a recreation of hundreds of pages of content. FuriousFreddy 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, category provides a good enough summary of content. -Phoenix 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As many of the awards have been given for 60 or more years, this page would become unusably long if it were completed. The categories and other pages do a much better job. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, perhaps rename to Lists of Academy Award winners and make it a dab to the existing lists? --Dhartung | Talk 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely unneccessary. The Academy Awards article already does this. --FuriousFreddy 05:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ((Template:Academy Awards)) already displays all the related lists and articles much better than a list could. Croxley 02:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the various lists and articles categorized in Category:Academy Awards is more than sufficient. Otto4711 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Though I am tempted to let the creator try and complete it. It should be done around 2012, and the page will be about 3000kb... Resolute 04:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per obvious issues. Though Resolute makes a good point: 5 years isn't too long of a time :). Jmlk17 07:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad, with no limitations, it would easily explode with the number of awards. --Nehrams2020 07:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh lord, there's a cat in the house! Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 09:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously redundant. I think the categories do a better job. —Anas ^talk? 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in recreating a category as an article. -- xompanthy 19:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having created this page, I did not know of the nearly identical page List of Academy Award winning films had been already created. Now I know this exists, I think That we should incorporate this article into that one, as mine is organized by award won, not alphabetically, or we could let it be, and it might take off like my Joe Swanberg article did, after it also was slated for deletion, or we could delete it instantly, because I just realized what a ridiculous article it is. Thank you. Rapigan 15:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of Academy Award winners organized by award is a recreation of hundreds of pages of content, since each award and each award ceremony already have their own articles. A list organized alphabetically, with the number of awards each person has won, would be a beneficial addition to the encyclopedia. --FuriousFreddy 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, you do have a point there....--Rapigan 07:51, 31 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; CSD G1, G10 and G3 (nonsense attack vandalism).--Fuhghettaboutit 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi and the Gays[edit]

I have already investigated the truthfulness of such a show existing and have not been able to find any proof that this show ever existed. I believe this page was created only to associate Ryan Seacrest with something "gay." Please see Talk:Ryan Seacrest to see the discussion that led up to the creation of this article by Doddsworth. FilmFemme 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero Ghits? No sources? Sounds like a hoax to me. --Haemo 02:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Some people were so upset over the kiss that they hung themselves with their Rudi and the Gays t-shirts"? Ryan Seacrest presenting a TV show in the 1980s? I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark here - this could just be a hoax. Should have been speedied, but it's good that it made it to afd because it's funny, in a stupid way. Croxley 02:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then i'll pretend i never read that nonsense. the_undertow ^talk 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax, nonsense, and possibly an attack page. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHoaxalicious. Nice to know, though, that Ryan (born 1974) had a show in the 1980s. Most of us don't get our own shows at 15. --Charlene 03:58, 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 WP:SNOW also WP:CSD#G11 blatant advertising Gnan garra 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Beats[edit]

No assertion of notability; Google search failed to find evidence of notability -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above. Appears to be an autobio by the band created by user Swans ltd -- whom I suspect is Ashleyi. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - this is an ad. the_undertow ^talk 02:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; an ad. --Phoenix (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an obvious ad. Jmlk17 07:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot assert notability, reads like an autobiography, not NPOV, and it's not even that well written by its 2-3 contributors. Jsc83 09:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DreamGuy 18:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything about them in any reliable source. If it's not autobiographical, it's fancruft. Coren 00:45, 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.

Result was Redirect to Bond girl. - Caknuck 07:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actresses who portrayed Bond girls[edit]

This is a gallery of copyrighted images being in a way that does not qualify as fair use. So it is a page full of copyright violations. Nv8200p talk 01:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it may be a gallery but it is also a valid list in common with e.g. List of James Bond villains and List of James Bond henchmen. It should probably be renamed to, say, List of James Bond love interests or List of Bond girls (perhaps not sufficiently clear), and of course the images are superfluous -- most of them are in the linked articles. --Dhartung | Talk 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as I did not realize how complete Bond girl already is. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same information, with copyrighted photos, already available in article Bond girl. Thuresson 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bond girl. Otto4711 02:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to concur with Otto. Useless and illegal currently, but it should just be a simple redirect. Kazmarov 03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bond girl per above. Wryspy 05:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Jmlk17 07:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Metamagician3000 10:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Bond girl seems better. —Anas ^talk? 17:38, 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. WjBscribe 00:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie's 10th Studio Album[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL, the majority of the text is unconfirmed hearsay, the references are not accessible without a login, and, with a login, turn out to be self-referential ("A rumoured track for Kylie's 'comeback' album, stated on Wikipedia.") or just confirming that it's all rumours ("Rumoured track title...", "Rumoured to have been written with Boy George..."). Images are untagged. Poorly written. Propose deletion until album is actually released (or a whole lot more certain than it is now). --Plek 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't think that it is good to delete this file since many people don't know about Kylie's new album — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.166.26.21 (talk • contribs) --Plek 10:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content any current content that is at all confirmable should be moved to the artist's main page until there is sufficent sources and evidence to make a seperate article. Kazmarov 03:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In response to the anonymous contributor, the purpose of Wikipedia is not necessarily to let people know about unreleased albums. All the information comes from Kylie's own website, which is not sufficient per WP:RS for an unreleased album that the public can't see. YechielMan 03:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Content will warrant an article eventually, but not now. Jmlk17 07:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL and all that. I could swear an article on this very same topic has been swatted down before, too. Lankiveil 09:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete until we have a name for it and some certain information. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, [3] appears to be the only reliable-ish source for the article. I dont mind speculative articles provided the speculation is attributed. John Vandenberg 09:43, 4 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 Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. DES ^(talk) 05:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy in Red/Blue Shirt[edit]

Non-notable web content hosted at YouTube. It's only been around since March 23 and there's no evidence of notability since then. This article has been deleted several times under speedy deletion. The creator of the article thinks I'm being unfair, so I'm bringing this hear for further review. Metros232 01:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, theyve been deleted all by you and the only way to get you to respond to your talk page is to resubmit it. BEsides, how do you know whats notable since them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by General reeves (talk • contribs)
- Actually, no, it was deleted 4 times in total, twice by me at Guy in Red/Blue Shirt and twice by two separate admins at Guy in red/blue shirt. Metros232 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually yeah. I submitted them by accident when they just had a few sentances or were half fionished. Stop avoiding the question of how you know if its notable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by General reeves (talk • contribs)
    - No, I just looked at the deleted versions, they're definitely the same as the article you've been adding here. I know it's not notable because of notability guidelines like WP:WEB. Metros232 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete: A7. They're on YouTube. They post videos. That's all the article says that isn't links, original research, etc. No assertion of notability per WP:WEB (on the content) or WP:BIO (on the posters). --Kinu ^t/_c 02:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - non-notable Youtube skit, repeatedly deleted. --Haemo 02:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of links! What do u mean by oroginal research?

We are well aware there are lots of links on that page - however, they are all just links to Youtube videos - that does not make them notable. And please read WP:OR for info about original research. --Haemo 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research: there is no information anywhere about the style, trends, etc. in the videos. It's analysis of the videos after watching them, and posted here without any reliable sources.--Kinu ^t/_c 02:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I wont resubmit it. Besides, it is researched. I got it from the course, over MSN from guy inred/blue shirts. I dont get why you have to be so stingy. An article about "non notable" people doesnt bother anyone. It does nothing. It bothers no one. So why not keep it on? Its not nonsense or poorly constructed or anything. Free edited encylopedia? HAHA

It's free to edit - not free to add whatever you want to. Non-notable topics are not encyclopedic, and they compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia - and thus are deleted when noticed. --Haemo 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we allowed anyone to add whatever they wanted without notability standards, every 7th grader who can type would have their own biography on Wikipedia. How is that helpful to our encyclopedia? Metros232 02:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What integrity are you talking about? It doesnt bother anyone. And what is with your 7th grader talk? There are Guy in Red/Blue Shirt on the internet, not random 7th grader Billy O'Toole. It helps because it adds even more information on this site.

The integrity of the project? You know, how we're trying to a make free reference encyclopedia here, and not a collection of non-notable trivia. And the seventh grader comment follows since any seventh grader can take a camera, record a dozen or so videos, upload them to Youtube, and then - by your argument - should get a Wikipedia entry. It would probably take me about a half-hour to do. Which is why we have notability standards for inclusion.

Also, there is inummerable information out there. Which is why we have the guidelines under WP:NOT to make sure it meets standards. --Haemo 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you wanna know something totally crazy? This didnt take half an hour to upload everything.So judgin by your criteria, unless theyre in movies along with mel Gibson they shouldnt get an article either because theyre not notable? Ever surfed through everything on here? Most of these are people that no one has ever heard of

Please read WP:NOTE for the notability guidelines. --Haemo 03:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per why are they notable? the_undertow ^talk 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete again. Resolute 05:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. I'd like to see a study to determine if there exists a correlation between the amount of comments in an AfD by an article's creator and the result of the discussion. I'm sure there is one. Maxa megalon 2000 05:05, 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 a7, autobiography of not-yet-published author, does not assert notability, no indep. sources. NawlinWiki 00:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Bailey Boggs[edit]

The subject of the article fails the guidlines for notability per WP:BIO. The article fails WP:ATT. Nv8200p talk 01:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete conflicts of interest, vanity, etc. the_undertow ^talk 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, no assertion of notability. YechielMan 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable and completely unnecessary. Jmlk17 07:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability. Article uses herself as a reference. DarkAudit 14:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Dungan[edit]

Appears to be non-notable per WP:BIO as a mayoral candidate. For a "hotly contested mayoral race" (per teh creator), very little is found indicating any relevance outside of local politics (unlike, say, the incumbent, who has been featured on CNN etc. for his role in same-sex marriages). For disclosure, one previous version were deleted as CSD A7; the other was deleted (by me) primarily as CSD G11 as it read like political stumping. As this appears to be somewhat contested by the creator, I've brought it here. Delete per WP:BIO, no WP:RS indicating notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Appears to be non-notable. Jmlk17 07:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4 as previously deleted. DarkAudit 14:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. And cannot G4, as G4 doesn't apply to previously speedied articles. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I might be prepared to argue notability if this w3ere a major city, but it's a village of 6,000 people . DGG 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point, appears non-notable for Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 04:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to this report, the candidate won the election today. Unfortunately nothing I see makes him notable per WP:BIO; still little relevance outside of New Paltz politics, no multiple, non-trivial WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:56, 2 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 10:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incoma[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 02:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't say much about them, and the Myspace link is a dead giveaway. (I've seen enough cases like this to know that Myspace and notability tend to be mutually exclusive.) YechielMan 03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable. Resolute 05:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete May not be notable for most users, but perhaps a rewrite with a bit of extension would rather be in order. Jmlk17 07:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OASIS Chronicles[edit]

Non-notable web comic of some type. Article fails WP:ATT Nv8200p talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JuJube 02:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 06:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a convoluted mix of near-nonsense, advertising, fancruft and vanity.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Nydas' comments. Jmlk17 03:57, 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. Some comments on the debate. (1) Significant rewriting occured in the article, and after that point, more participants favored keeping. (2) The grounds for deletion were notability, but many users felt that the attention this person has received makes her notable enough. BLP was raised as a concern, but that was before the rewrite, and the current state seems neutral to me, and is thoroughly sourced. Mango juice^talk 15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy O'Brien[edit]

The subject of this article is not particularly notable and the only sources are her own "testimony." SonOfGod 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

While she might not be notable in the same way that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are notable, she is quite notable enough in her field to justify having a wikipedia article written about her.
If you can only find here self published material, you clearly aren't looking hard enough. Here are some good examples of third party sources (most from a NPOV/skeptical perspective), which mention her and give her notability outside of pure conspiracy circles.

Kenn (2000) "Cyberculture Counterconspiracy", Book Tree, ISBN 1585091251
Versluis, Arthur (2006) "The New Inquisitions: heretic-hunting and the intellectual origins of modern totalitarianism", Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195306376
De Young Mary (2004) "The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic", McFarland & Company, ISBN 0786418303
Toropov Brandon (2001) "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Urban Legends", Alpha Books, ISBN 0028640071
Barkun Michael (2003) "A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America", University of California Press, ISBN 0520238052

perfectblue 11:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-published conspiracy author. No sources convincing of WP:BIO. Arbustoo 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-publication doesnt cut it for an author's inclusion. the_undertow ^talk 03:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)][reply]

KEEP: This article has already been nominated before and didn't get consensus. Subject is notable in their her field (conspiracy theory). Just because something is notable to you, "SonOfGod" doesn't mean it isn't notable to someone else. -Eep² 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I though a month ago, and i continue to think, that the references sufficiently demonstrate the notability of her "work," however absurd it all may be. A delusion at best, but a notable one. It does not matter in the least whether the events described happened or not. WP is not the least unfriendly to fiction and imagination, regardless of the motive for its publication. Self published or not, the books are in many libraries. DGG 04:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like there are no secondary sources about this particular individual. I do not believe this particular person is notable per WP:BIO. The total lack of mainstream sources on this individual makes me think that this article does not belong at Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 04:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks to the work of another editor, it now seems certain that this particular individual is notable enough a lunatic in the same sort of vein as Gene Ray. --ScienceApologist 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google yields 14,400 hits (602 unique domains) with "'cathy o'brien' 'mark phillips'", Save the Males: Illuminati Sex Slaves Paint Horrifying Picture by Henry Makow, The Konformist (exchange between Phillips, O'Brien's husband, and a skeptic of their book, Trance Formation of America), interview, another skeptic... -Eep² 05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good argument. Especially not when the names are so relatively common. The first few Google hits in fact confirm my comments that all we have to go on are primary sources. The amateur web interview and debunking that you linked to are not notable enough per WP:WEB to justify keeping an article on this subject. --ScienceApologist 12:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self publishing accounts of one's utter insanity doesn't make you notable. It's bizarre how any article, no matter how staid, on Wikipedia has a warning on its talk page about the importance of avoiding libel, and here in this article Wikipedia is happily repeating allegations that this woman was forced to make BDSM porn films for Gerald Ford, that George Bush Snr raped her 13 year old daughter, and that she was forced to have sex with Hilary Clinton. This is the maddest thing I've ever read, which on Wikipedia is quite a feat. Utter tosh not backed by independent, verifiable, non trivial sources. Nick mallory 05:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Um, Nick, I just gave 4 such links... Try reading them this time. <eyeroll> -Eep² 05:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I point out that her claims are nuts and you roll your eyes at me? Do these sources you mention disparage her views or merely repeat them? Either way I have a funny feeling they're not substantiating them. Show me the proof that this woman was forced to make porn for Gerald Ford, had her daughter raped by George Bush senior or was forced to have lesbian sex with Hilary Clinton and then fine, it's a legitimate article. Do you really believe her claims for a nano second? If you do, where's the evidence? If you don't, why do you think it's worthy of inclusion? I know you must be terribly busy, what with all the eye rolling and everything, but I'd appreciate an answer or two here. If project Monarch gets deleted, how can a woman who's only claim to notability is espousing it be notable? The sources you mention are simply links to her website, or extracts from her website or self published book on another conspiracy website. That's hardly an independent, non trivial source is it? When you google 'Cathy O'Brian' you get about six or seven references to her, all of which link to the wikipedia article or her own website, or extracts from her website, or pieces pushing her book. There is no way this women is notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Nick mallory 06:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several sources in which her story is analyzed from a mainstream standpoint rather than repeated from the perspective of a believer. In one case it is analyzed as part of the wider "CIA brainwashing urban myth", in another it is analyzed as part of the "child abuse panic" (people seeing child abuse everywhere etc) and in a third it is discusses in itself. Is this sufficient? Yes, she's nuts, but she's notably nuts. - perfectblue 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're one to talk about invalid sources when you don't even bother reading them in the first place. The sources are only to validate that she said what she said; not that her claims are actually true. WP:BIO for more info... And your Google search talents are lacking. I GAVE the correct Google search link above; here's another--use it this time. Note: this is for "cathy o'brien" who is not unique, which is why I used the other quote with "mark phillips" in the first Google search link. Also, you have to go to the last Google search page, which may or may not yield more unique results (bug?) in order to see how many unique (per domain) hits there actually are--I get 744 with this search. -Eep² 07:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources are only to validate that she said what she said; not that her claims are actually true." Nobody is actually claiming they are true, only that she is notable for having made said claims. - perfectblue 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is 'Cathy O'Brien' so that's what I googled. If you want to make the article about somebody else as well, then do so. Or how about making it about Project Monarch? Oh, right, you can't do that, because that article has already been deleted, so the only way to repeat the claims is to do it under the guise of this biography. Nick mallory 07:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh and take your own advice, hypocrite:

I have written several articles on first class cricketers on wikipedia and occasionally these have been nominated for deletion, often by people from countries which do not play the game. Every time that nomination has been overturned or withdrawn but it wastes time to fight the same battles over and over again. Someone not interested in cricket might think a player who played a few games in the 1920s isn't important, but that isn't the point. If wikipedia isn't comprehensive then what is it? Such articles, when linked to a couple of sources of reliable statistical data and put into the right category should be acceptable by definition. Is there a list of sports and competitions which editors can refer to before they nominate an article for deletion? If there was some way they could check that a first class cricketer was a notable person it would save some of the people on the wiki cricket project a lot of time. Nick mallory 12:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (source)[reply]

Just as obscure cricket players may not be notable to me, apparently, obscure conspiracy theorists aren't notable to you. Different strokes for different folks, eh? -Eep² 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketers who've played first class cricket are deemed notable by Wikipedia policy and precedent because they've played at the highest level in their sport. This is accepted by everyone, except you it seems. It's not a question of whether you think they're notable, it's a question of what the wikipedia policy is. I'm not sure where I'm being a 'hypocrite' here. If Cathy O'Brien ever bowled off spin for Worcestershire I'd be happy to support her inclusion. Nice pun on the word 'strokes' by the way, I'm assuming it was an intentional play on words. Still not sure what calling me 'zippy' means on my talk page though, care to elaborate? Nick mallory 07:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a term of "endearment", Nicky. Anyway, you're missing the point about O'Brien's relevance to the topic of conspiracy theory. You obviously don't even research it so why are you even bothering trying to have this article removed? Perhaps you're part of the conspiracy too, eh? <snicker> Why not just stay on your little cricket field like a good little lemming? -Eep² 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm a 'fool' and a 'hypocrite' and a 'lemming' am I? I've seen cats, dogs, foxes and falcons on a cricket field but never a lemming, which is a pity, because they are cute. Do you think that everyone who doesn't believe the world is run by shape changing lizards to be part of a conspiracy? If so, there's quite a few of us. Nick mallory 07:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that a quote from someone's website is enough to make that person notable? By that logic everyone who had a blog or website would be notable. There's nothing independent about her website is it? Where's the story about her claims in the New York Times? If you're going to count the same self published information being mirrored and replicated as different google hits which can then somehow be equated to different, independent, non trivial sources then I think you're being quite 'bold' with your take on Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Thanks for the note you just left on my talk page suggesting that I 'won't last long on Wikipedia' and that I should leave. I've considered the wisdom of your argument, and I'll stay, thanks. Nick mallory 07:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dude, are you seriously this dense? The links I provided ARE NOT WRITTEN BY HER OR PHILLIPS! Good god, man, get a freakin' clue and actually RESEARCH the provided links please, before you make yourself look like even more of a fool... -Eep² 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This extract is taken from one of the links you mentioned above as testimony that Cathy O'Brian was worthy of inclusion. I'll indent it, as per your request on my talk page Eep:

"The conspiracy, predictably, involves the CIA, Nazis, the Vatican, Satanists, HAARP, Walt Disney, assorted rock musicians, and Freemasonry. Naturally, childhood sexual abuse plays a key role. According to the escaped sex-slaves of Project Monarch, it all serves the world's (or, it seems, America's) power elite. And that elite, in some accounts, are the Lizard-People of the Illuminati.

Project Monarch seems to be largely the invention of Cathy O'Brien and her husband, Mark Phillips. O'Brien claims she was victimized by her father, who produced child pornography. Her uncle, privy to the top-secret Project, realized that the girl was perfect fodder for Monarch, which recruits multi-generational incest victims who suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder). O'Brien makes several unfounded claims about this condition; apparently, it gives one a a photographic memory, superhuman senses, and a high pain tolerance: all requirements for the CIA experiments. This, she explains, is the reality behind those Satanic Cults which suburban myth has performing Satanic Ritual Abuse in every other neighborhood; they're CIA fronts which produce the children Project Monarch requires. Disney films, Steven Spielberg's ET, L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz, and even John Steinbeck novels all play a role in the programming. Of course, the CIA has an elaborate system of coded words, which permit operations to take place in public; bystanders will only hear the innocent words, and not the coded messages.

Their purpose? Well, because the agents have multiple personalities (not to mention their other nifty powers), they can be used as sex slaves, spies, or criminal operatives, without their primary personality ever knowing what they've been doing. This prevents future blackmail and other inconveniences. Professional comedians, O'Brien assures us, often handle the Monarch slaves.

O'Brien, it turns out, was a "Presidential Model" slave. Her customers included George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton. "Hillary knew I was a mind-controlled slave," she reports, commenting on their first meeting, "and, like Bill Clinton, just took it in stride as a 'normal' part of life in politics." And she recalls with horror the memorable day when she saw Bush reveal his true form: a humanoid lizard.

For the sex slaves do not exist only to provide pleasure to their masters. The Illuminati Reptiloids require human DNA, obtained through acts of sex and vampirism, to retain their human disguises."

And some more from the same source;

"O'Brien's husband, Mark Phillips, has told varying accounts of how he learned about Project Monarch, whence he rescued his future wife. He claims he had a sensitive position with NASA in the 1960s when it seems he could have been, at most, in his early twenties. He also claims to have stumbled onto sensitive information while working for California-based Woodland Hills Research and Development-- a corporation which doesn't seem to exist. According to reporter/conspiracy theorist Martin Cannon, Phillips' most impressive job for which any record can be found involved the sale of recreational vehicles.

Another woman, Brice Tayler, tells tales similar to O'Brien's. As a bonus, she implicates the late Bob Hope in the conspiracy. It must be noted, however, that her stories appeared after Cathy O'Brien's were available for inspiration."

The piece, predictably, concludes that Cathy O'Brian, if sincere, is suffering from a delusion or mental illness. If this is the type of source not written by the lady in question then I don't think you're doing your case much good. Nick mallory 07:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, the source is there just to state that she said what she said--not that what she said is actually true, Nick. Regardless, her notability within conspiracy theory is there; her many radio interviews, convention/forum appearances, etc attest this point alone. -Eep² 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not a question of her notability in the world of 'conspiracy theory', it's a question of her notability in the world of Wikipedia. The fact that she's appeared at a forum doesn't make her notable. Nick mallory 08:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, you just aren't researching the issue enough to be qualified to comment about it. -Eep² 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm entitled to my opinion Eep, as you are to yours. Others will judge as to whose arguments are the more convincing. You still seem singularly unable to produce credible sources for this article and no amount of impugning my intelligence, motives or knowledge will change that. Nick mallory 12:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was still a Project Monarch article I'd recommend that it be merged there, since Cathy O'Brien has absolutely no notability that doesn't derive from her alleged participation in Project Monarch. However, since Project Monarch was deleted in an AfD that decided it was non-notable I don't see how there's any logic to keeping a Cathy O'Brien article. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus, you argue in favor ("Keep, cleanup, and watch") of keeping the Project Monarch article... The problem with deleted articles is that they are basically black-holed and can't ever be expanded upon in the future (unless one can manage to track down who deleted the article and request it be restored). This is lame. All deleted articles should be publically accessible and restorable by anyone temporarily with the intention that they will be sourced, etc. "Consensus" is relative--and it bugs me when articles are mindlessly deleted. There are a LOT of articles on Wikipedia that aren't properly sourced--yes, of living people biographies, too. Why is it the conspiracy theorists seem to be targeted for deletion? That's another conspiracy in itself, perhaps... -Eep² 07:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-published; an ad. Jmlk17 07:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: now sourced to third parties - perfectblue 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not an ad; and she is referenced by others, most notably David Icke. -Eep² 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Icke?!?!?! That would be the David Icke who believes Queen Elizabeth II, the Duke of Edinburgh and Bill Clinton are shape changing alien lizards, right? And that Ted Heath, former British Prime Minister, used to sacrifice children as well as sail yachts and play the piano? Nick mallory 07:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yep; that's the one. "Do your homework", as Jordan Maxwell likes to say... -Eep² 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely familiar with Mr Icke's beliefs, which is why I'm incredulous that you'd cite him as a serious, respected source for anything. Nick mallory 12:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A person can be considered notable if other notable people consider them to be notable enough to discuss in their work. Icke might be made as a loon, but he's sure is famous in conspiracy circles. Here, notability and notoriety are interchangeable. - perfectblue 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing Mr Icke's position on Wikipedia. He's what Woody Allen would have called a 'major loon'. I am questioning his use as a source for Cathy O'Brien's notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs) 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

When a notable individual takes up somebody's case or cites them said individual gains bonus points themselves. If a famous physicist writes a piece about the work of a not so famous physicist that says that it's good, then that piece can be used as evidence that the second physicist's work is notable. - perfectblue 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless I'm missing something here. Noone reliable seems to care about her. I can find no news articles and most of the google hits seem to be self-published sites rather than peer reviewed or at least news/government sites. Can one of the keep voters give a couple of news articles about her ? Personally I love articles on people like her...makes a good read... but without sources the article is unsupportable - Peripitus (Talk) 09:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Whether she is completely nuts or self-serving (she clearly is one of the two) is beside the point. The article is in no way an endorsement of her claims, but a report of them. The only question is whether she has attained notability, which it seems she has. Johnbod 10:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Eep and I have argued about her notability doesn't mean she's notable. As Peripitus points out, there are no news articles or non self published sources beyond a few conspiracy websites and the like. There's no serious coverage of her claims. How does it 'seem' that she's attained notability? Nick mallory 10:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've listed several above. - perfectblue 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Learning to think relatively can help you understand how O'Brien is notable, Nick. I tire of trying to you how to think relatively so this will be my final communication with you. Again, what YOU find notable others may not. I don't particularly find cricket notable but you obviously do. Do you see me marking your numerous cricket pages for deletion? No, you don't. Why? Because I see notability as relative and see how cricket is relatively notable--just as conspiracy theory (and O'Brien's claims) are relatively notable. It's not that hard a concept to grasp... -Eep² 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia policy which says first class cricketers are notable Eep. I don't decide, you don't decide, the community decides. It's a peer generated commons. If you don't understand that, you fail to grasp the whole nature of Wikipedia. As for thinking 'relatively', well, you're entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts. This article will stand or fall by what everyone thinks, not just you and me. You know, just like all those articles you wrote on the subject of 'Eep' which kept getting deleted by everyone else. Nick mallory 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and a clear violation of WP:BLP. By the way, calling someone "Zippy" may very well be a contravention (and not a very witty one) of WP:NPR, since the only notable Zippy I can find is Zippy the Pinhead. --Charlene 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zippy was also a character on the ITV kids show 'Rainbow' in Britain. I have no problems personally with Eep's language when he's talking to me, I'm all for a vigorous, if occasionally bizarre, debate. Nick mallory 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable, third-party, sources. --Pjacobi 12:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot say I find her claims credible but she is right up there with Candy Jones as a notable (or notorious) alleged victim of MKULTRA. In addition, her claims form a bridge to other wildly popular conspiracy theories such as those of David Icke about Reptilian humanoids. It may be bizarre and it may be laughable to some, but her story is widely known and discussed. If we can get the article up to standards, keep a check on the article's content and keep it encyclopedic, it would be good to have the article since Wikipedia is a more NPOV place for people to get their first info on such subjects. If we delete it, all Googlers will come up with are conspiracy forums and Cathy O'Brien's book. Deleting an article because it needs work is overkill. I would also like to remind other editors to quit the name-calling and to be civil to eachother. This talk page is not a place for personal attacks or a place to debate MKULTRA or Project Monarch. it is set aside to discuss whether to keep or delete this article. ThanksLiPollis 13:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yea, well, you know what ticks me off, Lisa? When someone mindlessly nominates an article for deletion without even first bringing up his/her concerns on the talk page to give people a CHANCE to improve the article. Instead, it's a mob mentality of "delete" vs. "keep"--frickin' ridiculous. It's as if the article is charged with a crime and it is taken to trial for sentencing. Ludicrous. Citation request template notices should be used first and, if still not satisfied after, say, a week, THEN an article should be nominatable for deletion. I don't think it's very civil to have an article mindlessly nominated for deletion--especially when it was already nominated so soon before. -Eep² 13:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: Keepers, are you the fifth column of Citizendum? On a mission to make Wikipedia a crackpot's nest? O'Brien's not only ridiculous, but more importantly non-notable claims, already made it to Wikipedia:Still more Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, WTF have they been re-inserted at Reptilian humanoid:

O'Brien says in her book "The Trance-formation of America" (with Mark Phillips) that she witnessed George Bush Sr. physically shapeshift into a reptilian alien being. She rationalized this as potentially being a holographic illusion as part of her mind control programming.

Pjacobi 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pjacobi, As much as I agree that her claims are basically baying at the moon, she is a very visible manifestation of an evolving paranoid subculture. Belief in reptillian humanoids and mind control is today where belief in UFOs and Alien Abduction were 20 to 30 years ago. It's really not a matter of proof for these folks any more than apparations of the virgin mary are for pilgrims to Lourdes. (Meaning, the pilgrims are taking a dead girl's statement that she saw the Virgin as fact despite not seeing her themselves) It is a mistake to view Ufology and conspiricism as beliefs that can be eliminated if all the articles about them are deleted or if those that remain can be loaded with logical evidence of their falsehood or skeptical viewpoints. These subjects occupy the same place as religious belief or faith for their "True Believers." I feel the proper approach is to document them accurately, state what they believe dispassionately, add in enough coverage of their controversial nature as is reasonable and then let the readers see for themselves the nature of the subject. In the case of Cathy O'Brien, deleting the article will not have the effect dimishing people's belief in such things and keeping it will not likely promote belief in her claims. It is the latter that many editors seem to fear. I say trust the editors to create a balanced article and trust the readers to see her claims for what they are. My view of wikipedian readers is that they do not need to be protected from fringe beliefs. However bizarre O'brien's claims, she is representative of an entire subset of the conspiracy movement. Better to have a balanced article here for readers to turn to than the only mentions of her on the net be without references and critical views. isn't it our job to document such things and provide context for the reader with links to other wikipedia articles on the subect?LiPollis 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree, Lisa. But then the whiners will complain it's "original research" in compiling a balanced article. <eyeroll> WhatEVER! As I've said before, all wikipedians are original researchers with every article they create. But, of course, "originality" is relative because who truly has an original idea--ever? "It's all been done before"--rehashed, regurgitated, compiled information soup. Mmm, soup...welcome to the wikimeltingpotedia. -Eep² 15:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This subject may not be that politically notable, like in the way of FDR or JFK, but the article is well referenced with many non-trivial works, and thus I will have to vote to Keep the article. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Some of the above deletes are based on the idea that if her account is false, then it is not notable. She's notable because of her published account and the notice it has received, bot because of the actual events if any. inventors of all sorts of notable hoaxes are notable, as are the self-deluded. it depends on public notice. DGG 22:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable nonsense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as non-notable. While there are a couple mentions in books, coverage is incedental and trivial. --Minderbinder 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. O'Brien's story is somewhat unusual and the references show that she has gained some notoriety. --JJay 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... notable and unusual ... J. D. Redding 00:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - taken into account its subject, and given the current state, it seems pretty well referenced for an article eventhough I would think there could be many more different references to use for this article ... also given wikipedias goal of allowing growth and creation of articles this article should be given a chance to clean itself up if there are any problems with it (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough, well-referenced. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 19:24, 6 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 speedy deleted by Postdlf (Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity). Non-admin closure of oprhaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 03:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle wall[edit]

hello Smokizzy 02:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as tagged already. JuJube 02:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Bible College[edit]

Unnotable, non-accredited institution. Was nominated in November as Vanispamcruftisement, and ended with no consensus (two keeps, three deletes). Its been on wikipedia four for years with few edits. Until I researched it a few days ago, the article didn't even mention its lack of accreditation.Arbustoo 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. Not accredited, lacks WP:RS, and notability. Arbustoo 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lack of accreditation is not abnormal for bible colleges. The schools is reasonably large and well known within the Christian community in Seattle. The article needs improved references and more work but it satisifed WP:ORG and is notable. Provide sources, don't delete it. mako (talk•contribs) 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was created in April 2003, which is over 4 years ago. If it is so "well-known" why hasn't it been expanded or sourced in the last four years? Offer proof for your claims that is passes ORG. Arbustoo 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not adequately notable jamesgibbon 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the keeper's comments are equally true of traffic schools, but it still doesn't make them notable. Carlossuarez46 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Should be better sourced, but it appears to be somewhat notable, 3520 ghits, 17 gnews archive hits. - Crockspot 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned before Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test and telling how many hits is a pointless exercise. This article has been on wikipedia for FOUR YEARS. Explain HOW it is notable NOT how many hits at google you found. Arbustoo 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been relisted for more opinions. Arbustoo 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per WP:N (not even alleged so actually could be speedied) and WP:V not one source. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any non-trivial independent sources as required by WP:N. News archive stories on Google News and LexisNexis are mainly concerned with the trial of a driver who killed a student at the College, and don't give significant coverage to the college itself. EALacey 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a single source indicating that this is a notable institution. Lankiveil 09:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. My concern here is not that the article is four years old, it's that during these four years, nobody has gone and actually improved the article, save for one spammer who modified the article early this or late last year. If that's the case, there's probably no interest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't make compelling notability claims, and sinc it is practically abandoned it's unlikely it'll ever get any. Coren 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it has been online for four years, and STILL looks like a crappy stub, DELETE. Jmlk17 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability. I do not view the article's age or the number of times it has been edited to be in any way relevant to the notability of the subject. Just as inclusion is not an indicator of notability, inactivity is not an indicator of non-notability. That said, the article does not prove the topic's notability and I was unable to find secondary sources about the College. The 17 Google News hits are mostly about present/former students of the College (especially one who was killed in a motorcycle accident). As for the regular Google hits (2200 excluding Wikipedia mirrors), most seem to be trivial directory entries. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:01, 2 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!) 11:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace River Bible Institute[edit]

Unnotable, non-accredited school. Has about 200 students (graduates, distance learning?) (not sourced), and lacks independent sources to show notability. Below, even the creator of the article votes only "weak keep." Arbustoo 01:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. CitiCat 04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. LexisNexis turns up articles from one Alberta newspaper on the Institute's growth in students and on a recently appointed president, and a Western Report article about a firefighting course offered there in partnership with the local fire department. It looks like the college scrapes in as notable per WP:ORG. EALacey 11:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, those sound trival, and thus fail WP:NOTE. Local newspaper mentions don't equate to notability for an encycolpedia. Arbustoo 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. According to WP:NOTE, "non-trivial" "means that sources address the subject directly and no original research is needed to extract the content"; I think there are articles about the college that qualify. And WP:NOTE only requires that sources be reliable and independent of the subject, so I can't see how local newspapers are excluded. EALacey 17:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment A 2004 local newspaper article about a "growth spurt" makes this notable for wikipedia? Arbustoo 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improve, or at least more for improvement. --Remi 15:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? NeoFreak 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a vote Remi, tell us why it is notable. Arbustoo 04:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unsourced and the sources mentioned above. Not a single Gnews hit and no non-trivial mention even in a local paper that I can find. Can always be recreated if anyone does come up with legitimate grounds for WP:N — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed. Eusebeus 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability and its only attribution is to its homepage. NeoFreak 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nicely referenced article on a school dating to 1933. Plus they use to hold the water balloon record. I see no compelling reason for deletion here. --JJay 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- JJay is this WP:POINT? I think your should deal with your RfC. This is tiresome: Your main interest in wikipedia for April 25th is all related to my AfDs and other articles I've editted recently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arbustoo (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- So old and notable that all we have is local newspapers? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a directory for all unaccredited schools. A local church is older than this, and has more people attend. That doesn't mean we keep all articles about churches. Your average person's name will be in a local newspaper 4 times in their 78 year life. However, that doesn't cut it for inclusion. Arbustoo 02:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first comment is misplaced and should be stricken. Regarding your second comment, i.e. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a directory for all unaccredited schools: see the directory found at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Also see the list of unaccredited schools found at [4] or [5]. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is also functioning very much as a directory of unaccredited schools. --JJay 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, so you don't have sources to prove notability? Even the person who wrote the article voted "weak keep". Feel free to offer sources to show the creator and I otherwise. Arbustoo 02:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article creator submitted a one line stub [6]. While I am perfectly happy with his comment below, his opinion has no greater weight here than yours or mine. The article has since been vastly expanded by other editors and is fully referenced to five different sources. --JJay 02:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Vastly expanded" = Five mentions in three local publications dating back 12 years. Arbustoo 06:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Vastly expanded = the difference between [7] and [8]. --JJay 17:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Vastly expanded = a waterball fight and a firefighter mention in the local press? That's a very low bar of inclusion. Can't say I'm suprised about your claim though. Arbustoo 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Gotta go with EALacey here. The school was the main topic of a small number of newspaper articles, so I think it satisfies WP:N as it is presently written (but just barely). --Butseriouslyfolks 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, non notable school --Greatestrowerever 10:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This article was already linked to from three others before it was created. --Rosencrantz1 20:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rosencrantz1, the creator of the article, voted only "weak keep." Thus, if the creator doesn't even feel there is enough notability it shows that there is little reason to see this as a "keep." Arbustoo 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:ORG and EALacey's notable list of Lexis articles. Wikipedia has articles about high schools and grade schools, this doesn't seem much worse than those. --Dual Freq 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We shouldn't compare articles, but if you insist; this place has less than 250 students when a high school has between 1,000-3,000. Do public schools make money? Peace River Bible Institute, privately owned, charges $4,000 dollars a year (not including dorm fees). Should we base out votes of WP:CORP? If so this fails as well.
What articles make this pass WP:ORG? The local article about the promotion of a dean or the local 1995 article about firefighting? Or maybe the waterball fight? Out of this institutions 70 + years all the coverage found is 5 articles from three different papers about local events. There is nothing to write a real article about.
That is why the creator voted a mere weak keep. Arbustoo 05:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do public schools make money? Interesting question, they certainly take it, just look a your property tax bill. I'm paying over $1500 a year for public school's I've never even set foot in, at least for $4k you get to attend classes. I'm fairly sure I could find a high school article with <500 enrollment and at least the students are not perpetually vandalizing this article like most of the high school articles here. With 6 references, it is better referenced than the average high school article. The articles you've mentioned sound notable enough for inclusion, what else are you looking for, a New York Times review of a religious college in Alberta? Sexsmith, Alberta doesn't sound like a town that is likely to have their local newspaper archived in Lexis Nexis anyway. Looking at the article a second time, it looks like a decent stub with room to grow and doesn't need to be deleted. I'm not saying I'd want to attend, but that's not justification to delete the article. --Dual Freq 08:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public schools are paid for by tax money, and thus important to society. That is the rationale for keeping all public schools. This, on the other hand, is privately operated and not even accredited. The rest of your comment is unclear. We don't have sources to write a decent article. You have sources about a waterball fight, and firefighters from 10 years ago. If that's reason for inclusion, fine. But that seems to be a very low bar.
Should we include keep biographies of people who have 5 local newspaper mentions? Or you just think we should keep this unaccredited schools with 5 mentions? Arbustoo 17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been relisted for more opinions. Arbustoo 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Non-notable Bible college even in its own hometown. Fails WP:LOCAL miserably. (sigh) *I* have been mentioned more times in the newspaper than this college. --Charlene 04:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per other keeps. Also tag as necessary for quality improvements. --R e m i 04:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You voted once above saying keep without providing any evidence for it. You cannot do that a second time. However, since you did vote K twice, please explain how it meets WP:ORG. After all someone asked you why, and you never explained your vote.Arbustoo 04:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is referenced and satisfies WP:N. Also this article is only a week old. It has the potential to expane. meshach 16:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to have sources that establish notability. - Chardish 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Chardish. --164.107.223.217 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you look closely at those links? How do they meet WP:ORG? One of the sources just says they claim accreditation from a group, but that group isn't an recognized accreditation associations of higher learning. Thus, I don't see its value. Is the two sources about a waterballon fight convince you that it passes WP:ORG? Arbustoo 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually did review the article and it seems valid. Sure, everything can be improved. I agree there. --164.107.223.217 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote. You must provide proof for your claims. Arbustoo 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had not thought it notable, but the references have shown otherwise. If the argument is that N is not sufficiently proven by published references in RSs, that should first be discussed more generally. I don't think it's the generally accepted one at WP. DGG 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat sloppy article in areas, but holds a world record, and could be expanded into a good article. Jmlk17 04:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-read the article. A local paper (and only a local) says it held the record for a waterball was beat by another school. Importantly, if you look at the date of the sources it says another place beat its record in April 2005, but the article published in June 2005. So what that means is we CANNOT find a source that it earned the "record," but rather you have a local paper say it held the record. Fairly shakey grounds for inclusion.
- What sources do you know of that can allow it to "be expanded into a good article"? Arbustoo 05:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Rector First Book Prize for Poetry[edit]

A prize that was created this year and has no references. Prod removed by author. The person for whom this prize is named does not have an article himself. JuJube 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - far too early to determine the notability of this prize. Gillyweed 02:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Lack of independent citations and no news sources. Arbustoo 02:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not asserted, and since Liam Rector himself has no article, I don't think it is actually notable. —Anas ^talk? 17:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -I can't even find a reasonable cite for Liam Rector, how likely is it that a prize named after hir is vaguely notable? Coren 00:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, probably vanity? Jmlk17 04:02, 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 ~ Anthony 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buy Me[edit]

non-notable and unreferenced. Nardman1 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Me per nom. YechielMan 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 - totally NN - Alison ☺ 04:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Could be developed into a better article, but I doubt it will. Jmlk17 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep. It's as notable as any cable television show on HGTV. Tag for expansion and monitor. --Crunch 11:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Like Crunch said, this one is just like any other show on HGTV. Most of these are borderline cases that could go either way. In this instance, I'm thinking delete mainly because of the article's history (including a page blanking by the original editor), which leads me to believe that the article won't be significantly improved. Seed 2.0 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am going to abstain on this matter, 'cause the creator of the article in question already thinks I've got it out for him. When this article was created, I tagged it db-copyvio because most of the text was lifted directly from the program's page on hgtv.com. If you look at the article history, you will see a series of reversions, re-tagging for deletion, page blanking, etc., as its creator attempted to stop various editors from deleting it. Finally, I put the edit tags that are currently seen on the article, i.e. wikification and referencing. I haven't the slightest inkling that the improvements will be made. I wash my hands of it, but see no value in it either. ---Charles 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/cleanup/expand - "Non-notable" is silly -- hundreds of other TV shows have articles. However, it is unencyclopedic as written. I wrote another version at Buy Me/temp -- please move (history merge) that over this article once the deletion vote is over. –radiojon 22:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you just edit the article in question? Keep and expand as there is a reliable source in that version, and Google News gives some more articles like that. –Pomte 04:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten at Buy Me/temp, looks good so far. Much better than the hundreds of Simpsons one offs we host, too. RFerreira 06:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per current situation unless the Buy Me/temp replaces it. — Indon (reply) — 09:01, 6 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 10:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OAFE[edit]

Previously speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Proposed for deletion shortly after creation, with concerns about notability, advertising and suitability of content. However, the article as it now stands is fairly well-referenced, well-written and at least attempts to provide some assertion of notability, so I thought a longer discussion is merited. Procedural nomination. – Riana ^ऋ 03:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has many references, but most of them do not qualify as WP:RS. YechielMan 14:24, 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, Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources not related to the site. Would change to Keep if more external, independent sources were found. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Matthew Brown on this point. Because the article is well written, I think a certain amount of extra time is warranted to allow editors to add independent confirmation of notability, the only thing keeping it from a Keep --Myke Cuthbert 07:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nomination, but potentially a good article. Jmlk17 04:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off the Alley[edit]

Questionable notability. Nnoctis 16:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination incomplete, now listed. Adambro 18:10, 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, Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google turns up very little. The article does give one credible source in the links section, but in broad context, this was a small music club which existed for a few years. It wasn't notable enough to generate press coverage. YechielMan 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- local notability isn't strong enough for wikipedia, you need something with at least a regional or national scope. Eaomatrix 17:23, 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. The argument that another article serves the same basic function is compelling to me, the argument that the two are slightly different less so, since the clear solution to that is to expand the scope of objections to evolution. If anyone would like the text from this article to merge parts of it into objections to evolution, let me know and I will make it available. Chick Bowen 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstandings about evolution[edit]

This article is a remnant of a move to Objections to evolution, per the last AfD and talk page discussion. All the content from this article was included and expanded upon since then, but this article wasn't removed after the page move. darkliight^[πalk] 03:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is ostensibly different from the objections article in that it aims to explain misunderstandings independent of those objections that are fielded as part of the creation-evolution controversy. --ScienceApologist 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes that this article is "different". An objection is not the same thing as a misunderstanding. What's under dispute is whether these misunderstandings deserve to have a separate article, and whether giving them one is the best way to present this information to the reader. The objections article encompasses both objections and the misconceptions they are frequently based upon; in this respect, "Misunderstandings about evolution" is, at least in practice, just a shrunken, incomplete version of the Objections article. Its contents are redundant to sister articles like Objections, mother articles like Evolution, and daughter articles like Devolution; it is for this reason, not because a "misunderstanding" is the same thing as an "objection" (which it obviously isn't; the two are just inextricably linked in this case), that the article should be deleted. -Silence 01:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I certainly did not expect to say this. But upon unprejudiced comparison of the current forms of the two versions, the distinction made above is to some extent correct. The misunderstandings" article is an attempt to talk about evolution per se, and the "Objections"--well, it deals with the objects, and the answers to them. It is highly desirable to have one article that talks at an elementary level about some of parts of the theory that are often misunderstood--and misunderstood not only by creationists. The debate must be dealt with, and it has naturally been extremely difficult to do so objectively. But it should be possible to give an explanation of various religious theories, and of the scientific theory, in a self-contained way. The scientific articles about evolution in WP do so admirably, but at a relatively advanced level. It's good to have a simpler one. DGG 04:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Two reasons. First, this article is not very informative. Second, the Objections article covers these points more than adequately, and is better written. Misunderstandings are objections anyways.~~ Orangemarlin 05:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm revising my reasons because I did not clearly delineate my reasoning. Misunderstandings are not notable, because, frankly, it's not our job to correct misunderstandings. That could take an infinite amount of time. When misunderstandings then become common knowledge or evolve (word intentionally used) into an objection, then it it becomes, de facto, an objection. For example, one of the biggest misunderstandings about Evolution is the old "it's only a theory" line of reasoning. That would be irrelevant, except it's used as an objection. My point is a misunderstanding isn't important until it mutates into an objection. A misunderstanding isn't relevant. Orangemarlin 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article not being informative is not a reason for deletion. Second, the objections article is written from the perspective of the controversy and, as DGG pointed out, there are misunderstandings that can be had independent of the controversy. And who defines misunderstandings as objections? --ScienceApologist 05:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I believe half of the objections are basically misunderstandings. Do you know how many Catholic friends I have think their church is opposed to Evolution? That's a misunderstanding that becomes an objection. Orangemarlin 05:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is verging very closely on a rationale that is not accepted for AfDs which is one of personal taste. And, I might point out, that not all misunderstandings are objections. You just gave a singular example. Certainly not all misunderstandings about evolution are in the context of objections due to religion. --ScienceApologist 06:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I might somewhat agree with you, but I think misunderstandings about evolution are only relevant if they end up being objections. Otherwise they're certainly not very notable. I mean people misunderstand just about everything. Until five or six months ago, when I got serious about Wikipedia, I myself misunderstood things about Evolution--but that was from ignorance, nothing else. As for "personal taste", well, you might be right there, because I think the article is really bad, but I think of personal taste as being not liking an article about pornography or bestiality or something like that. I don't like this article because it is a waste of editor's time, as long as Objections is around, because misunderstandings doesn't become notable or relevant until it becomes an objection. In any case, you know the last thing I would support is the deletion of a pro-Evolution article, so it's got to be really, really bad for me to want it deleted. Orangemarlin 08:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree. A misunderstanding can be relevant without being an objection, at least in theory. Suppose everyone in the world thought that gravity was the process of things being magnetically attracted to each other? That would be an extremely noteworthy misunderstanding (because of its ubiquity), but not necessarily an objection. It just happens to be the case for evolution that there are few to no misunderstandings that aren't also objections; this is an issue of practicality, not of theoretical speculation. A misunderstanding need only be extremely commonplace and, perhaps, unusual/non-obvious to be noteworthy. "Misunderstandings about evolution" is a bad topic for an article; that doesn't mean that we shouldn't cover noteworthy misunderstandings, it just means that we don't need a separate article to cover them. There are much better ways to integrate the same information into a coherent whole, rather than isolating them in a little "misunderstanding island". -Silence 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin, you are mistaken in defining a "misunderstanding" as an "objection", and it is in any case not your place to try to redefine the English language based on your specific word definitions. Your vote is correct, but your rationale needs some work. First, believing that one's church is opposed to evolution is not an "objection" to anything; it may either be a misunderstanding or an understanding, but it's not an objection, because it's not an opinion about how things should or shouldn't be; rather, it's an idea about the way one thinks things already are. If you misunderstand gravity, that doesn't mean you object to it; and a misunderstanding of gravity can never, in itself, constitute an objection to gravity. In the same way, a misunderstanding about evolution is never an objection to evolution; rather, misunderstandings form the basis for pretty much every objection to evolution there is.

Don't I have the right to say delete, I didn't realize my vote carried so much weight that I have to defend everything I wrote. I agree that I'm not redefining the words. But to me misunderstandings aren't very notable. It's only when a misunderstanding leads to an objection does it become important enough to warrant an article. But geez, if my vote meant so much, I'd have shut up in the first place. Orangemarlin 02:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles for deletion" is not a vote, Orangemarlin. It's a discussion. Your "vote" only has as much weight as your arguments do—if you don't have compelling reasoning (be it for "keep" or for "delete"), then your "vote" will count for next to nothing. Nobody is contesting your comments because your "vote" is any more important than anyone else's; rather, we're discussing what you said because it's important for us to work out why we should (or shouldn't) delete this article, an essential aspect of which is analyzing the arguments for and against each option. If you disagree with our objections, then feel free to respond to them; but saying "it's just my opinion" is essentially invalidating your own influence on the discussion, and thus on the AfD's outcome. -Silence 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the problem: it's not that the misunderstandings are objections, it's that the misunderstandings and objections are intricately connected, both causally and intellectually. It doesn't make sense to have a "Misunderstandings" article distinct from the "Objections" article here because the two topics are next to useless in isolation from each other; it would be like having a "Facts about evolution" article distinct from an "Evolutionary processes" article; it's not that "process" and "fact" are synonyms, but that you can't properly explain the two in isolation. In a similar way, although on a conceptual level "misunderstandings" are very different from "objections", the practical fact of the matter in this case is that we simply cannot give our readers much information about either topic if we divide the two into distinct pages. How, for example, are we to explain the "evolution cannot generate new information" claim on a "Misunderstandings" page, without referencing the fact that it's one of the most prominent new creationist arguments? How are we to explain the same claim on an "Objections" page, without referencing the fact that it relies on a misunderstanding of information theory?

Or should we just not address it on "Misunderstandings", and rename Misunderstandings about evolution to Misunderstandings about evolution that don't necessarily form the basis for major creationist arguments? Because that's essentially what's happened to the article so far: in an attempt to prevent this article from just becoming a POV fork of "Objections" (which it probably will become again in the future if it's left around), the article was stripped of just about all information that wasn't covered in more depth at "Objections", and the result is the stubby, near-useless patchwork article we have today. Clearly persisting in this arbitrary and unhelpful information split is of no service to our readers, and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. If you want to correct people's misconceptions about evolution, do so on Evolution! That's what encyclopedias are for. We can't have "misunderstandings" pages for every topic, as that would just cause those misunderstandings to become more common, by hiding them away from the top-level articles they belong in. -Silence 01:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article not being informative because of its specific contents is not reason for deletion, but an article not being informative because of its subject matter is reason for deletion. In this case, it's not informativeness that's the issue, so much as redundancy; the best way to present this information is by discussing it briefly on Evolution, and in more depth in topic-specific daughter articles. Having an intermediary article like "Misunderstandings" between the top-level article and the topic-specific ones is completely unnecessary here. -Silence 01:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstandings are not objections. If you misunderstand electromagnetism, does that mean you object to electromagnetism? Obviously not. The problem with Misunderstandings about evolution isn't that it's a synonym for "Objections", but that it's an unhelpful grouping of unrelated topics that are better covered elsewhere. It would be like if we had an article called Facts about evolution, or Misunderstandings about George Washington; in both cases, the subject is better covered in the specific articles for that topic (Evolution and its topic-focused daughter articles in the former case, George Washington in the latter). Moreover, they are better-covered by sprinkling them throughout the article wherever they are relevant, rather than by shoving them all into a single "Misunderstandings" section/article (particularly for a topic as broad as Evolution!). -Silence 01:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with what you are saying. Apparently, I was not clear in what I meant, so I revised my comments. I think I'm in absolute agreement with your opinions, in that I do not believe that misunderstandings=objections, more that objections are a solid subset of misunderstandings (and evolved from misunderstandings). The misunderstanding article is "cruft" to quote a word I've seen about the Evolution discussions. Orangemarlin 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Although I could go either way on this one, and my original inclination was to replace it with Objections to evolution, I think I have changed my mind. Misunderstandings about evolution could satisfy a different purpose than Objections to evolution, although it might need some rewriting. I also have noticed that Objections to evolution has become much longer than I had originally envisioned, and might become longer still, so there is a reason to have a shorter more accessible article on this subject.--Filll 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That might sound great in theory, but I've tried many times to find an effective, neutral, practical, and verifiable way to clearly distinguish misunderstandings from objections for many months now, and neither I nor anyone else has yet come up with a remotely effective way to do it. The problem is that there is simply too much overlap: having full-fledged articles for both "misunderstandings" and "objections" would either result in the two being 90% redundant to each other due to having to repeat each other's information, or in the two being arbitrarily segregated so that certain topics are covered on one and other topics on the other. Look over Objections to evolution and try to carve up the article between things that are and aren't "misunderstandings", in one sense or another. Not only is this a monstrously difficult task for the editors, but it also seems counterproductive for the readers, who won't understand, much less agree with, our criteria for determining whether, for example, "evolution can't generate new information" is a misunderstanding or an objection. I realize that the idea of a misunderstandings article might be an appealing one, but I see no reason to believe it is even possible to have a "Misunderstandings" article on Wikipedia that isn't biased, redundant, or arbitrary. Currently, the article is redundant, having very little content and with all that content already available on other articles; if we expand it to include every misunderstanding addressed at "Objections", it will become redundant, biased, and bloated; if we expand it but try to keep it and "Objections" distinct, it will become inconsistent and arbitrary. There simply isn't any way to make this article workable; every truly applicable solution to its current uselessness is inferior to solutions that simply involve its contents being merged elsewhere, such as into Evolution (where a single sentence could cover everything already covered in this article simply by providing links to Biological devolution, Evolution as theory and fact, and Survival of the fittest!), Objections to evolution, and its more focused daughter articles. -Silence 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as detailed in first nomination and on the article talk page. This article is redundant, and therefore of no value for the encyclopedia project as a whole. Although certainly the information it contains is useful (disregarding the many inaccuracies and poor phrasings also in the current article), the exact same information is already provided, and provided better, by other articles. Objections to evolution does indeed cover a surprising range of misunderstandings (all the ones discussed on this page, plus dozens more), and there are also specific articles for each individual topic covered here: Evolution as theory and fact for the first section, Biological devolution for the second, and survival of the fittest for the third. There is simply too much overlap for this article to be of real value; I don't see the purpose of bending NPOV policy here by characterizing creationist arguments as "misunderstandings" when we have an Objections article covering that already, and with those borderline topics removed from this article it only has a handful (currently merely 3!) of "misunderstandings" to discuss, and can no longer cover enough ground to merit a distinct page. Note that most editors on Talk:Evolution seem to also agree that this is an unnecessary page, and that its corresponding subsection on Evolution, "Misunderstandings", has been deleted as well. There seems to be consensus that the most useful place to discuss misunderstandings is in topical pages about the specific issues, rather than on a generic, all-encompassing page for unrelated misconceptions. If someone misunderstands speciation, the best place to discuss that misunderstanding is on Speciation, not on Misunderstandings about evolution! That's where it's most likely to actually benefit readers. -Silence 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Silence. Metamagician3000 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given by Silence. Timb66 12:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This article is so terrible, WP will loose nothing by deleting it.Biophys 21:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as not living in the US I will perhaps never grasp whether so much air time is given to a controversy only slightly more rational than Daniken belief system. With this caveat at the front, in my personal, totally irrelevant opinion, all these "pedagogical treatments" of the subject (i.e. both this article and Objections to evolution and whatever more lurks in the corners of Wikipedia) should be transwikied and make a decent book at WikiBooks. --Pjacobi 09:34, 5 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 speedy keep per the 2 users who recommended it, and because references have been added. Since the main premise of the nomination was that the article lacked references, I think it's fair to say that the issue has been resolved. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 03:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mouthpiece (comics)[edit]

Unreferenced article about a non notable comic book series. I can only find one Google hit confirming that it even exists, and it didn't say much about the comic. It could possibly be merged to D.C. Comics or something, but the best option here would be to delete 11:31 P.M. 03:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a classic, but obscure, comic character. Sources for this are easy to find, for example International Hero, and Big Comic Database and here. No reason for deletion, or even nomination, a lack of sources is only a problem if they can't be found. Croxley 03:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Classic and notable comic character. --Carioca 05:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Drawn by a classic cartoonist, Fred Gardineer, who is the subject of an interview in this month's The Comics Journal. Rhinoracer 15:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 06:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does seem notable for inclusion. I think all what has to be done is placing a "references" tag. —Anas ^talk? 17:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable, so let's keep it. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. --Phoenix (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable Rhino131 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable comic book. 11kowrom 12:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAB Corporation[edit]

WP:CORP, non-notable company Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. While this is a private company, there have been newspaper articles about it. --Eastmain 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given Eastmain's sources. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. lots of newspaper articles. John Vandenberg 09:40, 4 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 Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 23:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McMaynerberry[edit]

Obvious hoax. Actual town of McMaynerberry is a fictional city from King of the Hill, and the wikilinks all lead to characters from Ugly Betty. Primary editor (who also removed the prod) also has a short but disruptive history on Wikipedia. JuJube 04:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 04:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. It appears they've even created a web page just to add a fake source, along with fake messages in the guestbook - if you're going to do that, it's a good idea to use a guestbook that doesn't show your IP address, it gives the game away. Croxley 05:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Perhaps speedy as vandalism. Resolute 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. Most of the wikilinks are to Ugly Betty characters. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above arguments for it being a hoax. --Haemo 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax/vandalism per above. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 12:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. --Phoenix (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's surprising so much work goes into a hoax like this. --Oakshade 23:11, 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. WjBscribe 00:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidential names[edit]

This article completely lacks of encyclopedic content. All it has is a list of nicknames that could perfectly be added to the introduction of the article on each president. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 17:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sub-page was unlisted; I listed it. --Iamunknown 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly unsourced trivia. Resolute 05:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the nicknames are unsourced POV. For example, under Bill Clinton is the nickname The Big Creep, which is not sourced and undeniably POV. If we're going to include nicknames like this, there must be a reliable source using the nickname. Another example with the same problems is the nickname The Wimp President for George H. W. Bush. There has to be a source cited for every nickname, but the problem is that a lot of the nicknames are inherently POV. As for the rest of the article, this is stuff that can easily be included in the main articles of each president (and may already be included there, I haven't checked). Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only are the bulk of the nicknames unsourced POV, but even some of the explanations ("surely the cruellest Presidential nickname", "vengeful terms of the Treaty of Versailles") contain unattributed opinions which are by definition POV. Any actual attributable nicknames could be mentioned on the subject's page. (Also, what's next with US presidentcruft: list of US presidents listed by the surnames of their dental hygienists?) --Charlene 11:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the merits having such a list: Presidential trivia is a well-established area of research, and nicknames and name origins are valid items to accumulate in an encyclopedia - not only on each President's page, but organized in its own article. Like the virtually unsourced places of birth, previous occupation, and their pets, as well as quite a few others found here.. So although this list needs work, it is valid, and nothing at all like "the surnames of their dental hygienists". Tvoz |talk 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. It's an indiscriminate list of trivia. POV. Seed 2.0 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep at present: first, this nomination was not properly noted in edit summary - the edit summary for the nomination notice in fact was blank - so people who edit the page (which I have not in the past) would have no idea that it is even being nominated, and would not come over here to comment. That is not fair to the three and a half years of work of dozens of editors. Furthermore, I suggest removing this premature nomination in favor of a request for cleanup and citations - there was no notice on the page prior to this deletion nomination. Clearly the page needs citation work - as do many - but questions should be raised, and a reasonable amount of time given, to editors to locate citations before nominating for deletion. This nomination is an abuse of the system. Tvoz |talk 19:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:AFD: "Consider adding a tag such as ((cleanup)), ((disputed)) or ((expert-subject)) instead" Tvoz |talk 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with the article except the unsourced information. A lot of the nicknames given to the more recent Presidents are not used very often. Articles like this give a good comparison with the other Presidents. This article was expanded so it wasn't just about nicknames at it originally was. It is not necessary to delete this page, but maybe some of the unnecessary nicknames. Jjmillerhistorian 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I contributed some of these nicknames. When I added "The Smirking Chimp" for Bush II, I felt compelled to remark on the cruelty of the nickname, POV or not. Nevertheless, I was also responsible for that remark about the terms of the Treaty of Versailles being "vengeful" - and if that has not already been deleted, I will do so right now because I agree that it was far too POV. I see this as one of the less serious entries in the Encyclopedia. Surely there is room for a little bit of fun trivia in Wikipedia? As someone pointed out, nicknames, by their very nature express POV. But unless this article actually invents nicknames - which it does not - these nicknames tell us a little about how past presidents were seen by their contemporaries. Details like that (in a very minor way, of course) add flavor to our history. On the notion that these nicknames could easily be added to the entry for the relevant president - I do not think that this would always work. I suggested adding George Bush Senior's (recorded but rarely used) nickname of "Old Read-My-Lips" to his Wikipedia entry. The creator of the page respectfully declined this idea. The article on Ronald Reagan is very biased in favor of the subject: no point in even asking for "Bonzo" to be added there. To some high-minded people writing a biography of a president for an encyclopedia, nicknames are stuff and nonsense that have no place in the scheme of things. I beg to differ from this austere verdict. Trivia can sometimes be a little interesting and educational. A little bit.

Flonto 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't sell yourself or the list short Flonto, this is more than trivia it's American History. Anynobody 04:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Encyclopedic and salvageable in principle but too easy to turn into a POV cesspoool. Sourcing each name is not really enough. Sourcing a name only means that somebody, somewhere, used it in print. ("The Big Creep" was an affectionate nickname given to Clinton by Monica Lewinsky and should be easy to source, FWIW). There's some value to a list of nicknames that actually got traction with the public but it's likely to be difficult to document that. 75.62.7.22 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasons to delete are not compelling or insurmountable. SchmuckyTheCat 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Flonto Bucketsofg 23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If there are errors with nicknames either fix or remove the nicknames, deleting the list (which is accurate and now referenced so everyone can see) would be an extreme solution to a minor problem. (Akin to cutting one's head off to cure a headache). Anynobody 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - certainly isn't unencyclopedic, and contains more than enough sources. Notability means that it relies on reliable and notable sources - which is the case here. Sfacets 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - This seems to be meticulously sourced to multiple reputable citations. Note: I was notified of the existence of this AFD on my talk page. Smee 13:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is simply not feasible. It could never be fully sourced and never complete. Like 75.62.7.22 said above, could easily turn into a POV cesspool. I don't think the article is important enough to even keep a watch on. Wikidan829 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While a list of nicknames might also be added to the articles about each president, such additions would not fulfil the purpose of collecting them together on a single page; this does. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A serious encyclopedia will want to cover even the trivia associated with the most important, most serious subjects, and the U.S. presidency is obviously extremely important. We should want to cover the trivia associated with it because it has a serious side to it -- how others relate to the president. Show me an article about trivia related to presidents that has no serious "side" (that is, the potential for gaining some useful insight) and I'll support deleting it ("Length of presidential toenails" for instance). Noroton 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Indiscriminate list of trivia that can never be fully sourced. Contrary to statements made by others here, most of these nicknames are NOT properly sourced, and furthermore, if we use the article's given criteria and definition of nickname (the Wikipedia article nickname), then the sky's the limit and we can add nearly any nonsense that pops into our heads. (The Bush-meister! Bush-a-roonie! Bushy-wushy! The Shrubster! Old Alky-boy!) As it stands now, I have no reason to believe that most of these alleged nicknames are factual. In fact, there's nothing stopping me or you or anyone else from getting drunk and making up new ones all night long and posting them... did you know that Eisenhower was known to some as "Baldboy"? Or that Calvin Coolidge's mom called him "Old Brown Britches"? Or that in some circles, Clinton had the affectionate nickname "Dr. Eggnog"? wikipediatrix 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It is not indiscriminate. As you can see if you look at the recent article history, several editors are in the process of going through the nickname portion of the article and adding and checking references - and there were quite a few references already in place before this AFD prematurely launched. No one is making up nicknames along those lines - those that survive the current edit process exist in articles and transcripts of broadcasts for those in recent years; others in biographies, etc. There now is a tag on the article requesting better sourcing - that process is underway. Deletion without prior warning is an extreme measure for what is barely a problem. Tvoz |talk 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is still criteria and definition. What IS a nickname exactly, for purposes of this list? If, say, Mona Charen called Ronald Reagan "Old Brylcreem Head" once and only once in a newspaper column in 1981, is that sufficient criteria to be included here? wikipediatrix 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Presidential trivia, especially nicknames, is highly notable and of much interest. Yes, more sources need to be added, but deletion is not the first step. Much work has been done since the nomination was discovered and this has the makings of a strong list/article. Keep to allow cleanup and sourcing. - auburnpilot talk 05:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the sources are in the books under References, maybe that could be linked better. This is a good article and there probably more nicknames which could be added. Jjmillerhistorian 11:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Nicknames have played a large role in every American presidential campaign. The article is part of our coverage of presidential history - a major scholarly field. It is essential that it remain. --JJay 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list shouldn't be comprehensive, it should include the monikers with regular and broad usage throughout a sustained period of time. It needs clean up, not deletion. --66.41.102.194 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wikipediatrix. Arbustoo 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. ^Px_Ma 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AuburnPilot's convincing argument. NoSeptember 01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep Justification for deletion seems to be the meaningless criticism that it is lacks "encyclopedic content," and the assertion that the information could appear elsewhere. Neither is justification for or even a good argument for deletion. This is one of the more useful lists on Wikipedia, and, as of now, it's very well-sourced, far more so than most featured articles. Calbaer 01:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Plenty of good references on this page, and the ones that don't should be removed. But the article has good reason to remain. - Chardish 06:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - people are still voting keep - and even strong keep - even though it still hasn't been determined what the criteria and the fundamental premise of the article even IS. What IS a nickname, precisely, for the purposes of this article? It has not been defined here and could be literally anything that anybody has ever said about a President that doesn't involve their real name. In other words, you people are voting keep for a list when you don't even know what it's a list of. wikipediatrix 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a valid discussion for the talk page of the article, not a reason to delete. Tvoz |talk 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm talking about the notability of the fundamental premise of the article itself, not its content. wikipediatrix 17:22, 4 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 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genophilia[edit]

Unreferenced article on a non-notable neologism. May be original research. Contested prod. MER-C 05:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wryspy 05:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Apparently coined for use only in one book. Possibly keep if it can be shown to be in wider use. (The article does discuss the concept, so it is more than a dicdef, but it seems NN on the present evidence.DGG 09:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already transwikied. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 10:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, transwikied. --Phoenix (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikied -> delete. Coren 00:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Interval Training[edit]

Fails to show Notability, had previously been marked db-spam by Walton monarchist89 which was deleted by the article author - Fordan (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Walton Monarchist nailed it. Any admin can go ahead and put this article in the trash heap. YechielMan 14:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Phoenix (talk) 21:57, 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 and Pagemove reverted by User:BlueLotas. Pea ceNT 12:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films notable for negative reception[edit]

Delete article with vague, subjective name. Any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Under it old name (films considered worst ever), it survived several AfDs, but under that name, it at least had specific criteria. Then, it had to be dubbed worst ever by an appropriate source. Now it's just an unmanageable subjective bit of POV cruft. Wryspy 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Wryspy 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. How in the hell is Pearl Harbor not on this list? Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- response kate beckinsale + jennifer garner = impossible to receive negative reception. the_undertow^talk 07:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They had a sapphic sex scene? Wow, I missed that bit. Nick mallory 08:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To be fair, the article does give sources about who called each particular film one of the worst films ever, and most of the films have several sources testifying to their ineptitude. It's not all just one guys opinions about what sucked. I agree about Pearl Harbour though. Nick mallory 07:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So if the problem is that the new name is vague and subjective, why don't we change the name back rather than delete it? Imban 07:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was nominated (unsuccessfully) for deletion 5 times under the old name. The name change was made one week ago on April 22 as a result of discussion on the talk page in the hope of being less liable to deletion attempts--this was quite evidently totally unsuccessful. The list had reasonable criteria before, and it has them now: "either been cited by a combination of reputable sources as the worst movie of the year, or been on such a source's list of worst movies. Examples ...include the Golden Raspberry Awards ("Razzies"), Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, and the Internet Movie Database's "Bottom 100" list." Discussion about individual films on the talk page show a sensible attempt to apply the criteria. I continue to dislike the practice of repeated AfDs. There is a considerable variation in the people participated in these discussions, and a considerable variety in the results. Many pages will be chance be eventually deleted without new evidence being raised on new concerns voiced, essentially by the luck of the draw. This is not a rational way to establish standards. Consensus can change about the application of particular criterion over a number of months, but it does not change week to week.DGG 09:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert pagemove. Even the nominator states that "under that name, it at least had specific criteria." The actual pagemove discussion had only 4 participants, including the IP nominator (and was still not unanimous). So, we move it back. Well-intentioned idea, didn't work out. Serpent's Choice 09:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, because there are enough lists and critical reviews out there to make such an interesting article managable and well-cited. We'd be doing Wikipedia a disservice if we lost this one. --164.107.223.217 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, preferably under the old name. Lighten up. If we're going to keep any of these marginal lists, keep this one. It's way fun. Herostratus 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The inclusion criteria keeps this list from devolving into "subjective POV cruft". And most, if not all, of the entries do meet the criteria mentioned in the article and are very well-presented. Svalbard in winter 21:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like with Films considered the greatest ever, I don't think the concept violates WP policy. There's alot of references out there that this article is built on that satisfies WP:V & WP:OR. However, this article builds a taxonomy(B-movies,Star Vehicles, etc...) which it defines itself with no resources (WP:OR). On top of that, the title "Films notable for negative reception" is POV as 'notable' is a subjective term. "Films considered the worst ever" is more neutral in my opinion. Mitaphane _?|! 21:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert pagemove -The list was reasonably well-defined under the old name. Not so anymore. Coren 00:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert pagemove. Keep under old name. Inclusion criteria worked under the old name. Under the new name, this is not remotely maintainable and any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Delete only if name is not reverted. Doczilla 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert pagemove, then keep - per Doczilla. New article name is indeed too board. L-Zwei 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Both the old and the current titles seem to invite POV edits. However, there is a whole talk page devoted to films (including Pearl Harbor) removed from the main page for failing standards, which suggests that there are clear standards and that they are enforced. I prefer the old article title to the current title because it does suggest stricter standards for inclusion.--FreeKresge 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert pagemove and keep - per Serpent's Choice. Possibly the page could be edited (yet again) to emphasize the criteria for inclusion. Lokicarbis 04:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert pagemove and speedy keep Completely notable page. Why the heck was its name changed anyway? -- Grandpafootsoldier 09:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under old name per everyone else. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert move and keep per above. That deals with the problem nicely. --- RockMFR 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and keep as stated by many before me, but it seems somebody had already reverted to the old name. Shall we close this discussion, then? rohith 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is very well sourced and largely to the point, even though the criteria is a little vague. --h2g2bob (talk) 09:00, 4 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 redirect to Garfield: The Movie. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Chapman[edit]

besides the fact that this is a 'tough read,' this information can be found in the garfield movie article, and i dont think this character needs his own page the_undertow ^talk 06:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Garfield: The Movie per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I first noticed this article while RCP'ing and decided to go through the editor's other contributions, which indicated that the editor might be a newcomer who isn't too familiar with policy yet (ie. this example). To avoid being a biter, I decided to tag and keep an eye on the article and to go over it in a couple of days. Looking at it now, I'd agree that a simple redirect is probably the best course of action. -- Seed 2.0 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, not sufficiently notable as a separate character. -- Mithent 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete Not a notable character that needs his own page. Either redirect as listed above or simply delete the page. --Nehrams2020 07:53, 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 deleted by admin Edgar181 (WP:CSD#G1). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 11:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squeak squeak[edit]

Unreferenced neologism, WP:ATT, WP:DICTDEF, WP:NEO; prod was removed by original author without addressing these concerns. Marasmusine 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete and so tagged as nonsense. the_undertow ^talk 07:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am now dumber for having read this. Delete it and salt the earth around its ruins. --Dynaflow 09:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of swords in One Piece[edit]

I'm usually against deleting even the more fancrufty pages, but a list of swords in an anime that isn't even really about people who wield swords is a little over the top in its uselessness. Imban 07:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uless you plan on porting the info to each individual character's page, keep it. No sense in losing information like that. 24.7.201.100 07:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this "information" is not useful outside of possibly Zoro fans. This should be in a OP fanpage, not Wikipedia. JuJube 08:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's pretty much why I marked it for deletion. It doesn't even seem to be useful to me from a One Piece fanpage nature, as it seems like all but one or two of those swords could merit a line in a character profile at best - and we already have character profiles. Imban 08:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless pictures are added Right now this article is usless because it has no pictures and minimal information, either add pictures or make a One Piece Wikia. DBZROCKS 22:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is only meaningful to the most obsessive One Piece fans. Adding pictures would be a bad idea if kept. Trying to justify those to the non-free content criteria would be near impossible at best. Jay32183 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 08:07, 2 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 10:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy rock[edit]

Looks like a thinly veiled attempt to promote this band "Modus Ponens". They have no wikipedia article, and Google seems to find nothing related ("modus ponens" music band and their album "Philosophical Treatises to Rock To"). As for "Philosophy Rock", I couldn't find anything substantial: "Philosophy Rock". nadav 07:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and promotion for one non-notable band. Genres gerenally describe sound over subject, and this one is an arbitrary intersection between philosophy and rock, with all sorts of bands fitting under it, except no one appears to use this term. –Pomte 10:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube 13:11, 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 no consensus. WjBscribe 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Håkan Andersson[edit]

As per a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey it is felt that just because a persons name is inscribed on the Stanley Cup (NHL championship trophy) they do not warrant their own article unless they were an actual player on the team. This particular gentleman was just a scout on the team. We do not feel this makes him notable enough to be on wikipedia as his own article, and instead intend to create a list of the people on the trophy that were "staff" members on the winning teams to cover their inclusion in wikipedia. Djsasso 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he's a director of scouting he may have played at the top level of hockey in Europe 20 or 30 years ago. Not all of those players have detailed information about their histories online. If he played for the national team or in a Swedish fully pro league, he's notable, but finding this out is beyond my capabilities. Is there anyone at the Wikiproject who can go back and look at the old rosters? Edited because you had already answered a question I had asked. --Charlene 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has played hockey at junior level but his career ended after a knee injury. I'm aware of the discussion at WP:HOCKEY and wikipedias rules for notable sports people, but I'm leaning towards a keep based on WP:PAPER and; Andersson is one of the most famous scouts currently in the NHL based on his ability to draft starts in late rounds. Maybe I'm a little biased (swede) so I'll vote blank, but I can also try to improve this article if that helps? --Krm500 23:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say scouts are a lot more notable than team accountants, and Hakan Andersson has helped discover such late round gems as Henrik Zetterberg and Pavel Datsyuk. I mean there are some really noteworthy scouts, such as David Conte, who basically was Lou's #1 confidant all these years in Jersey. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah I went back and forth on this guy. But figured I would put him up and see what others thought. --Djsasso 00:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:V, WP:BIO. It has been long-established that a mere junior-level career is not good enough to pass WP:BIO. "One of the most famous scouts?" The applicable elements of WP:BIO are (a) "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors" (b) "Wide name recognition" (c) "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" and (d) Multiple features in credible news media." Do we have any reliable sources which suggest the subject passes these criteria? RGTraynor 20:13, 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, Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 09:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. YechielMan 14:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If any current NHL scout deserves to have an article, Andersson would be it. With his track record of finding European players that become stars in the NHL, it could easily be argued that he is one of the best. One of the main reasons for Detroit's dominance is their ability to draft quality European players. Since I am not too sure if any professional scout should have an article (based entirely on his scouting ability), I'll withhold my vote. -- JamesTeterenko 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect as per discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Huffine -- JamesTeterenko 05:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GoodDay 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My first comment is that the nominator should have modified the text of what appears to be a cut-and-paste nomination. The guy is Director of European Scouting for the Red Wings which is quite different from being a trainer as claimed in the nomination. I can't read Swedish, but this news article would seem to be written about him, and there are many more Google News hits in the archives. Somebody who can read Swedish could probably make the case for verfiable 3rd party coverage based on Google news. -- Whpq 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmm I could have sworn I fixed that right after posting the nom. Its changed now. --Djsasso 19:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just so you all know, he is quite notable here in Sweden since he's on tv now and then. --Krm500 01:08, 2 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 10:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoop side[edit]

I can find no evidence that this exists at all. The sources appear dubious and the one link only mentions a nameless Oceanside gang for an adult, not a high school student. Nor any news reporting St. Paul High School as being controlled by a student gang. No sign of the "Saint Paul Double Edge Sword" newspaper. –Pomte 10:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Reference 2, as noted by Pomte, doesn't mention the gang, while Amazon search-inside on the books cited in notes 1 and 3 finds no references to "Stoop Side". EALacey 10:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk JuJube 13:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources appear not to stand up probable hoax Hut 8.5 14:34, 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. I discounted one keep comment that seemed to be about the category rather than the article as irrelevant. Delete arguments were strong here, and the main keep response (they exist) did not address those concerns. I will replace with a redirect to French American. Mango juice^talk 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breton Americans[edit]

This seems to be an arbitrary subdivision of the ancestry group French American. Googling "Breton American" or "Breton Americans" gives no relevant results. The fact that no-one designates him- or herself as a 'Breton American' on the census forms is somewhat indicative of the fact that the group isn't any different from French Americans except in the more particular geography of their original home. Hence, it seems to be no more notable than 'Hampshire American' or 'Sachsen American'. Bastin 10:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep The Breton people are culturally, ethnically, and (historically) linguistically distinctive from the French. Bretons are Celts. The Hampshire analogy is faulty: Breton-Americans are to French-Americans as Welsh-Americans are to English-Americans. The US census's choice to lump Bretons and French together is irrelevant to the fact that Bretons are culturally distinct. --Charlene 12:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If they're culturally distinct, where's the proof? Where are the people claiming to be 'Breton-American'? Where are the Internet sites and books? By all accounts, it's not the US Census Bureau lumping them together; it's the fact that there's no-one opting out and using the term 'Breton-American' (unlike those that choose to write in 'British American'). BTW, Wales isn't part of England; Bretagne is part of France. Bastin 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wales was legally part of England "when Hawaii was annexed to the United States it remained a separate legal unit; but when Wales was conquered by England it became a part of the legal unit, England". http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jhb/conflict_laws.htm JASpencer 14:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is explained in the wikilink I provided. It WAS a part of England between the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 and the Welsh Language Act 1967. However, nowadays, it is not a part of England. Hence the term England and Wales. Bastin 16:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the U.S. Census Bureau does include self-described Bretons within the French ancestry category. See this page to see how ethnicities are grouped together by the U.S. Census. --Metropolitan90 16:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Distinct cultural group that supplied a disproportionate number of French emigrants to America. Just because the French state wishes that everyone in its borders is French doesn't necesarily make it so. JASpencer 14:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete unless anyone can add information specific to Breton Americans other than that they exist. I don't have anything to say about whether they're a recognised demographic, but at it stands this article is a dictionary definition (Breton Americans are Americans from Brittany). -- Mithent 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to French American per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantonese American, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysian American. cab 00:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A culture isn't one unless at least some putative members are willing to call themselves that! Coren 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the simple reason that the term is not in use with 112 ghits for breton.american and just 6 for breton.americans, including ourselves. Now, I am happy to agree that Bretons are a distinct subgroup of the French, certainly linguistically (marginally less so ethnically and culturally). And we do have things like Category:Catalan Americans. But the Breton autonomy situation is muted in comparison and the French federal system offers no similar regional distinctions (e.g. there is no Corsican American, although Corsica is about as non-French as France gets). So in this case, fails WP:ATT. (And I know a Breton-American.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This category is part of a large scheme of categories based on ethnicity and/or national origin Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. Bretons are a distinct ethnic group. The category should stay; removal should be considered in light of WP:BIAS, and whether we would feel equally comfortable dumping Irish Americans in with the English Americans if their ancestors arrived while Ireland was ruled by London (as Brittany is ruled by Paris). Carlossuarez46 20:21, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley DuMond[edit]

Delete - there appear not to be reliable sources of which she is the primary subject and her credits are not such that she passes WP:BIO. Otto4711 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the NYT ref added by ERcheck. YechielMan 14:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the NYT ref is a filmography with three entries. The same thing can be found for pretty much any actor. It establishes that she exists but not her notability. Otto4711 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparently failing WP:N. The media coverage I can find is limited to passing references, either in film reviews or in articles mainly about her husband Keith Carradine. WP:BIO allows notability to be demonstrated by "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", but her roles listed at IMDB all seem fairly minor. EALacey 19:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real coverage, the NY Times is a filmography and not an actual article about her. -- Whpq 16:59, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Squad[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable youtube film. Garion96 (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTubecruft. JuJube 13:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable YouTube film. Hut 8.5 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely nn. YechielMan 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable YouTubecruft. 'Reviews' mostly made up. DarkAudit 14:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very non notable YouTube film; no sources. —Anas ^talk? 17:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think what they've done is great: I wish we'd had this technology when I were a lad! But Wikipedia ain't the place for it. Smalljim 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, even if they're videos. -- Mithent 22:13, 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. Although this person seems to be notable for only a single incident, that incident spawned a pretty large amount of coverage, and the majority here felt that the prominence of the event and the level of coverage was good enough for notability. There may be other issues to consider that were not the main focus of this debate, including POV issues and BLP concerns, but those didn't have strong traction on the debate. Mango juice^talk 15:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Marcotte[edit]

Previously kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Marcotte. Here's my problem with this article: there are several citations in References, but all of them are either to the subject's own site, or to the Catholic League, which hates her opinions on some things. There does not seem to be any independent discussion, and while this article sets out to be a biography, pretty much 100% of the independently verifiable information is about one incident of distinctly questionable significance; it might merit a short sentence in an article on the Edwards campaign, but even that would rapidly become old news and not worth recording. If there are independent non-trivial sources primarily about Marcotte the person, fine, let's cite them and write an article about Marcotte the person, but this is actually an article on a campaign by a Catholic group to get someone fired for having opinions with which they disagree. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A person can obtain notability from one significant event, but in this case we can't say if it's significant based on the present sources. DGG 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep.' I partly agree that this is more an instance of how Bill Donahue/the Catholic League campaign against political ideas they don't like, and as such belongs on Donahue's page or the Catholic League's page. But, if it were on those wikipages, it would certainly be censored and distorted, as the Donahue/CL supporters who read those pages would not be happy with a neutral account of how their organization attacked Amanda Marcotte, but would prefer an account that pretended Marcotte was in the wrong and their organization was merely defending Catholics from her supposed bigotry. A neutral account - which I think the current page now is - is only possible on a separate wikipage. The incident was certainly a notable one in Amanda Marcotte's life - she lost a job she wanted over it. Suggest that the page is left as-is, tagged for expansion, for at least six months: if no one is interested in expanding on Amanda Marcotte's biography in that time, tag it for deletion again. Yonmei 10:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, if it were on those wikipages, it would certainly be censored and distorted... Not relevant. If that's the case, there are avenues for stopping POV-pushing, but in any case you seem to be arguing that this is, in effect, a content fork. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant. Perfectly relevant. If the information is useful, it will need to be on a separate page to the Catholic League wikipage to be retained on Wikipedia. If it is not useful, delete it now rather than fudging the issue by moving it to the Catholic League wikipage to be censored out of existence. 82.41.225.44 15:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, there are avenues for stopping POV-pushing. The pre-emptive charges of censorship aren't very convincing. --Calton | Talk 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Yonmei. While the person may not be notable enough, the conflict described in this article is. It's relevant information, don't throw it away. Stammer 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. It's not a biography by any stretch, but an article about a political controversy -- and to go by User:Yonmei's argument, designed as a content fork, to boot. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is wholly without merit. Marcotte is notable and what made her notable is the dispute following her employment by the Edwards campaign. The nominator writes: "If there are independent non-trivial sources primarily about Marcotte the person, fine, let's cite them and write an article about Marcotte the person, but this is actually an article on a campaign by a Catholic group to get someone fired for having opinions with which they disagree." If there are independant sources? Please, this story was all over the media. It's just a matter of someone doing the leg work. This is a curable defect, not a basis for deletion. The fact that almost the entire article is about the dispute is not a basis for deletion. That is what made her notable and it is almost the only part of her life that is notable and thus belongs in the article. The assertion that it is just an article about the Catholic League trying to get someone fired because of opinions they disagree with, although not true (myriads of people disagree with the Church all the time but do so without spewing hateful venom and the Catholic League never says a word), is irrelevant to the issue of deletion. Even if it were the case, that's not a basis for deletion as Marcotte and the dispute would still be notable. Whether or not she's actually anti-Catholic (I don't think fair-minded people could really disagree about it, though) is beside the point. She was hired on a presidential campaign and had to quit after a huge media uproar caused by a Catholic civil rights group accusing her of bigotry. Even if the Catholic League's detractors were right (and they're not) the article still wouldn't be properly deleted. The article does not "set out to be a biography" in the sense that its supposed to document her full life. What's in the article is the only part of her life that's notable. Look at the article on Jessica Hahn; almost the entire article is on the Jim Baker scandal...because that's what made her notable. The case is the same here. Mamalujo 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hahn's involvement in the Jim Bakker scandal was, shall we say, covered by the media rather longer than the day or so of Marcotte's kerfluffle.--Calton | Talk 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Im sure Marcotte will provide us with all kinds of future bufoonery to add to her bio. I can also gaurantee that at some point, somebody will be writing a history of blogs and politics, and this article will be useful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.251.73.123 (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: that someone might someday do something important doesn't rate them a biographical article. --Calton | Talk 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable individual. Make article a redirect to the edwards 2008 campaign article, mention this squabble in said article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete -- We're talking about Hipocrite here, right? Oh Amanda? Well keep then as per 192.251.73.123 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment For those who are maintaining that this subject is not notable, I'd suggest they reread (or, more likely, read for the first time) WP:Notability. There is no question that this subject is notable: "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and the quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mamalujo (talk • contribs) 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply "The depth of coverage ... must be considered." There is no depth of coverage here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid that dog won't hunt either. Coverage of this subject has been wide, deep and sustained. It did not just appear in the news sections of daily papers on the days of the complaints and the "resignation", but there were also feature articles, extensive comment and editorial, and coverage in weekly and monthly periodicals. The controversy will no doubt be making its way into academic journals and will without question find its way into books like Philip Jenkins' work on Anti-Catholicism.Mamalujo 17:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there coverage of this blogger that does not relate to her tenure as a John Edwards staffer and the catholic league? Depth is not a count of article about the subject, it's an evaluation of if it's the subject that's notable or the event. I don't believe this subject is notable outside of the John Edwards 2008 campaign. Do you? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm afraid you misapprehend the meaning of the phrase "depth of coverage". Granted it is not a mere article count, but neither is it an inquiry into whether the subject is notable for multiple reasons (if that were the case there would be myriad articles about individuals who are notable for a single incident that would have to be deleted, i.e., Timothy McVeigh, Jessica Lynch, Mark David Chapman). "Depth of coverage" goes to whether there is simply a news blurb vs. "in depth coverage", or mere news stories vs. features, coverage in weeklies, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mamalujo (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      - No, it's about the depth the articles go in to. For instance, you can't even tell me the subjects birthyear based on the coverage. You can't tell me where she was born, the names of her parents, brothers and sisters, or any of the basic biographical datum. That's a lack of coverage depth. This is different than McVeigh, where we know all of that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject meets WP:BIO, and there needs to be some expansion as opposed to outright deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a pity there don't appear to be any sources primarily about her that we can use for expansion, then. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability is established, there's plenty of other information to fill in the gaps from other areas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A blogger said something offensive? William Donahue is shooting his mouth off about it? I'm shocked! Merge whatever useful content there is (not much) into the Edwards campaign article and be done with it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider moving to Pandagon (the title of her blog) since that's the source of most of the notability here. The Marcotte/Edwards flap made national news for nearly a week, and is clearly notable. *** Crotalus *** 10:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, for instance, are a couple of write-ups in The New York Times: [9] [10]. And in The Washington Post: [11] [12]. This was clearly an event of considerable public significance. We have bio articles on people a lot less notable than this. *** Crotalus *** 10:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with *** Crotalus *** - changing the page name to Pandagon makes sense. Yonmei 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject arguably meets WP:BIO and the abundance of references pass all other relevant inclusionary policies. RFerreira 05:49, 6 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. Sr13 (T|C) 04:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Conciliation Project[edit]

This is a very spammy, badly formatted page about an organisation, and reads like an autobiography in the third person. I tried to tag it with a need for a change of tone and confirmation of notability, but the author continually removed them. I can not see any real notability. Delete, unless notability can be established. J Milburn 18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's also a pretty clear COI as well. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article should not be deleted because it is a government recognized non-profit company within the United States. It falls under the realm of non-profit theater in America or theater activism. If anyone has suggestions regarding improvements to the so-called "spammy, bad formatting" please send, but deleting the article is not necessary. Harttqh 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please provide evidence that this article meets the guidelines outlined at WP:CORP. J Milburn 19:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Here are some notable sources:

[[13]] (this is a negative editorial on TCP)

[[14]] (this is a list that verfies TCP's participation in the Intersection IV: Re/Generations conference)

This is all I can offer at this time. I would hope that the 501(c)(3) status and involvement in many national conferences listed in the article would be notable enough. TCP pushes for social change regarding racism in America, and although they are a relatively new theater company, they will be a force for change in the coming future. Harttqh 21:57, 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Yet another example of people trying to obtain ownership of common words. At this point there are no sources that anyone has noticed it, except for one review--the list on umass is the very model of a non-significant mention. They claim to have done things in other cites, but there is no actual information about them. DGG 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC) *Note: The group appears to have a videotape listed on the ERIC database here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fixer1234 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Comment: Erm, so? Admittedly, it is better than YouTube, but check the link again. Pretty meaningless. J Milburn 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checked that reference. They did produce a video. The listing is evidence that it was produced, and was accepted by one of the ERIC depositories among other instructional material. But more to the point is that it was produced by the Eugene school district and sponsored by the US DOE Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Added to their other productions, for which there is no external evidence, it is sufficient. Changed !vote to Weak Keep

Comment: I have little idea what you are talking about DGG, could you explain that again please? As far as I interpret it, they made a video that was used by some schools... So? J Milburn 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, as a vanity article, conflict of interest, NPOV issues, et cetera. If someone truly independent was writing the article and aiming at neutrality, I would still think the notability is borderline at best. Mango juice^talk 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable theatre group. Six years and five works with scant media coverage speaks to the lack of notability. Noble intentions, but not enough here for inclusion. Caknuck 20:59, 7 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 no consensus. Sr13 (T|C) 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen fuel injection[edit]

Link container and advertisement for junk science of the Water fuel cell type. Bold claims of universities involved in this research are unsourced. --Pjacobi 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Google Scholar's only hits on "hydrogen fuel injection" seem to involve scramjets. Anville 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ - No evidence of notability. The corporate links hint at this being a legitimate topic, but without independent published works on this technology being listed I cannot be sure of its legitimacy or its being as described. --EMS | Talk 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look, 75% of the company links may be of the get-rich-quick type, and the most reputable looking one (Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company ) still has unbelievable claims. There may be a good job for investigative journalism in this, but not for an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but almost irrelevant IMO. WP:N and WP:SCIENCE are my concerns here, with WP:CORP being a possible back door. A notable sham is worth keeping. A non-notable but legitmate endeavour is not. I personally have never heard of this before. Lacking any evidence that it is notable I must consider it to be spam. --EMS | Talk 04:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding applicable policies and what is relevant for the issue of deletion. you are of course right -- I'm only wondering about these claims... --Pjacobi 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to just "Delete". Opinions below raise concerns instead of settling them. --EMS | Talk 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed opinion to Delete without prejudice to recreation given that additional reliably sourced articles appear or are located. I have come to realize that part of the case against this article at this time involves WP:NPOV#Undue_weight: This is currently a very small niche promoted by a what currently appears to be very limited minority. However, that situation is subject to change. Also, any new or revised article should address the "energy problem" of how one obtains more energy from injecting hydrogen than was consumned in the electrolysis of water (which is a fairly energy-intensive process). --EMS | Talk 05:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about the electrolysis stuff. It appears you're saying delete a sourced article, and only allow recreation if one point about one form of the topic, which is basically be a footnote, can be referenced? Is that what you're saying? Gimmetrow 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to key on a minor point. I advise dealing with the energy issue, as two editors are questioning that practicality of the electrolysis scheme for that reason. Beyond that, I do not see this as a being a properly sourced article. Most of your sources are not reliable and only two of them are secondary sources. Everything about this (including your references) speaks of a non-notable technology, meaning one that has not gotten much attention. I call for deletion without prejudice because this is a situation that is subject to change. If this technology is as advertised, it could suddenly burst onto the scene anytime in the next few years. Even before then it could becomes mentioned in a set of reliable secondary sources such that it should not be ignored under Wikipedia's own rules. However, none of that has happenned yet, and as a practical matter it may never happen. So I call for deletion based on what is and on what may be. --EMS | Talk 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate subject, it just needs a rewrite from someone who is familar with the topic. Malamockq 21:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This seems to be a case of WP:ILIKEIT. I am willing to change my opinion, but only with evidence that this is a topic that others have taken some serious note of. --EMS | Talk 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep --R e m i 08:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sources confirming university connections are provided. Lankiveil 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Unsourced pseudoscience. WP:CB if I ever saw any. Coren 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pending sources--it is in fact possible that the original papers exist. It is much less likely that there is any public information about any company's design or models. If so, and purely speculatively, I can imagine an article lacking the two final paragraphs and all the external links--(there is not even a claim that the tests on their system have ever been published anywhere). This may be the solution to articles using an ordinary concept and turning it into an advertisement. DGG 02:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources found from searching for a name or university mentioned:
- Houseman J, "Lean Combusion of Hydrogen Gasoline Mixtures". Abstracts of papers of the American Chemical Society (169): 6-6 1975. (meeting abstract)
- Hoehn FW, Baisley RL, Dowdy MW, "Advances In Ultralean Combustion Technology Using Hydrogren-Enriched Gasoline", IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 11 (5): 958-958 1975. (meeting abstract)
- Li JD, Guo LS, Du TS, "Formation and restraint of toxic emissions in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 23 (10): 971-975 OCT 1998. journal site
  - From the Abstract: "A little amount of hydrogen supplemented to the gasoline-air mixture can extend the flammability of the mixture, increase the rate of flame propagation, accelerate the burning velocity of the lean mixture, thus improving the economy and emissions of engines, and enhancing thermal efficiency."
- This article was cited once by another journal article, which included the following citation:
  - Z. Liu, Z. Meng and T. Ba, "Experimental investigation of hydrogen–gasoline mixed fuel for gasoline engines". In: Beijing International Symposium for Hydrogen Energy (1985).
- Tsolakis A, Megaritis A, Wyszynski ML, "Application of exhaust gas fuel reforming in compression ignition engines fueled by diesel and biodiesel fuel mixtures" Energy & Fuels 17 (6): 1464-1473 NOV-DEC 2003.
  - From the Abstract: "The results from the first part of the study showed that partial replacement of the hydrocarbon fuel by hydrogen combined with EGR resulted in simultaneous reductions of smoke and nitrogen oxides emissions (NO,) without significant changes to engine efficiency. In the second part of the study, it was shown that the amount of hydrogen required to achieve these beneficial effects potentially can be produced by exhaust gas-assisted reforming of the hydrocarbon fuel."
- Also, the search link above included this patent, which may be related but I'm not sure:
  - Hydrogen and liquid fuel injection system
- Truckers Choose Hydrogen Power. Wired.com
keep. Seems to meet the "multiple independent sources" requirement. Gimmetrow 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Talks given in meetings generally do not make a case for notability. At the least they normally are not independent secondary sources. The journal presented is not one that I have ever heard of before and therefore am loathe to consider it a reliable source. It's focus on hydrogen technology also limits the journal's ability to establish notability in a wider context. Finally, none of the titles present use the phrase "hydrogen fuel injection". Overall, this is so unimpressive to me that I have changed my opinion above from a weak delete to just plain delete. --EMS | Talk 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me? I am puzzled. Before, you had never heard of this topic. Now that references have been listed for the "cite needed" tags in the article, it's in a worse condition? Perhaps, if you would look, you would find whatever type of references you want. Gimmetrow 03:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know this topic, but I do know a set of red flags when I see them. You have given me a set of sources all of which I can dismiss in terms of estblishing the notability of this "hydrogen fuel injection" based on my experiences with other potential neologisms in Wikipedia. This is just the kind of stuff that I do not want to see presented as evidence of notability. --EMS | Talk 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please explain in detail on what grounds you dismiss each of the sources, and what these alleged red flags are. The first two were not necessarily provided as evidence of notability, but are what came up from a search on the name of the person mentioned in the article. Please also note these were not intended to be an exhaustive literature search, if that's what you want.Gimmetrow 13:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You just dug a deeper hole for yourself. You did not search on this "hydrogen fuel injection" business but instead on the names of related people. That is why I saw a red flag on this list as a whole: No direct mention of "hydrogen fuel injection", and now I see that I was right to see it. You have provided me with no evidence of notability of this topic, amd if this is the best that you can do then I am all the more comfortable with recommending deletion. --EMS | Talk 14:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I really don't know how to respond to this. Multiple independent refs to the topic, and you still want to delete, without any explanation of why those refs can be dismissed. You do understand how the refs relate to the article and previous comments here, yes? Gimmetrow 14:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The issue for me is establishing notability either within science (under WP:SCIENCE, or in society as a whole. Meeting abstracts, publications in obscure journals, and patents do not achieve that. Also, these articles sseem to be on hydrogen-gasoline mixtures instead of this water-based hydrogen fuel injection business per se. That this is out there is a given, but "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information". You have not produced multiple independent reliable sources. --EMS | Talk 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So move article to Hydrogen enriched gasoline or hydrogen-gasoline mixtures. Gimmetrow 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask for a fallback position in case the article must be kept? Neither the older sources nor common sense (which we are not allowed to employ in article namespace, I know) support the claim of the struggling companies mentioned in the current articles, that less than 1kW equivalent admixture of H2 (with all the losses of electrolysis still to be subtracted) can give 4.44% fuel reduction (the company websites even quote two digit figures). Until the bold claims of these companies get significant independent support, these claims and the external links should be thrown out. --Pjacobi 13:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be rewritten quite a bit, that seems pretty obvious, and Wikipedia doesn't need to repeat marketing claims. Gimmetrow 14:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own hope is that the closing admin will discount the first two "keeps" as being manifestations of WP:ILIKEIT. Only Gimmetrow here has put forward a thought-out case that the article should be kept, and even it has issues. --EMS | Talk 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are "hoping" for anything either way. I would think the best hope would be to improve Wikipedia. I don't know much about Hydrogen fuel injection, but the article seems to discuss a legitimate mechanism. The article is indeed lacking some important citations, but I think that's something that can be corrected with proper clean-up. I don't think articles should be instantly deleted if they can be cleaned up instead. Malamockq 06:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the popular opinion, I hold that deletion is the most effective instrument of quality insurance. Especially in cases where there is hint, that the sad state of an article isn't case may be caused by Machiavelli, not Murphy alone. Seeing the incredible impact factor of Wikipedia, it is such a worthwhile traget to push your agenda or your business. --Pjacobi 08:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a bit of a middle ground here. Cleanup would ceratinly be helpful here. However, there is also something that is very not-right about this topic. There have been articles such as anti-relativity that could never be put into good shape becuase people with a vested interest or string opinions kept on putting their views there, and there was not enough of a community of people interested in watching the article to keep it cleaned up. Anti-relativity was eventuallty deleted because of that. I see the potential for a similar dynamic here. This is a very niche topic which can easily be dominated by its proponents. Lacking notability and therefore a reasonable level of interest by fair-minded and univolved (or at least univested) editors, it is best that this topic not be in Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk 12:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather odd to call deletion a "middle ground", but oh well. Imagining a mere "potential for a similar dynamic" doesn't seem like a reason for deletion either. Gimmetrow 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an of itself, that potential is not a valid reason for removal. That is why my focus is on notability. Even then, it is possible that this may become a notable topic in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --EMS | Talk 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have never heard of the topic before, that doesn't mean it's not notable. And if you haven't heard of one journal, that doesn't mean it is obscure. That's essentially an argument from ignorance. You have multiple independent reliable sources, and many more exist, if you would bother to look for them. Gimmetrow 23:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I said all that I need to regarding the matter, but I would like to point out that EMS is arguing a strawman. He created an argument, "This topic could be important in the future" which no one previously stated, then they refuted it, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Just wanted to point that out. Malamockq 01:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources look good enough to me. Mango juice^talk 16:09, 7 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 no consensus. Daniel Bryant 08:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obadiah Parker[edit]

Prod removed without explanation so I bring it here. The article admits the band has no record label and their tenuous claim of notability is a YouTube video of them performing a cover of "Hey Ya". Non-notable band. IrishGuy ^talk 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hopelessly far away from WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I know they've received regular radio play on my local alternative station Q101, and there are a few articles about them here. That's a start, I guess...Zagalejo 06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's an explanation for the prod removal on the talk page. Zagalejo 06:56, 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND by a nautical mile. No record labels, no assertion of press coverage, etc. YechielMan 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- the article does cite one independent source (an AZ news article about the band's YouTube video and appearance at the Tempe Music Festival. One more independent source and I'd go to full Keep. NawlinWiki 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the guielines at WP:BAND state that the article must be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. I don't think the single source is persuasive enough to illustrate notability per WP:BAND. IrishGuy ^talk 23:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment My Google news archive link above shows that there are additional articles about the band from late 2006. I don't have access to them, but they do exist. Incidentally, OP's "Hey Ya" cover is playing on the radio -- in Chicago -- as I type. (See [15] - I'm not sure how long this link'll work, but it's the best proof I have.) They're not just a YouTube phenomenon or a local AZ band. Zagalejo 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I could be incorrect here, but the articles appear to all be from the same two newspapers and are all basically rewrites of the same thing: this band had a YouTube video. IrishGuy ^talk 00:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having a YouTube video isn't sufficient to be allowed within sight of WP:BAND. Coren 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Obadiah Parker has received primarily local/regional media coverage from the Arizona Republic, though the AP featured the band in an article from December of last year (no doubt originating from the YouTube phenomenon). Album is currently available on iTunes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.101.171.131 (talk • contribs)
    - - Comment anyone can self-release on iTunes. That isn't a mark of notability. IrishGuy ^talk 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're at least as notable as Judson Laipply, geriatric1927 and lonelygirl15, who have their own articles, and these people are famous ONLY because of YouTube. They are far more notable than these; certainly the fact that the song is being played on radio indicates this. Willnz0 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Not quite. Those examples crossed over to major media and were profiled numerous times on television and in print. This band doesn't have that. IrishGuy ^talk 19:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are getting a lot of radio play and media attention due to their cover of "Hey Ya" and they are the subject of multiple media mentions - I am willing to clean up the article and place the proper citations. See the following: Spin.com article, Arizona Republic article, Another AZ Republic, full page article, Tucson Daily Star. --Spike Wilbury 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spike Wilbury's offer and sources. Mango juice^talk 16:29, 7 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 merge/redirect to Cypriot refugees. This appears to be a highly contentious issue and a merge should be handled carefully by an editor more knowledgable on the topic. I will redirect per discussion below but leave merging up to the interested editors, information is readily available in the history. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus refugees[edit]

POV fork of Cypriot refugee. This article is not new, User:Aristovoul0s had previously created this article under Cypriot refugee, where it has since been rewritten and locked. This is a bad faith attempt to reinstate the contentious and pov material by creating an obvious fork. I'd ask editors to also look at the discussion on Talk:Cypriot refugee also. A.Garnet 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict, Cypriot refugee and Cyprus refugees all cover the same topic and should be merged. Davewild 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I agree that this is naught but a POV fork. Coren 01:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Deniz^T_C 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Must.^T ^C 13:27, 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. Krimpet (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolcat[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)).

pick a reason, including but not limited to: stupid, non-notable, vanity crap Wedge 00:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete makes no sense at all --Lemonflash 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Totally unsourced original research. WODUP 00:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and furthermore... The article is unsourced and unverifiable in that no reliable sources exist that can be cited. Unverifiable, the article does not comply with Wikipedia's content and style policies. WODUP 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. The article now cites a blogging expert and a linguist as its sources; they appear to be reliable sources. The article no longer contains unsourced information that is likely to be challenged. :) WODUP 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uh, yeah, no. 1ne 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it can be Delete time now pleez? Cat macros aren't that notable compared to other macros, and certainly not notable enough to have their own article. No independent non-trivial coverage of this. --Charlene 01:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per originl resurches and teh non-notabel part :) the_undertow ^talk 03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a general description of a general meme generally thought to be humorous. Not anything specific, like references. I have copied some of these pictures. I also have copied a picture of a car in mid-air hanging from telephone lines. A subset of cute/interesting pictures doesn't make an article. Since I can't make them happy, here's a picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head (and references in its article). Shenme 04:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten. is a topic, so should this be. This is a legitimate, as well as popular Meme (roflcat.com). --ProteinTotal 04:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may not be a convincing argument. Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten isn't sourced either. WODUP 06:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this was an argument about how creditable/noteworthy the topic is. I am simply saying that if this other meme is popular, and has a Wikipedia page, so should this popular meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProteinTotal (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 April 2007
  - The very first sentence in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS starts The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist... WODUP 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure original research. Sr13 (T|C) 07:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't believe we're even having this discussion. (Then again, I can't believe Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten survived an AfD.) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an Internet mirror. — ciphergoth 12:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to image macros. This is also more likely to keep it from being recreated unless and until there's actually something with third party references to say about it - David Gerard 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really really like these, in fact in my opinions they're one of the very few internet-meme things that ever rise to being truly and genuinely funny. But a Wikipedia article they ain't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, possibly a speedy under G4. This was previously here as Cat Bongz, and that, too, got deleted back in December. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a legitimate internet fad, albeit the article needs to be cleaned up. --WRE451 00:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Can't get on a forum without seeing these annoying things. They seem to be everywhere! Article does need some cleanup and some sources, though. --Alabama Man 01:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seems noteworthy to me (as if not, every other Internet meme would have to be deleted), and the page is being actively developed at the moment. Give'em a break. --Mike 08:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with cleanup. Has been the subject of a [Open Source Radio show on anthropomorphism] . -- T1mmyb 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I actively searched for general information on this topic and finally found it here. I'm sure I'm not alone. Keep, or delete every other internet meme. Hell, delete every real life fad and trend that someone, somewhere, thinks is trivial or stupid. Phronk 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lolcatz are a meme, a part of Internet history now -- teddlesruss (at gmail)
Delete as unsourced Original Research if nothing else. Oh, heck, I may as well say it: IM IN UR AFD DELETIN UR R-TICKLZ! Anville 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Internet Phenomena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena worth a mention in that article, it's a HUGE fad, deleting record of altogether would be ridiculous, but I agree, it's a subject a bit trivial to have it's own article. --137.207.238.106 16:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep/Redirect - I tend to agree with the last comment; this should probably be merged into the List of internet phenomena article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possible merge: It's legit, and additional secondary references [16] are available. Yes, this links to a weblog, but it's a scholarly one -- not the same as a media outlet, thus not definitive according to WP:V, but still informative. There seems to be enough for this to exist, even if only part of the list of internet phenomena. Alba 02:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm in ur Wikipedia, makin claims of WP:NOT#PAPER. --70.48.68.77 02:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Im_in_ur_base_killin_ur_d00dz, Wikipedia is the suxxorz. --70.48.68.77 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's funny, it's everywhere!. And if people can find info about it here, where can they find it? betsythedevine 04:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep With sources this is a legitimate article, on a legitimate web meme. --Lastdoor 07:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs work on all levels, but this is a widespread phenomenon, should be documented Danja 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per David Gerard. Should be deleted, but may well be recreated, so let's compromise on redirecting. Batmanand | Talk 11:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect - lolcats is an established internet meme. (Suggestion of redirect only to have the page at /wiki/lolcats - plural) Isofarro 13:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lolcats is well known online, defiantly established. BinaryCleric 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have no idea why we are going through this. lolcats are extremely popular (and annoying)! I think this comes down to a simple case of people either getting it or not. Those that get the meme, know about its popularity, and see no reason to delete it. Those that don't get the meme, think it is childish and obscure and should be removed. To those people that don't get lolcats: I'm sorry but this is popular and a legitimate topic. Of course, the article could use a little clean up and some sources, but once there I think this will be a fine article. --Hightentcat 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on strong keep, but add that some users familiar with the meme don't see the need for the article, while users like me who aren't find it helpful for this sort of thing to be documented.Mark Foskey 21:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to image macros - I agree with David Gerard. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy & original research Kingsley2.com 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect - to Cat Macros. If you can have O RLY? as an article, you can certainly have Cat Macros as it's own article. SaxofoneDL 02:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy in really any regard. JeffreyAtW 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With Extreme Prejudice The page desperately needs improvement of course. It's a work in progress and should not be deleted outright. It just needs people well-versed in the topic at hand to cite sources and expand upon what's already there. -- ZachsMind 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable Internet meme; has been linked by Boing Boing [17], Gawker [18] and Metafilter [19]. The post by Anil Dash, already linked at the article, can serve as one source for the article, I think. There are possibly other reliable sources out there I haven't found yet. schi ^talk 05:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of internet phenomena, unless I can has reliable sources?. —ptk✰fgs 06:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this notable meme which is a piece of internet history that should not be so easily forgotten. The article's deficiencies can be remedied. Nohat 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super Keep* - lolcat is a great meme, and one which has spread far and wide outside of the scope of the normal cliquey corners of the internets. Even my mum likes lolcat (although she does occasionally ask me to explain them). But clean it up, source it up, etc.londoninflames —Preceding comment was added at 09:26, 25 April 2007
Keep and improve article. Sources can be found, I think. ManekiN e ko | Talk 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Language Log has referenced this article. *Dan T.* 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep ...but tighten up and edit substantially. I just came here from a LanguageLog article referring to the lolcat snowclone; without the reference I would have been mystified by the expression. The fact that a significant academic site felt it appropriate to link here (and not frivolously) shows there is a need for the page, which should be sufficient grounds for keeping it in some form. (OutEast) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.85.230.200 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep this is just a newly found article, with the lolcats being a major internet topic nowadays, an article like this is necessary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkatticus (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
keep broad internet topic that deserves attention. Artw 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable internet phenomenon - ∅ (∅), 18:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From Wikipedia: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. This topic is not. WODUP 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep: An encyclopædia is an appropriate place to permanently document shifts in dialect. – 70.51.145.220 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (joeclark, which signature Wikipedia refuses to recognize after three attempts)[reply]
Keep -- I found it useful and informative. Sure, it wouldn't go in Britannica, but that's okay. 70.108.251.128 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the fact that you found it useful doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. WODUP 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article may not currently have references, but I was just referred to it from Language Log, a respected linguistics blogroll. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.249.103.247 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Incredibly Strong Keep. Hey, if "All Your Bases Are Belong to Us" has a longer entry than half of the public figures on Wikipedia, then damn straight this should be kept. This is a very popular viral meme, and it hasn't even come CLOSE to its full impact on mainstream media yet. Yes, it needs a substantial overhaul - it really needs to be rewritten in a much more encylopedic manner, and with more verifiable information. But last I checked, we flag those articles accordingly - we don't delete them. EDITED TO ADD: Yes, I understand the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS guideline. There is notability beyond the "other crap" POV. NickBurns 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasons for deletion include when all attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed. I have looked; I'm sure that others have, too. We haven't found any reliable sources yet. When and if there are reliable sources to cite, we can keep or create the article. WODUP 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WODUP, I appreciate your laser-like focus and passion on the subject, but unless I have missed something, we're to have one vote - and therefore, one OPINION - on this page per Wikipedian, correct? You have made a NUMBER of comments, and it appears anyone who disagrees with you somehow needs a stamp of disapproval from you. You have well made your point - please stop slamming it home with a sledgehammer. Best regards. NickBurns 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you (or I) may have missed something. I thought this was a discussion, not a vote. I'm merely replying to comments here, discussing the merits of some of these arguments. I will, however, try to tone it down a tad so it doesn't look like I'm a deletion-hungry madman. I do appreciate your concern and hope that I have adequately addressed it. WODUP 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WODUP - You're right - this is labeled as a discussion and not a vote. My apologies for being wrong on that. I don't want to crap on anyone's dissenting opinion, but to me, it did come across as being repetitive. I appreciate your contribution(s) to the debate, though. I know we're just trying to make the best decisions. NickBurns 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reliable-sources line doesn't really work very well when dealing with Internet memes. The sources are right there in front of you, and I'm not sure that either NOR or no sources are really all that relevant when looking at Internet memes - that's the nature of the beast. It's as if the bar is set higher somehow for Internet-originated articles, and that smacks of snobbishness to me. --Mike 08:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reliable-sources line doesn't really work very well when dealing with Internet memes. The sources are right there in front of you, and I'm not sure that either NOR or no sources are really all that relevant when looking at Internet memes - that's the nature of the beast. It's as if the bar is set higher somehow for Internet-originated articles, and that smacks of snobbishness to me. --Mike 08:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised this is being considered. I've encountered this term a few times lately, and the article provided useful context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.177.6 (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Super-Duper extreme mega Keep What the hell? Wikipedia is organic, it changes as the world around it changes, everybody knows about lolcats, they are highly notable, and this would be one of the first places many people would go to find out about them. Anyone who spends a fair amount of time on the internet would know about lolcats, it may be difficult to fit this in under Wikipedia's criteria, but damnit people USE COMMON SENSE. We should be regarding that far above this multitude of helpful, but sometimes inapplicable, critera. Is anyone seriously calling this 'not notable enough'? If this article gets deleted, it will be the last straw, I will leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be keeping up-to-date with what is happening in the world, but the nay-sayers want this thing deleted because it is hard to find a few references? *sigh* I'm not going to say anymore, it's depressing what Wikipedia is turning into.Darkcraft 11:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup needed, of course - this seems to be a significant enough phenomenon to warrant an encyclopedic entry, as much as All Your Base. Puddleglum 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup and citations needed. This is a broad-based Internet phenomenon at least as significant as "All Your Base", with enough visibility to have attracted MSM coverage. Ccreitz 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitenely keep, Don't see why this is not a legitimate article: (1) it is not original research, because it describes an internet phenomenon that is referred to in a number of trustworty sites (at least sites that I would trust); (2) it is not nonsense, spam or anything else in that line for the same reason: people use the term to refer to cute kitty pics with stupid texts; (3) there's no trademark infringement (is there?); (4) There are sources referring to lolcats (I also got to lolcats from a LanguageLog link, which is connected to UPenn and refers to another article), so I'd say verifiability is not a problem here; (5) You (yes, you below, don't look so surprised) might think the whole lolcat-thing is silly or stupid, but that's no reason to ban it from an encyclopedia, as long as it really exists or existed. I personally find George W. silly, but that didn't stop him from getting a Wikipedia page. -- I agree with a lot of people below that the article could use some editing, and some checking of facts. -- (Rickus, 04:30, 27 April 2007)
Keep. "About" 77k ghits. Referenced in reliable sources here and (less clearly) here. Yes, these are blogs, but they are blogs written by subject matter experts - the former by Mark Liberman, who is a published professional researcher in linguistics, the latter by Anil Dash who is widely acknowledged as an expert on Internet culture. The former is certainly a reliable source by the definition at WP:V, the latter is a little less certain, but I contend is. JulesH 09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've removed the original research from the article, which should alleviate some of the concerns expressed above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I have already linked to this page in order to define and explain a term on my blog, which seems to me to be one of the main uses of Wikipedia in the real world. It describes and defines a common internet practice as well as documenting an ongoing meme and developing subculture (as there are now community sites growing rapidly around the sharing of modified/captioned cat photos). As a description of an existing cultural phenomenon, it is at least as noteworthy as dozens of articles describing individual Pokemon.Lizard sf 14:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? No Wai! Chronic The Wedgehog 17:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I also found this entry linked by a legitimate academic blog (languagelog). I agree that the entry needs improvement, but this is a legitimate internet meme which is only gaining prevalence, the 'lolcat' term is the most common expression for it, and it is a subject which has garnered legitimate academic interest (cf languagelog posts). Cicatrix 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I ran across the Language Log post a few days ago, but it was the only thing available that was close to being a reliable source. The Anil Dash article is still not terribly compelling, but is good enough to (along with the other one) justify a VERY SHORT article on this topic. —ptk✰fgs 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP. Since this has reputable citations, keeping it is the correct action, despite the anti-meme bias of many wikipedians. People will be looking the term up years from now, so it should have an entry. Also, the article should be as long as the available information allows. I hope no one would trim legitimate information of out the article just to make as short as they felt appropriate.68.11.51.159 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, original research, etc. Cmadler 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fad or not, they are there and as an encyclopedia, wiki should have an article or summary about the "lolcats". Besides, it's not like not having an article won't make it go away. C$ 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even memes and trends that are long over get to have wikipedia articles. And this is just the kind of slightly obscure internet thing that normal people look up on wikipedia when they don't get what it is. Add that to the fact that so many of wikipedia's users are the net-savvy kind, this should be an even more important article to keep....Also I just fixed it up so it's prettier. :)Superjanna 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Keep. Precedent says delete, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Im in ur base killin ur d00dz) but I'm not sure I like that precedent (Inclusionist me). My best keep rational is that, well, I just Wikipedia'd Lolcat to find out what the hell it was. The Anil Dash ref is...kind of good? Better? Listen, internet evolution is a tricky one, but I vote we err on the side of having an article, rather than not. --mordicai. 03:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just ref'ed in the Mark Liberman stuff; with two at least somewhat notable blogs as ref, I think I'm going to upgrade my weak keep to a "keep." --mordicai. 14:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not without reservation. It's been mentioned a couple of times I think, but language log did a post on the syntax of lolcats a few days ago. In that respect I think the article should be substantially changed to reflect their point (and the view of most linguists) that lolcats (among other such stupid things) are not "grammatically incorrect" or involve "syntax errors". Instead, they allude to particular demographics of society by appealing to regular grammatical changes. See here and here. --Aidhoss 05:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As someone above says, this "is just the kind of slightly obscure internet thing that normal people look up on wikipedia when they don't get what it is". I just did, now I do. This is what wikipedia is for. Mhardcastle 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, I have been seeing these sorts of images for a long time, it was only recently that I have been able to find a term to describe it. Any search terms I used only supplied more of the images, (many 100s, if not 1000s) but no real documentation on it until I recently found multiple articles and blogs linking to this page. 205.161.214.82 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that the article has been improved. I've been seeing these images for quite a while now, but never had a name for them. The shorter version of the article is appropriate for a long-lived Internet fad, and it has a couple of references. emk (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I think this is a legit article documenting a phenomenon. Even if one thinks it is stupid it doesn't justify deletion, and people do reference this page. In fact, I just found this page through a link from another blog refrerncing it. It has value. Oniamien 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reasonably popular internet meme with sufficient nontrivial sources cited in the article. Kind of a no-brainer I think. Ford MF 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At this point, it's a verifiable Internet phenomenon. As others have mentioned, if AYB and O RLY have articles, then I really do think this qualifies. nmw 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides citations to notable sources, so claims of original research and non-notability are rebutted. Claims of "I do/don't think this meme is important" are irrelevant, we have objective measures for article importance, and it's notability of citations. Here there are notable citations, so "Keep" is the correct approach. Moreover, with Internet memes, references accumulate over time. It'd be absurd to delete the article and then rebuild it from scratch in two or three months when Conan or Colbert makes the off-hand mention. --Thomas B 03:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep This is a genuine subculture internet phenomenon. We look to Wikipedia to document stuff like this. It's widespread, wide-known, and has been analyzed intelligently by numerous sources. It's an internet meme that should be resourced here. StrangeAttractor 08:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reliable and notable references for this now, so I see no reason to delete it. It's a notable folk culture phenomenon. Esn 09:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced and reasonably noteworthy. MrZaius^talk 09:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only reason I am relisting this debate is because there has apparently been revisions made to the article which could change the minds of those who have already commented. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ridiculously popular internet phenomenon. Resolute 15:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - changing !vote as the rewritten version now seems fine — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in ur commentz/ Votin for Strong keep Lolcats are a legitimate internet phenomenon; as the article now documents they are receiving some attention from mainstream media as well as academics. At this point it appears as though the best reason for deleting this article is that some wikipedians think it's dumb. Sorry, that's not good enough. Manderr 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep 1) This is a legitimate internet phenomenon, at the same scale as Goatse.cx or Randy Constan (Internet Peter Pan) - both of which have their own articles on Wikipedia. The growing popularity of Lolcat shows that this phenomenon is definitely making an impacting on the culture of the Internet (at least in English speaking parts). 2) One caveat is that the current Lolcat article is of poor quality, however; it should be cleaned up to show history of the Lolcat, including first use (probably from SomethingAweful) and popular uses (such as on Twitter). 3) The strongest aspect of Wikipedia is its ability to quickly take in historical and cultural events from around the world, that an "official" encyclopedia may deem not "worthy", but obviously enough people around the world do. The strength and breath of Wikipedia's articles is what makes it an Internet and human cultural force. Viscount9 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this certainly is in widespread use. --Lunus 20:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I actually can't even tell what this was nominated for? Notability - it has multiple sources which back up notability? Attribution? It is studiously well-sourced, especially for an internet meme. I don't understand what the problem is. --Haemo 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that the original nomination reason has been lost in one of the edits that created this trainwreck. The stated reason by the nom was "pick a reason, including but not limited to: stupid, non-notable, vanity crap". Or, basically, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Resolute 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep omg im changing my vote per the overhaul on this article shows notability and rids it of OR. nice work. the_undertow ^talk 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the response, there's no way this article is going to get deleted. But I thought it funny to mention this. Of the 5 sources cited on the article only 3, all blogs, of those actually make mention to the definition of "lolcats" ([20] [21] [22]). Of those 3, one references one of the other three sources ([23]) and the other two reference this article for the definition. —Mitaphane _?|! 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in ur afds, mergins ur memes It's a geniune meme, but not on the scale of Goatse. The article is fluff anyday, talking about the "mystical origins of Caturday" Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a related aspect not mentioned--libraries using cute name including "cat" for their online CATalogs. Some places have an obvious combination: Princeton's was called Tigercat until they sobered up. New York Public's is called CATNYP. Unfortunately I am not aware of any articles talking about the naming in general, though there are dozens of examples. DGG 02:36, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 17:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Apologetic Works[edit]

Bibliographies are acceptable as lists, but most of the books should have their own articles (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria and compare, e.g., List of Oz books and List of books by P. G. Wodehouse) or be deserving of such under WP:BK (most here are not). If we were to redact the list to those which are notable under WP:BK, the list would be relatively short and should probably just be merged into Christian apologetics, etc. Flex (talk|contribs) 02:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you may be right... but, couldn't it be sourced like List of films considered the best ever? gren グレン 10:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how sourcing would apply here. This is not a list of the most popular works as judged by various polls; it's just a bibliography. Also note that all of the works in that list are worthy of (and already have!) their own page, which is not the case here. What I'm opposing is the creation of lists comprised almost entirely of non-notable books. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - At Wikipedia there is an article called List of boy bands. I see no afd for this article and do not expect to. On the other hand, this article is put up for deletion and it contains a list of excellent books defending Christianity the largest worldview in the world. Wikipedia has tons of articles like Polly Pocket yet serious articles/resources like this are put up for deletion. Flex, I think you should be ashamed of yourself for gunning after this article yet not saying a peep about articles like Polly Pocket and List of boy bands. Jazzman123 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see any reason why List of boy bands should be deleted (unless it turns out that most of the articles linked to are not notable), and frankly, I don't see the relevance of bringing it up (unless you mean to say something along the lines of, "The present list is important/useful, whereas that one is much less so," which is clearly POV). As for Polly Pocket, I've never seen that article, and I certainly can't be held responsible for every non-notable article/list that has not been deleted. Therefore, contrary to your exhortation, I am not at all ashamed. This is a collaborative effort after all, so if you come across an article or list you believe does not meet the WP's notability criteria, please discuss it on the talk page, propose it for deletion, or submit it as an AfD. In doing so, you'll help improve the overall quality of the WP. In short, the existence of other non-notable lists/articles has no bearing on the deletion of this list; only conformance to WikiPolicy is at issue, and you have not addressed that issue at all. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jazzman123 00:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? You offer no argument. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I might think differently if the purpose of this list was to guide readers to other articles, the majority of the books listed don't even have articles. The nom's reasoning is solid along with their guidance to relevant policies. janejellyroll 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 07:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not convinced by the arguments put forth. WP:BK is a guideline to help decide which books should have their own articles on wikipedia, not which books can be used as sources or mentioned in articles. Also, I'm not sure that the authors of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) considered bibliographic lists when they wrote the selection criteria (judging from how the first paragraph is written). Actually, if you interpret the criteria literally you'll have a hard time writing a bibliographic list on almost any subject. Pax:Vobiscum 20:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that non-notable books can't be used as sources or mentioned in articles. The point is that stand-alone lists are supposed to be lists of articles or potential articles ("Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." --Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria, emphasis mine), and indeed, I think bibliographic lists like the two I mention in my nomination are perfectly allowable under the criteria. This one, however, is nothing more than a list of someone's favorites, which is an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd gladly support a list of notable apologists or notable apologetic works (using the existing standards for notability in each case), but the present list is quite a long way from either of those. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think, however, that a subject bibliography is a so special type of list that the selection criteria can't be applied mechanically (it would make more sense to me to use the inclusion criteria for sources). And just because a list isn't complete does not make it indiscriminate. Pax:Vobiscum 08:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just don't see why a lengthy bibliography of non-notable books is encyclopedic material apart from the context of an article that references it (in which case, WP:RS would certainly apply). If we expanded that list to 100, 500, or 1000 books on the subject, would you still think it belongs? This seems obviously beyond the scope of Wikipedia to me, but I don't see how WP:RS could keep this from happening (assuming there are so many reliable books) if the selection criteria for stand-alone lists are by-passed. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand your line of reasoning, but I don't see that the current policies and guidelines are clear on whether or not this kind of "book organization articles" is beyond the scope of wikipedia. I agree with you that the article violates the selection criteria of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), but from what I can see this type of article wasn't foreseen and the guideline could therefor be ignored. I started a discussion on the policy discussion page to see if this is an old issue. Pax:Vobiscum 18:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - A list might be encyclopedic even if the individual items would not be. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) might be violated, but I feel subject bibliographies are probably valuable on their own. Coren 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Valuable is not enough. Why does this material belong in an encyclopedia as a separate topical list that is unconnected to an article? --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep List of apologetic works had just survived a deletion attempt,at which the present article was cited repeated as a good example of how such a list could be developed into ones for the specific religions. There is no need to invoke IAR-- This is a careful list, with useful subdivisions, and that's one of the criteria for the guideline at WP:LIST--every statement in that guideline is worded very flexibly: I do not think that is accidental--it was very carefully written to provide for the diversity of possible good lists. . All that's necessary here is for the criteria to be made explicit. There are many subject-specific bibliographical lists. The ones that have good criteria and are carefully maintained are kept when challenged, the inadequate and sloppy ones are not. I am a little troubled by some of the comments about non-notable books; this is by no means an indiscriminate selection of the many thousands of potential inclusions. I hope it was not a reflection of any feeling that the subject is in some way unworthy or unimportant.DGG 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I nominated this article and that other one at the same time. That one was relisted and then closed so quickly that I didn't have time to cross-examine. (BTW, that one duplicated the contents of this one until I redacted it and put the ((main)) in there.) Can you give an example or two of bibliographical lists have done this well and where their criteria are spelled out? The problem I have with bibliographic lists of non-notable books — at least bibliographies that are topical rather than concerned with a single author (e.g., List of books by P. G. Wodehouse) or a series of books (e.g., List of Oz books) — is that there are no clear guidelines, and no authority to impose any guidelines someone may come up with, to stop the "enthusiast" (as you termed it here) from making the list into a rather indiscriminate collection of information. In this case, there are easily several hundred books on the subject from the early church to today, and while clearly not all of them are of equal significance or quality, there seem to be no guidelines to manage the list (WP:RS won't help except in extreme cases). Shall we add all of them? IMO, the best option is to exclude topical bibliographies as stand-alone lists altogether, and add "The Wikipedia is not a library catalog." to WP:NOT. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Examples are in Category:Lists of publications in science. Good ones I have worked on are the ones for Chemistry & Biology. Some less good ones have been challenged and removed. BUT notice that both of these =lists are much more selective, and give significant information about each title included, including the justification for being on the list. The chemistry one has a particularly interesting talk page, where they discuss in an XfD-like manner the individual titles. Comparing them with this, the present one looks rather anemic, and I change my !vote to a Weak Keep. The difference is between an annotated bibliography, which is as worthwhile a work of assembling information as an article, and just a list. This would need improvement, but it can get it, so it becomes an editing question. Butthere is still an immense difference between the present list and the 1712 entries I find for Christian apologetics in the Princeton catalog ( note: the LC heading is, in an ethnocentric fashion , just apologetics.)DGG 06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I much prefer List of important publications in chemistry to this one, though the title seems rather subjective. The biggest question is, how do we get from here to there? That is, how does this list become an annotated bibliography? If no editor or editors take the initiative, what do we do with this list, which is woefully incomplete, biased toward evangelicals, and rather snobby in only selecting recently published works -- where's Thomas Aquinas, for instance? Redact, delete, or leave it as is? And how long do we wait to take such action? --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning given by Coren. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To reiterate my response to Coren: Valuable is not enough. Why does this material belong in an encyclopedia as a separate topical list that is unconnected to an article? (Note that per the above discussion with DGG, I'm open to an annotated version of important works, but criteria for inclusion needs to be established.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither of us was arguing "valuable" we were arguing "encyclopedic." I think the burden is on you to show that it isn't encyclopedic, considering all the points that have been brought up in support of this notable topic. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it is certainly not encyclopedic in its present form because it represents such a narrow, subjective collection (evangelical, late twentieth century) with no indication of why the books belong here or why more should or shouldn't be added -- this is all in distinction from, e.g., List of important publications in chemistry which I think certainly belongs. My question is how do we get from this list to one like that one? What if no one steps up to work on this? I daresay we shouldn't leave this list in its present form. So do we redact it down to bare bones, tag it as non-neutral, delete it (my initial preference, but I'm open to other options), or do nothing? --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 01:55, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York Giants players[edit]

Contested prod. Argument for delete was that the category New York Giants players makes this article unnecessary. Argument for keep was that the article includes red links, so that Giants fans could know which players still need articles. Also, the list is more complete than the category because of the same reason (the list includes players without an article as well). For now, this is a procedural nom, so no vote. →Ed Gl 13:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such a list is very useful, bordering on invaluable, for people writing new articles on Wikipedia as it shows which players have been given an article and who needs doing in the most concise possible way. I recently did articles on a county's cricketers from a very similar list, something I never would have done if the list hadn't existed. I would suggest that only people who don't actually contribute new articles to Wikipedia would question the need for such lists. Nick mallory 13:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists are not the same thing as categories. Would you propose deleting all lists? Corvus cornix 22:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To whom is this question directed? I stated this was a procedural nomination. →EdGl 23:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant a generic "you". :) Corvus cornix 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I gotcha. I was a little confused since nobody's voted delete yet :] →Ed Gl 19:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per others; also seems to meet the other two of the list guidelines criteria Wikipedia:List_guideline. --R e m i 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some people do not like lists. I can understand the feeling--with the typical mix of black and red links they look a little messy and unfinished. But WP is unfinished--they are many articles on notable subjects still to be rewritten. Since we accept all major league football players as N, we need articles on all of them, but do not yet have them. This is the starting point, which leads naturally to stubs and then to full articles. It has taken several years for WP to get as far as it has, and it will take quite a few years more before it can catch up with all the notable things and people before the 21st century. DGG 02:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unornamented lists are equivilent to stubs - WP:LIST enumerates the features of lists, if needed. WilyD 21:01, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_Clouvel[edit]

Another artist posting a resume to Wikipedia. Not notable, only source given is website edited by subject of article. Parsleyjones 02:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I see a long article with no indication of notability established for the subject. =Axlq 06:37, 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created by a WP:SPA, indicating probable WP:COI, aside from copyright issues that have come to light. I removed his name from a list of French composers and a list of all composers - he put it there for vanity. YechielMan 14:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not to remove this page and/or links for the list of french composer. There is the same article in the french wikipedia for years ans it's a simple translation. I would immediatly contact and/or claim to any users for inapropriate comment such as "vanity" or other ones, regarding this article. Wikipedia is a ressource for all, including music and musician. You're just waste your time !

Wikipedia certainly is a resource for all, including musicians. But it's not a place for posting resumes. What kind of resource would it be if it contained every fact ever known, regardless of significance? Pages get deleted all the time, many of which are more informative and well-referenced than this one. There are PLENTY of sites for musicians to create profiles and post resumes.--Parsleyjones 10:38, 2 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 Speedy keep, for reasons below and WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitruth[edit]

Only 10200 Google hits, 74,000 Alexa rank, only a few press coverage mentions that claim to notability. Also a pure attack on Wikipedia. Fivebytwo 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:WEB says that the criteria for inclusion of web sites is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." As the nomination itself says there are "a few press coverage mentions" which means that this condition is met. The footnotes have at the moment four independent articles with the external links having another article. It should also be noted that this is the third nomination. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikitruth 20 April 2006 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (2nd nomination), and that being horrid about Wikipedia is not a criterion for deletion. JASpencer 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the above. --Myles Long 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as much as I hate to say that. WP:WEB criteria is passed, media coverage is from reliable sources. Google and Alexa ranks are not valid deletion criteria. Nor is the fact that its a site critical of wikipedia if that were the case we'd have to delete The Village Voice, The New York Times, MSNBC and several other media companies. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The site passes WP:WEB, neither Google nor Alexa are absolute notability guides, and the fact that the site is critical of Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to any deletion discussion. Hut 8.5 14:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This site meets the requirements of WP:WEB and is well sourced. Thryduulf 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per all above. Davewild 17:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Bad nomination reasons. Google/Alexa is not the only consideration of notability. Wikipedia is not censored. The nominator also seems to be a sock puppet.Tyro 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (he said, holding his nose), bad faith nom by now-blocked troll. Corvus cornix 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nomination - verifiable, sourced, and referenced in media. It doesn't look good to keep trying to delete something critical of Wikipedia. -- Mithent 22:30, 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 and cleanup. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLAME[edit]

This article does not meet WP:MUSIC standards. NoFew articles link to this article. It contains no independently sourced information. While the artist has been nominated for an award it has not won any, and the nomination itself does not meet notability standards. Idioma 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI do not agree that this article should be deleted. You state that no articles are linked to this article. Clearly, this is inaccurate, as there are several citations to the Cross Movement Website linked to this article. Although this article is not expansive, it is quite informative and should not be deleted because it allegedly does not fall into Wikipedia guidelines. I believe instead this article should be nominated for being cleaned up and expanded. To completely delete it is uncalled for.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drean20 (talk • contribs).

Welcome to Wikipedia, your contributions are welcome here. What it means to have an article link to here is to have a wikipedia article link to the page. While there are a few, most of them are also being considered for deletion, or are miss linked. The artist and his record companies websites do not count as reliable independent sources. Please read WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO to find out about establishing notability. After notability is established, these sites can be used for sources. Finally, please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after your posts, so keeping track of the discussion is easier. Idioma 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that nomination for a Song of the Year in the GMA Dove Awards (Christian music's version of the Grammy) is notable, placing his Song in the Top 5 Christian Rap songs in the country for the year. Confirmed with a google search of GMA Dove Flame. This at the minimum satisfies #9 - Has won or placed in a major music competition. Also, I've found 3 sources of news:

Paid (Google news earch turned up context, pages ask for login/payment): [24] [25]

Free (and notable): [26]

The notable thing about that last article is this:

"Despite an emerging national audience, gospel rap has no platinum-selling breakout artist -- and certainly nothing on par with holy rock & rollers Switchfoot or P.O.D. (Payable On Death). But this might change soon. Artists such as Grits have sold hundreds of thousands of albums under the auspices of Nashville-based Gotee records. Another top label, New Jersey's Cross Movement Records, includes local artist Flame on its roster. Flame has moved some 30,000 albums, tours as far away as Alaska and has one of his songs blasting on Busch Stadium's loudspeakers each time Albert Pujols comes to bat."

Three things this says... First, it's an apples to oranges comparison to compare his record says to that of say, Jay Z. He's a big fish in a not quite so big pond. But, he qualifies for notability for his national touring of the Notability guidelines:

4. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources.

Also, A St. Louis newspaper is reporting that in their hometown stadium, Busch Stadium, a hometown player Albert Pujols plays his music over the stadium speakers every time he comes to bat. (Albert Pujols isn't some unknown player, his 2007 salary is over $12 million. From Wikipedia: Since his debut in 2001 through the 2006 season he leads the major leagues in RBI, runs, total bases and extra base hits, and is second in home runs and batting average. In other words, he's a star, so people are listening when he comes to bat.) So, there's also national airtime every time a game is on the radio or television, Flame's song is heard.

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Was notable enough that a newspaper commented on it.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable

Some players (like wrestlers) are often known by their fans by their "theme song", and this is such a song by a top player of MLB.

But, notice, I'm not counting the article itself as being at the level of being notable. Under Wikipedia standards, it is not. However, it provides many facts that do rise to the level of notability. In total:

1. GMA Dove Awards nominee placing him in the top 5 of his genre. 2. Reported by a reliable source to tour nationally. 3. Is played several times per game to a stadium, radio, television audience of MLB. 4. For the genre of Christian Rap, he's a major representative, as recognized by the media and the GMA Dove association (the closest thing to an expert opinion on the matter). 5. Belongs to a label recognized as a "top label" for the genre (not up to Wikipedia standards for Indie Label notability, but in this genre, there aren't any "top labels" as defined by Wikipedia).

Now, honestly, I've never heard of the guy, nor listened to him. I followed the link here from Sabellianism where I was researching recently added info about his references to dynamic monarchianism (a part of Christian theology). And while the information added indicates that I would disagree on major points theologically with Mr. Gray, my research none the less shows that he is certainly notable in the Christian & Gospel music world.

I would also like to add a point of disagreement with the statement: "Being nominated for an award does not make an artist notable, they must actually with the award first." (S.I.C.)

Well, it certainly adds significantly to their notability. Those that have only been nominated (and never won) certainly display their "mere" nomination as an accomplishment by itself, because it is, be it an Oscar, a Grammy, or a Dove. Not winning doesn't make them "unnotable", and it certainly adds to their notability.

From the above data, I would not consider this page to be a vanity page for some random garage band. Further, if this page is removed, one might as well remove all Christian Rap artists because none have gone gold, and very few could top this artist. And, in that same train of thought, one would remove all artists of non-mainstream genres.

Don't know if I'd listen to him, and all these facts need to be added to this page in a nice format, but... Strong Keep -- DeWayne Lehman (talk • contribs) @ 06:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major music awards are different from major music competitions. Award shows do not place for one thing, you either win or you lose. While all the information that you have found is great the majority of it does not establish notability according to WP:MUSIC. However with the addition of the news paper source and the CCM magazine article, there would be multiple reliable independent sources, albeit just the minimum to count as multiple (just two). Its true that not winning an award does not make an artist non-notable, but that is why there are many more criteria and all one has to do is satisfy one of those criteria. Idioma 07:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for the move. For me, there is no one single thing, but a preponderance of lesser things. But, just playing devil's advocate here (was verifying claims for another page). And based on what I found, I would not revert the addition on sabellianism, because it shows that particular topic as still currently relevant. I'll keep an eye on this because the vote will impact whether or not to revert or reword the edit to sabellianism. -- DeWayne Lehman (talk • contribs) @ 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who made the reference to FLAME on the sabellianism article. I just found out that this was about to be deleted so I made some edits and added references to FLAME on other articles. His song, "Godhead", is my favorite song and it has intrigued me greatly to learn about modalistic monarchianism and dynamic monarchianism from a rapper so I thought that it was worthy of being added to the article. By the way, I added the information that DeWayne was talking about.Please KEEP Professor Davies 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Seems like he's a new player in the field, but notability seems to just be there. Clean up the article big time and make it sound less like a press bio and more like an encyclopedic article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if nominated for a Dove award, this makes him notable. Corvus cornix 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Jmlk17 05:15, 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 all articles, the category and 3 templates. Remaining articles in Category:ZIP codes of the United States were upmerged to Category:United States Postal Service. ((Three-digit ZIP Code table)) defaults to keep as it is an integral element of ZIP Code prefixes, which was not nominated for deletion. WjBscribe 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 56 ZIP codes[edit]

(View AfD)

Article namespace:

Template namespace:

Category namespace:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Lists of United States ZIP codes are definitively not encyclopedic.

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 14:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and wikipedia is not a directory. Hut 8.5 14:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have some hesitation about this, but anyone who needs to know the zip code of Kalamazoo can look it up on the USPS website. This collection of information violates WP:NOT#DIR. YechielMan 14:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to know the zip code of somewhere, just go to the "somewhere" article ;-) Happy editing, Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 15:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Precedent has been set that these are not encyclopedic many times. J Milburn 15:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lists, with the reservation that some individual zip codes, like those for the former World Trade Center, the White House, etc., are notable enough to deserve encyclopedic coverage. Xoloz 16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't listed it, I agree with you. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 17:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previous AfDs has deleted articles that included historical information that is not present on the USPS site and also provided relationships about zip codes to communities and physical post offices that is not listed on the USPS site. While well intentioned, I believe that this nomination will not prove to have been right when we address this in the future. Vegaswikian 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've already deleted the other lists of zip codes by state, so I'm working on precedent. We aren't a zip code guide. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - historical information of zip codes can be written into an article which is not a list of 00-09 zipcodes for every postal zone in the country. These lists are just directory information. Neier 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created several of these lists recently, as they appeared on Most wanted articles. However, except for the top-level summary of how ZIP code prefixes are assigned (which I found to be interesting while researching the pages) I agree the lists don't have much encyclopedic value. I think if they are removed in a bloc (as proposed here) then they won't show up again on the WP:WANTED list. --Sapphic 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT. Jmlk17 01:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is just a list and per previous arguments. I would however, save the info in a sandbox or small wikiproject someplace if anyone needs to use it to develop other articles like certain towns or articles about special zip codes. --Triadian 02:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state. I was just preparing to nominate this as my next set of articles, when I saw that Snowolf beat me to it. Exception, Suggest that if/when the category is deleted, any remaining articles at that time (it looks like 4 or 5) should be upmerged to Category:United States Postal Service. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wouldn't Zip Code be a more appropriate merge target? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just used the first place that I saw that seemed applicable. I'm not so much hung up on where as I am that nothing is left out of this part of the category tree. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY ... I stumbled across List of 20 ZIP codes while looking at what links to Galesville, Maryland (prior to doing a ((prod))), and started fixing/adding wikilinks before I noticed the AfD tag. <Sigh!> Yeah, http://www.usps.com/ is a Much Better resource. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not the sum of all information ever. Axem Titanium 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not merely a directory, but a pretty useless one. So, "945" is Oakland, huh? Which tells me what, exactly?--Calton | Talk 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MOVE to WikiSource - Going to change my vote from Keep to Move to WikiSource cause this is a really good idea. It clears up the space here and moves useful information somewhere it can be used by all. I like it. Calton, is a list of buildings in Tokyo, Japan useless? - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 19:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have an actual coherent question, or will you require another reality check? --Calton | Talk 05:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And why did you create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tallest buildings in Tokyo less than ten minutes after your post here? --68.239.79.97 06:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a question and I don't need a reality check from someone who is disconnected from reality. Kinda defeats that purpose. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 09:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? If your mother says don't chew it, do you swallow it in spite?, Do your ears hang low? Do they wobble to and fro?, and Why do fools fall in love? are also questions, and are about as applicable as yours: I asked if you had an actual coherent question, and it's looking like the answer is no, you don't. And Badly Needed Reality Check #238: you're not supposed to delete other editors's comments without a very good reason, and "spite" isn't one of them. --Calton | Talk 11:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You: ...will you require another reality check? Me: ...and I don't need a reality check from someone who is disconnected from reality. You: Do your ears hang low? Do they wobble to and fro? Need I say more...Thank You and Good Night. Moving on....SVRTVDude ^(VT) 11:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you left off I asked if you had an actual coherent question, and it's looking like the answer is no, you don't. That was pretty much a sure thing, it looks like. --Calton | Talk 13:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, the thing is, I asked you a question...and you answered with a question and never answered my question. Then you went into the whole "reality check" thing and your reality check was "Do your ears hang low? Do they wobble to and fro?"...so, who is the one who is being incoherent here? OK then...moving on....SVRTVDude ^(VT) 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, the thing is, I asked you a question Noooo, you strung together some words semi-coherently and pasted a question mark to the end. I asked if, buried under that spittle-flecked mess, was an actual question fighting to get out. Again, the answer appears to be "no". --Calton | Talk 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The accidental removal of previous posts happens quite regularly as a result of some glitch in the system, and quite often the editor whose post deleted previous posts is not even aware that it happenedI have no idea whether or not it was intentional in this case, but I think that unless someone has a history of deliberately deleting other people's posts, we shouldn't assume that that is what happened. The kind thing would be to restore them with an edit summary saying something like "restore a post which seems to have been accidentally deleted". ElinorD (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he does have a history of deliberately deleting posts he finds inconvenient, as in here -- note the edit summary -- so it's not an unwarranted assumption, it comes from his track record. --Calton | Talk 13:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we say "personal attack"? It was an accident, OK? OK. Moving on...SVRTVDude ^(VT) 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we say "personal attack"? You can say what you like, but it doesn't make it actually believable or true.

It was an accident, OK? Speaking of not being being believable. --Calton | Talk 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on someone's "track record" there Calton, you have a history, a long and colorful history of personal attacks, this is just one in a long line. So, let's not go there, shall we? I can pull no less than 100 of them from your contribs. Moving on....SVRTVDude ^(VT) 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

long and colorful history of personal attacks Yep, all over my talk page from trolls, fanatics, spammers, Wikilawyers, and incompetents, with you contributing quite a number. Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

Reality Check #239: you don't get to delete or hide your original comments, especially when they've been responded to, since that renders the responses meaningless. You DO get to withdrawal them by striking them out. --Calton | Talk 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"trolls, fanatics, spammers, Wikilawyers, and incompetents"...exactly what I am talking about....and you are calling me "black", might as well just look in the mirror, my friend. Cause you just insulted yourself, not me.

Also, when did you make the rules around here? Hmmm? Don't quote me rules when you can't follow the most basic ones. OK? OK. Moving on....SVRTVDude ^(VT) 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..exactly what I am talking about. I'm glad you agree, and will henceforth stop with the harassment on my Talk page.

Also, when did you make the rules around here? I don't. I'm simply telling you what they are. That you don't understand them very well is a matter of history, and I can drag numerous examples of those up if you wish. So, to move on, did you have an actual coherent question to ask? --Calton | Talk 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopaedic. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Not only is WP not a directory, having hundreds of articles on irrelevant US trivia goes against Wikipedia's commitment to avoid systemic bias. If this is notable, then List of postal codes on the smallest island of the Maldives is equally notable. --Charlene 09:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state. The list of 56 ZIP Codes isn't even prepared all that well, as it's missing all of the state names. ZIP code 56022, for example, appears to get mail to a troubled region of Sudan, instead of a sleepy little city in Watonwan County, Minnesota. I don't see any values in these lists, so delete them. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a table of reference data. It's only useful if it's reliable, and you'd have to check the post office's source to know if any one is right anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MOVE to WikiSource I propose this compromise simply because I find the Wikipedia access to zip codes, area codes, and other such information very useful. It is more convenient than an almanac. Perhaps it would be better suited in WikiSource. --Mphamilton 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the inclusion criteria in WikiSource allow it, sure, I'd be all for a Transwiki. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All "The sum total of human knowledge." Period. See inclusionism. — sampo torgo ^[talk] @ 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information; this is a raw listing of information without processing, commentary or suggestion as to encyclopedic value. While it is useful, utility is not a criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Other sources are available for such information; it should not be on Wikipedia. Do not move to Wikisource, I do not think it would be acceptable there (though a more experienced Wikisourcan should be contacted to confirm this). --Iamunknown 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lists of individual ZIP codes, but keep ((Three-digit ZIP Code table)) and the page ZIP Code prefixes which has not been nominated for deletion, but would be gutted by deletion of that template. (Altho substing that template for that page might prove a useful alternative as I think that page would end up as the only one using it.) I think the three digit prefixes are sufficiently encyclopedic as to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and sufficiently lengthy as to warrant being a separate article instead of being simply plopped into the ZIP Code article itself. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:18, 4 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 Speedy delete g12, copyright violation. NawlinWiki 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Synapse[edit]

Article reads like an advert, is a copy- with or without permission- of http://www.iiml.ac.in/synapse/ . Does not make the significance of these "initiatives" clear, nor does article seem to justify its own existence separate from parent institution. Fourohfour 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vote obviously, unless someone can come up with a good argument in the other direction. Fourohfour 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio and spam. DarkAudit 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyright violation, and tagged as such. --Haemo 21:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of comedy films in languages other than English[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate unmaintanable list. Otto4711 15:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Every movie not in English", such an article has no purpose and is completely indiscriminate meshach 16:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate collection of information, would include tens of thousands of films. NawlinWiki 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki. JuJube 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because a list of this nature is helpful for people trying to see what foreign films are comedies, especially people who might otherwise not know where to begin looking for such information. --164.107.223.217 00:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (indefblocked user) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMDb is one place to start looking. Also it should be noted that this anon has voted "Keep" on pretty much every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? --164.107.223.217 00:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would be of greater benefit to Wikipedia to put the articles in the categories for comedies and foreign language films. Jay32183 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see too much List of things NOT in things, even though Wikipedia is not a directory of random lists.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:28, 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 Speedily deleted (a7) by User:Dina. NawlinWiki 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean fluharty[edit]

Delete - contested prod, non-notable vanity bio, likely contains false information After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As written, promotional/vanity resume. — ERcheck (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article left a note on the article talk page indicating that one should "check the attached links provided in the content... these links contain all verifiable information". I've done this for each link. None of them give any information on Sean Fluharty. — ERcheck (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a complete fabrication. Hits on Sean Fluharty return Wiki and Wiki mirrors with this article; and a note in a school district that "Sean Fluharty" was given a job as a 3rd grade teacher in 1998 (a search of that school's website shows he is no longer a teacher there). — ERcheck (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The creator's contributions to other articles contradict this page (compare [27] with [28]) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:07, 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 Speedy delete (A7). — ERcheck (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina harvey[edit]

Delete - contested prod, bio of real person, but not notable, violates WP:BLP containing false information posted by User:Y2flu who may be Sean Fluharty After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:24, 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, sock notwithstanding. Sandstein 20:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RedneckHippie[edit]

This has a strong whiff of hoax page but not quite enough; a strong whiff of an attack page but not quite enough; a strong whiff of a dicdef but not quite enough; a strong whiff of something made up in school one day but not enough. With that many not-quite-enough's, bringing it here — for all I know, this is a genuine subculture (it does appear to have its own website), and I don't know enough about California to judge — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, nonnotable neologism. I think there's also coming a strong whiff of self-promotion in my direction. Femto 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Delete Hi, Thanks for your comments. I would agree that this word is not in common usage. However this word is used in northern California. I have heard it on the Radio many times. I hope that the word can be kept and hopefully the entry will be developed more. Thanks Ty Tyrobincollins 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)— Tyrobincollins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Comment - Wikipedia is specifically not a dictionary - if the article is intended as a definition, it shouldn't be here anyway but on Wiktionary — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Delete I've heard this word and would like to see the description developed. -J, Arcata, California Arcataj 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)— Arcataj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mango juice^talk 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private Sözlük[edit]

Just another website, fails notability, WP:WEB, no independent sources. Created again, it has to be assumed the earlier prod deletion is contested, so here we go. Delete as nominator. Femto 15:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear notable, and definitely fails WP:WEB. YechielMan 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Private Sözlük is notable in Turkey.Hebele 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hebele (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, per Hebele --164.107.223.217 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (indefblocked user) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussions need to be sustained by arguments, just saying "it's notable" doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines and will likely be discounted. If the site is as notable as claimed, it should be easy enough to provide proof with independent, non-trivial reliable sources in the article, preferably verifiable also by English-speaking editors. (By the way, what does the tag at tr:Private Sözlük mean? Was the topic tagged for deletion even at the Turkish wiki?) Femto 23:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. Anonymous users are welcome to explain their positions, but nameless IP addresses simply supporting the reccomendation of another user have little to no weight in AfD discussions, for obvious reasons. Femto 12:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've got credible published turkish materials. these materials published by turkish news media, reliable newspapers and magazines.Hebele 06:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for instance:

Due to the language barrier I'm unable to evaluate the actual depth of coverage. (At least one link seems to be a newspaper reference, though the chip.com.tr link looks like a mere directory entry.) So I'll default to neutral but leaning to the side that Wikipedia doesn't need to cover every website in existence. Femto 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have the same language barrier issue as Femto, but the references do appear to be discussing the site. We don't have many articles on Turkish websites, so I'll err on the side of caution with one that make an apparent claim of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 02:52, 7 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 10:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erke Energy Research and Engineering Corporation[edit]

Please delete for these reasons:

Gigantous claims at press conferences don't imply notability
No reliable, third-party, sources
A working perpetuum motion device won't get unnoticed -- the article can be recreated once the reality of the claim is demonstrated

Pjacobi 16:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time as reliable sources arise testifying to the success or (more likely) failure of the Erke perpetuum mobile. Anville 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appropriate wording is used - "claimed", "supposed"; if sources are not notable enough, or the article simply needs improvement of some sort, then tag appropriately. + it seems to be a real company with revenue according to the article, but perhaps that should be tagged with needing citation because of the nature of the article. --R e m i 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP. I couldn't care less about the claims, but for a corporation to be notable it needs to be documented by secondary sources. The sources given seem to be relatively few, and to top it off are written in Turkish! Without English sourcing, non-notability for an english language encyclopendia must be assumed. --EMS | Talk 20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a claim of notability is valid if said claim is complete and utter bollocks. Unless, of course, the company gained a nice bit of press coverage for making it (which would be an entirely different claim of notability). Someguy1221 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has too many weasel words, and they are not verified by third party sources. the company doesn't seem to be notable and it reads like a press release.--Kylohk 22:25, 3 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. Merging or renaming are editorial decisions that can be further discussed on the talk page. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyCFO[edit]

This article was originally speedy deleted as CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding the Wall Street Journal report on the company constituted as assertion of notability. Among the possible options mentioned at DRV, a merger to Harris Bank was suggested. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Harris Bank (I was the one who suggested this at the DRV), which according to the article has owned myCFO since late 2002. The Wall Street Journal investigation into the company is in my opinion not enough for a stand-alone article, but it does make it worth mentioning on the Harris Bank article, particularly as this article is presently light on content. Note that I have set up a redirect to MyCFO at Harris myCFO, which the present article describes as the present operating name. Thryduulf 17:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just seen there is deleted content at Harris/myCFO admin only which may be able to be merged into this article. Thryduulf 17:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (update based on revisions to the article and Gwernol's comment below) If the investigation is into activities that occurred before 2002 (when it was bought by Harris Bank) then I think this is the correct location for the article, it should be merged into Harris Bank if the event were post 2002 though (it isn't immediately clear from the sources in the article). Thryduulf 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave myCFO seperate as myCFO, pre Harris Bank acqusition (1999-2002) myCFO is the primary subject of the Wall Street Journal article Vwt 09:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there appears to be genuine notability to the events surrounding the financial investigations into myCFO. Im attempting to improve and expand the article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards Gwernol 10:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I commented on the Deletion review, it's a notable firm-cum-crash, covered by CNET, Business Week, and the New York Times, even without the Wall Street Journal bit. That meets every applicable notability standard. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Harris myCFO as that is the existing company per [29]. 24.90.11.62 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep myCFO as the history of myCFO since founding in 1999, don't rename, but cross link to a seperate article on the post 2002 activities of Harris myCFO, which should link to [[30]] not just Harris Bank. The web site of mycfo.com resolves now as [[31]], the WP articles should objectively document myCFO's history since inception in 1999. In the press myCFO as a business is most often referred to as a simply "myCFO". The business has been active continuously as myCFO (and myCFO.com) since 1999 and has involved multiple notable individuals, each with WP links denoting their board service at myCFO from 1999-2002. User 24.90.11.62 is systematically trying to dissociate links between the original myCFO Board of Directors and the business history of myCFO. Each are notable individuals with professionally maintained promotional Personal Biographies on Wikipedia. The activities of the 1999-2002 business referred to, as "myCFO" is the subject of current 2007 verifiable press articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.139.48.116 (talk • contribs).

Not that this is really the place to discuss it, but - to the best of my knowledge - I have not removed any links or references to myCFO in the articles abotu its board of directors. I have, however, removed external links to the WSJ investigative report which seemed, IMO, as POV-Pushing by a single purpose account, User:Vwt, to add as many mentions of that particular article as possible in any myCFO-related article. 24.90.11.62 20:12, 2 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowfix[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion under A7 for a non-notable podcast. Owing to the fact it has been around for a couple of years and has an associated online shop, I've refused the speedy but brought it here. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on notability concerns. YechielMan 17:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, does not show Wikipedia:Notability (web). This feels like a webcomic vote, which has not received major coverage by independant publication(s). Looks like a nice show, keep it up... add a few sources and I can change my recommendation. ∴ here…♠ 18:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because seems notable enough to me. --164.107.223.217 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (indefblocked user) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:22, 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. Krimpet (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field Services for Microsoft Dynamics AX[edit]

Notablility according to WP:CORP not established. Prod contested in November 2006. S.K. 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It reads like (1) an advertisement, and (2) a cut-and-paste repost of deleted material (see the [edit] tags at the beginning of paragraphs). YechielMan 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because just about anything associated with the giant business microsoft is relevant. --164.107.223.217 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (indefblocked user) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per YechielMan, adspeak. Mango juice^talk 16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure, unadulterated spam. Caknuck 22:22, 7 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 all. Sandstein 17:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisaint[edit]

The article is about a song from a Chevelle album. The song isn't a single, and has no other claims to notability, so I believe it should be deleted. -Panser Born- (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating for deletion the following songs from the same album as they are not singles and are similarly non-notable:

Delete, and propose for deletion next time. :) Switchercat ^talk_cont 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thanks for reminding me. -Panser Born- (talk) 23:17, 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. Sandstein 17:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains[edit]

This article was often deleted in the past for copyvio concerns. OTRS has received competent notice, however, that the full list is in the public domain. DRV restored many revisions of the article on that basis. The question remains whether the article and its content are encyclopedic; several commenters suggested relisting to address that concern. Again, copyright problems are no longer at issue. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Question: As I understand it, the list is in the public domain only if AFI has explicitly released it as such, since it's their work: does the OTRS ticket say that, or does it simply say, "Yeah, sure, go ahead and use it, whatever"? --Calton | Talk 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if copyright is no issue; the AFI's listing of its 100 heroes and villains seems little different than any of the other uncopyrighted top XX lists or awards. Carlossuarez46 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still not worth keeping. What's its importance? What's its real-world impact? Where are the multiple third-party sources attesting to its importance and which discuss it in ways that can be used to build an actual article? (And no, brief reviews in newspaper TV-review columns don't count.) --Calton | Talk 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Carlossuarez46's comment. Blacklist 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, everything in the article is attributable, 94 hits in google news archives, the presentation program was nominated for an Emmy award. - Bobet 09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list is PD. (and there would be a good argument that it would be in any case at least in the US). But the information is obvious of interest, such as list is encyclopedic in the same way as the many existing lists: they provide a convenient summary of well-sourced information. DGG 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of public domain information. - Chardish 06:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, you can't copyright information so 'public domain information' is redundant. Second, if you look at the article, you'll notice that this isn't a repository, it's an article on the subject. If the list was removed, there would still be enough current content for a stub. Including the list itself is just gravy, and pretty useful because there are bluelinks for most of the subjects. - Bobet 12:22, 4 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. Sandstein 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary Club of Pensacola Suburban West[edit]

nn club. It's a branch of the Rotary Club, which have thousands of clubs all over the world. Fails WP:ORG. Biggspowd 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This club needs something better to do with their time. What a long article! YechielMan 17:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make articles about the other world rotary clubs. --164.107.223.217 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (indefblocked user). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as failing to provide notability, and do not make articles about the other world rotary clubs. Or Kiwanis. Or Elks. Or Lions. Corvus cornix 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable local club. NawlinWiki 22:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are the reasons for deletion

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:

   * Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
   * Content not suitable for an encyclopedia
   * Copyright infringement
   * Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax)
   * Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic
   * Inappropriate user pages
   * Inflammatory redirects
   * Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
   * All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed
   * Newly-coined neologisms
   * Overcategorization
   * Patent nonsense or gibberish
   * Redundant templates
   * Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
   * Vandalism that is not correctible

None of them apply. A club that has been in service more than 50 years, established scholarship programs, people to people programs to foster international understanding, active in the fight to stop polio. Over 1,700,000 English articles, not a place for this one? Tedkirchharr 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following... Given the highlighted clause, saying "[n]one of them apply" is utterly meaningless, isn't it? And to answer your no-doubt-intended-as-rhetorical question, nope.--Calton | Talk 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely local group, no national or international impact noted. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see WP:ORG as a minor club, not of a sufficient level to be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for the reference. Here is what WP:ORG says [edit] Primary criterion See also: Wikipedia:Notability#The primary notability criterion A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations1 except for the following:

Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself — whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.2 Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy. Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.

Secondary sources cited, more to come. Tedkirchharr 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and non-notable. ➪HiDrNick! 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability claimed or established. Nuttah68 12:10, 5 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. Sandstein 17:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh-29[edit]

Sources are the band's MySpace and add-yourself sites, plus a pretty trivial NME review. All edits are by single purpose accounts. Band's sole release was available "across Cambridgeshire" (i.e. not actually nationally, as such). Wikipedia is not a directory of indie bands. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND], but the album is available on ITunes, which suggests that it is not a complete vanity article. semper fictilis 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article because I feel the band is fairly successful and will become even more so. The article is not intended for advertising or publicity, rather as a source of information. The band are not as yet an international sensation, but all things start somewhere. I am not affiliated or related with the band in any way other than to have seen them perform a number of times in a number of locations across the UK. Having searched Wikipedia for them to see if it had an article on them I found it didn't and felt that perhaps it should. User:Mikezorander
Weak delete because of lack of independent sources (all sources listed are add-yourself, including the NME link. The band does look like it might be on the verge of greater success -- I would change my mind if independent sources are added to the article. NawlinWiki 22:57, 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. Sandstein 17:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willence Seymour[edit]

Procedural nomination. Completing unfinished afd nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nonnotable athlete. YechielMan 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because notable athelete. --164.107.223.217 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (!vote cast by indefblocked user). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable junior-level tennis player; very little content; no sources. NawlinWiki 22:52, 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. Merging is ruled out by WP:V due to the lack of reliable sources, particularly as it appears that the text may have been copy-pasted from the article of another school. Sandstein 17:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timberview Middle School[edit]

the article is a direct, near verbatim copy of Eagleview Middle School, notability Chris 17:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced quickly. The school may or may not be notable, and I'm not doubting the creator's good faith, but the fact that this is an unsourced article with most of its content copied from Eagleview Middle School makes it difficult to trust. I've just fixed one reference to the name of the school as "Eagleview Middle School" – if the article gets that wrong, then everything taken unchanged from the template article is dubious. Were both schools established in 1986? Do both offer Spanish "exploratories" and teacher-coached wrestling? Maybe so, but I'm not going to take the article's word for it. Either sources should be added for all content, or the article should be restarted with original content. EALacey 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These schools appear to be in the same district and, from what I can find on their websites, they do indeed both do pretty much the same things (including the Spanish exploratories and wrestling). The only thing I can't corroborate is the founding date. As for whether it's notable, though - it seems policy has changed about schools since I last read it, so I don't feel qualified to say. -- Mithent 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Academy School District 20. All school districts are notable. Most high schools are notable. Some middle schools are notable. Despite a search using Google and Google News/Archive, little was found that would be sources for notability (though see this search for some glimmers of hope). This school does not seem to have any distinguishing characteristics (e.g., recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program) to establish notability. Merging/redirecting will allow any useful data to be retained, and allow history to be kept in the event that additional material becomes available in the future to establish notability. Alansohn 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. Comparing the two articles line by line, this is not exactly a copy. There are several possibilities, depending on what the situation is in the RW. Assuming that their web pages are true representations of reality, what it seems to have happened, is that someone interested in schools in Colorado Springs, decided to have articles for all the schools, and constructed a template to be filled in with the appropriate details. all the schools do have the same opening time, they apparently have the same program, the same clubs, the same classes, the same type of honor rolls, and all are top performing schools in the state assessment. What is different is the enrollment, number of teachers, and names of administrators. And, yes, the school colors.

This is where the idea that all (or most) middle schools are notable has gotten us: directory information disguised as articles, and presented as at length in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

It doesn't have to be this way. Looking at their web pages, the web pages and the schools are very different. The pages were clearly designed and implemented by different people, at different times, with different amounts of sophistication. By human beings, doing creative work the way the web encourages. But for us, they figure they don't need all that. copy and paste will do for the standards they think we have. I'm glad Chris was clever enough to catch them. And I hope we learn from it. DGG 03:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC) DGG 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. I am opposed to merging as none of the facts are supported by reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per DGG's comments.. He put it nicely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TREYWiki (talk • contribs)
Delete per above, fails WP:V and WP:N. I likewise oppose a merge per Butseriouslyfolks, and I've gotten really leery about how many of these schools seem to sport "top performing" assessments or awards. Sounds like a classic case of grade inflation to me. RGTraynor 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The smarmy sarcasm aside, an alternative explanation is that articles are being created for notable schools which have "top performing" assessments or awards. While notability has not been established here, as I indicated above, each and every article must be addressed on its own merits. Alansohn 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would wash if the articles were created with the citations in place, but that hasn't been the case, has it? Nor have the original creators seemed aware of the citations. The citations have only appeared in the wake of AfDs, upon which point a startling number of the articles sprout "Blue Ribbon" awards (added by the same few knowledgeable editors who are not, in the main, the creators of the articles in question) that purportedly only are achieved by 5% of schools, the notability thereof which has been waved around without the least degree of critical inquiry. So ... if we're talking about addressing the merits, let's source the merits of these awards, shall we? RGTraynor 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no rule or policy whatsoever that requires information about awards being added before an AfD starts, and your implication that these awards and citations have been suspiciously manufactured (using such phrases as "startling number", "sprout", "purportedly" and "waved around") is a staggering violation of assume good faith. Deletionsists have an easy job at AfD time; just type the word delete and put three quotes on either side. Those who have an interest in seeing worthy articles retained can say that the article is fine as is, or must do the often difficult work of digging through to see if there are any additional items of merit that might distinguish the school as notable. One of the first places that I check is the listings of schools recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, and if the school has been recognized I will be certain to add the source to the article, together with sources that demonstrate the notability of the award. I also read the article and check the school's web site to see if there are any unsupported claims of notability, for which reliable and verifiable sources can be identified, and those sources will then be added. I will then do searches on Google, Google News, Google News Archive, News Library and LexisNexis (when available) as part of an effort to identify other characteristics that might demonstrate notability. It's hard work trying to improve articles, especially when the gun of an AfD is pointed at your head and there are far too many people who will vote to delete an article simply because an AfD has been created. All that needs to be done by even the most rabid deletionist who doubts the integrity of the added claims of notability when an article has been improved, is to check the sources. I wish I had the time to verify every single school article to add sources and confirm notability before AfDs are created and I do so for a those schools articles in my area. Unfortunately, the AfD process can be a rather effective trigger to improve articles that have sat unimproved for extended periods of time. As such your snide insinuations are completely and entirely unjustified. Alansohn 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Smarmy? Rabid? Snide? Please ease up on the namecalling. By the way, an AfD is hardly a gun (unless of course you're keeping score and taking it personally). If an article is deleted for lack of notability, but it can later be shown that the subject is notable, the article can be created anew. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No kidding. When this Blue Ribbon Award is cited as prima facie proof of notability, backed with the repeated claim that it is given only to 5% of all schools, but this award has been cited in nearly ten times that many recent secondary school AfDs, then a good hard look at the bonafides is not merely proper, but is our responsibility. Why there is such passionate resistance to doing so I can only speculate. In any event, the "worst" result that can happen even from the perspective of the most virulent inclusionist is that some middle school doesn't (perhaps only temporarily) have a Wikipedia article. Somehow I am sure it will manage to educate kids nonetheless. RGTraynor 14:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In an AfD in which the only point of discussion has been how to best eliminate the article, you felt the need to insert the unnecessary statement that "I've gotten really leery about how many of these schools seem to sport "top performing" assessments or awards", using scare quotes to imply that false claims of notability have been made here or elsewhere. You have repeatedly made unsupported accusations about additional sources and claims of notability added to articles after an AfD has started, implying that the claims of notability are false or manufactured, yet have offered nothing other than your conspiratorial suppositions to back up the multiple claims. You have carefully chosen such phrases as "startling number", "sprout", "purportedly" and "waved around" to imply that the claims of notability have been pulled out of thin air. In every single case in which I have added a claim of notability, it has been backed up with rather clear sources to support and demonstrate such notability. If you truly believe that the citations added for the Blue Ribbon Schools Program (or other claims of notability) are false, I strongly suggest you get some proof about this rampant falsification scheme. Not only is there no "passionate resistance" to investigating these claims, I have pleaded with you to have the decency to follow through with an appropriate investigation of the bona fides of the claims made. By your logic, we should just allow nominators to delete articles on demand, after all what's the big deal of one less article. As an alternative, we can evaluate each article on its merits, including accepting the staggeringly unbelievable possibility that an article created by a sixth grader could be improved after an AfD has started. If you see claims of notability, I strongly encourage you to check the sources and make informed judgments as to the merit of any claim made. If you truly believe that there has been any deliberate misstatements made in improving these articles, I suggest that you gather your proof and that an appropriate incident be opened to ensure that the perpetrators are appropriately dealt with. If you cannot back up your accusations, I suggest that you demonstrate the good faith of backing off. Alansohn 15:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point that RGTraynor is making is that, if more claims for the Blue Ribbon status are made than are actually issued, which he sees to be so, then perhaps it is not a good barometer of notability. What exactly are the requirements for the award? Does the award alone make the school notable? Let me provide an analogy. Fewer than 2% of Boy Scouts in the United States ever make Eagle Scout. Half of one percent of the people in the world qualify for membership in Mensa. I am both. But the fact that I am does not by itself make me notable. Likewise, an annual award that may later be revoked if a school does not meet certain criteria is probably not a sound standard for notability. Inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, on the other hand, would be a sensible, and permanent gauge for keeping an article. I hope this clarifies where RGTraynor is going with his point. Chris 21:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have interpreted RGTraynor's claims exactly as I did: That schools that did not receive the award are being credited in their Wikipedia articles as being recipients, which can only be the result of deliberate fraud. Coming from a Mensa member, I appreciate your concurrence on the reading of his repeated claims. I encourage you -- and all others who have an interest in teh topic of school notability -- to read the Blue Ribbon Schools Program article, and follow the sources through to make your own informed judgment on the merit of the claim of notability for award recipients. Once granted in a particular year the award cannot be revoked, not unlike an actor who wins an Academy Award and then makes a string of box office bombs and critical failures. Once the award is received it can't be taken back.

Not quite. Alansohn is being disingenuous in attributing to me the statement that false Blue Ribbon citations are being made, something that it shouldn't take all that thorough a reading of my remarks to dispel. While I haven't personally checked each citation, I've checked a few, and they seem valid enough. What I have (repeatedly) said is that this 5% statistic is being waved around with as little critical examination as "one in four women are raped" and "A million children get abducted every year." Since these citations have showed up many more times than in only one out of every twenty middle school AfDs, we can either believe that it's just wild coincidence that we just happen to nominate Blue Ribbon winners for deletion, or that in fact the real total is far higher than 5% ... in which case this Blue Ribbon Award is not nearly as noteworthy as all of that. RGTraynor 06:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated that Alansohn is being disingenuous in attributing to me the statement that false Blue Ribbon citations are being made. Let's do a recap of the statements that you have made so farand see if your statement holds water.

"I've gotten really leery about how many of these schools seem to sport "top performing" assessments or awards." 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"That would wash if the articles were created with the citations in place, but that hasn't been the case, has it? Nor have the original creators seemed aware of the citations." 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"The citations have only appeared in the wake of AfDs, upon which point a startling number of the articles sprout "Blue Ribbon" awards (added by the same few knowledgeable editors who are not, in the main, the creators of the articles in question) that purportedly only are achieved by 5% of schools, the notability thereof which has been waved around without the least degree of critical inquiry." 17:56, 1 May 2007
"When this Blue Ribbon Award is cited as prima facie proof of notability, backed with the repeated claim that it is given only to 5% of all schools, but this award has been cited in nearly ten times that many recent secondary school AfDs, then a good hard look at the bonafides is not merely proper, but is our responsibility." 14:28, 2 May 2007
"Since these citations have showed up many more times than in only one out of every twenty middle school AfDs, we can either believe that it's just wild coincidence that we just happen to nominate Blue Ribbon winners for deletion, or that in fact the real total is far higher than 5%." 06:51, 3 May 2007

It would therefore seem that you have made multiple bad faith claims that these award citations have been manufactured, something that not too thorough a reading confirmed. As you stated, all of the sources you checked panned out. All you would have to have done to show that there is some sort of fraud going on here is to find one instance where the source provided did not match the claim made in the article; you've found none. Again, the alternative to your conspiracy theory is that articles for notable schools are being created, these articles are being proposed for deletion, but they are in fact notable. In each and every article where I have cited the Blue Ribbon Award as a claim of notability in response to an AfD, sources have been provided to document the claim that the school has indeed won the award AND to document the notability of the award itself. All we have seen so far is your wild conspiracy theories that you persist in believing despite ample evidence to the contrary. Alansohn 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I persist in asserting, as I always have, that the evidence is that this award is not nearly as notable as you like to believe it is - as witness how very few school article creators know squat about it - that the "five percent" total seems to be BS, and that if it were it would be a part of the article well before a frantic scramble to prove notability under the gun of AfDs; you present, and persist in presenting, the same old straw man. In no instance have I alleged that a citation was fraudulently made, nor do I have any reason to believe that this has been the case. Is there some reason we ought to know about why you have been so persistent in asking about fraud? RGTraynor 18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance and non-existence are not one and the the same. As you well know, many of these middle school articles being subject to AfD had been created by well-intentioned sixth graders who are more familiar with the burritos served by the hair-netted lunch lady, than the Wikipedia rules and policies that constitute notability for the Blue Ribbon Schools Program. I have provided five quotations above that show that you persist in believing that I have made false claims of notability for Blue Ribbon schools. Now, in a staggering violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, you have now explicitly called me a liar without even a shred of evidence to support your allegation, despite the fact that I have provided you with all of the sources required for you to make an appropriate judgment. My claim of notability for the award is not based on a 5% threshold (the actual percentage is a bit lower); the claim of notability is based on statements that the Blue Ribbon Schools program is "the highest honor the U.S. Education Department can bestow upon a school", a statement contained and sourced in the article for the program and the articles for nearly every single one of the schools were I have cited the award in response to an AfD. Alansohn 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- RGTraynor you've been warned! Cow before your betters. Delete per WP:N and the argument against these kinds of school articles archived at WP:SCHOOLS. Eusebeus 23:01, 1 May 2007
  - Why would the failed WP:SCHOOLS guideline be a valid argument to delete (or keep) an article? P.S. I think you have a vote mixed in there somewhere. Alansohn 01:02, 2 May 2007
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT delete, Merge and Redirect as per Alansjohn above. Noroton 00:07, 4 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 redirect. Will delete all but Give 'Em Hell, Kid first. Mango juice^talk 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Know What They Do to Guys Like Us in Prison[edit]

This article was previously nominated for deletion back in November 2006, and the result was no consensus. I believe this article should be deleted, along with the three others below, because they're non-notable My Chemical Romance songs. The songs in question weren't even singles, and the articles don't contain any references and a couple consist purely of original research. An identical article was nominated for deletion this month, and recieved the verdict of redirect. I believe these articles should be deleted and turned into a redirect to the album they're from (Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge) -Panser Born- (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three other articles:

Delete. Delete all of them per nom. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Give 'Em Hell, Kid, which contains some statements about the song from one of the band, although these need sourcing. Redirect the others to Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge, since their only content appears to be original research. EALacey 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect them all, and any other songs from any other MCR albums that werent released as singles (Teenagers is exempt, as it's going to be released) Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of them. Non notable, non singles, not enough for inclusion into wikipedia. Rehevkor 16:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of them. It doesn't matter if they are all singles. It gives information on what these songs may mean, which may not fit well in the Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge article. I say that we leave them, because of the theories and valuable information they give us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lozalttp4evr287 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment It should probably be noted that the "Keep" vote above is the only edit the user has ever made. -Panser Born- (talk) 15:01, 6 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 speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein 17:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Terror[edit]

The article is about the new online game "Absolute Terror". The game is new, so there won't be any references; current notability is questionable due to newness; and the author of the article is using the article as promotion and a game guide (as it says in the article), basicall expecting Wikipedia to serve as their advertising vehicle and webhost. ArglebargleIV 17:37, 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, CSD G4 (see previous AfD). Krimpet (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode 7[edit]

Contested prod; prod reason was Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I wasn't the original prod tagger, but I agree that it's unlikely that reliable sources exist to support this article. JavaTenor 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Fails WP:V as the sources listed aren't reliable, WP:NOR as most of that "plot" looks hand-written, and WP:CRYSTAL as the article is about a movie that hasn't been announced and may not even ever come out. - Chardish 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. The two external links provided are insufficient. (I checked them.) YechielMan 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty sure that Lucas has more or less stated that he doesn't plan on ever producing this movie. As there's no source for this massive plot summary, there's nothing we can keep here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as relevant to one of the, if not the, most successful film franchises in history. We have articles about movies and games and even architectural structures that have been cancelled or not completed, so even if it doesn't happen to be made, so long as the project got underway at some point it will have lasting cultural and historic importance to millions. --164.107.223.217 20:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. With all due respect to Mark, talking about it does not make it notable - nor does it even guarantee that Lucas will do anything with it. First line in the article notes that Lucas isn't going with this, and the plotline seems entirely speculative anyway. Major crystalballery, no reliable sources to back it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Hmm only two references and oooh look there both forums. Not Verifiable and it looks like a fanfic of horid perportians. DBZROCKS 22:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources aren't reliable and don't discuss the content of most of the article (the plot details). The fact that George Lucas once planned to make Episodes 7-9, but doesn't plan to anymore, can be mentioned (if it isn't already) in the articles on Lucas & Star Wars. NawlinWiki 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not happening. JuJube 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Another page like this for ep 7 was made, it was speedy deleted Whs tchy 01:35, 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, but in the interests of not biting the newbies, I'm going to just userfy so that Bee Redding can continue to gather sources and improve the article. Mango juice^talk 13:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Davidson (author)[edit]

Non-notable author as far as I can tell, article is practically an advertisement/back of the book author's bio (ie. no NPOV). Besides simply being published, no notability is asserted (btw I don't think simply being published is anywhere near enough for notability). A google search doesn't turn up much on this guy (mostly a food author by the same name). This article was previously deleted by CSD (see [32], but there may be some difference in them. Also, again I'm having a hard time telling, but this may have been the subject of a previous AfD at [33] Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He does seem to have gained attention for his lawsuit claiming that the film Chicken Run plagiarised one of his books, but that could be treated briefly in the film's article. The article doesn't indicate that reliable independent sources exist allowing a biographical article to be written about the man. EALacey 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the writer of this article having provided the authentication requested, all independently verifiable through library databases etc. First of all I must apologise for having accepted the apparent invitation at the head of this page to edit existing comments, [it seemed a strange idea at the time!]. I now find that I can add my own separately, something not made clear. I'm bewildered by Cquan's dismissive comments, although as a US biochemist he may be unaware of the acutely competitive nature of the UK children's books market, where for an author to sustain a career for nearly 30 years is in itself 'notable'. EALacey mentions the author's plagiarism suit against a famous film [hardly the kind of 'attention' an author would willingly seek presumably]. On reflection, the studio's PR people would be bound to cut any reference, however brief, from their own article so this is perhaps not a realistic suggestion. I'm willing to accept guidance from a moderator as to how else my article should be improved but will not have access to a computer for several days after 3 May. Please advise. 11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Bee Redding
- Comment. Thank you for the comments. I don't doubt the accuracy of the article, and I agree that having multiple children's books published over a long period is certainly an achievement. However, "notability" in Wikipedia terms means something more specific: a subject generally has to have received coverage from independent published sources to qualify as "notable". See WP:BIO for how this applies to articles about people. A guideline suggested at that page for classifying a writer as notable is that "The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." For example, if any newspapers or literary magazines have devoted articles to Alan Davidson, or published substantial reviews of his works, those could be used to establish notability. EALacey 12:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From the content of the article, I couldn't tell if he was notable or not and I would be inclined to think not. It's true, I'm not aware of the environment in the UK, but honestly, I doubt there's anything special about the competitive nature as opposed to other industries/fields. Everything is hard, that's just life. That being said, I'm more than happy to have the article stay if proper notability is asserted and backed up on the article. This poor US biochemist is willing to admit his mistake then...oh wait, I'm not a biochemist...anyway, show notability. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I apologise to Cquan, he's listed as a US biomedical engineer, not biochemist, which shows I'm as vague about his field as he is perhaps about mine. I have a large family of keen readers and a lifelong interest and some in depth knowledge of British children's fiction and its authors, many of them excellent but unsung which for me was the whole point of starting to write them up on Wikipedia. Naturally I'm beginning to have second thoughts. Wiki seems to be operating more like a traditional encyclopaedia where all subjects must be already 'notable' i.e. famous or well-known [and info about them readily accessible elsewhere anyway!] The bar seems to be being raised rather high if, as now appears, 'stubs' are to disappear. What a shame. I'm grateful nonetheless to EALacey for his constructive comments and interest. I've seen many thoughtful reviews of Alan Davidson's work over the years, mainly in little specialist journals, very ocassionally in e.g. The Guardian. Times Ed. Supplement. The J K Rowling/Philip Pullman phenomenon has raised the profile of children's books but for years they received pitiable coverage in the UK national press and still get nothing like the adult books. If I locate anything on the lines you mention, I could add it to the article later this month when I'll have computer access again.If the moderators decide in the meantime to delete the article, that is a matter for them. Bee Redding 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just in case I was unclear, I was joking around:-P. But thanks for the thought anyway:-D. In any case, I don't think the bar is set THAT high. At this point, I'd be satisfied with a single line with a single source to assert notability (which isn't asking much). The guideline is also not about popularity or fame. I like to think it's a good way to keep people from shamelessly promoting things, i.e. using Wikipedia to create notability. But honestly, if he has been writing that long and is popular, there must be at least ONE article about him somewhere and that'll be enough. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 16:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cquan's right, of course, as I've found from a quick internet scan under other headings. Looks as though I can add quite a lot when I get back [that's if it hasn't been deleted by then]. I did a minor edit yesterday. To clarify: being elected to the Executive of English PEN [Poets, Editors and Novelists] is considered quite an honour for an author this side of the pond, although I appreciate that's not the issue at the moment. I'll be able to check in again around 12th May - am now on my way.
Delete - for now, per WP:BIO - creative professionals criteria. Though in actuality, the difficulty may lie in being able to locate and seperate sources/references that are referring to Alan Davidson (author) and not Alan Davidson (food writer). Not trying to ruin anyone's work here, but if user Bee Redding wishes, I'd suggest a rough article in the user namespace to firmly establish notability first. Luke! 10:37, 8 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 Speedy delete, article had no context. Malla nox 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Training Plan[edit]

Self-evident WP:SPAM Stammer 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11, so tagged. I also nailed his user page. The creator is a single-purpose COI-nik. YechielMan 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it seems valid and notable. --164.107.223.217 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure it's spam, but it provides no context or evidence that whatever it's about is notable. Looks rather like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a webspace provider. EALacey 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nothing there. Corvus cornix 22:03, 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 delete. While purely numerically merging seems to be the option, there is simply no sourced material to merge, and there certainly is no consensus to keep the article. If sourcing can be found, whether and where else to write it is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentalist (derogatory slang)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is just one definition of the word "mentalist", and it's already been transwikied to Wiktionary(it was deleted via Prod, and recreated, so the history doesn't show it). This obviously shouldn't be rewritten into an article on insanity or mental illness as we already have articles on both of those. Xyzzyplugh 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~Merge Mentioned in 2 comedy shows, ~~not yet cited, if~~ cited not unreasonable --Nate 13:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy does not make an exception for words which have been mentioned in two comedy shows. In fact, most english words have been mentioned in multiple comedy shows and movies and so on, that doesn't mean we have dicdef articles on them. --Xyzzyplugh 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the comment's on the page the term was specific part of the shows not just mentioned, sorry if I did not make that clear --Nate 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef per nom. Otto4711 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ See Comment Below I recreated the article, after finding it arbitrarily deleted. The article has a long history. It was originally part of Mentalist but was separated and disambiguated. The article describes a notable and widespread use of a descriptive term in British culture and, as such, should be included in any definition of the term "mentalist". However, Wikipedia's categorical nature excludes that explanation from being included in the main "mentalist" entry. Removing it from Wikipedia wholesale effectively censors that meaning. Mr Twain 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has already been copied to Wiktionary, at wikt:Transwiki:Mentalist (derogatory slang). The fact that a word is notable (whatever it means for a word to be notable) and widespread doesn't mean we should have an article giving the definition of it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is the place for definitions of words, Wikipedia is not.--Xyzzyplugh 12:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be missing the point that it was a theme, in two comedy shows which is the bulk of the article, not the definition. --Nate 13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not just a word definition, it is a concept in popular culture, whose meaning is being censored by the arbitrary removal of article. And, it is the meaning that is notable - the signification, not the sign. You keep quoting the Wikipedia is not a dictionary rule, I would remind you that if the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, you should ignore them. Mr Twain 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it is a concept in popular culture, and one we already have an article about: Insanity. Here is a list of some other words or phrases which mean the same thing: around the bend, balmy, bananas, bats in the belfry, batty, berserk, crackbrained, cracked, crazed, crazy, cuckoo, daffy, daft, demented, deranged, loco, looney, mad, maniacal (also maniac), mental, moonstruck, nuts, nutty, off one's rocker, screwy, unbalanced, unsound, wacky. Note that we don't have articles on any of these(some are disambig pages or articles on other uses of the term, like banana). Wiktionary is the place to go for dictionary definitions, it has almost all of the ones I listed. --Xyzzyplugh 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Using that argument, then all adjectival synonyms should be removed from Wikipedia. Thing is, "Mentalist" is a noun, not an adjective - a noun with several distinct meanings, all of which have their own articles or explanation on Wikipedia. It makes no sense to remove one of those meanings in such an arbitrary way. I suppose there's a valid argument to be made that the material should be moved to the disambig, but there's no real argument that it should be removed wholesale. Especially when we have great articles like Lunatic as a precedent... Mr Twain 10:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge to insane, delete the (transwikied) rest. Sandstein 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of what is there now hasn't been transwikied & wouldn't be appropriate for it as it relates to the use of the term. --Nate 08:18, 26 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 18:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would tend towards keep if this was actually any kind of a "theme" in British comedy or even common slang usage - put bluntly, it isn't at all. Alan Partridge yells "You're a mentalist!" once to his stalker, and even if The Office paid some kind of homage to the single use of the term in Partridge (which is not at all verified by the Gervais quote), that doesn't make it a theme, a meme, slang or anything other than a word that was mentioned twice, and never even really defined, on two separate BBC comedy shows. What next, an article on Monkey Tennis (oh my God, there is one!)? --Canley 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the fact that there is an article on Monkey Tennis and further articles titled Loony and Nutter establish a precedent that this AFD seeks to ignore. And, Canley, I'd argue that the slang usage is a meme. Such a strong meme that this meaning has swamped the original meaning of the word. It's becoming clear that the thirst for deletion is too strong for the argument to be heard in this case though.Mr Twain 08:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Loony is a redirect. Nutter is a disambiguation page(which needs cleanup). --Xyzzyplugh 12:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still a dicdef. Mr. Twain, please note that lawyering isn't going to change this, and that this isn't what the spirit of WP:IAR is intended for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect per Nate1481's comments below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, if there is any lawyering in this discussion, it did not come from me. Mr Twain 08:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would an abbreviation & merging into Mentalist be acceptable? As it stands if the article is deleted then a common use of the word would not be mentioned, and confusion could occur. A sub heading with a link to wikitionary, and a brief statement that it was used in a two comedy shows & the ref might be a way forward. -- Nate1481
- Yeah, I think that'd work. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might better be placed in Mentalist_(disambiguation) as previously suggested. Mr Twain 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this could be expanded to be more than a dictionary definition, I'd be all for keeping. As it is currently, though, that's all it is. It would be appropriate to include a line about it on the mentalist disambiguation page, which has already been done.Chunky Rice 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to mentalist. Context is too specific; the quote doesn't refer to the term and the Oxford claim is unsourced. –Pomte 04:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Merge - It appears the best way to preserve this article is to agree with the merger to Mentalist - despite the fact that the article was originally part of that article, and was separated by a different set of Wikipedians interpreting the same rules in a different way... But who am I to challenge the logic of (current) consensus? Mr Twain 12:02, 8 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 10:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakism[edit]

This appears to be an attempt to coin a neologism/new art movement. Several Ghits, all to self-published sources, most of which are obvious attempts to coin the term. I can't find any reliable secondary sources using the term. Non-notable. Coren 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and perhaps WP:CB. YechielMan 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because -isms are useful topics for study, especially in universities. --164.107.223.217 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (!vote by indefblocked user removed). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:USEFUL. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do! --164.107.223.217 00:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as protologism. EALacey 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the nom has this one dead on and I'd only be repeating them. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whole lotta hoopla. JuJube 23:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never forget[edit]

Contested prod. Neologism that is not the topic of several non-trivial reliable sources. Delete per WP:NEO. Chardish 19:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG it's been used in 4chan!!! Delete because it hasn't been documented, and it counts as WP:OR. YechielMan 19:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because article has likely chance to grow and so this is too quick. --164.107.223.217 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup comment: The !vote was made by an indefblocked user, and is thus invalid. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. meshach 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. --Richard 05:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NEO--Sefringle 05:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourceable OR. Also a totally US-centric article; I suspect in every other country in the world, if you referred to "Never Forget" people would assume you meant the Take That song — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:34, 3 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. In addition to the consensus (aside from the nominator) that this person meets notability criteria, the article has been expanded and referenced substantially since this discussion opened. I'm closing it early per WP:IAR. YechielMan 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August H. Auer Jr.[edit]

No obvious notability claimed or evident. Page only created to remove a "red link" and permit listing on Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming William M. Connolley 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expanded the article a little based on some sources I found. His stance on global warming made sufficient press to be notable, I think, at least as part of an article on the group he helped found, though the mentions of Auer himself in the press on that group are close to trivial. Regarding his own scientific accomplishments, though, I think it's notable that work he did in the 1970s is still having an impact today, both the land use typing that was already mentioned in the article and his work on ice crystals that is still collecting citations in the online literature (I used Google scholar, but perhaps other sources would find more cites; I'm not sure how well represented atmospheric science is online). —David Eppstein 20:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Auer is very notable. His career in meteorology (including 22 years as a Professor) spans 47 years. His research topics are published in more than 75 journals. He is often seen in New Zealand media. I suspect this AfD may have been filed with bad motives. (rossnixon 202.154.152.228}

Keep. Passes the professor test, easily --Ezeu 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the article, not to remove the red link, which I don't think was necessary for inclusion in Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, but when I was curious about who all the fuss was about, I did some looking around. The hits on this guy, made it easy to produce an entry, so having already done the hard part, I went ahead and created the entry. I hope that wasn't wrong. Based on the national press he gets in New Zealand, he must be very notable there. Of course, anyone who is willing to speak out against all the Global warming hype, risking a reputation that is significant enough to get national press, is probably notable.--Africangenesis 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep it might perhaps have been realized that a full professor at a major university was likely to be sourceable for his major contributions to science, quite apart from involvement in public affairs. DGG 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on the article as it stands. Based on the national press he gets in New Zealand - very splendid, perhaps some of it should be in the article then? William M. Connolley 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find this argument disingenuous based on the efforts you've been making to remove any improvements or additional sourcing in the article. —David Eppstein 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find your comment inaccurate William M. Connolley 08:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is certainly very notable in New Zealand from frequent media appearances and his scientific work. I strongly suspect that the motive for the deletion is around the opinions of the person requesting the deletion in that Auer has a viewpoint that differs from their own.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendors (talk • contribs) 01:19, 30 April 2007

Keep - I could trivially google up mainstream media coverage. Person is ~~despica~~notable. Coren 00:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given references and notability in New Zealand. Capitalistroadster 03:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable and verifiable source provided demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Alansohn 19:18, 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.

Result was Keep. - Caknuck 07:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enema bandit[edit]

This is really odd. First up, there is some kind of folklore at least behind this; a Frank Zappa song forms most of the 130 or so unique Googles for "Michael Kenyon" "enema bandit". The article cites a few loacl newspaper stories of the time. But when it comes to online sources, there are just three: Wikipedia, Frank Zappa fan-chat, and comments about a porn film allegedly inspired by this. There isn't even a Snopes story that I can find. We don't know if the subject is still alive, and we know absolutely nothing about him other than this purported case. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's definitely a real case from what I can tell, this might help. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep after Hackney's sourcing. Stammer 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidently a well-reported criminal with a significant pop culture legacy. EALacey 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I decided to be bold and move this to his legal name and create a disambiguation page, so the author Michael Kenyon doesn't have the word "enema" in his article. Jokestress 21:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This series of crimes was in Illinois papers for a 9 year period, and became more widely known through a Frank Zappa song. If he had done it once, and had one story, it would not be notable, but I think that even more news articles could be found than are included in the references, which are enough to satisy WP:N and the quality of the references satisfies WP:A. It reminds me of The Mad Gasser of Mattoon. Edison 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep : Like the nominator, I also thought this was a hoax. But an archive search for old newspaper articles from the time period shows many mentions of the subject in the newspapers of 1970s. I suggest the nominator to do a google news archive search using the terms ... that will bring up many references. Thanks. --Ragib 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the numerous newspaper reports here. --Ragib 22:30, 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. Chick Bowen 21:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Tiu[edit]

Well, it claims he has two albums, and if they're on a real label that would satisfy WP:MUSIC. The article creator maintains that he's a noted entertainer in the Filipino Chinese community. On the other hand: no verification, and neither Amazon nor allmusic.com have heard of him (but this could be because he's Filipino, this would also affect his Google presence.) Of the three reference sites given, one is maxed out on bandwidth, one has "Max is both a host and singer in corporate/private events", and the third has him as "Max Tiu (Emcee, Singer, Sound System)". That says "unnotable lounge singer" to me. Herostratus 18:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He would be notable "[if he] has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including WP:Verifiability". Note: The two-album rule says "[if he] has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)". I understand real label as non-vanity one, which is different from this criterium.Rjgodoy 19:01, 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 and protect. Sandstein 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schillinger[edit]

Completely non-notable. I was unable to find any Google references to this Mark Schillinger, or the Mark Schillinger scholarship. I also swearched the web of Science, with the same result. As far as I can tell, the program for the Nobel symposium (here) makes no mention of him. There is a second Mark Schillinger, a chiropracter from Marin County, who keeps replacing this page with his own Vanispamcruftisement and then having it reverted (see the page history). Suggest deleting and protecting from recreation. Chris 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect as unverified and unsourced. Suggest sanctions against the other. DarkAudit 23:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect per above. The other user is already banned and is well into WP:SOCK territory, hence probably determined to recreate. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 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 Merge. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Holland[edit]

He may be the son, grandson and great-grandson of notable writers, but is there any indication that he himself is notable in any way? The only information we have is that he went to Magdalen - along with a hundred-odd undergraduates each year - and attended a memorial service some seven years ago... Shimgray | talk | 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Merlin Holland. WP:N allows for merging articles on "non-prominent relatives of a famous person" into those of their individually notable relatives, and the longest paragraph of Lucian Holland is equally relevant to his father. EALacey 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per EALacey. The article has nothing substantial about Lucian alone, and it's content would be better off in Merlin's page. xC | ☎ 11:56, 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. Natalie 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuntman (rapper)[edit]

Non-notable, possible vanity

SPeedy Delete A7 (bio). Possible COI, new hiphop artist possible, no other notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren/mary chain letter[edit]

There seems to have been an epidemic of chain letters appearing on video sharing sites lately, but I don't think that this one is really more notable than any other, and not at all worthy of its own article. The article is entirely unsourced, so claims about its 'unique aspects' are rather doubtful, probably original research (and mostly unremarkable anyway - for that matter, who is a 'professional' chain-letter writer, and wouldn't they be able to spell?). Mithent 21:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, no claims to notability, no sources. Corvus cornix 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:N or WP:WEB, seems to consist entirely of original research, and anything beyond the letter's existence is likely to be unverifiable, including the claim that this letter is particularly prominent. EALacey 22:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and EALacey. JuJube 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because lots of people will receive chain letters and they are a identifiable and verifiable phenomenon. --164.107.223.217 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, first of all, this is not a vote, it's a discussion; simply having an opinion that the article should be kept is not helpful. Secondly, if you're saying it's "verifiable", then it'd be very nice if you'd also substantiate this; at the moment, there's no good sources mentioned in the article and as such it's on extremely shaky ground. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, certainly people get chain letters and that they exist is verifiable, and so we have the article chain letter. This particular chain letter, however, does not appear to be more notable than any other, and it would not be sensible to have an article on every chain letter ever. -- Mithent 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a perfectly ordinary chain letter; the "unique aspects" part would need some serious substance to make this work. "...vast use and the unmatched rate at which it has spread"? is it at all comparable to the, uh, Dave Rhodes chain letter? Oh, right, where's the data so we could compare? "unique tendency of appearing several times in the comments of a single video"... welcome to the distant year 2007 - this is what the folks in the Internet industry call "comment spam". In short, the article in no way proves how it's at all remarkable, unique or even interesting. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo equation[edit]

OR? Zero Google hits for the term, and the two articles linked do not use the term, nor the equation. Corvus cornix 21:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. As the nominator states, the article does not list the "Hobo equation" and there are zero g-hits meshach 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Now there are "sources" which mention the "homeless equation", but neither gives a formula or even claims there is an explicit formula as given by the article. --Huon 22:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the other two new ones which do indeed cite "Homeless Equation"

A letter to an editor of a college newspaper is not a reliable source. A newspaper opinion column is not a reliable source. And neither uses the equation in the article. Corvus cornix 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty much a hoax if you're going to state an equation without any real explanation or sources. There is no evidence that such an 'equation' exists. -- Mithent 22:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then label it as a hoax and leave it there, the ppl deserve a chance to know about the truthiness! Stephen Colbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by B mount09 (talk • contribs)

Delete Colbert stupidity. Block B mount09 for trolling. JuJube 23:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this is actually verfiably from Colbert, because of the large audience of the show and Colbert's interest in Wikipedia, which he has mentioned on his show on multiple occasions. --164.107.223.217 00:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cited sources say "homeless equation" where the word "equation" means "problem we need to solve", not a means of calculating population (of which different techniques exist). --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as gibberish. Delete it even if Stephen Colbert said it because not every pearl of wisdom that drops from the lips of Stephen Colbert requires its own Wikipedia article. Otto4711 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, the only connection this has to Colbert is the troll comment by B mount09.--Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, Speedy Delete This is either a hoax or a joke. --Work permit 02:06, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability for month-old band. NawlinWiki 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meadows burn[edit]

Article asserts no notability, and is just about a band that's been around for only one month. I guess the article author is a band member. Delete due to non-notability. LuciferMorgan 22:03, 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 close per request of nominator. Sr13 (T|C) 05:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Bradley[edit]

The subject of the article has not asserted why it is notable (CSD A7) ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. By convention, every player who has been drafted in the 2007 NFL draft, which took place yesterday and today, is given an article by fans of his new team. If he ends up not playing for that team, the article might later be deleted. I'm not sure this is the best system, but it's developed as a kind of consensus. YechielMan 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the creator of the nominated page, and I am a fan of the NFL in general, but especially the San Diego Chargers. I was following the NFL Draft on the Internet, and I reated this page because I wanted a page for every player drafted in Rounds 1-3 and Mr. Irrelevant. I am trying to stay out of the discussion in the spirit of NPOV --Dial 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll go ahead and say that I want this nomination closed per nominator. As I am not a huge fan of sports, I didn't know that Stewart Bradley was drafted per the NFL Draft, and I just thought that it was some NN football player. Sorry for the confusion that I have caused. Btw, DialH, an even better link would have been WP:COI, just sayin' ;-) ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again this was just deleted as a PROD, and the status of the individual has not changed. Let him make the cut and we can have a page on him. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 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. Sandstein 20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAODDP[edit]

This article is original research. Evidence:

The article's subject, MAODDP, is referred to as a "research outcome" here
The article's author added this link to List of ad-hoc routing protocols. The link is a presentation of MAODDP as OR
When the author added MAODDP to List of ad-hoc routing protocols the summary was "Addition of new protocol details"

The article has already been deleted once before.

andy 22:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreation of deleted material. --JianLi 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. JuJube 23:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if additional sources can be found. --164.107.223.217 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless the anon user above can find some sources, since he apparently thinks there might be some. DGG 04:27, 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 g1, patent nonsense. "Sumpreme Emporer"?? NawlinWiki 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Andrew Pope The Sumpreme Emporer of Mjlzich[edit]

Incoherant random text but I'm not sure whether it qualifies for speedy Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete patent nonsense. --JianLi 22:21, 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 per WP:BLP. The cited source The Bello Files, Robert Dwitgh, White Swan Publishers, NY, NY, 2007 may not exist; Google finds nothing for <Robert Dwitgh> or even <"Robert Dwight" Bello>. Sandstein 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usman bello[edit]

Biography of living person; describes him as a notorious criminal but gives no sources. See WP:BLP. NawlinWiki 22:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP concerns, and with less than 1000 ghits, it can be argued that he's not notable in any case. Note that there is a reference given on the last line. YechielMan 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhy delete it, when it adds information? So what if he's not that notable? It is much harder to find information about such people, and deleting those articles only makes it harder for people who are researching these subjects. I wrote the original article after I couldn't find that much about him on the internet. Shouldn't you guys try to gather more information, instead of just shutting out anything that's not prominent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.47.105 (talk • contribs) 21:57, May 2, 2007 (UTC)
Keep I was doing a school project about African scammers, and this helped. It would be nice if it was more elaborate. Don't delete this please. A good source of information is so hard to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennyMac007 (talk • contribs) 09:21, May 3, 2007 (UTC) — JennyMac007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AXB Enterprises[edit]

57 Google results; still ad-vanity a day after unsuccessful prodding. Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-corp. JuJube 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because corporation with multiple Google results, which means an article can be sustained with sources. --164.107.223.217 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, top Google results are Blogspot and MySpace, which are not reliable sources to "sustain" an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 08:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly by merging somewhere appropriate. For now the article lacks not only sources but also established context and WP links. Lay users won't understand the subject even if it was notable. --Futurano 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:19, 2 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. Sandstein 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Tyler[edit]

Fails WP:N and is unsourced. Does not belong in an encyclopedia. Theredhouse7 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nobody cares. YechielMan 23:34, 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. Sandstein 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postcards From Buster Episode Cocoa Beach[edit]

Fails WP:N. There are no sources cited and its absurd to have an article about it. I would speedy but its been around for more than a year. Theredhouse7 22:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides no indication that there's enough to say about this episode to merit an article. According to the main Postcards from Buster article, another episode of the programme was criticised by Margaret Spellings, but that even that doesn't have an article to itself. EALacey 12:36, 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. Krimpet (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shock site[edit]

I know that wikipedia is NOT censored. Please don't take this as an attack on shock sites themselves. I'm merely talking about wikipedia's article on shock sites. This article has not gotten anywhere in the way of reliable sources since its previous AfD and VfD. Andjam 23:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a relevant term and it can't be too difficult to acquire sources. JuJube 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I understand the rationale for deletion, but it's not sufficient. This term is a known entity and deserves its page within the pantheon of human knowledge. YechielMan 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JuJube and YechielMan, who both make persuasive arguments on this discussion. Good work, my friends! :) --164.107.223.217 00:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close until the article is unprotected. While protected, the AfD notice cannot be placed, nor can the nominator's concerns be addressed if possible. Maxa megalon 2000 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uncle G (talk · contribs) just added the notice.--Isotope23 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also added it to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection ^_^ Milto LOL pia 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article is now only semi-protected, b/c of the AfD. Mango juice^talk 19:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much of a pain in the ass as this article can be given the fact that it draws quite a few editors who want to spam their own favorite unattributed shock site into the article, it is a real concept and I think it has been fairly well established that at least some of the entries can be sourced. It is making headway... but if there was any site that should be exempted from WP:3RR when it comes to aggressively expunging non-notable additions like "Meatspin" and "Hai2u"... this is it. Still that isn't a reason to delete.--Isotope23 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per JuJube and Isotope23. This article had actually warned me about those disturbing things, especially when I came across that image of a man opening his anus. Maybe tag it with ((Unreferenced)), or something similar. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well referenced, encyclopedic topic. I see no problem here, --Haemo 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations are not of reliable sources. Andjam 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes lets all stick our heads in the sand. — MichaelLinnear 01:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is not censored for articles about unprofessional and immature things, shock sites are en extremely important part of the internet, so enough of the pointless afds. If the article sucks, clean it up. It's not too hard. Milto LOL pia 02:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that wikipedia is not censored. I mentioned that in the nomitation for deletion. Andjam 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the only issue is sourcing, good. And that can be fixed. I'll bet you two dollars I can have this article at an acceptable level before this AFD closes, barring I don't commit suicide after finals week. Milto LOL pia 02:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're all taking the problems with the article a little lightly. I've looked for sources on this a LOT in the last year plus when I've been watching the article. Reliable sources on shock sites just don't exist. Even the use of the term "shock site" barely ever appears in anything remotely reliable. The OR tag has been on this article since October '06, but the top part of the text (which is really the only meat of the article) has been in that state for much longer than that. This is a notable phenomenon, I think... but notability does not imply inclusion without good sourcing, and the article has been like this for a long, long time without improvement. Mangojuice^talk 03:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are reliable sources out there, they're just not taken seriously by Wikipedians, who unfortunately don't realize that something doesn't have to be serious to be right. I wonder if I could find any dried up old mothers complaining about these sites, do you think those would be good sources for their existence? Milto LOL pia 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Neologisms, that'll give you an idea of the kind of sourcing we need; we need much more than someone confirming that these things exist. But no, I really don't think that a blog or personal web site (even of someone unlikely to lie) can be thought of as "reliable", even if we're trying to stretch. Many, many independent ones, sure, but then you're doing ambiguous original research. Mango juice^talk 11:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's mainly a list of "examples" that have no reliable sources calling them "shock sites". Without these sources, wikipedia could be called a "shock site" depending on the random definition of the day. This is more of a definition than and encylcopedia article. calling something a "shock site" is like calling something "gay". It's highly subjective, has no reliable sources and is potentially pejorative. Delete as unsalvagebale, unreferenced work that is non-encyclopedic. Send it to Wiktionary as a definition and let them deal with it. --Tbeatty 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ An article about shock sites, their history, the censorship they face and how they circumvent it has clearly it’s place on Wikipedia. However I feel like only the first part of the current version is relevant (before the ToC), it should not be a mere list of example (and because of SPAM problems, I think example shouldn’t include a link). Elimerl 09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Notice: I think I haven’t the required number of edit in order to be able to vote[reply]
Delete I changed my mind after reading Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Let’s wait more before having such an article. Elimerl 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Tbeatty and others. None of the support arguments are particularly convincing - the article currently lacks reliable sources, violating a couple of rather important "Double-yew-pee-colon" thingos. "It may have sources!" isn't convincing — someone needs to turn up with the goods (after a long time of sourcing stagnation, as Mangojuice says above), as it doesn't cut it at the moment-K@ngi e ^meep! 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can turn up some reliable sources. I think if they were out there, Mangojuice would have found them by now, he's worked pretty hard in researching this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a bit of expansion but not deletion --UNKNOWNFILE 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd also like you to see this section, where this page has been cited on an external website, saying "Lazy Guide to Net Culture: NSFW" (Scotsman.com, Internet, June 9, 2004) "There are many such unpleasant places on the web and you can find comprehensive details of them on the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia." This is another reason why I vote keep, because deleting it could ruin other articles. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's a red flag that this article (or rather, a long-gone past version of it) was the most reliable source on the subject at the time. Mangojuice^talk 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is the version of the Shock site article on the date the Scotsman article was published: [34]. Surely we should not be going back to that. Mango juice^talk 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that was in 2004, which was about 3 years ago. I'm sure there would be more sources now than there was before. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Find them. I've looked as hard as I can. Have you? Mango juice^talk 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AAA! --Efitu (Tlk Unc) 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per 164.107.223.217. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 15:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources. SakotGrimshine 17:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sites that aim to shock exist. Shock site is as good a description of the phenomena as any other. Concern that the article title may be a neologism are misplaced. Suggest a better title for the article? --Shoka 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "shock site" is the best recognized title for this phenomenon, moving it somewhere else would be using a term even less well established. Mango juice^talk 13:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "goatse" turns up 10 google news hits, indicating this is a topic of coverage. The term shows up in wired news, identifying Stile Project as one, and even in a court decision, over a shock site that had its domain pulled. The article needs to be refined to material that can be cited to sources, but the basic term and concept are not original. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Goatse.cx already has an article. Andjam 00:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As does Stile Project and Ogrish.com. I'm sure the category that encompasses them is also a notable genre of website. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy and I'm pretty sure everyone have witnessed or heard of a shock site. -ScotchMB 02:30, 4 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 all, if anyone needs any of the content for merging then please ask. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus on the Radio[edit]

Non-notable song. This song was never released as a single and is only notable within the Guster fanbase. Metros232 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating, for the same issue:

Two at a Time

Keep It Together (Guster song)

Backyard (song)

So Long (Guster song)

I Spy (Guster song)

What You Wish For

Great Escape (song) Metros232 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Should we have an article on "Third quarter of Super Bowl XLI"? YechielMan 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting and informative for those searching for Guster articles. I know they're not singles, but they're the bands most famous songs. The radio/label chooses which songs to be "singles" for this particular band, but that doesn't mean that they're the most well known songs at all. Guster is known, especially, for many of these songs that you listed for deletion. It's important to keep them. The articles just need some help and more information. I just gave them a start as stubs one day, but haven't gotten around to making the articles better yet. "Jesus on the Radio", in particular, is song that they play live, unplugged, and is always the most well-known, remembered, and talked about song from the band. "So Long", "I Spy", "What You WIsh For", and "Great Escape" are by far 4 of their most famous songs. These are also songs with special, noted meanings on song lyric/meaning sites, which only list certain notable songs. - hmwith talk 05:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you can find reliable sources for these, I don't think anyone would have a problem with these being merged to their respective albums like KIT or LaGF, but Wikipedia does not allow articles on non-notable songs. Sure, they're notable to the fanbase but they're not notable outside of the fanbase. If you're able to find sources for it, I'm pretty sure that you would have a good case with Amsterdam as that's probably been the most notable single of the band to this point. Metros232 10:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: There are actually 3 singles that have been in the Top 40: "Amsterdam" (#20), "Careful" (#30), and "Fa Fa" (#26). - hmwith talk 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I agree with everything you said, hmwith. This song is important within the scope of Guster, their fans, their career, etc. It provides an insight into the band, and adds to the overall imformation about them available. But I think it is better included in the Guster article. Since including article subjects based solely on their importance to a defined demographic would become unmanageable, I fall back on the Wikipedia guidelines and policies regarding notability, which I believe are more or less logical. Since this song is not the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple independent sources, I don't find it notable in terms of the broader goal of the encyclopedia.. --Tractor kings fan 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above Orphic 07:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. A1octopus 18:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 23:40, 8 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 wasspeedy delete as attack page. Natalie 13:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padmanava College of Engineering[edit]

Mostly an attack page. Not clear if there is anything salvagable - the original text is dubiously readable. Was prodded, but the prod was removed. Alynna 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clarifying intent as nominator. --Alynna 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 01:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attack page. Even the original version contains unsourced claims about "a relatively tough time schedule" and that "ragging is also at its top in this college". EALacey 12:40, 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 no consensus. Some sources have been added, but the article should be fleshed out or it may make its way back here. Chick Bowen 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy B. Jordan (research investigator)[edit]

Non-notable. Does not meet WP:PROF. —Ocatecir ^Talk 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that Amy B. Jordan! Delete as just another professor (WP:HOLE). YechielMan 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on her bio at the center [35] . Dozens of publications,media appearances, and some awards. Another modest academic, not only not just another professor--but--as it happens--not a professor at all. (the article title will be changed after the AfD: "research investigator" is very not specific . Her degree is in communications, so the qualifier should be (Communications studies). I've suggested to the author that he upgrade the article but if he doesn't, I will. DGG 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless strongly improved. To respond to User:DGG above, I think it's great that this individual has published a great deal, but there is zero assertion of notability per WP:PROF in this article. Awards are a good start, but need to be added and cited. More importantly the academic's work should be covered or critiqued by an independent source. -Markeer 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 17:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims not verifyable, no reliable sources, no claims of notability. I note that the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania is an academic unit within the University of Penn. The link at the bottom of the page does not lead to Amy B. Jordan's faculty entry, it's a dead link. Entering "Amy B. Jordan" into the APPC site's search box generates no hits at all, and Googling "Amy B. Jordan" site:upenn.edu generates a measly three hits, none of which indicate notability to me. In other words, I'm unable to verify that Amy B. Jordan is on staff at the institute where she is supposedly a notable researcher.Whups, just how wrong can I be? Well, perhaps that's what happens when an article has no reliable sources. Pete.Hurd 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added some more of her publications, having found some on Google Scholar (maybe someone else could add some more, it's not just a copy/paste operation): scanning that partial list, it would seem that her publications are cited fairly regularly. I also corrected the link to her profile, but was unable to discern how the link I put in originally went awry (disclaimer: I created this article when disambiguating Amy B. Jordan (astronomer)). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:19, 4 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 10:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji giridharan[edit]

Contested prod. It is a memorial for a horse whose notability cannot be verified, and the article states as much. Bongwarrior 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncited and probably a hoax. However, there does seem to be mention of a Cricket player by the same name. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:HORSE. :) YechielMan 00:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly a hoax and explcitly states there are no sources. Fails WP:ATT. -- Whpq 15:03, 2 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. WjBscribe 02:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TECHEVAC[edit]

This doesn't need it's own article. Maybe wiktionary? Theredhouse7 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary, it's a dictionary definition and I doubt it can be expanded upon. -- Mithent 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 03:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as above. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - transwiki complete. MER-C 08:43, 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.