< April 3	April 5 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3 vandalism. NawlinWiki 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Whiplash[edit]

Strong Delete: no doubt that yellowlime's tryin' to get on someone's nerves...hoax. DCUnitedFan2011 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --ais523 10:32, 26 April 2007 (U T C)

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 244[edit]

No content (list copied from website), no links. 99DBSIMLR 13:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed here and the result was a keep.--Cdogsimmons 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyvio. WjBscribe 00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Axel[edit]

Appears to be a non notable rapper, but may be notable. Certainly couldn't be speedied, so I am bringing it here for community consideration. J Milburn 00:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - everything above "Birthday" is a copyvio of this site. (tagged as such) As for notability, the only websites I can find for this rapper are blogs, myspace, and youtube. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fuller[edit]

Notability concerns. Completing nom from 2/24/07 for IP address. Dhartung | Talk 07:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominated: Loren Cass, the subject's documentary film. No evidence of notability except for a couple local news articles at the time of filming. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Little information, no useful articles found on The Internet, with the exception of, as stated above, a few local news articles.Mastrchf91 01:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Could perhaps meet notability with expansion. Anynobody 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, ditto Anynobody's remarks. Realkyhick 06:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to the lack of information, failing WP:BIO.Telly addict 11:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But it should be expanded with more information. Also, the movie he created also has an article, but it is being considered for deletion. But the movie has actors that a am familiar with. But it is notable enough it should have its onw article, even if it is a stub. Keep it. A•N•N•A hi! 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does have an IMDB page although, in itself, that is not enough to keep the article. However, it also has some well known actors in the movie and does depict the well known Dwyer suicide. --Cyrus Andiron 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to follow the notability guidelines for people. Sr13 (T|C) 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable.DaveApter 09:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:11Z

Ben Turton[edit]

Article does not demonstrate notability; prod removed by creator. My google searches did not turn up reliable sources. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, possibly autobiographical --Ng.j 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Non-notable subject, poorly written. Realkyhick 06:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the review mentioned can be linked --Nate 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 16:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I've spent years on the scene he claims to be a leading light of (see the dubious bands in my edit history...) and I have never heard of him. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:13Z

Ubiquitous command and control[edit]

Minor conceptual model - no evidence of wider adoption by either the academic or C&C community. All references supplied by authors of concept. Fredrick day 11:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is a really complete, detailed, informative, and well-formatted article. My very soul cries out at the prospect of deleting an article of this caliber. However... it does seem to based on a single paper submitted in 1999. There are many many academic papers submitted every year... I would figure that, since so much went into the writing of the article, that the article creator would have included links to second parties taking this up, if there were any such links. I can't see keeping the article. It's not quite original research, since the paper does exist. But with no shown impact, I can't see keeping the article. Herostratus 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is evident that a lot of work has been put into this article. But that doesn't mean it meets notability guidelines. Nothing in this jargon-laden article establishes its significance or notability. And there is good reason to be suspicious because it does not appear to have ever been published, much less published in a peer-reviewed journal. Rather, it was presented once at a conference, and in all fairness to the author I doubt many people have heard or taken notice of the paper. Allon Fambrizzi 00:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Delete, with regrets. Like the others, I believe a lot of work has gone into this article. I hate to see so much good work wasted, but the subject simply doesn't meet notability standards, and there aren't enough independent sources. Now if we could get this editor to work on some truly notable sunjects, Wikipedia would be the better for it. Realkyhick 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. I've been trying to come up with ways to salvage this article but I can't think of any. It is extremely well-written and deleting it would be a pity but I share the sentiment, that it basically doesn't meet WP:N. The best course of action, in my humble opinion, would be to notify the author and ask him to put the article somewhere more appropriate. -- Seed 2.0 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fairly strongly. You mean that this sort of complete bollocks has infected someone's military? I blame PowerPoint, the death of literacy.
Unlike some of the editors above, I am underwhelmed by this sort of writing. I agree that it does seem to represent a lot of work, and share the sentiment that it's a shame to delete something that effort has been invested in. But, having read through the whole thing, I feel like I know nothing that I didn't know at the beginning. It seemed platitudinous, tautological, and seeking to camouflage its emptiness with inappropriate abstractions. The only military application I could imagine for this sort of prose would be to torment unlawful combatants with, but that would be a war crime. In the end, this article really isn't about anything. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Length and quality of prose do not an article make. There's a lot written here but it amounts to very little reliable information, and I have to agree with Smerdis of Tlön - after wasting the time going through this article, there's really nothing there to get worked up about. Anyway, delete for failing any number of policies, WP:NOR, WP:ATT, WP:V, take your pick. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:OR.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with regrets. Well-written article, but doesn't meet WP:N and WP:OR. Sr13 (T|C) 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unrescuable and unrewritable - any genuine sources are going to be secret in any event. For I think the first time, I agree 100% with Smerdis of Tlon; 10,000 words of WP:BOLLOCKS is worse than a five line "look at me" speedy candidate. This is nothing more than someone expounding their pet theory - it all appears to have been lifted from two academic papers (what the hell kind of title is "A Dialectic for Network Centric Warfare", anyway) and the creator (User:Scholzj) is also the writer of one of the papers, so it's probably WP:OR in any case. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As you'll see from my contributions I never vote 'delete' so this is probably my first 'delete' vote. I have no idea what the article is about therefore I can't acceot that it should stay. Xanucia 22:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's a great article, relatively well referenced, informative and well written, with it's notability shown by its academic status. Cloveoil 05:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:14Z

Paul Savory[edit]

Notability? He was one of a group of people that started a very small record label. He is one of three owners of a nightclub. He is listed as "road manager and producer" for notable artists... well, which was it? There's a heckuva difference between being a road manager and a producer. Absent any verification, I'd have to assume that he was the road manager, not the producer. Verifiability? All I could find was his MySpace page (which contains no mention of any of these accomplishments) and a brief mention establishing that he is, indeed, a part owner of Heaven. Nothing on his being a producer.

HOWEVER, if anyone has info that he was (1) an actual producer of an established artist and/or (2) the Steve Allen Show is highly notable and he really is a regular part of it, he might make the cut. Herostratus 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability. Kudos to the nominator for doing his/her homework. YechielMan 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with an acknowledgment of Herostratus point above. The Heaven (nightclub) looks mildly notable. This article could be notable, but needs more references. Anynobody 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Herostratus, take a gold star out of petty cash for your detective work. Realkyhick 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 17:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails BIO tests. - Denny 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:BIODarth griz⁹⁸ 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Jamiat Islami. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:15Z

Islamic Party Jamiat of Afghanistan[edit]

Probably just a mixup with Jamiat Islami. Neither [1], [2], [3] give any indication of a party with this exact name. Soman 13:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Move I think we should merge and move both of them to Islamic Society of Afghanistan or Party of the Islamic Society of Afghanistan--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My suggestion is merge and move to Jamaat-e Islami-ye Afghanistan and making Jamaat-e-Islami a disamb page. --Soman 13:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does not appear that anyone has notified the creator or significant editors of this article about this AfD. This is considered to be civil under WP:AfD but is often ignored. This should be the responsibility of the initiators of the deletion process. I will provide the notice myself, time permitting, if no one else does so by tomorrow. Edivorce 22:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a direct copy of an earlier version of the Jamiat Islami page. --RaiderAspect 04:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jamiat Islami, as the topic appears to be identical but the information provided is not. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I provided notices discussed above. Edivorce 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, then Redirect. Non-notable band doesn't belong in article history, but redirect is proper as possible misspelling. Xoloz 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvic 7[edit]

Band that does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Artificial heart. Otto4711 03:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Artificial heart. There is no assertion of notability for the band. However, "Jarvic 7" is a misspelling some might actually enter when looking for information on the Jarvik-7. Mwelch 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mwelch. And thanks for letting us know this was about a band! When band names are allusions or phrases that seem to be about something other than music, browsers of AfD need to know that it's about a band from the beginning. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:16Z

Jeff Watson (II), Jeffrey S Watson[edit]

Questionable notability for this bear trainer. Most references appear to be as "Brody the Bear's trainer". Article's creator also created a duplicate article with a different name, which I am also nominating. Masaruemoto 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, no real notability, probable WP:COI. --Dhartung | Talk 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable bear trainer mentioned in Brody the Bear.--Paloma Walker 02:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - No assertion of notability.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elves (Heroscape). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:17Z

Syvarris[edit]

Article about a Heroscape character who doesn't appear to be a major character per WP:FICT. There are no other existing articles on individual Heroscape characters that I was able to locate, and no obvious merge targets. JavaTenor 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. and no sources. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elves (Heroscape). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elves (Heroscape) appears to have been created shortly after my AFD was posted. That would indeed be a reasonable redirect. JavaTenor 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:FICT. Looks like Fancruft. --Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:17Z

Ultimate Challenge[edit]

I think this is the same article that was previously speedily deleted as spam (G11). As I read it, it still qualifies (maybe even as unasserted significance (A7)). Anyway, I'm not sure what the notability criteria are for articles of this nature, so I wanted to have an AFD for it. --Pekaje 19:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - reinstatement of previously speedied material. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It was deleted [4] according to the page log but can't read it. Failed google hits non notable.--Paloma Walker 02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Is there a Pakistani Wikipedia? If so it might belong there, but seems unfit for the English Wikipedia. Anynobody 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete it's apparently a TV series, and might be notable, but at the moment it's totally unreferenced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per Paloma Walker.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The previously deleted article was very different to the present one- it was 2 lines and an external link. This is not a G4 candidate. WjBscribe 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:18Z

Sadananda Swami[edit]

it looks like it Fails WP:Bio Fewer than 200 G-hits Oo7565 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not prod this I am doing this for someone else I vote delete per nomOo7565 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as per original PROD nomination. Gillyweed 22:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His career as given her appears notable, and the ghits seem sufficient to demonstrate that he is well known among those of his circle. They alsoindicate that sources will be findable, as some of them refer to books in which he is mentioned. DGG 20:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 17:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough in my opinion. Google is not the only tool out there and certainly not as useful for past people. Xanucia 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's badly written but we should keep it Krystian 10:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xoloz 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bushnell[edit]

makes no assertion of notability. Nssdfdsfds 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks useful content; no proof of notability +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. Sr13 (T|C) 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is two sentences and no references, it isn't really even a stub. If this is a notable subject it needs serious changes. Anynobody 02:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete pn Looks like prod or even CSD material to me. Seed 2.0 13:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per all above.--Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sovetskoye Shampanskoye. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:20Z

Sparkling 1917[edit]

This article is WP:SPAM advertisement for a brand of Champagne. While the parent company might qualify for notability under WP:CORP, this singular brand name does not. The edit history reveals that an anon IP apparently tied to the UK Distributor has been trying to incorporate more advertisement SPAM into various wine articles so the "Encyclopedic intent" of this article is pretty clear and in violation of WP:NOT. This particular brand is not notable for any significant contribution to the world of wine, in particular sparkling wine or Russian wine. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Radical stub. I can't judge the notability too easily, but certainly most of the content is not encyclopaedic/referenced. Also, there does appear to be a conflict of interest with the primary author and the topic of the article. Other self-added wine company articles have been speedied. --Limegreen 10:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sovetskoye Shampanskoye, which seems to be about the same or a closely related group of wineries; that article has some references and also discusses the EU appellation contrôlée issues. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatent advertising (spam) and so tagged. if not speedy delted, delete. DES ^(talk) 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - spam. --Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per spam. Sr13 (T|C) 18:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Russian imitation Champagne. I had thought it disappeared with the USSR. The general article for the stuff is indeed Sovetskoye Shampanskoye. In general wine companies should not be speedied, and there would be a good case against speedies for individual brands, since some are indeed notable, and a prod will give the aficionados the chance to sort them out. DGG 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was one sentence of mergeable content, and I have already added it into the main article. DGG 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:20Z

Sinaiticism[edit]

No useful Google hits, nothing links there, first ref (the only one online) has no mention of term; probable hoax. cesarb 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. The word was privately coined, but the article still represents an interesting set of beliefs. It would still have NPOV problems, though. StAnselm 08:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ergo, a neologism, and original research. See WP:ILIKEIT, as an argument to avoid in the future. --Action Jackson IV 09:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. StAnselm 09:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming this was a good faith article, it's still WP:NEO and WP:OR at best. --Action Jackson IV 09:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's not a hoax, it's rather soapboxy and either way not worth inclusion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of any publication outside the originators using the term-- as the article says, "Sinaiticism was coined by New Covenant Congregation of Israel Charlotte Tabernacle Elohim (NCCI-Charlotte)." --and they don't even list a publication of their own using it. (The references are general)If its use becomes wider, than it would justify an article, though this is a self-admittedly POV article. The material duplicates other material in the existing articles for Messianic Judaism. Some part of the views are also held by other groups. There tend to be strong views on articles in this area, so I would definitely let this AfD run for the full time. DGG 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this neologism and violation of WP:NEO and WP:OR and as the nominator cesarb says also a probable violation of WP:HOAX. IZAK 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 08:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:21Z

Darth Macoure[edit]

Unverifiable material/ original research: personal non-canonical addition to the Star Wars mythos. Please include these other articles created by Macoure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - General Ki-Pog-Tzis, Larsfullet, Jam Chiz Winwell - as they all have the same problem. Edits introducing such characters into Star Wars articles need checking too. Tearlach 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-This article is obviously a fan's fictional character, not canon in any way. This page should need to be deleted quickly, as well as the other user's edits, as stated above.Mastrchf91 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I agree. This appears to be total fan fiction. I was apprehensive at first, because there has been a lot of books in the series I haven't read, but there is no mention of these characters anywhere but this article. Turlo Lomon 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete-No sources, and no hits on Google nor Wookieepedia (and given how in-depth Wookieepedia gets, that indicates that this is pure fanfic). -- GJD 13:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flay the Mary-Sue as a non-notable fictional character lacking the appropriate sources. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all of these made-up Star Wars characters should have been bundled together. They can all be deleted for the same reasons - basically they don't exist beyond the imagination of the author of the articles. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:21Z

General Ki-Pog-Tzis[edit]

Unverifiable material/ original research: personal non-canonical addition to the Star Wars mythos. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Macoure Tearlach 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I agree. This appears to be total fan fiction. I was apprehensive at first, because there has been a lot of books in the series I haven't read, but there is no mention of these characters anywhere but this article. Turlo Lomon 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete-No sources, and no hits on Google nor Wookieepedia (and given how in-depth Wookieepedia gets, that indicates that this is pure fanfic). -- GJD 13:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:21Z

Jam Chiz Winwell[edit]

Unverifiable material/ original research: personal non-canonical addition to the Star Wars mythos. See also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Macoure Tearlach 01:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-No sources, and no hits on Google nor Wookieepedia (and given how in-depth Wookieepedia gets, that indicates that this is pure fanfic). -- GJD 13:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:21Z

Larsfullet[edit]

Unverifiable material/ original research: personal non-canonical addition to the Star Wars mythos. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Macoure. Tearlach 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-No sources, and no hits on Google nor Wookieepedia (and given how in-depth Wookieepedia gets, that indicates that this is pure fanfic). -- GJD 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable fanfic. JavaTenor 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Splash - tk 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Panther Radio[edit]

College Radio Program with no clear evidence of notability. No reliable third party sources from what I can see; this is all based on primary sources and even those don't make a strong case for this meeting any guidelines. In my opinion this should be deleted. Isotope23 00:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This radio program was detailed and mentioned in several editions of the Campus newspaper, a secondary source of information un-related to and not connected to the program itself. Stingray23464
The organizations may be separate of each other, but the fact that both the program and newspaper are affiliated with the same university really doesn't make the source all that independent or impartial. Delete unless coverage from third-party independent sources turns up. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The fact that the campus newspaper wrote a story about a campus radio show doesn't do much to establish external notability. What I'd want to see is media sources off campus taking notice.--Isotope23 13:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete "online radio program" at a college campus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the program mentioned in a Wavy TV Ten news report concerning student activities on CNU's campus. (Wavy TV Ten is the local news channel). -Stingray23464
Delete -- nn. Fails WP:ORG. -- Longhair\^talk 11:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage from third-party independent sources has been shown. -- Stingray23464

No, it really has not... I have yet to see any evidence of that provided. You added a link to Wavy TV 10... where is this mentioned there? Where is the non-trivial coverage?--Isotope23 13:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wavy TV Ten covered activities on campus surrounding the addition of Sexual Orientation to the University's non-discrimination policy. If you're aware of the political leanings of CNU's administration then I'm sure you know that this was a big debate and hot political topic. As such, Wavy TV ten came out to cover the activities. In the process, they interviewed many students and showcased Sex Panther Radio. The radio show was in strong support for the addition on the policy and created some controversy over the topic. -- Stingray23464

In response to the deletion tag, another user has updated the article in question to include the Warped Tour website and information. From what I can gather, Warped tour granted the DJs access to bands normally restricted to the press and FM radio stations. If the Vans company isn't an ouside independent source then please clarify what your looking for further. -- Stingray23464

Ok, but where is the citation that supports your Wavy TV statement? If this was a whole segment on the radio show, that would be a start towards meeting the multiple, non-trivial, 3rd party coverage that an article should have, but there needs to be a source. As for the Warped Tour info, granting the DJ's access to bands doesn't make any real case for inclusion. Please see WP:ATT; this explains the attribution necessary. Ideally, articles should have multiple, non-trivial coverage from 3rd party sources. A couple magazine writeup, news stories specifically about the subject in the article, etc.--Isotope23 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me do some research into it. Because I'm not associated with the program, all the information in the article is based off of web searches and common knowledge on campus, as well as a few updates that were not done by me. Is there a timeframe for deleation? --Stingray23464

The debate usually runs about 5 days (sometimes it goes over because nobody gets around to closing the debate right when it ends).--Isotope23 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[b]Delete. This article has no place on this wiki. Plus, the show sucks. Serious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.247.124 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:22Z

Full-frame digital SLR[edit]

Article is a neologism - the term full frame digital SLR is derived from marketing and subject to many competing definitions, and not able to be attributed in reliable academic literature Hmette 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sounds like it should be a disambiguation page, then? Seems like a potential search term that should be pointed somewhere useful; if it's a badly-defined term that shows up in marketing literature, people would probably search for it on the internet trying to figure out exactly what it means. cab 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I recently did a lot of work on it, replacing speculative and nonstandard meanings with the ones supported by reliable sources. The main meaning and the related variants are covered, each supported by two good book references. If you had proposed deletion a few weeks ago I would have understood. By why now? And as neologisms go, this is a pretty old one, if you leave out the word 'digital'. Should we retitle and re-arrange it accordingly? I see part of the problem may be your concept that you had put into the article earlier that "The term is the subject of considerable debate and not capable of conclusive definition." I don't see it this way at all; I didn't find books that talked about debate, and there didn't seem to be any uncertainty of definition. The fact that some DSLR users have wanted to apply the term to their cameras, extending the definition, should not be relevant here unless we find a reliable source about that. Dicklyon 03:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I did propose deletion some weeks ago, after attempting to find reliable definitions. The definitions found were principally actually linking to wiki itself. The comments in reply were essentially that "wiki is a neologism". I don't see it that way. The references appear to be recent "how to" books on photography, not really reliable secondary sources. The are articles that use the term, not about the term. So far I haven't seen any reliable secondary source material. The problem isn't that its a term that is used within the photographic community - that isn't enough to justify its inclusion in wikipedia, the problem is that it isn't used or defined consistently, and that definitions are not in reliable secondary sources, as required by wiki's policies.--Hmette 05:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an issue. But so many books use the term full-frame in this sense, in a way that implies an accepted definition, that it seems to be a notable topic. As you've noticed, the wikipedia/google cycle makes it very hard to find good sources on web pages by googling; that's why I mostly use google book search to look for reliable sources. Now that we have an article on image sensor format, however, maybe it would be better to move much of the content there, and to make a full frame (disambiguation) page to dispatch to there or to the film format or the CCD article as appropriate. Sounds like a next proposal to try out after we survive the AfD. Dicklyon 06:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To be quite blunt, I don't really see a problem with the article as it stands now. As far as neologism goes, even I have heard and used the term and I'm just a hobbyist. Seed 2.0 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current version seems reasonably well sourced and NPOV. Well sourced notable neologisims are perfectly appropriate. DES ^(talk) 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term has been used ever since the cameras were first built, to distinguish these very expensive cameras from the ordinary digital SLRs. I seem to have heard there are now additional brands and models not listed in the article. DGG 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Term is in common use. Article seems fine. Fg2 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Almost half a million Google hits; If this is a neologism then so are >90% of the other technical terms on which we currently have articles. Andrewa 09:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only 24,600 google hits for the rather too specific title, but that's not how things are decided. Personally, I'm leaning toward the disambig idea that I mentioned above; what do you think? Dicklyon 15:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:23Z

Nash Timbers[edit]

Flooring company. Wikipedia not a business directory. Does not meet WP:CORP. The "Greenpeace article" listed in the links contains one one-sentence quote from David Nash in a long article about other stuff; the other links are of no use. Herostratus 01:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I as an architect created this page after a recent presentation from Nash Timbers (Continuing Professional Education - Accredited) to our architectural firm (Woods Bagot) on the correct use of timber products and the current Australian standards in the industry. I and many of my fellow colleagues were impressed by the information that the company put forward in a non biased or self promoting manner. After the presentation i was interested in doing a little background research on the company yet there was little available, I understand that Nash Timbers does presentations such as these on a daily basis to other industry figures (architects, interior designers, engineers and builders). For this reason i felt that it may be useful for others if they could easily access information on the company in the form of a wikipedia site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onethreesix (talk • contribs) 02:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I can understand that, but it's not really a compelling reason to keep the article. See WP:USEFUL. As noted in the nomination, Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a business directory. Mwelch 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 02:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Agree with nom - Aagtbdfoua 03:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:CORP. Mwelch 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above and a possible WP:COI issue as well as he asserted permission from the owner to use the logo. --Mattinbgn/^talk 06:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:CORP and WP:COI and believe the article does not belong on wikipedia until correctly sourced, so I will not dispute the deletion of this page, though I still believe fellow industry figures may find this article of some use. Onethreesix
Revise I also believe this article is useful as it relates to my recent article about recycling timber, though I do feel it could be better sourced. Bandwagonman
Weak delete unless some quantitative sourced information is added about market share to show that the company is notable as a major supplier.DGG 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above, not really notable enough yet. Lankiveil 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of minor Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide characters. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:24Z

The Killer Bees (Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide characters)[edit]

Non-notable, only appeared in one episode. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 01:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there is no list of minor characters, otherwise merge per WP:FICT. Otto4711 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Humourous. Non-notable, as stated above. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — I found the minor characters list (List of minor Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide characters), so that would probably be the best spot for the article. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above. - Peregrine Fisher 15:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:25Z

Nate Ramin[edit]

Subject fails WP:BIO. Looks very much like a vanity article. --Infrangible 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Usually I don't like sourcing a Google search[5], but when I searched for the title of the book "Loyola University Chicago IL 2007 (Off the Record)" I got twenty returns, 17 of them looked like they were selling it and two were reviews at sites I'd never heard of (the last was Answers.com). Writing a book is something not everyone has done, but it isn't notable unless it gets some notice from other authors or known reviewers. Anynobody 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Anynobody. That this book actually exists appears to be the extent of Mr. Ramin's claims to notability. Mwelch 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are 500+ results when you search for "loyala.university.chicago.off.the.record" which judging by the cover is a more correct title, but it's still just a NN college selection guide, part of the College Prowler series. I don't think the individual titles are notable, much less the individual annual editions or their (co-)authors. --Dhartung | Talk 12:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Corndogs are pretty damn good though. --Bongwarrior 04:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 am persuaded by the fact that no sources have been found over the course of much time and two (now three) AfDs. Ravenswing's final comment is particularly telling. -Splash - tk 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Voice (3rd nomination)[edit]

Non-notable website. Pablothegreat85 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The size of the article makes it a bit more than a stub. I'd consider changing my vote if the article can be expanded in a meaningful way or improved. Anynobody 01:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasoning of previous nominations: namely the notability of contributors to the website, high alexia rank and a whopping 2.1 million gHits as of last check (previous AfD) If they were that notable then, then even if they aren't AS notable today, they clearly have a claim to strong notability. Issues of article size and quality are best solved via the talk page and research, not (multiple) AfD nominations. Wintermut3 06:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I abstain from vote this matter.Wen Hsing 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (IMHO this is a borderline speedy but I won't vote as such due to the existance of previous AfDs) It's has plenty of time to find reliable sources, but it's still completely 100% unreferenced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether Alexa rankings and Ghits alone satisfy WP:N I will not debate, but as pointed out above peristently fails to be referenced and does not satisfy WP:ATT. If it really is that notable then sourcing should be easy - that it's gone so long without tells me there is no reason to keep. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's been eight months since the most recent nomination. In all that time, it hasn't progressed beyond the unsourced stub that existed back then, and has had all of about three meaningful edits. Arkyan's reasoning is sound, and frankly, I'm unimpressed with the argument in previous AfDs that dissident publications have a hard time finding sources which satisfy WP:ATT. Notable ones manage just fine. Ravenswing 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the notability of the contributors. What makes magazine important is what it contains. DGG 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notariety of contributors is not relevant to our notability policy. Dissident Voice is not reviewed, discussed, critiqued, etc. by reputable sources, and as such, doesn't satisfy WP:Notability. MortonDevonshire Yo · 02:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirements. - Denny ^(talk) 02:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user User:DGGRaveenS 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Has anyone tried researching this subject on Lexis Nexis or any other sort of news aggregator? The list of contributors does more than just suggest notability, so I'm a bit surprised that the referencing of this article hasn't improved given the two prior noms. RFerreira 08:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are only 13 hits on Google News [6], and not a single one is even about an article attached to Dissident Voice; they all reference "Soandso is co-editor of Dissident Voice" or "Soandso's works have appeared in Mag A, Mag B, Dissident Voice, Website C ..." We could just apply Occam's Razor and draw the conclusion that the reason why the article hasn't established notability is that the website just doesn't happen to be particularly noteworthy. Ravenswing 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Splash - tk 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prison Break broadcasters[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of syndication or TV Guide. Check your local listings. The show is not notable for being syndicated and the broadcasters are not notable for syndicating the show. Otto4711 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Otto4711 and the fact that such information is subject to change. When/if it does we don't have anyone to monitor and change the information here in a reliable way. Anynobody 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As stated above, these are subject to change. Furthermore, with the conclusion of Prison Break's season last night, the likelihood of any of these changes is greatly increased during the break between seasons.
Merge to Prison Break. I have noticed such lists in other TV show articles. Thunderwing 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as effectively already transwikied-Wiktionary already has this definition for the term. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plethora[edit]

Definition of a non-notable archaic medical term. The article has already been speedy deleted three times in the last month. Alabamaboy 02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt, at least for a while, since the user insists on being a pain about it. In the lastest go 'round, the user recreated the page all of seven minutes after it was deleted. Mwelch 02:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep but stamp on silliness~~ Transwiki. As it stands, it's not much more than dictionary definition, but it could be expanded a little: the history of the term (see Cacochymy), role as a clinical sign (see Pemberton's sign), transfusion plethora, etc. One editor pissing about is reason to invoke misconduct procedures, not remove a topic. Tearlach 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, but on account that we're not a dictionary. Editorial silliness can be dealt with through administrative action. --Dennisthe2 03:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to supplement - the archaic medical term is, suffice it to say, archaic, but that it's a dicdef alone is a killer for this one. Even current usage ("a plethora" being "a whole lot" something) I can't really see as being much more than a dicdef. --Dennisthe2 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you know what a plethora is?" Apparently I don't, jefe, I was only aware of the modern usage. Nevertheless, it's still just a dicdef and at most transwiki this entry. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also cool with going the transwiki route.--Alabamaboy 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it's a stub for a currently used medical term, which also has another archaic meaning (sure the reference was 'hidden' but u shld have checked, please pay more attention to content rather than editors) ⇒ bsnowball 10:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I, for one, am paying attention to content, and really don't care who created it. I prefer to hold no ventettas against any editors. =) Content currently says "dictionary definition", thus my !vote - which stands as is, unless we can actually make it into something more than a dictionary definition. --Dennisthe2 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, unless someone can make this a proper encyclopedic article.--JyriL ^talk 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Bryant 09:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STS-TURNPRESS Werkzeugmaschinen & Pressen Handels GmbH[edit]

Delete - Subject fails WP:CORP. Article deleted in de-wiki. ~ kintup 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per copyright infringement of this website. --KZ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 09:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tagged it for speedy deletion. --KZ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 09:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 at author's request. DES ^(talk) 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Countess[edit]

Non-notable "authoress of the night" or somesuch. Vanity. Mentions being published in many "zines", so I'm not sure if it qualifies for A7 or not. Action Jackson IV 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Delete. Three links are on Myspace, one link is a publications link on Lulu. I'm not pulling an A7 out because the article asserts notability, but...well, doesn't really have any notability. --Dennisthe2 03:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real person who is a real writer....and playwright artist who deserves mention. Just because she is not in the traditional mainstream view of what society deems worthy does not make her unworthy. I am a fan, and follow her real teachings...and read her writings. Being on my space should not be a stumbling block to be noted. -Nocturna Rose Nocturna Rose 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — Nocturna Rose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
- Unfortunately, "a real person" does not mean that this person falls in the criteria of Wikipedia. It's also not a question of whether she deserves it, it's more a question of whether she qualifies for it. So far, there are no reliable sources containing verifiable information about her notability. If you (or someone else) can change my mind, go for it, please. --Dennisthe2 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Countess is a very noble, honest and trustworthy individual and should be deemed accecptable for Wikipedia. All her history stated is true and there are many that can substantiate all her writings and experiences in a court of law, if necessary. I know her personally and I can vouch for all that she has stated. -Rexxx Black User:RexxxBlack/RexxxBlack 12:00, 4, April 2007
- Comment - this is odd, but the above comment was added by anon 57.69.22.246, not the above listed user. In fact, AFAIK, there is no user with the above name. I guess you forgot to log in or something. --Haemo 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hate to say it Rexxx, but along with a real person above, even "a very noble, honest and trustworthy individual" still has to fall in the above guidelines I gave for Nocturna Rose, above. With all due modesty, people say the same about me, but the only page I have is my user space - which is fine with me. =^^= --Dennisthe2 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the above arguments are very nice and all, but they have absolutely nothing to do with standards under WP:NOTE. I can't find any mention of this person on any of the references provided, nor do the links appear in any way reliable. I also can't track down any online sources that meet WP:NOTE, possibly due to her name. I'm afraid this article does not meet WP:NOTE. --Haemo 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have The Black Countess's Publishers add information to show notability.

Nocturna Rose Nocturna Rose 04:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §[reply]

- If it works, great. Please see the above, and please also remember that Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle, either. Fair warning - if it comes out spammy, it'll get removed. --Dennisthe2 14:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure she's a great psychic or whatever, but the page is a bit too flowery to be taken seriously. Notablilty is a big problem, possibly because there is none. --Bongwarrior 08:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dylyte this excrescence for want of notability. Pop Secret 08:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless proof of notability is provided beyond a couple of fans assuring us she is. In any case, the article needs a serious cleanup, but probably isn't worth the trouble. J Milburn 10:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spooky delete no reliable sources, no notability besides "zine"-type stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources on the subject. Should she attain such and an encyclopedic article later be possible then she can come back but for now it's time for this article to vanish into the night. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bury by a crossroads at midnight: Fails WP:ATT near to completely, fails WP:BIO by a leap and bound. For my own part, I'm getting a bit tired of seeing articles crop up based on someone's alleged secret identity, and wish that pseudonymic personas divorced from real life people were prima facie Speedy candidates. RGTraynor 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, please, be nice, RG. --Dennisthe2 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass notability requirements. - Denny 17:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by the Countess to ask you to remove her from this online source of information; she told me does not wish to have such recognition here, in this place, and now. Thank You for your consideration...and I am sorry to her for trying to add her...even though I feel she should be...maybe some day when the world is ready to here the truth about the non mundane. Thank You.

Nocturna Rose 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Don't worry about it, you didn't know. =^^= Easy mistake to make. For what it's worth, you can also edit the article and place the ((db-author)) tag on the page. I'll go ahead and do this with an explanation. --Dennisthe2 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One very SERIOUS question however...please. How did you validate the Aset Ka? Please respond...Thank You. Nocturna Rose 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 09:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Brown[edit]

~~not notable.--TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn-per conversation with editor. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Brown is a first class cricketer and therefore IS notable under Wikipedia's own selection criteria. This entry is clearly referenced to Cricinfo and Cricket Archive which shows his first class career. The number of games he played is not relevent. The fact is that he is a first class cricketer for Yorkshire County Cricket Club and therefore should be included. I suggest you check as WP:BIO says "competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are by definition considered sufficiently notable for an article. Nick mallory 03:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory[reply]

However, many articles you've created are on people from the 18 and 1900's. That part is probably meant for people that played under 50 years ago, or who are really notable (ex. Babe Ruth). In other words: is anyone likely to search for some guy from the 1800's. And if they do, is a 3 sentence article going to help? --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for withdrawing your request to have this, and many similar articles on first class cricketers, deleted. These 'guys' may not be important cricketers like Babe Ruth but they nevertheless fulfill the criteria Wikipedia lays down for inclusion. This is an encyclopedia - which means the obscure guys get a mention as well as all the really famous ones. Even if someone played in the fast distant past of the '1900s' they still existed, they still matter, they should be here. As for the pieces sometimes being only three sentences long, well that's about all the information that exists on them. This is their only memorial. Scant though their facts may be, do you really want to deny them their due here? There are links to further details of all their matches via Cricket Archive on the page for those who want to find out more. Super talking to you today. Let's go Yankees! Nick mallory 05:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly this debate does not delete the article, but its eventual disposition is somewhat unclear. I observe that Lankivieil seems unsure that the article should in fact be deleted; the comment sounds more like a redirect/merge to me. -Splash - tk 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Rice Administration Wing[edit]

Buidling was previously included in Aquinas College Perth Infrastructure which when submitted to AfD the result was merge to Aquinas College, Perth. Ga rr ie 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 03:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above.Ga rr ie 03:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heritage listed building with notable history. Too much information to merge. Rimmeraj 03:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just so you are aware. The building is already covered in the main article - which includes the same photo, the date it was built, and the fact it is heritage listed. It uses the same references which are included here. The main article has the benefit of not having to spell out where the building is - we can assume it's at Aquinas College, Perth because that's the article it's discussed at.Garrie 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment so why is it up for deletion, instead of changing it to redirecting that article? Also, I feel that this article should stand on its own, and the one you mention should link to this one so that the building can be linked by other articles such as Architecture etc. I still say keep. Remove the detailed information from the main article if required. Rimmeraj 05:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being heritage listed, makes it notable, verifiable, and Attributable. Gnan garra 13:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons above. While probably notable enough, I believe that the material would be better collected under Aquinas College, Perth. Lankiveil 12:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Heritage listed building.--ZayZayEM 06:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Lankiveil and Garrie. Orderinchaos 17:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then Redirect Does being heritage listed make it notable or significant? If it is a significant building, I would have expected significantly more information about the facility to ascertain it's value and importance. At best this article is a stub and the majority of the information is already contained within the main relevant article. That information is not within the main article can easily be added cleanly without taking up too much space and would not interrupt the flow of the article (in a section named key buildings or facilities). I'm not suprised to see another Aquinas related article at an XfD again. While the efforts of the editors documenting Aquinas must be applauded, regrettably those parties have been the cause of heated debate and discussion as they have just been indiscriminately flooding WP with excess pages, categories, tables, lists, et al. thewinchester 17:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment current article content insufficiency is not a reason for deletion.　Articles should be kept/deleted on potential for expansion. The current article is beyond a stub and self-sufficient.--ZayZayEM 02:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as previously agreed. DaveApter 09:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:29Z

M.A.Carrano[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)).

Being conscious (talk · contribs) has basically created a walled-garden of vanity articles several times and keeps removing the proposed deletion notices. I'm bringing it here. I believe that the material is not sufficiently notable or verifiable to have an article. This article has been speedy-deleted twice, but it does contain an assertion of notability. Wafulz 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other flowers in the garden are: Being Conscious: The Elements of Imperativism and Imperativism. They are currently redirects but need to be deleted if the decision here is delete. -- RHaworth 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: 76.202.83.4 (talk · contribs) has made several "save" comments, which I have struck. --Wafulz 02:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save. This guy is for real and has some very very good points.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.108.178 (talk • contribs)
Delete. -- RHaworth 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire network of M.A Carrano articles are obviously someone's joke. -- Endlessmike 888 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Save~~ This argument commits the logical fallacy of The Argument To Intimidation. Dismissing the contents as a joke without proof does not constitute an argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.83.4 (talk • contribs)
Delete, and it's not a very funny joke, either. NawlinWiki 04:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom. --Haemo 09:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All and salt. The user seems determined to keep the joke going, removing prod templates several times with no changes or justifications. Hatch68 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the garden and salt liberally, author seems intent on replanting as soon as it's been uprooted. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save These are reputable arguments, and should not be cut down on the basis of a few naysayers in governmental intel agencies scrambling to dismantle parts of Wikipedia it finds questionable. This is about censorship. Please SAVE these valuable articles! The Chisel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chizzuck9 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Save I've been to a lecture of his. I own a book of his. I went to the same college as he did. Carrano is for real.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.152.190 (talk • contribs)
Save Let it be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.113.141.156 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all per nom. feydey 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save I say save. The fact that this guy is obscure doesn't make his philosophy any less valid or his insights any less relevent. And if wikipedia has the opportunity to know something first, then like a News Paper it should jump on the idea. And who knows? Maybe he will be massively important, in which case Wikipedia would've blown their chance to be there first. Save all the way. I liked this article. -Mark Holtz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.61.133 (talk • contribs)
- The validity isn't in question. His notability and the independent verifiability is. Wikipedia should never be the first to report something. --Wafulz 05:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable. ... discospinster _talk 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save If outside veribility is an issue, then this discussion is closed: included in the article are outside links to Yahoo interviews, personal web pages - even dictionaries that feature definitions of Imperativism. Otherwise, if notability is an issue, then this issue is still closed. Because if it's not, then you might as well erase all of Wikipedia since the purpose of site is to make its articles publically noticed, hence noted, hence notable. Otherwise, then information publishers such as Wikipedia adopt the contradictory attitude of refusing to publish anything which has not been published. This is obviously absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.83.4 (talk • contribs)

Comment. 1. M.A. Carrano is not the "intellectual architect behind imperativism"; the term can be found in texts that were written before he was born (relating to ethics). The definition presented in the article is not even clear of the role of the term itself. What's imperative? 2. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make the subjects of its articles notable - that is exactly what Wikipedia is not. If this guy wants to make a name for himself in philosophy, he needs to do it the old-fashioned way: get a Ph.D., get tenure, and write a whole lot of articles. Q.E.D. ... discospinster _talk 22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Save~~ Disco's argument commits two logical fallacies: 1. The Strawman Fallacy: Disco distorted "intellectual architect BEHIND Imperativism" into "inventor OF the word Imperativism." This is obviously not the case. In precisely the same way that Relativism existed as a term before Einstein developed it into a formal theory - which he is now heralded as the architect of, Imperativism existed as a term before M.A.Carrano formalized it into a new philosophy. 2: Argumentum Ad Logicam: Attempting to discredit the education of an "autodidact" does not refute the validity of his claims in precisely the same way that the syllogism, "1. All philosophers have Ph.Ds, 2. Socrates, Plato & Aristotle did not have Ph.D's. 3. Therefor, they were not philosophers." proves that Socrates, Plato & Aristotle - not to mention dozens more such as Soren Kierkegaard or Ken Wilber - weren't philosophers. Also as evidence in that Albert Einstein did not have a degree - only a teaching diploma, the validity of statements exist independent of institutional acknowledgment. Was Ramanujan not the greatest mathematician who ever lived even though he failed out of college?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.83.4 (talk • contribs)

No duplicate !votes please. There are no independent independent sources about the subject. Stop trying to fabricate arguments in an unrelated manner. --Wafulz 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Save~~ Wafulz' arguments are not only logically irrelevent, but also fallacious. Wafulz commits a reductio ad absurdum when he says, "Stop trying to fabricate arguments in an unrelated manner." In conjunction to Wikipedia's decree, "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments." In otherwords, "In order to partcipate, stop participating." It's interesting to note what Wafulz calls unrelated: while conjectures against the article are acceptable, rebutals that refute the logic of the critical conjectures need to be conveniently overlooked. The name of the fallacy Wafulz comitted is Slothful Induction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.83.4 (talk • contribs)

Stop pretending to be multiple users
The article clearly doesn't meet verifiability policy or notability guidelines. You can go on and on about fallacies and arguments ad _______, but if those two aren't met, then there's no point. Concepts learned in Philosophy 101 don't matter if the relevant policies and guidelines aren't met. --Wafulz 02:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Save~~ 1. It's impossible to pretend to be multiple users since all IP addresses are recorded on Wikipedia by Wikipedia.

~~Save~~ 2. It doesn't matter how many times I come back to see his article since Wikipedia says this isn't a vote based on the majority but by quality of argument posed.

3. Who mentioned anything about philosophy 101 to a guy who's published a book on the subject? That's completely irrelevant. 4. The guy meets Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines under ** The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.**, in this case the guy originated a new philosophy, and the guy meets the verification guidelines by including links in the site to outside sources of verification. So not only have the policies been met, but the old arguments are just as spurious. So bro, it's not your fault. If anything blame wikipedia for having ambiguous policies that allowed a relatively unknown to earn mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.83.4 (talk • contribs)

The "quality of the argument" doesn't matter if you don't present multiple independent non-trivial sources. In other words, you would require multiple articles from reliable independent sources with editorial oversight with the Carrano as the primary subject. Starting every comment with "save" and not signing your posts creates the illusion that multiple people hold the same view. Use four tildes to sign your posts. --Wafulz 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:30Z

Guo Jingming[edit]

is this person really notable enough? Gut feeling is no, but I want to see what folks think. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know why you do not put messages like this in Chinese wikipedia if you really think this person is not important. SISLEY 09:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the china.com.cn article cited certainly demonstrates notability: "Guo Jingming ranks the 93rd on Forbes' list of Chinese celebrities in 2004. He is arguably the most famous young commercial writer in China." -- BPMullins | Talk 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that 5 year old Baylee is notable. NawlinWiki 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baylee Thomas Wylee Littrell[edit]

relatives of famous people are usually not notable, unless royalty or involved in a larger story Chris 03:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a non-notable biography. Stardust8212 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as well. Fails WP:BIO. on camera^(t) 07:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Wizardman 02:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor Creek Middle School[edit]

no assertion of notability, middle schools are not inherently notable Chris 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, nothing more than a directory. TJ Spyke 05:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Some of the other articles listed under Lewisville Independent School District are looking more like ads/notice boards, including a list sport results for lots of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATT and WP:NN, and unlikely given the usual standard for middle school articles ever to improve. Ravenswing 17:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district Lewisville Independent School District or Delete per nom. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I should also add Huffines Middle School to this nom. Chris 06:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need, just merge it in and leave a redirect. Vegaswikian 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Baristarim 06:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no attempt to assert notability, nor third-party sources. Rjgodoy 12:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion A7, no assertion of notability. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FTC Publications[edit]

listcruft, no assertion of notability, subjects not even hyperlinked Chris 03:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no concrete assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 09:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Later finds appear compelling. -Splash - tk 15:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Pingwa[edit]

Insufficient assertion of notability, as the only thing that appears to do so is a link to an award that he won that, however, does not have its own notability shown. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure why you are doing this, you can translate the information in Chinese wikipedia instead of trying to delete all the articles about some Chinese people. SISLEY 09:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article fails WP:ATT, WP:NN, is just about the shortest possible stub, hasn't been touched in months, and interestingly enough, the only Google hits for the so-called "Hongloumeng Prize" that is the subject's sole claim to notability are this article and the (Chinese language) web page linked within it. More damning, while the Google translation claims that this prize was awarded in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Google has no more hits than the English one. I'm not sure myself upon what grounds SISLEY is objecting, because nom's reasoning is perfectly clear, and seemingly justified. RGTraynor 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RGTraynor, I'm puzzled why you didn't just search jin pingwa hong kong into good ol' American Google to find Jia's award from Hong Kong Baptist University, or this and this page, which show scholarly articles were written on Jia's work. hateless 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- and one more link: this book is a whole book, 318 pages full, dedicated to his writings. In English, no less. hateless 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I have just added: A rating as the 3rd most popular Kung fu writer in China, the reference for the award mentioned above, the book mentioned above from Routledge, a reputable academic press--and its long review in a scholarly periodical, an article in China Daily, and two English language articles from journals--all from the first 20 ghits of the ,12,800 for "jia pingwa" I cannot imagine why the Chinese sources have less. I cannot imagine why this was nominated without checking at least the English google. There seems to be considerable biographic material available even in English. The thing to do when one sees a stub is to try to expand it. DGG 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iberians seems most useful. Baristarim, that's a very vague recommendation to make! -Splash - tk 15:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iberian People[edit]

article says basically nothing, the term is actually used to refer to the original Roman-era peoples of the peninsula, basically this article is an excuse to have an oversized template Chris 04:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly redirect to Iberia or Iberians. Or maybe make a disambig. It is a plausible search term, and it is in some real world use, so I don't think deletion is much of a solution. FrozenPurpleCube 05:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the content but then redirect to Iberians as mentioned above, as it is a plausible search term. As it stands however it has no sources and virtually no content. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Arkyan. Carlossuarez46 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Iberian or Basque people. Bearian 23:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be improved rather than deleted.Biophys 02:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge, redirect etc. The article has no sources and is very ambigious.. Baristarim 04:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but clearly urgent work is required. -Splash - tk 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Li Dawei[edit]

No real assertion of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. from the article, does sound a bit notable, but i must say, there are billions of chinese, if every notable chinese person were given a page, well, it would engulf Wikipedia. Perhaps more stringent notability requirements are necessary for chinese people? Not being racist, just to keep the number manageable.Jörg Vogt 07:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I may misunderstanding, my reading of your proposal appear to be racism - separate rule for Chinese is unfair, we Chinamen are humanity also.Wen Hsing 08:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The existing notability criteria (multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources) are emphatically fine; Wikipedia is not paper. The existence of this article doesn't interfere with the creation of articles about other notable authors in your country. cab 08:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - When the Malthusian nightmare that worries Jörg Vogt befalls us (though unlikely in immediate future), we will see more open platforms. When there're obelisks, only the kings' deeds were considered worth being noted, and then after Gutenberg, many mortals found their names recorded. Now we're in the age of Internet. Raptor2008
Keep Added sources. Seems at least weakly notable; his latest book 卡通猫的美国梦 got reviewed by a major Chinese newspaper (南方都市報, dunno what they call it in English) [7], and he himself was written about as well as a Chinese magazine in Germany.[8] Incidentally [9] claims he won the 2000 prize from October (a decently-reputable literary magazine in China), but I'm still trying to verify this. cab 08:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 08:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's more notable than other people you have in wikipedia.SISLEY 09:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The closing administrator may choose to disregard your vote unless you provide a more convincing reason to keep the article. Cheers, cab 10:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it is a BIG reason to keep the article, you guys can see what Nlu is doing again the articles about Chinese people which are not in Chinese wikipedia without considering what it's in this one or other wikipedias, because this article is also in French, German and Spanish. This article contains details of Li Dawei's life and his works, it has references, etc,etc. SISLEY 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The German, French, and Spanish versions of the article do not provide any additional information that would show notability, either. --Nlu (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several major books, several reviews of his work. There's no problem finding reasons to keep. There is probably considerably more to be found, as is the case of some similar AfDs today.DGG 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:31Z

Hailey Bright[edit]

Not-notable actress. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Prod was removed with comment: This page is viable to the the palo alto movie page- see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0834939/. Also see wikipedia page- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto_The_Movie. Chunky Rice 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator. Seems like a nice young woman, but there's no real notability here. There are a couple single purpose accounts that have created this article and peppered links around various other pages listing her as a notable member of various locations/organizations.Chunky Rice 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.She is a more recent actress to the scene, but she is doing well on the indie film market and is a notable up-and-coming celebrity. Lets keep her page- and it is viable to the Palo Alto page as well- this way users can link from Palo Alto to this actress and find out factual data on her.User:Frovdivad — Frovdivad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - WP:CRYSTAL --Action Jackson IV 09:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable actress. Does appear to meet WP:BIO. This page is viable to the the palo alto movie page- see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0834939/. Also see wikipedia page- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto_The_Movie. US190 April 2007 (UTC) — Us190 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. No notability as of yet. If she manages to "break it big", the article can be re-created at that point in time. --Action Jackson IV 09:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. I'm a Knoxville resident, and she's gotten no local press here that I've ever seen - Google search backs that up. TheRealFennShysa 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not remotely notable. Her alleged "starring" role (in what is, in fact, an as-yet-unreleased indie movie) isn't supported by said film's own article, which doesn't list her among the top several cast members, and her only other two credits are as "Teenage Girl" in one movie and as a minor cast member in another indie movie. Heck, my brother-in-law has a much better resume than that (he's been an extra in Hollywood for several years) and doesn't have an article. Getting this lass onto Wikipedia is, so far, the sole activity of the article's creator, who has inserted her into several other articles. RGTraynor 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non notable and fails WP:BIO. I am also concerned about an anon removing comments here [10] Thunderwing 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:32Z

Chen Ran[edit]

No assertion of notability other than the list of works -- and the notability of the works themselves was not asserted, and it's not even clear what her genre is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are lots of works in the article, and you have articles with less information. SISLEY 09:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, author and her works are non-trivially covered in multiple journal articles such as [11][12][13][14]. cab 09:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 09:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cab. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:33Z

Danball[edit]

WP:MADEUP Bedders 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear WP:NFT case, as admitted right in the article! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. JuJube 12:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a lot of fun, but sounds not notable and still falls into WP:NFT. Also reminds me of something I used to play called "Cruciball" - a wad of paper was batted around with a copy of The Crucible while everyone stands in a circle. --Dennisthe2 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like some guy and his friends slapped this together. DCUnitedFan2011 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Maxamegalon2000 05:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:39Z

Zong Pu[edit]

This person may or may not be notable, but the article doesn't show it and provides no information to allow further research. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep interwikied; Chinese version (zh:宗璞) seems to demonstrate notability (multiple sources). cab 09:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a little stub, but there is a lot of information about this person in Chinese wikipedia.SISLEY 09:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is additional material even in English to insert. There are 1730 ghits, most of them real. I have added some articles and other references. A totally inexplicable nomination. I do not understand not even looking at the first page of Google results!DGG 00:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment, it has been sourced.. Baristarim 04:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's actually a very well-known Chinese author, and extremely important to the Chinese literary scene. Just hope other people will have to add more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.131.31 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:39Z

Shawn Patterson[edit]

Article formatted like a resume, and questionable notability. I figure if he is important, someone will recreate the article. It likely needs a complete rewrite to begin with. Guroadrunner 05:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete it actually is the cut and paste of his resume from his website which is listed at the bottom.
Speedy delete per nom.RaveenS 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Seems there wasn't much new to add, so what we have here is a work by a notable author which may or may not itself be notable. I'm willing to buy the argument that non-online sources can be found; if that doesn't happen over the course of a few months, then the matter can be revisited. A merge is also a possible solution, but that could be discussed on the article's talk page. Shimeru 01:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Captain Jack[edit]

Unsourced furry comic book stub that doesn't assert notability. The tone of the article is none too encyclopedic either. Delete, per WP:ATT and WP:N-K@ngi e ^meep! 00:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the assumption that anything published by Fantagraphics is pretty notable. Artw 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of sources trumps any 'inherent notability'-K@ngie^meep! 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Published by a reputable, widely distributed publisher makes the book itself a reliable source, when simply describing the contents of the book. Makes it difficult to write a decent article though because you can't make interpretive claims without additional sources like reviews. --W.marsh 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yet the article still lacks the multiple reliable sources required to be considered notable-K@ngie^meep! 02:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added a reference to a Furry cronology printed in 1996 describing Captain jack as a "particularly influential furry comic". Artw 10:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable secondary sources are added asserting notability. WP:BK says nothing about the notability of the publisher conferring automatic notability onto its books. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an individual book, it's a comic book series, one that was published by a major publisher and has since been collected in two trades, that to me says 'notable'.

I Am Not A Furry so I don't really know the best place to find the best references, but googling comes up with sufficient hits that, considering this was first published in the pre- and proto-web days, it must have been some kind of a big deal to somebody. With sufficient research it could probably be improved with a whole slew of references, so possibly keeping it and adding the appropriate templates would be a better course than deleting it?

Failing that merging and redirecting to Mike Kazaleh would be the best option. Artw 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the reasons stated above, also because the author, Mike Kazaleh, has gone on to some notability as an animator, working for Bakshi, Kricfalusi...I'm tired of furry, too, but for me this qualifies as 'funny animal' Rhinoracer 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean that we should keep an article of unverified information from unreliable sources-K@ngie^meep! 21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I take it that you don;t consider the Furry chronology a solid reference? Artw 22:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's just a passing reference to the comic. It doesn't address the problem of the lack of multiple, non trivial sources. Still failing WP:RS, WP:ATT and some more WPs listed below-K@ngie^meep! 05:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I understand it multiple, non trivial sources is the ideal, not the baseline. Artw 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We can't just pull an article out of thin air - this thing is 90% unsourced, and the "sources" we have do not cut it (mostly being a trivial mention, such as "TAoCJ was an important comic", with no follow-up). How do we create an encyclopedic entry from that?-K@ngi e ^meep! 10:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes no assertion of WP:N and being published by a notable publisher does not confer notability - if it's worthy of an article then it should have some independent and verifiable claims of its own. Aticle is also devoid of reliable secondary sources per WP:ATT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more reliable sources are added, then I may reconsider. Realkyhick 01:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm looking for any criticism of Captain Jack (without a lot of success beyond simple expressions of affection; Kazaleh has a lot of love from fans, but his simple style can be hard to do in-depth critiques on, & what there is on Captain Jack is almost certainly old & heavily preWeb) & found this in an Amazon testimonial from 1999:

'Not since "The Adventures Of Captain Jack," by MIKE KAZALEH went out of print have I read such an entertaining book.'

High praise indeed, to be used as a comparison that way. Of course, it could be Mike or a friend just trying to hype his work, so I can't use that as a cite, but it struck me. Ventifax 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no such thing as "inherent notability" anywhere in policy. Article fails the attribution policy and doesn't prove notability with any reliable sources. NeoFreak 07:01, 3 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, Shimeru 05:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge into Mike Kazaleh might not be inappropriate, given the brevity of that article and the assumption that it is works like The Adventures of Captain Jack that give him the notability required for a personal article. This is not to suggest, however, that assumption is necessarily warranted, but deletion of Mike Kazaleh has not yet been proposed. Pop Secret 08:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having done a little research on this subject I came up with a lot of luinks for Kazaleh, all indicating he's pretty notable in his field. A deletion attempt on his article would be insane. Artw 10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Artw. Kalazeh would almost certainly survive an AfD, being the artist of Marvel's Ren and Stimpy comicbook series, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:BK and WP:ATT. --KZ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATT and WP:NOTE --Haemo
Keep — sources have been added, meets WP:ATT and WP:NOTE —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet notability (and WP:ATT) guidelines? We have a one line mention of it being "an important furry comic", and a catalogue list-K@ngie^meep! 10:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a great reference - you have to hunt around for it, and it's only one line, but it does show that Captain Jack is regarded as important by one of the leading experts on furry fandom (god I hate myself for knowing that now). Which pretty much confirms the information that googling has dug up in blogs, newgroups, the sites of comics vendors and other sources that don't make for good references. Given that this was published in 1986 finding the kind of online references to it that you'd get for it's modern day equivalent will alwyas be hard: I believe what is required is a subject matter expert to dig up refs in print form. Given that we've established that (1) it exists, and was indeed published by a major publisher,(2) it's still in print, (3) it's regarded as important by those that like that kind of thing I don't see the objection to it's continued existance in stub form, with the hope that such an expert will come along with the refs required for expansion. Artw 17:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fame and notability are different things. The lack of reliable information available about this comic seems to show that, despite being famous within the furry fandom, this isn't notable - and it really does look like this article won't go beyond a plot summary given what we have. Also, notability is not subjective-K@ngie^meep! 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The ref doesn't say famous, it says influential. As for the paucity of online references, see above for why I belive that it isn't a sign of anything other than that finding wikipedia-acceptable references for indie comics pre-the interweb is really fucking hard. That we find anything at all is indicative of a high degree of notability for a comic of it's type (or would you argue that an equivalent comic from the present day is more notable because it has N-dozen potential references?) Artw 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What you're suggesting here is that we keep this because it's harder to find sources for this? Notability isn't subjective, and thinking otherwise leads to unsourced articles such as this. If there aren't sufficient sources available to write an article, there shouldn't be an article, because otherwise it is gonna be unsourced, unverifiable OR, running afoul of several guidelines. And to your question, I'd say yes, because notability is determined by the amount of attention paid to a subject, and multiple reliable sources indicate that a subject is notable.-K@ngi e ^meep! 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not an unsourced article. This is an article that could do with better sources, and I would argue that he aboce should be taken into consideration when asessing the article. As for WP:OR, this article is nothing of the sort. You should maybe calm down a bit with your policy-cites, right now it looks like you're reaching for excuses to delete the article. Artw 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wah Yan College Cats[edit]

Previously deleted per CSD and later restored. There is little established notability to justify the existence of this article. It appears to be dominated heavily by content which has not been attributed properly - most likely original research, as the article history shows that it has only been edited by one registered editor. Additionally per notability guidelines for organizations, there appears to be insufficient secondary reliable sources out there to support this article. At most, I can see this article having a section in the Wah Yan College article, but not its own. Luke! 05:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some references, removed some redundant parts.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 06:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, also see a search on the organization's Chinese name (華仁愛貓組). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raphaelmak (talk • contribs) 06:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Lovely work, although it doesn't belong to Wikipedia.--K.C. Tang 07:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wah Yan College, Hong Kong - although it may not have gained enough notablility, however, per WP:NOTE and WP:MERGE: "One common recommendation across all notability guidelines is not to nominate articles on such subjects for deletion but to rename, refactor, or merge them into articles with broader scopes, or into the articles that discuss the main subject, which may be created if they do not already exist."; "If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." I think it is possible to merge it with an article of broader scope, in this case, Wah Yan College, Hong Kong.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 08:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Merge I figured it was just something made up in school one day, but it looks like they got themselves written about in Ming Pao? [15] Can someone with a subscription take a look at that? Thanks, cab 09:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 09:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the policy on secondary school organisations? I think I remember an article about some computer programming team at La Salle getting deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will this camp expand to be a large nonprofit shelter home? One of the links said the organization applied for "financial assistance from the Quality Education Fund (QEF)". At the moment the contents are quite personal, like the name of cats etc. This page is linked from Animal Cruelty. You sure you want this to represent animal shelters in Hong Kong?? Benjwong 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment deletion debates have nothing to do with whether people "want this to represent animal shelters in Hong Kong". Linking this from Cruelty to animals is a pretty clear example of undue weight, but the decision to keep or delete this article rests on the usual criteria WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. Though IMO this is a perfect example of something that's newsworthy but not encyclopedically notable, it should at least be given a mention (and the sources from this article attached) on the Wah Yan College page, given that it is the subject of articles in two mainstream HK newspapers (South China Morning Post and Ming Pao), which is more notice than most secondary school organisations usually attract. cab 23:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to me much encyclopedia-worthy content worth merging. Of course, we could decide to IAR from here on, and keep all well-written or clever articles in WP regardless of subject. It would simplify some of these discussions. DGG 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:40Z

Adult Porn Link Lists[edit]

Article was deleted through WP:PROD and restored upon request. Procedural nomination, I abstain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete this could apply to any industry or any type of list of links that are traded for some type of money or bartered service. Beakermeep 06:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, technically this exists and has unique qualities e.g. the type that reorders based on click-throughs, but sourcing will be next to impossible. Even this adult webmaster site defines it in two sentences. --Dhartung | Talk 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Plus, if kept around long enough, this will become a magnet for spam, with little-to-no encyclopedic value to offset that risk. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Restating what I wrote in my prod for this page: This article is essentially "Adult Porn Link Lists are lists of links to adult porn." And those lists are just a form of link exchanges. Propaniac 16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just made the blank link list a redirect to link exchange, and cleaned up the latter a bit. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and my changes were reverted, as link exchange appears to have an owner who doesn't think that they are at all the same thing.--Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer Propaniac; nothing really to distinguish it from link exchanges. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Propaniac. RedSpruce 10:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:41Z

Hsien Chang[edit]

Non-notable person whose claim to fame is being a participant in fighting game tournaments. Can't find reliable sources that cover this person; a Google search just comes up with tournament results and no articles about the person himself. To compare, a higher-profile participant in such tournaments, Daigo Umehara, was also deleted just a month ago for lacking sources as well. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: don't see any reliable sources among the few hundred ghits on "Hsien Chang" "street fighter" [16], just tournament listings and blogs (including some blogs belonging to newspapers; but still, they're just blogs, and not fact-checked as the real newspaper is) cab 09:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article seems to consist mostly of in-jokes and rambling. Daigo was in much better condition when he got deleted and that was still little more than tournament rankings. :( JuJube 12:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete unreferenced article about a "legendary" video game player. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 07:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense hoax, g10 attack page. NawlinWiki 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Goldsmith[edit]

Looks and smells like a hoax. The studio album is actually by Bernard Fanning and the image in the info box of the supposed artist dressed as a transformer does not convince. Mattinbgn/^talk 06:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough sources to make this evident. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That photo has been around the internet for ages, I highly doubt the 'transformer man' who happens to be posted all over 'funny picture' sites and other sites that love to make fun of people should happen to also be a performing artist. In all liklihood, given the fact that google hasn't heard of this guy (david goldsmith + musician gives one relevant gHit it would appear, a from meetup.com) and the picture is of dubious connection and authenticity, this is pure WP:BOLLOCKS Wintermut3 06:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nonsenical hoax, possibly an attack on someone of that name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Rowan High School[edit]

Not Notable - Mike Beckham 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel so? Small townships with population of 5 have Wikipedia articles with nothing more but demographics. Tgpuckett 02:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because for some reason, the policy is that all cities/towns/villages are notable. No such policy exists for schools (which is why I hate when people try and say that "all schools are notable" as their only reason for voting Keep). TJ Spyke 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 02:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It contains little informational content and only houses sections with little to no content. Has no encyclopaedic content. - Mike Beckham 06:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signs of notability. TJ Spyke 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. If every school of this size had an article like this then it would take up most of Wikipedia. ANHL 11:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a strange notion of digital content. — RJH (talk)
Delete Well I guess I agree, there's not much here. Tgpuckett 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)— Tgpuckett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable, as I argue here Noroton 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no consensus at Wikipedia that high schools are or are not notable, as evidenced by the fact that high school AfDs are closed as "keep", "delete" and "no consensus". This article should be deleted pursuant to WP:N and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep high schools are notable, yet this one has no specific notability. --Masterpedia 02:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I contend with all high school articles, though this one is borderline even for me. Realkyhick 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above, with the added remark that it would be helpful if the nominator would put more time and consideration into future nominations. Burntsauce 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — It's adequate but could be improved. — RJH (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Butseriouslyfolks points --Xarr 08:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. High schools are generally notable, provided they make an attempt at establishing notability. This one does a mediocre job of establishing notability, but I at least see enough of an attempt.--Wizardman 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my belief that all secondary schools are notable, article successfully meets all relevant content policies. Yamaguchi先生 03:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep schools are notable due to their influences on the hundreds of students that pass through them. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Alkivar. Schools are notable and this article can grow. bbx 09:41, 3 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, Shimeru 06:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep arguments are very weak here, but delete arguments aren't much better. I don't feel comfortable closing in this state, so am relisting to see whether notability and attribution can be addressed, as late comments indicate they can. Shimeru 06:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bbx and alkivar, how about basing you decisions on GUIDELINE and POLICY rather than your personal belief? Almost all of the keep votes consist soley of that BS opinion that all schools are notable. Their is no guideline or policy that says this, so I hope admins ignore people who only say that and don't actually state something to support them. The article fails WP:N, which is a policy and not just an opinion. TJ Spyke 07:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mere comment. I'm staying out of this one but I would like to point out that WP is built on consensus. WP is not a democracy but one of the very basics is that policy is not set in stone - please don't dismiss other's opinions (in this case, that schools should be exempt from WP:N or that they should by default always be notable unless proven otherwise) as a mere policy violation. -- Seed 2.0 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no consensus that all high schools are notable. It used to be that most were kept by default, but thankfully others users have started to crack down on this and realized that schools are not exempt and that they have to follow the guidelines and policies arleady established. TJ Spyke 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was even an consensus at one time that all middle schools were notable, and that one has thankfully be laid to rest, though there are a few dissidents. The rational part of the concept that all high school are notable is the assumption that if the subject was examined closely enough, then something notable would eventually be found and eventually documented. This may even be true of some schools--many large long-established schools might prove to have the minimum of two notable graduates if sufficient search were made. But a similar argument could be used about almost any subject. It could for example be made about apartment buildings, which might quite possibly turn out to have had at least two notable residents. Or hospitals. And hospitals also have an influence on the thousands of patients that pass through them. WP is apparently to not be a collection of indiscriminate information, except for [whatever your favorite subject may be]. DGG 01:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJSpyke and DGG Baristarim 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Varela[edit]

It's a blatant hoax, but I couldn't bring myself to A7 this. Definitely a candidate for BJAODN and TOW if ever there was one - I haven't seen a hoax article this well-written in quite some time. Action Jackson IV 06:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that this page should not be deleted as it is about a well known political figure in my area. Whilst he may not be known worldwide he is definately a popular person ehre and the oage should be left on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazybird12 (talk • contribs) — Crazybird12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as per nom. Crested Penguin 06:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 q:Tranwiki:Non-Islamic views of Muhammad. Done. Splash - tk 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Islamic views of Muhammad[edit]

Page is a quote farm. As per WP:NOT Mere collection of public domain information. Tigeroo 07:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete belongs on Wikiquote. on camera^(t) 07:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Consider it for transwiki to WQ. --KZ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 08:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote. So tagged. MER-C 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote- more appropiate there. Thunderwing 18:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, delete and transwiki. I note that this article includes some material moved from rhe separate article "Image of Muhammad in the West" when it was renamed as Christian view of Muhammad. That article has also failed to mature and I have suggested on the talk page it be renamed as "Medieval Christian view of Muhammad". Editors with an interest in this debate may wish to respond to that proposal too. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote.--JyriL ^talk 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote as above. --Matt57 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Matt57 22:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above comments Captain panda 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above --Webkami 16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of omnipotent fictional characters[edit]

Delete article that cannot live up to its own name. This list of characters with omnipotence or "something near" it cannot be maintained. Most of the characters listed are not omnipotent. Omnipotence means having "unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful". This does not apply to fictional characters. Even within the fictional context, it applies to almost none of the characters listed because most of them can be beaten by other characters and there are many, many things most of them cannot do. Recent attempts to clean up the article have failed because of subjective disputes over the issue of omnipotence. Inclusion of any character in the list usually invokes POV. As noted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Omnipotence, the list does not and cannot work. There can be no such thing as "something near" omnipotence any more than anyone can count to infinity minus eight. The title is wrong anyhow. It would have to be "fictional omnipotent beings" rather than "omnipotent fictional beings" because you can't really be omnipotent if you're fictional but you can be fictionally omnipotent. Doczilla 07:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added references for 15 of them. We are not here to judge what omnipotent means, just record who has been called omnipotent by reliable sources, including primary sources. Trying to decide who could beat who is pure OR. We're not here to judge the contradictions inherent in "something near" omnipotence, either. We don't need to think about whether the Beyonder can create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it. What needs to be done is lots of citations. I'm sure there's some comic where Superman or Lois says Mister Mxyzptlk is omnipotent. Citations are what this page needs, not deletion. A renaming may be in order, though. - Peregrine Fisher 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, calling them omnipotent is "pure OR" when there's no objective definition to evaluate them by. If by verification, you mean published sources that call them omnipotent, that's not good enough because the article title says they are omnipotent, and the sources frequently use the term incorrectly. Marvel Comics' online definition of omnipotent is not the dictionary definition of omnipotent. The fiction sources themselves (mostly comics in this case) show examples of where almost every one of those characters is not omnipotent. If someone has been shown to get beaten, the character is not omnipotent. It is not a matter of us debating who could beat whom. It's a matter of the fact that many of those characters have already been presented as defeatable. Doczilla 08:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only "pure OR" are comments like "if someone has been shown to get beaten, the character is not omnipotent." - Peregrine Fisher 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. "If someone has been shown to get beaten, the character is not omnipotent. [17]" --Action Jackson IV 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too subjective and unmanageable. I can think of many other examples of characters in science fiction that arguably have or obtain something like omnipotence - there are quite a few examples just in the work of Arthur C. Clarke. I suppose it could be turned into something more objectively manageable, using some novel concept that we could devise, but that would be original research. By the way, the current title so reminds of the ontological argument for the existence of God. If there's an omnipotent fictional character, it possesses the power to make itself real, right? Metamagician3000 08:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'If we use reliable sources, there's no subjectivity to it at all. Verifiability is the novel concept that makes this objectively manageable. - Peregrine Fisher 08:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the reasons mentioned above. Every character with this supposed ability has been trumped at some point, thereby disproving it. The stories say as much. Perhaps another term? "Cosmic being/deity" etc. These characters do belong to a loosely-knit "pantheon" that has assembled when required. We just need a term that adequately describes their immense power. Omnipotent, however, they are not. Asgardian 09:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of whether they really are (fictionally) omnipotent, it's whether we can cite something that says that they are/were omnipotent. People are talking about this as if this is something we decide, it isn't. - Peregrine Fisher 09:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - metaphysics of omnipotence in a nutshell: Doczilla makes a brilliant point: "If someone has been shown to get beaten, the character is not omnipotent.". It seems that a central argument for inclusion of such-and-such a character in this list is "well, on page 48 of issue #386, Lois Lane warns Batman that Dr. N. E. Farious is 'an omnipotent force to be reckoned with'", which doesn't quite hold water. The characters are speaking figuratively, and I would argue that most, if not all, of the secondary-source literature would also be throwing around the label in a figurative sense - not a literal one. So it might just as well be List of fictional characters which have been called "really big jerks", List of fictional characters who have been referred to as "evil masterminds", or List of fictional characters whose mamas are so fat. I know that last sentence reads like a reverse WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but my point is that this list is taking figurative, off-the-cuff terms and treating them as if they are literal ones (that bear some sort of measurable merit outside of pure trivia value) - and we all know where that slippery slope leads. ;-) --Action Jackson IV 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:LIST, is sourced. WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 10:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can see this being a very useful list. I completely agree with what Peregrine Fisher said- "It's not a matter of whether they really are (fictionally) omnipotent, it's whether we can cite something that says that they are/were omnipotent." In arguing about whether they are omnipotent and trying to decide a threshold for omnipotence, we are conducting original research. In citing sources for what is and what isn't omnipotent, we are creating a good article by Wikipedia's standards. They have missed some key ones though- why isn't God on the list? ;-) However, in answer to Metamagician3000- the ontological argument doesn't work, and this is good proof for that. I can see myself referencing this list, and I think it would be of great interest to a large number of people. J Milburn 11:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the arguments above, the list would have to be renamed to something like "List of fictional characters for whom claims of omnipotence have been made", if it were to be maintainable. This highlights a notability concern, as there seems no reason that list is notable. Any character in a storyline can assert someone is omnipotent. If there have been reliable sources which discuss the question of which characters are regarded as omnipotent, so that belonging to this list is clearly a matter of encyclopaedic interest to comics readers, then the list might be justified. However, then inclusion would have to depend on those sources to avoid problems with WP:OR. Mike Christie (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent reasoning of the nominator. POV/OR concerns abound. Noting also that arguments like "It could be useful" and "It's interesting" are not particularly compelling. Although I must say I would be hard-pressed to !vote to delete List of fictional characters whose mamas are so fat. Otto4711 12:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — none of the examples in the list as it stands right now look egregious to me, and compared to many lists which get AFDed, this is pretty easy to source. I don't see any reason to rename this page to "List of fictional characters for whom claims of omnipotence have been made", but perhaps "List of omnipotent or near-omnipotent fictional characters" would not be too unwieldy. Anville 13:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, due to both WP:OR and POV concerns. The inclusion criteria as set forth by the lead section are both vague ("possessing omnipotence, or something close to it") and is full of WP:WEASEL words. That you cannot nail down a discriminate, non-arbitray, NPOV set of inclusion criteria is a sign that this is something WP:NOT suitable for inclusion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [[WP:|OR]]. I wouldn't necessarily object to a list of actual fictionally omnipotent characters -- but this seems to be a dumping ground for any really powerful, really knowledgeable, god or godlike character out there. A few things:

No, it's not enough to "cite something that says that they are/were omnipotent." Citations also have to be reliable. Book reviews, TV listings, solitications of books, game reviews, and fansites concerned with "ranking" superhero powers just don't meet that criteria.
I see only two primary sources used in citation in this article -- the rest are all secondary sources. Of those two, one is inaccurate, and the other looks like it may actually be citing Wikipedia itself.
Even when a primary source can be found, we do need to make a determination as to whether the subjective words of a character reflect actual omnipotence on the part of the subject.

End of the day, I can't see how this article can be salvaged. Actual fictionally omnipotent characters are very few and far between, while mistakenly believed to be omnipotent characters are a dime a dozen. ~CS 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As it stands, even with the current tweaks, there is a fundamental disconnect between the title and the list. I'd like to say "Rename" to something a kin to "List of fiction characters described as omnipotent" or "List of fiction characters who are all but omnipotent" which seem more in the spirit of the actual list material, but anything along those lines invites POV arguments to keep the list manageable. (ie "Where the other characters or the writers serious?" or "How powerful does a character have to be shown to get to 'almost'?"). - J Greb 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- violates WP:OR and concerns about reliability of sources Thunderwing 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it violates WP:OR. "The only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources." If a ref isn't reliable, remove it. - Peregrine Fisher 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete~~Delete~~ WP:NOT a list of which fictional characters some editors think are omnipotent. Carlossuarez46 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They all have citations. Has nothing to do with what editors think. - Peregrine Fisher 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Wrong: I read some of the "sources" that have been added indicating that the claimed omnipotency of the characters is denied in the sources: every one has some failings or inabilities or some group is going to undo them...OMNIPOTENT means all powerful, not just powerful, and a character that is has all the power to do anything cannot have inabilities or any group cannot undo them without removing the OMNI from the POTENT. Carlossuarez46 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's just take one for example "the Spectre (comics)" a quick perusal of the article says that "The Spectre began by seeking bloody vengeance against Corrigan's murderers in a grim, supernatural fashion. In years to come, the character would gain a reputation among editors and writers as being too powerful to get a dramatic handle on, but creator Siegel apparently felt otherwise, because in More Fun #60 (October 1940), only the eighth Spectre story, he gave the Dead Detective an almost literal deus ex machina, the Ring of Life, which would appear on the ghost's finger when he faced a menace beyond his powers (in six stories reprinted in recent years)." An omnipotent character by definition cannot be faced with a menace beyond his powers. Carlossuarez46 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's you doing original research on what omnipotence means in terms of a fictional characer. You're using OR to say the Spectre shouldn't be on the list. Also, all fiction is in the present, so being omnipotent at one time is all that's necessary. They exist in a "perpetual present tense" according to WP:TENSE#Check_your_fiction. - Peregrine Fisher 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since you indicate (a) that the meaning of "omnipotent" is susceptible to different interpretations and (b) being on the list is not dependent on omnipotence (however defined) except for some micromoment, that's further reason to delete because there are no objective criteria to be included or excluded from the list. Vote changed to strong delete because these additional reasons to delete that seem impossible to overcome. Carlossuarez46 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There is an objective criteria. The same objective criteria that applies to all WP artilces. They're called reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peregrine, I think you're demonstrating some difficulty understanding "check your fiction" as a prose styling, and how it should be applied in a discussion. When writing about a fictional work, we write about it in the present tense because the conceit behind fiction is that it is unfolding before our eyes. This doesn't mean that there is an abstract "all fiction is happening at once" -- obviously there is a chronology. The "literary present" is a grammatical concept in regard to how we write about fiction, not a philosophy by which we disregard the changes or development of a fictional character. This concept is irrelevant here. It's something to be applied while writing the Spectre article. ~CS 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the actual issue at hand: You are correct that it is not our place to pick apart at character established as omnipotent with reasons why that character should not actually be called omnipotent. But it is our responsibility to think critically about where and when the work "omnipotent" is being used, and whether a list is accurately reflecting the work of fiction. That is what this list fails to do. A textually omnipotent character would be like God in Paradise Lost: an express issue explored within the text is the character's omnipotence, even if the word omniscient is not actually used. "Milton's God" would be a perfectly appropriate character for this list. However, the citations in this article are not pointing us toward works of fiction which explore or feature omnipotent characters. They're pointing toward: a) powerful characters who people within the fiction mistake as omnipotent, b) instances where reviewers, advertisers, and TV listings have used the word omnipotent as an adjective, and c) instances where Wikipedia editors have arbitrarily decided that a character should be described as omnipotent. These are not reliable, appropriate, encyclopedic, or accurate; and it is our place to determine what is reliable, appropriate, encyclopedic and accurate. ~CS 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) "Mistake as omnipotent." That's OR. Who are we to say if they're right or wrong. b) "Used the word omnipotent as an adjective." They're describing an omnipotent character, not sure what other kinds of speech they should using. c) If a ref isn't reliable, remove it. I added lots so there would be plenty left. - Peregrine Fisher 21:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) Who are we? We're readers of the fiction. If a character is defeated, he is not omnipotent. I don't believe it's fair to demand a reliable source, as authors of secondary sources would probably not wish to waste valuable printing space on reasserting the completely, blindingly obvious minute details of when a character is being literal, when a character is speaking figuratively, when a character is overreacting, etc. Anyway - as I've said before, it seems that a lot of these claims demand a very, very literal reading of the source texts in order to stand up. B) I think it's reasonable to say that there's a fair amount of "hyperbole" in TV listings and advertisements, and I think it's just as fair to cast light upon the oftimes hyperbolic nature of review texts, as a literary device to capture some spirit of the original work. --Action Jackson IV 11:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We can't start lists based on hyperbole: List of fictional biggest jackasses on earth; List of fictional stingiest cheapskates; List of fictional skankiest hos; List of fictional people so fat that when they sit around the house, they really sit AROUND the house; List of dumbest fictional characters other fictional characters ever met; List of fictional characters who wouldn't urinate on you if you were on fire. Doczilla 20:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard list, just like List of Marvel Comics cosmic entities, List of fictional characters who can create illusions, List of fictional characters who can alter probability, List of comic and cartoon characters named after people, List of comic book superpowers, List of characters who move at superhuman speeds, List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum, LGBT comic book characters, List of dead comic book characters, etc. - Peregrine Fisher 15:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same. You're making lists based on any random quality or ability. Making your examples comparable to the omnipotent character category would give us things like List of singlemost powerful illusionists in each of their respective universes, List of infinitely fast fictional characters, List of fictional characters that somebody somewhere called the most severely autistic person in the world, List of the deadest fictional characters. We're not arguing about whether or not to make lists of fictional characters. We're talking about the nature of the list. There's no hyperbole in specifying things like fictional characters who can create illusions. Doczilla 05:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you could quickly reference a list of 30 such individuals. If you could easily find refs (like I did for this page) for 30 "singlemost powerful illusionists in their respective universes" then it might be an important characteristic. The way we know that isn't an important characteristic is that there's no refs to back it up. Same for the rest. The notability of fictional omnipotence is demonstrated by the large number of reliable sources that can be found on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher 05:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "reliable sources"? The citations in this article include things like Amazon.com product descriptions, and other wikis. "Reliable" does not mean "random stuff I found using Google." ~CS 05:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the reliability of some of the sources is the problem, then that's not a reason to delete. Tell me which ones you don't like. I'll tell you why their reliable, or remove/replace them if they aren't. - Peregrine Fisher 06:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's not much to be said that hasn't already, the list is unmanageable. Especially in it's current state. There have been some omissions made on the DC list that makes no sense. For example, the removal of Imperiex. It clearly states in the official DC Encyclopedia that he is virtually omnipotent, but I guess even that isn't good enough. As for the standard where if they were "defeated" then they are not omnipotent, that pretty much eliminates 99% of the list for both Marvel and DC. Even the Living Tribunal was shown to be ineffective against the bearer of the Heart of the Universe, so therefore he should be eiliminated based on that standard? It's too overbroad. If there is no standard by which we can agree to, then there's no point in keeping this list because then it becomes too subjective. ShotokanNbjj 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add the omnipotent fictional characters that you know about, please do. The standard that we can all agree on is reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher 05:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per much of the above, but in my mind primarily for redundancy and an inherently arbitrary design. 1) Redundancy: the majority of this list mirrors in miniature the existing articles Cosmic entities (Marvel Comics) and Cosmic entities (DC Comics), lists of characters of a certain type that at least ignore questions of level of power while still giving basic descriptions and links. 2) Arbritrary: the problem with almost all lists of this sort generally falls under the guidelines of indescriminate collections of information. Peregrine Fisher does indeed have a valid point that wikipedia does not care if these characters are omnipotent or not, only whether it is possible to cite that they have been described as such. However, this begs the question of whether one description of an adjective merits a list. I doubt there would be much debate about an AfD for "List of Strong Fictional Characters" or "List of Generous Fictional Characters" regardless of the quality of citation. As used, "Omnipotent" is simply a descriptive modifier, only of interest because it appears to be a larger and more impressive modifier than other adjectives. I respect the work put into this list, but given the duplication of work of most of it, I can't bring myself to suggest keeping given that underlying problem. -Markeer 14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet another unmaintainable and unimportant trivia list.--JyriL ^talk 17:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as while the list of omnipotent characters may seem to be beaten quite often, this is usually because they purposefully engineered their defeat (does not apply to all). Also, being "omnipotent" is not the same as being "omniscient", the ability to know all and hence wield absolute power wisely. Article has reliable references and maybe the title should be changed to List of fictional characters deemed to be omnipotent within their respective fictional Universe or some variant. Zuracech lordum 06:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this list is very useful. Cheers. --James599 15:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:USEFUL is not a very convincing argument. --Action Jackson IV 12:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, tentitively. Daniel Bryant 11:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warrandyte Cricket Club[edit]

The only claim to fame of this cricket club is that it is the third oldest in the state of Victoria. I am not convinced that this is enough to warrant inclusion. The club does not play in the Victorian Premier Cricket, but is a lower club playing in a subdistrict competiont in Melbourne. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what it's worth, I think the third oldest club in Victoria should be included. Any other opinions? StAnselm 07:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know what the two older clubs are. I think the oldest is the Melbourne CC in the Premier League. What is the second? If this club is the oldest non-Premier League team, I'm inclined to keep, but if not let us just have an article on the oldest. --Bduke 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 14:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I had to think about it, but I don't think the third oldest club is notable enough. Maybe combined with some other notability factors it might just make it, but I think that it falls just short at the moment. Lankiveil 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. thewinchester 16:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete was going to suggest userfying but its substancial contributors are IP's and a redlinked user whos not overly active. 3rd oldest club must have had some input into the early developement of cricket in the colony. Gnan garra 02:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Blnguyen. MER-C 09:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Pymble Pirates FC[edit]

Contested prod, no reason given. Non notable minor league football club Mattinbgn/^talk 07:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:43Z

Good Service Network[edit]

The humanitarian branch of the Seventh-Day Evangelist Church (also up for AfD). No assertion of notability. small matters like a snail-mail address, etc. -- RHaworth 07:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge non notable & Unreferanced, even if refed may be best merged iont 7th day article --Nate 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The root article above in the AfD is also not notable, no merge. --Dennisthe2 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These comments have no logical basis. You do not judge a book by its cover.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:45Z

Alternative physics[edit]

This is essentially a publish the URL of your own revolutionary physics theory page. As wellintended the original creator of the page may be, I don't see how it ever will work out as an encyclopedic article. --Pjacobi 07:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I like it, and I think it will be of use to curious minds. At least the subject should be included. StAnselm 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT. MER-C 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, OK. StAnselm 10:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia and it is asking for trouble. If any of the individual 'theories' merit an entry, that should be dealt with individually, and they can be put in the 'pseudoscience' category. 'Alternative physics' is, of course, just a euphemism for 'pseudoscience'. Richard1968 08:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a collection of non-notable theories does not become notable by virtue of number of entries. --Haemo 09:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also a thinly disguised directory of external links. MER-C 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comment Duke of Whitstable 11:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have Theory of everything for the serious and List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts for the nutty thinkers, and a honeypot for trolls is not on the wishlist. Kosebamse 13:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting but unecessary, as stated above we already have articles that cover this subject in a better manner. 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkyan (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. RogueNinja 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kosebamse above all. Anville 22:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not represent any real phenomenon in the field of physics or the world. Tulane97 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Curtiss[edit]

Article has a lack of reliable source and may not fulfill WP:BIO. I'm 99% sure this guy does not qualify for an article, albeit I'd like some eyes on it to make sure. hateless 07:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article meets WP:BIO Standards

This Article meets criteria for the biography of a notable athlete according to wikipedia standards, because of the following standards in accordance with WP:BIO

Wikipedia standard * Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis: Andy Curtiss has competed in Extreme championship Super Brawl 9 and can be referenced at [18]. Sher Dog is a website that records all professional Mixed Martial Arts atheletes and records. Sherdog is the most accurate resource used to track MMA fighters today Link of official record of Andy Curtiss's Professional Fight Record

Wikipedia standard * Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.: Andy Curtiss was the first (A.I.K.A) American Independent Karate Association National champion and the only National Karate Champion ever to be a member of the (N.M.A.A) Northern Martial Arts Association [Cady's Academy of Martial Arts / President of the (N.M.A.A.)website.]

Wikipedia standard * Competitors in college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.: Not applicable to this article.

Furthermore, Wikipedia Standard states that the individual must have made a significant contribution to their perspective field of expertise. Andy Curtiss has contributed to the martial arts by developing a military combative system which is currently being taught to military and law enforcement personnel today. [http://www.ccr.gov ] Andy Curtiss and his company are acredited government contractors —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.133.148.136 (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC).— 69.133.148.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Delete, A7, as the only claim to notability per WP:BIO within the article is that he won a karate championship in a league that isn't mentioned on Wiki. Strongly doubt this passes WP:V. --Action Jackson IV 03:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a non-notable subject. Article created by a COI affected user. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article meets WP:BIO/ WP:V Standards

This Article meets criteria for the biography of a notable athlete according to wikipedia standards, because of the following standards in accordance with WP:BIO WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

The amateur league A.I.K.A. is not mentioned in Wiki; however, Super Brawl can be referenced at the Sherdog link on Wiki. Sherdog is mentioned on Wiki. Sherdog is the largest American website devoted to the sport of mixed martial arts.[1] The site is a member of the Crave Online network.

Created by photographer Jeff Sherwood in the late 1990s, Sherdog features MMA news, individual records of fighters, reviews and previews of MMA events, interviews with fighters and referees, user forums, and original radio programs. Sherdog's Fight Finder is an extensive reference database of professional fighters, bouts, and MMA events. Sherdog is also home to the Sherdog Radio Network, a internet-only sports talk network featuring Sherdog writers and staffers. Sherdog's editor-in-chief is veteran MMA journalist Josh Gross, who also hosts a show on their radio network.

WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

This was mentioned on Wiki and copied from Wiki. This user's claim is valid

Delete per nom. MSJapan 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent verification. MySpace doesn't count. Durova^Charge! 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 tag (single referant dab page)) DES ^(talk) 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair (disambiguation)[edit]

No indication in 4 months that there's any notable Tony Blair other than the PM of the UK Nssdfdsfds 08:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - disambiguation page which points to a single article. So tagged. MER-C 08:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if confirmed. This had a speedy tag on it, if you need to tag first close this and use ((db-afd)). BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 09:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this page was up since January. Currently the page points to two articles, one which was never created. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 09:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November, not January Nssdfdsfds 11:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what about Tony Blair the name of the fictional leading character in 1980 BBC TV drama 'Buccaneer'? [19] Fys. Ta fys aym. 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the show has an article, we can add it to the disambig or write one if the show follows criteria. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 14:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nomination has it. Guess there really can be only one. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 16:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Speedy Delete G6 (housekeeping), only one live link. So...um, retagged, it seems. --Dennisthe2 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here to disamb- Thunderwing 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they don't have entries yet and don't know if they ever will warrant one, but how about Tony Blair, the actor from I Married an Angel & The Arabian Nights & star of a number of early Broadway shows[20], Anthony Blair the artist, and J. Anthony Blair the Canadian philosopher? (I suspect the latter is the only one who'll ever warrant his own entry.) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, but until these articles exist, there should be no need for a disambig article. --Dennisthe2 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year Zero Part 2[edit]

Delete - This article should be deleted, as it is entirely speculative. The name of the article has not even been confirmed, let alone any further information warranting a full article.HorseloverFat 08:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 09:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way too speculative for an encyclopedia.–m.f ^{(t • c)} 10:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced to the standards of Year Zero (album), if at all possible at this point. The current article is merely a collection of indiscriminate links to unverified viral marketing sites. --Dhartung | Talk 12:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too much speculation and nearly no facts. Goldenglove 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've included all sources of the album's eventual existence as well as a fair description in that first paragraph. I've also made the infobox more substantial. I think as the mentions of the album and other things concerning the album accumulate this could be a decent article, it shouldn't be too long before Trent talks briefly about his vision of Y0 Part 2 in interviews seeing as how Part 1 is almost out and Part 2's gonna come around sometime next year. See: Talk:Year Zero Part 2 for extra information and details and such. R-Tiztik 21:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well, I thought it was kind of a ridiculous page at first as well. But there are two sources for the information (that I can find): Blabbermouth (" 'Year Zero' is reportedly the first of two concept albums, the second of which Reznor hopes to finish next year.") and Kerrang! ("with part two scheduled for next year"). These two sources have me leaning towards keeping the article. Both sources are reasonably accredited sources, I mean both Blabbermouth and Kerrang have their own articles on Wikipedia, so they're somewhat reputable and/or noteworthy. The page does, however, need to be cleaned up and possibly renamed/moved if we were to keep it.Drewcifer3000 02:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Untitled seventh Nine Inch Nails album; if not, 'keep per above Will 02:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too little information to create a page. The Kerrang! interview is the only actual source, with Blabbermouth echoing it using the "reportedly" weasel-word. One source about a possible album is not enough to justify an article. The album should have a name, or a release date, or confirmation on the official website—something that's concrete—before starting an article on it. -- rynne 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info back into the Year Zero (album) article. The information is good, but doesn't deserve an article in its own right.—Perceval 17:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per R-Tiztik The System 3000 21:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StartCom[edit]

Corporate vanispamcruftisement. Speedy declined, contested prod. Speedy delete. MER-C 09:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#Startcom. — Æ. ✉ 00:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they can be added during the debate, but there is also

StartCom Enterprise Linux
StartCom MultiMedia EditionDGG 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both redirects to StartCom Linux so there is no need to AfD them. (Requestion 02:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete As corporate spam with multiple problems, including conflicts of interest and lack of sources. There is nothing to indicate the notability of the subject, either. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, and as per user:Lankybugger. DES ^(talk) 16:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and sub-articles. Subject lacks reliable, independent sources of information. No possible way to create an encyclopedia article. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Lacks reliable due to COI not sure about neutrality WP:NPOV, seems to be original research WP:NOR.--Hu12 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You are using phrases only, instead of pointing out a real problems, if there were any. There are three different articles and certainly none of your "arguments" points out even one concrete reference to one of them. This is not serious. Stop spaming the articles of StartCom!— Startcom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I read through the story of the interaction with the Startcom company at User talk:Startcom. This company has had since December 2006 to get this straightened out, and they still haven't come up with reliable sources giving third-party opinions. Aren't there any Israeli magazines that have written about them? The bit about offering a cheaper certification seems like it should have got some press coverage, but I see nothing here. I think they aren't taking our policy seriously. Could it be a reading comprehension problem? It's time to delete the articles. EdJohnston 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd be more specific, but the COI SPA hasn't attended to the policies and guidelines previously cited, so why waste my (figurative) breath? — Athænara ✉ 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps you all should differentiate between the StartCom article an the entries about StartCom Linux and StartCom Certification Authority. I can understand, that information about StartCom "the company" isn't so exciting. However I don't think that this applies to the later two articles, which in my opinion have a place here. See also discussion pages of the two. — Startcom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Delete StartCom only. The other two articles have specific purposes and are notable. — CJewell (talk to me) 03:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for StartCom Certification Authority per Stpeter below.Keep for some version of these 3 articles. I don't know if that means merging all three, deleting 2, etc. I've spent 3 hours researching Startcom and it appears marginally notable -- see my detailed comments on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/StartCom. In particular, I find the c't and DistroWatch references compelling. I think notability is the issue for this AfD, not the fact that it was spammed, obnoxious as that might be. Also, I sense this company's notability is growing with time.--A. B. ^(talk) 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even the article on StartCom Certification Authority, the most plausible of the three, has no reliable sources by my criteria. I agree that the c't article is interesting, but it's basically a warning against using StartCom certificates! And it's a web site. The mentions on the DistroWatch site, if you look at them, sound like multiple occurrences of the same press release. If one of the StartCom articles listed in this AfD is kept, where will editors go to find reliable material to update it, given that StartCom seems to get no notice in the regular press? I think that StartCom fails WP:CORP and it's so obscure that any article about it will be hard to maintain. EdJohnston 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Linux distributions have a reference to Distrowatch, since it's an important web site. Distrowatch indeed announces most - if not all - distribution releases. This is what they do. Obviously for someone familiar with the Linux world, not so for others perhaps. Startcom 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StartCom has released so far about 7 operating systems, 1 failed (not released), about 10 update releases and a few release candidates (test versions). Startcom 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for StartCom Certification Authority. This certification authority (CA) is the root CA for the intermediate certification authority (ICA) run by the XMPP Standards Foundation at xmpp.net. This ICA has been issuing cost-free digital certificates to administrators of Jabber servers on the public Internet since December 2006. As of 2007-04-05, this ICA has issued several hundred certificates. It is helpful for server administrators to find information at Wikipedia about the StartCom Certification Authority as they decide whether to obtain such certificates. It is also helpful for developers of Jabber client software and Jabber server software to find that information as they decide whether to bundle the StartCom Certification Authority's root certificate with their software. This information is also helpful for end users of the relevant Jabber clients and deployed servers (e.g., the jabber.org server, which uses a digital certificate issued by the ICA, has over 220,000 registered users, many of whom may be interested in finding objective information about the StartCom Certification Authority. I strongly encourage retention of this article. Stpeter 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to his user page, Stpeter is Executive Director of the XMPP Standards Foundation. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment It still doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true. Lets not forget, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising especially considering the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and lack of Reliable Published Sources. Perhaps organizations such as yours, who use this CA, should contribute funds to better inform server administrators, developers and end users who may be interested in of StartCom's cost-free benefits. Notability and Neutrality are important objectives at Wikipedia, Promotional use of Wikipedia, unfortunatly is considered bad practice, even if well intended.--Hu12 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3 StartCom articles on violations of WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. The articles also suffer from a market-speak tone that lacks WP:NPOV but that can be fixed with judicious editting. One problem of notability I have is that I'm a huge Linux fan and I've been visiting DistroWatch on a weekly basis for the past several years and this AfD is the first I've ever heard of StartCom Linux. I just never noticed them before. Another troubling point is that StartCom Linux does not even currently register on DistroWatch's top 100 popularity list. Linux distributions are a dime a dozen and WP:NOT every one of them should have a Wikipedia article. (Requestion 01:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps see http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity . Most likely also never saw this: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20050725#fdow — Startcom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:49, April 8 2007 (UTC) (UTC).

Strong Delete as per consensus and CosmicPenguin, also WP:COI; Weak Keep for StartCom Linux, also as per CosmicPenguin. --HubHikari 09:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all - please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This debate is only for the merits of these 3 articles. Responses to your points: The age of the articles is not considered as part of this debate - all articles must uphold WP:V and WP:N criteria at all times. These critera must also be upheld regardless of the existence of other distros in Wikiepdia. Again, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unique or not, the StartCom Certification Authority page must be sourced like all the others, and it definately fails WP:SPAM. Nobody here is is working for any other Linux distributions or other entities - our only goal is to maintain a reliable and respected encyclopedia. In addition, many of us are also part of the open source community that you benefit from. This is the first AfD for all of these articles - so the primary notability has not been established by consensus. If the articles do survive this process, then you can use that as precedent in future AfD discussions, but remember that consensus can change. Strong Delete StartCom and StartCom Certification Authority per WP:CORP but weak keep StartCom Linux due to very lose WP:SOFTWARE criteria. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the StartCom CA, I suggest that somebody improves it. Merely deleting is unproductive and a waste. And I liked the phrase "that YOU are of the open source community from which I benefit"...that's great! Yes, this is the attitude here...— Startcom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional portrayals of psychopaths[edit]

Oy vey, where to begin? For starters, "psychopath" is as outdated a term in clinical literature as "idiot" or "moron", so any definition is going to be fraught with peril. The article makes an admirable attempt to offer multiple definitions, but ultimately it constitutes a breed of OR - as if one were to create Fictional portrayals of foofeefums. Additionally, the article is completely unweildly (unsurprising, with a word as unscientific and non-precise as "psychopath") and basically reduces to "fictional portrayals of characters who are not normal". The article can't even keep true to its own imaginary definition - witness Stanley Kowalski and Gary Gilmore in the "realistic" section, when both A Streetcar Named Desire and The Executioner's Song - specifically the latter - had strong subtexts that argued just the opposite. So, to summarize: Impossible to scientifically define, leaving in every single different pop-media definition of the slang-term "psychopath" leaves us with a completely unweildly and unmanagable list, WP:OR by its very nature, and really ends up feeling like something written in high school - well-written, organized, but juvenile. At least Fictional portrayals of sociopaths would be able to be objectively defined via the DSM-IV. --Action Jackson IV 09:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere IS no such thing as a DSM-IV definition of "Sociopath" which is, in fact a virtually interchangeable synomym for Psychopath devised in the 40s or 50s to differentiate between Psychopathy as we now use the term and a far earlier use of the term to denote "any mental illness". It never replaced Psychopathy and the two terms are regarded as interchangeable though some sources suggest slight differences of emphasis. --Zeraeph 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well reasoned explanation of nominator. An article of that length with no sources is never a good thing, and it really does constitute OR, grouping 'psychopaths' together as the author sees fit. Good effort, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. J Milburn 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For starters, Psychopathy is as far from an "outdated term" as anything could be. An entire diagnostic system for the condition (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)) is in general medical use since 1991 and went into it's second edition as recently as 2003, three years after the last text Revision of the DSM-IV-TR, and as such, a far more accurate, recent and formal diagnosis than anything in the DSM-IV-TR. The Uk Mental Health Bill drafted in 2002 and 2004 makes considerable specific reference to "Psychopath", as does the existing Mental Health Act (uk) 1983. I also respectfully suggest that the nom tries telling Dr Robert Hare who created the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) that Psychopathy is "Impossible to scientifically define". Beyond which, fiction has a seperate and slightly different fascination with the concept "Psychopath", which, while not as scientific as the medical use of the term by any stretch of the imagination, is still a valid social construct. That lead to an unwieldy, but remarkably pertinent section in the main, medical article Psychopathy. I moved it off myself, to get the article back to cited medical and judicial information, not much caring what became of it. When I checked back I discovered that, while I may not agree with every suggestion presented in it, the article had somehow metamorphosed into one of the most fascinating I have seen on Wikipedia. --Zeraeph 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't wish to turn this into a debate over the merits of the term "psychopathy". That said - it does seem that the PCL-R is pretty self-confined. To use a bit of hyperbole: A (suitably screwy) Ph.D could create a checklist to diagnose Witchcraft ("does subject float when thrown into a lake?"), but this by itself doesn't really legitimize Witchcraft - any more so than a Spark quiz legitimizes the theory that deep down inside, we are all a specific Disney character. UK English has always been more traditional than US English, and it opens up a whole Amero-centric aspect that I'm really not prepared to discuss. Bottom line in that regard: I was taught in all of the Psychology courses I took in college that "psychopath" was outdated, and so broad as to be almost totally useless in diagnosing any condition (akin to having a General Practioner diagnosing you as "physically ailing"). I'd like to think that at the very least, out of all the professors I had, that Dr. Rosenberg and Dr. Foye were both reasonably up to date in their understanding of psychology. But anyway - even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the PCL-R and UK terminology combine to make an iron-clad, academically-standard definition of "psychopath", I still have to ask myself - does an article this multi-focused (to the point of scatter-brained) really provide any encyclopedic merit? Might do well on "Wikiartia", but for Wikipedia, in the end, it's still crufty. --Action Jackson IV 11:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, if you really "don't wish to turn this into a debate over the merits of the term "psychopathy"" I suggest you strike your original remarks to that effect from your nomination and go with what is left alone. As a matter of fact the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is not only widely accreditted and peer reviewed in accord with WP:RS it is also generally regarded as an international diagnostic standard (which the DSM is not, most of Europe, for example, uses the ICD instead), by the medical, penal and academic communities. The fact that you seem completely unaware of this reality raises serious questions about the validity of that aspect of your nom to the point of negating it. I also very much doubt if the UK Parliament encourage "screwy PHD"s to draft their legislation. I am not personally prepared to accept unsupported claims of "what I learned in college" as a WP:RS for any assertion. Particularly not against such a body of evidence that is clearly in accord with WP:RS. --Zeraeph 12:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Awesome. --Action Jackson IV 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS It is, in fact the DSM category of Antisocial Personality Disorder that is widely criticised, and has been shown by research to be "so broad as to be almost totally useless in diagnosing any condition" (see Rutherford, M.J., Cacciola, J.S., & Alterman, A.I. (1999). "Antisocial Personality Disorder and Psychopathy in Cocaine-Dependent Women," American Journal of Psychiatry, 156. pp. 849-856 ). --Zeraeph 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absent a clinical diagnosis any tagging of a character as a "psychopath" is original research. Standard for inclusion is vague, seeming to encompass anyone who behaves in an anti-social fashion. Otto4711 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There IS a case to be made for restricting the article to those characters specified by the text or script to be psychopaths (of which there are plenty) and forking the others off to a new article perhaps to be called, less formally Antisocial characters in fiction? Though my primary objection to this nomination concerns the remarkable degree of misinformation in the terms on which it is presented I would also see secondary grounds for objection in the quality of the article and it's value to those who seek information on personality types as portrayed in fiction. As long as the text of the fiction defines the character as Psychopathic it can hardly be WP:OR? --Zeraeph 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that then requires us to evaluate the qualifications of the person making the statement, which is still OR. Do we give the same weight to a declaration of psychopathology from a psychiatrist as we do to a cop or a plumber or a serial killer's latest victim? If so, then the restriction is useless and if not it's POV. Otto4711 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I take your point, except that a fictional character exists only within the context of the fiction he participates in, and if a character is diagnosed by a person who is, in that same fictional context, declared qualified to diagnose him (such as a fictional qualified psychiatrist) that should be sufficient. If we delete this article on those grounds we would have to consider deleting all similar articles, concerning fictional characters with specific disorders and conditions, not just Fictional portrayals of psychopaths on the same grounds, which risk *wincing hard* these lists returning to bloat the psych articles them are affiliated with. Maybe it is time to devise a specific guideline essay on the subject?--Zeraeph 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - We already have WP:TRIV which is part of the MoS and WP:BHTT which is an essay section but addresses the idea that it's better to have these sorts of articles because of the potential of cluttering the main article. Personally I have little problem with the idea of considering the deletion of other similar articles and indeed have AFDed a large number of them. No one really seems to like them much but resign themselves to them for lack of a perceived better option. It's been my opinion for some time that the better solution is to delete the garbage dump articles as they come up and aggressively deal with the sections as they appear or re-appear in the main articles. Otto4711 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And to comment on the notion of a list of anti-social characters, I would oppose such a list as being incredibly vague and indiscriminate. Any character who acts in any way contrary to society would be eligible for inclusion. Most works of fiction contain one or more such characters so the list would quickly bloat out of control. Otto4711 15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I take your point, perhaps a re-worded title would solve the problem? --Zeraeph 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Honestly, I don't see a lot of utility in any such lists that draw in characters from every realm of fiction who have nothing in common other than they are perceived as "anti-social" or "acting against society" or whatever phrase one were to come up with. I don't think that such lists are generally in compliance with WP:NOT#IINFO or WP:NOT#DIR and the argument that there's some sort of research value in a list that lumps, say, evil Pokemons and Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs together. Otto4711 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that it is possible to state that some characters are psychopaths without performing original research. There is, after all, a fair amount of scholarship on at least one type of fictional portrayal: film. Pages 34–35 of ISBN 0934223491, for example, discusses Fritz Lang's movie M, stating that the film is "about a sexual psychopath", named Hans Beckert, who is a "psychopathic murderer". Uncle G 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But upon what is that based? Is it in the opinion of the author, and by citing it we're giving it the sheen of factuality? Otto4711 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(removed incivility posted by anonymous editor. Otto4711 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia always proceeds by citing what reliable sources say. To reject that because you don't like it is a breach of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newport (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no objective definition of who should or shouldn't be on the list. Carlossuarez46 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the comments in defense of the List of omnipotent fictional characters for AfD above, apparently these lists will or attempt to include any fictional character exhibiting the feature for any brief mention of time. So, combined with any definition of psycopath, it's hard to find any fictional character not exhibiting psycopathy (in someone's opinion) for a microsecond. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Most of the arguments in favor of deleting this article are petty and arbitrary (and often incoherent and confused as well). This article would be better-served with additional clarification of definitions and sources rather than wholesale deletion. This is a well-researched, well-organized piece that contains many interesting and valid insights about many different types of fictional representations, which have also been discussed elsewhere and in other articles. Most of the complainers here seem to forget that this article discusses fictional portrayals of psychopaths in popular and literary culture, as well as popular notions about what a psychopath is, or might be, in a fictional context. This is not an article about debating or verifying the clinical semantics of psychopathy and all of the medical concepts and terms related to the condition, nor is it a psychiatric report. The article is a critical analysis of fictional portrayals of psychopaths as they are generally understood in the accepted tradition of literary and cultural criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantalizing Posey (talk • contribs)

I think I totally agree with you, the concept "Psychopath" IS common in fiction and often has a whole meaning of it's own. At the same time there should be clearer sources and definitions. --Zeraeph 11:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then we're just changing from deciding whether the character meets the clinical definition to whether it meets this heretofore unstated and very vague "literary and cultural" definition. What exactly qualifies a charcter as a "psychopath" under this "tradition" and who decides that a character so qualifies? Still fraught with unacceptable OR and POV violations. Otto4711 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Psychopath" is a word found in most dictionaries, and it is reasonable to use it in Wikipedia, which is a general reference work not tailored for psychiatrists.--Runcorn 11:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Psychopath" merely means "a person suffering from chronic mental disorder, especially with abnormal or violent social behaviour". At least in films, there's usually pretty litle doubt if someone is a psychopath. --Holdenhurst 19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV would seem to indicate that generating a list of people for whom the inclusion criterion is that there's "little doubt" is unacceptable. Otto4711 12:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tantalizing Posey. Could anyone deny that most of the characters listed in the article are psychopaths? OK, maybe Harry Lime is just an unpleasant ruthless criminal, but how many others?--Newport 22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this in a nutshell is the problem with the list. In your opinion there's no room for denying that the characters belong on the list, except of course for the exception you noted. But that's based on your POV, not an objective standard for inclusion. Otto4711 12:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holdenhurst is understating the case and Otto4711 is possibly disingenuous. In Hollywood films, even colour ones, things are pretty black and white. It is utterly beyond reasonable doubt, in many cases, whether a film character is a psychopath in accordance with the usual dictionary definition of the word. To deny this is to push NPOV to absurd lengths.--Osidge 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Calendar Project[edit]

Non-notable vanispamcruftisement, no evidence of multiple non-trivial works on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 09:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notableRaveenS 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is it? And how so? MER-C 07:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, until the software has objective reviews written by reliable sources, this article will fail the "no original research" policy. John Vandenberg 22:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked through the few google hits and there are no English language secondary sources. There could be sources in other languages, but someone else would have to find them. I also note that there appears to be a WP:COI issue as the person who created the article has the same name as the developer of the software.--Kubigula (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alix Perez[edit]

Awfully vague and spammy article with no sources. I doubt whether subject passes WP:MUSIC, couldn't find anything on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 09:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Article bites it, but Results 1 - 50 of about 83,000 for "Alix Perez" and Results 1 - 50 of about 70,800 for "Alix Perez" +DJ seem to show that plenty of people are talking about this guy, even if AllMusic is lagging behind. --Action Jackson IV 10:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is absolutely terrible and requires a lot of work from an expert in this type of music, but the subject does meet WP:Music.
Weak delete/Weak keep/On the edge. Bah. This one is a tough call. Per an advanced LexisNexis search, no articles came up about Alix. Sure, there were a few "he's playing here tomorrow night" mentions, but that doesn't satisfy WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Per the article and Action Jackson IV's comments, it looks like Alix *might* fulfill criteria #6 of WP:MUSIC, but I'm not convinced (nor has anything in the article convinced me per WP:RS)... in the meantime, if the above editor who did not sign his name would please give valid reasons as to why Alix fulfills WP:MUSIC, citing actual criteria, then I will change my vote accordingly. Until then... Rockstar915 05:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article contains a sufficient assertion of notability, if it is accurate and citeable. I found an interview with him here and he apparently is one of the cover story subjects for the current issue of ATM magazine.[21] So, it appears the assertions in the article are accurate and there are sources to establish notability.--Kubigula (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 11:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Egyptian Party[edit]

No sources is given. I've tried to google the arabic name of the party, and hits are mainly blog posts. No indications of registration of party, office address, names of party officials, nor of any coverage in newsmedia. In my understanding, its a cyber-space based entity and should thus be deleted. Soman 10:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. English hits like [22] seem to indicate confirmation of existance. --Soman 11:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation server[edit]

Definitely essay-like, POV and original research. The term does seem to just about exist after a google search, but in reference to several different concepts not dealt with in the article. Madmedea 10:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete server mentioned in two works of fiction, neither of which have articles. Can be re-created if this becomes a widely-used fictional device (a la President of Earth) but at the moment it's not there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'll even add a third work of fiction (It's in a short story in the book Visions of Liberty, but that still doesn't make it notable. — CJewell (talk to me) 03:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila degree programs[edit]

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. J Milburn 10:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, per WP:NOT. Besides, this is already covered in more encyclopedic form over at Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Michael Billington (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merve Taşkan[edit]

Article looks like a CV, no mention of what notable films/plays directed, no entry on IMDB. Fails WP:N Madmedea 10:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no notability in the article. Supposed film director not on IMDB... bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 10:05Z

Ben McKay (actor)[edit]

I do not think this person is sufficiently notable to require a Wikipedia article. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverified, weak claims to notability. Note - comment moved to article talkpage, per apparent intention of author. Deiz talk 12:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete . qualifies as G7--Author's request as nobody else has edited it.DGG 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The actor does not pass WP:BIO. I would argue against a G7, however, as the author didn't quite request deletion, but merely did not object. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give Up the Ghost[edit]

Article on this obsolete short-lived band fails WP:MUSIC; absolutely no WP:RS report on this band; only claim to notability is two records on small independent label which, by itself, does not establish notability. THF 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:MUSIC criteria #4 as they've had 2 albums released on Equal Vision Records (home of Coheed and Cambria and Circa Survive amongst others), a notable indie record label - this is already verified in the article, and "poor article" is not a good reason for deletion. Also in the article is the fact that several members went onto several other notable bands (WP:MUSIC criteria #5). Also worth mentioning that singer Wes Eisold is also credited on Fall Out Boy records over lyrics shared with American Nightmare/Give Up The Ghost[23][24] - although this is not mentioned in the article yet as I haven't got around to it. Calling 5 years "short-lived" is also a tad misleading. And the fact the band is obsolete is irrelevant, since notability is generally permanent -Halo 13:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wes Eisold isn't notable, either. Meeting two of the minor eleven criteria in WP:MUSIC doesn't mean one meets notability, it just makes it more likely that one meets the central criteria standard of It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.—which this band does not meet. The fact that the band is obsolete just means that it isn't notable yet and it isn't getting any more notable. -- THF 13:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meeting several of the WP:MUSIC criteria make[s] it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given group or individual musician. If you think that WP:MUSIC uses poor criteria then that's something else entirely, and this isn't the time nor place to take that up as it is an extremely well established notability guideline. For the record, they also did a UK tour so passes Criteria #2[25]. If you think the article is poor and needs sources, surely the logical thing is to try and improve it rather than trying to delete it? -Halo 13:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo, instead of bickering with me and insisting that reliable sources exist, why don't you improve the article, and I'll withdraw the Afd? I think the article can't be improved because the band isn't notable; I added a tag indicating the article needed improvement, and the only improvements band supporters tried was to remove the tag repeatedly, indicating they thought the article was as good as it was going to get. -- THF 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had chance, although I did add a source earlier. But I do know the AFD process here having saved several articles from incorrect deletion (eg. Nightmare of You, Hellogoodbye), pretty much know WP:MUSIC inside-out by now and know the loops you have to jump through at WP:DRV if an article does get deleted. For the record, I'm not a fan of the band at all and I'm not a "band supporter" in the least and have no idea how you made that massive presumption. I've visited the page exactly 3 times and never heard a single song they play, but I do know about the band by reputation, the "scene" they were involved with and know it's notable there, as well as hearing about the court case, and dragged up two or three sources and reasons, as per Wikipedia policy, in the space of 15 minutes in order to try and save this from deletion. -Halo 14:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links about Wes Eisold and Fallout Boy shows that there was a plagiarism accusation, not that the band member worked with Fall Out Boy. It belongs in the Fall Out Boy article to the extent it belongs on Wikipedia at all. -- THF 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Are you reading the same link I am? It's the first sentence! "SOUTH Philly's Wesley Eisold is credited as co-writer on three songs on Fall Out Boy's new record "Infinity on High."" - I'm beginning to wonder if your nomination was in good faith if you can't even read the first sentence of a link provided to you?!? -Halo 14:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Credited with" is not the same as "worked with". Again, the credit apparently resulted from a plagiarism accusation. Did you read the whole piece? We're told Eisold never gave permission for his lyrics to be used -- THF 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable band, just needs more references. I don't edit music articles all that often so its taking me a while to sift through sources to work out which are reliable sources, but I've added two more refs as a start. Oldelpaso 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- appears to meet WP:MUSIC- would agree it needs more refs Thunderwing 18:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - That an article lacks references and/or is poorly written is no proof that the object of the article is non-notable, it just needs a lot of more work. They were highly influencial for their time. --x-Flare-x^{Talk) 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Kirchart[edit]

Non-notable skateboarder Deiz talk 12:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete articles about unremarkable persons or groups with no claim of notability. --Stratadrake 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I grudgingly took the video award as reason not to speedy. But I will happily be overruled if someone has the minerals. Deiz talk 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Although the article is lacking, he is actually a very notable professional skateboarder. Professional for 15 years or so, very influencial, many video parts. Has a biography on IMDB.99DBSIMLR 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Baristarim 04:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Very famous skateboarder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.33.170.190 (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I suspect the guy may be notable, but that has to be demonstrated through secondary sources. This is the best I could find. So, unless someone else can cite some decent sources, I have to support deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eboy[edit]

Looks like wikispam; unreferenced, and poor claim of web notability. With half a million Google hits for "eboy", finding references shouldn't be a problem, right?--Stratadrake 12:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extremely notable commercial art group, plenty of big-name clients, etc. Their work has also been collected as a book (ISBN 1856693031). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite notable per Andrew, I have his art above my cubicle right now, and nothing gets on my cubicle if its not notable. hateless 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Bryant 12:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Ithurralde[edit]

Lacks Notability. There are several occasions on Google where he is listed but only as one of a group of referees attached to games reports. JBEvans 19:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural Keep Nominator has not provided any arguments for deletion ChrisTheDude 07:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reason for deletion given, no AfD notice on page. Qwghlm 08:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm the nominator and I have added the afd template to the page. Not sure exactly how to include the reason in the initial process. My bad, I'll research it. However, the article seems to lack notability and that is my reason for suggesting deletion. JBEvans 12:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I cleaned up the initial report. Sorry for the confusion. JBEvans 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As football referees go, it doesn't get more notable than being selected to ref in the World Cup Finals..... ChrisTheDude 13:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, if he refereed in a World Cup Final, that is surely notable. Tangerines 20:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, refereed in the world cup. So obvious keep. Englishrose 14:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, refereeing one game in a World Cup final stage is notable enough for inclusion. – Elisson • T • C • 20:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalek Zarrl[edit]

Appears to be made up. Googling "Dalek Zarrl" turns up zero hits. Emurphy42 05:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delete -- hoax, fictive, or 'something made up in the kindergarten playground'. Only 4 Daleks in canon have had perosnal names; this isn't one of them. -- Simon Cursitor 13:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Simon. Most or all of this user's contributions are either hoaxes or things he made up himself, and this is no different. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, "brand new organization", no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 12:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fronions[edit]

Even with the link, it is hard to tell if url is relevant or not to Fronions since website is in Danish and titled "««« GGPC »»» Gladsaxe Gymnasium PartyCrew" Even it is related to Fronions, article seems frivolous. Postcard Cathy 17:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Then redirect to Dalek variants. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 10:03Z

Golden Dalek[edit]

Appears to be made up. Googling "Dalek Thoyr" turns up zero hits. Emurphy42 05:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EX-TERM-IN-ATE!!! (couldn't resist). Or rather, redirect to Dalek variants#Dalek Supreme like Gold Dalek does. MER-C 13:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current contents, then redirect to Dalek variants. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:FICT to Dalek variants (I don't believe a redirect should point to a section header). No need to merge; article's contents are unsourced and lack any context. Barno 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like the logical course of action here. Acalamari 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I believe redirecting to a section header is fine; I've definitely seen it done before. Emurphy42 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- contents are fictive, and non-canon. The Golden Dalek per se was originated in the TV21 strip and is only marginally-canonical. -- Simon Cursitor 13:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect, per Andrew Lenahan — this entry, along with most of the other contributions of MrFijiax (talk · contribs), appears to be completely his own creation. As Simon notes, there was a golden Dalek in a Doctor Who comic strip once, but that's not what this article appears to be about. To that end, the original content should be scrubbed from the page's history, and the page turned into a redirect. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, fictional nonsense. -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 08:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 10:02Z

Ice & Steel[edit]

Appears to be made up. [[26]] indicates that the 2008 season will star the Tenth Doctor, not Twelfth. Googling "Billy McCoogan" turns up zero hits. Emurphy42 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have just been tagged ((hoax)) and ((prod)). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as 1) untrue; 2)wild speculation & ball-gazing. Query: could a responsible admin check over all of this contrib's edits, to avoid further fictives ?? -- Simon Cursitor 13:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the Cybermen themselves would say, DELETE. This is a hoax, as are most of this user's other contributions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, hoax Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 08:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 10:02Z

Kt100j[edit]

What? I followed the link on the article after finding it by randoms. It's a manifestly clear delete, if not a very clear speedy delete, and yet it seems there was no listing on AfD? Utgard Loki 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable/borderline patent nonsense. —Ocatecir ^Talk 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is an apparently sensible description of a go-cart engine, though obviously out of place entirely. DGG 01:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Aircraft hijacking. NawlinWiki 12:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skyjacked[edit]

Delete. This is already covered by Aircraft hijacking. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Victor 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 10:01Z

Sonny Cobbs[edit]

Youth players in lower division, not notable. Matthew_hk t c 12:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as he plays a first-team match for Brighton or any other professional team, or at worst is added to the recognised first team squad ChrisTheDude 12:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as above. Tangerines 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chris. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as discussed for youth team players many times. Bridgeplayer 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he plays a first team game, he is non-notable Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the proliferation of comments below from folks who might be anons piling on (as alluded to in the discussion), I've reviewed some of the citations in the article and a couple do need to be removed as not relevant, but there is sufficient evidence that the media attention required to establish notability has been achieved. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alluc[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)).

Nonnotable website. Contested speedy. Author's argument for notability: "If Alluc continues to grow more popular, it could be used as a tool for networks wanting to promote their shows." If that happens, come back then. NawlinWiki 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NawlinWiki ignored: "Articles by The Guardian, New York Times and the Financial Post and 206400 accumalative hits on Google.com on "alluc" and "allfg" + the effect it has had on several broadcasting companies"{Iyenweyel 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)} — Iyenweyel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- comment so because we are new, we are wrong? Iyenweyel 17:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not because you are new, but new users often do ont understand Wikiepdia's policies and guidelines, and large numbers of new users in a deletion debate usually indicates that it has been promoted on the subject's website - a form of vote-stacking that is generally ineffective because this process is a discussion not a vote. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to add the traffic rankings makes it notable too {Iyenweyel 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)} — Iyenweyel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- User already voted above. -- Ekjon Lok 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also, why is it that peekvid.com is considered a 'notable website'? Alluc.org has far more references and media attention than that of peekvid.com. (JasonGuthrie123 13:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)) — JasonGuthrie123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Alluc is currently one of the most increasingly visited site everyday. The principle of the website is to provide links to thousands of TV shows and Movies to the public and members of Alluc.org. This site is very similar to peekvid.com, but in fact 'better'. We are merely adding to Wiki because this website is forecasted to become huge within the next year. Maybe you should visit the website or actually bother to read what we have written. There are many other reason why this should be not be deleted. If anymore questions to do with this website or anymore suggestions of examples what we add to this wiki page, then just reply here because it doesn't deserve to be deleted. --Dannyboy1010 13:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC) -- — Dannyboy1010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also notable: The democratic and innovative approach of the website {Iyenweyel 13:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
comment for clarity I added a section with the most important articles Iyenweyel 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment there was also a danish article but the page (original link: [[27]]) is no longer accesible and in danish... -Iyenweyel 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to say weak keep on this one. There are two good references in the article - to articles in The Guardian and the National Post, which qualify as non-trivial and are substantively about the site. The article does, however, have a bit of an advertising feel to it, and could do with some editing to remove promotional language. It doesn't really need to break down every part of the site, for example. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I'll see what I can change for now. Break down each part of the site, please explain further. Does this refer to how much content we have written? Do you suggest removing small parts, because we tried to add as much as we can for the time being so it would not be deleted. --Dannyboy1010 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the advertising feel can mostly be atributed to the articles themselves, if it had that feeling it was purely unintentional. We were just trying to prove it was "notable", and maybe somewhere crossed the line to "advertisement feel". I have removed some parts and placed hidden comments ("advertisement feeling here?") where I think that it should be adjusted.Iyenweyel 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tony Fox. The references are better than ¾ of the articles that survive AFD lately. As for removing content, I would discourage that until after the AFD. We can't tell people to pile on evidence of notability and then deduct points saying there is too much self-promotion! I would try to clean it up if it survives AFD but don't touch too much until then. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. As for the peekvid reference, an example would be its alexa rating, which I understand is bupkes in the end, but still. This site has a rating well into the 100,000s, and peekvid has a rating in the 600s. There's no comparison between the two. --NMChico24 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- commentWhere do you come up with your numbers? Traffic ranking for Alluc.org well into the 100,000s? Yesterday's ranking according to alexa.com : 1,136 .../edit: You probably looked at the numbers of the older site (allfg.org), which went down when the new site started Iyenweyel 06:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - commentok here are the real numbers for today:
    - traffic Rank for alluc.org today: 1,664 [28]
    - traffic Rank for allfg.org today: 514,763 [29]
      - Site Stats for allfg.org: Traffic Rank for allfg.org: 514,763 (down 458,555) and Other sites that link to this site: 59 (which is similar to peekvid) Iyenweyel 07:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment added more sources Iyenweyel 08:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep alluc as it is one of the most used websites and is becoming increasinly popular. The page will be maintained in accordance with the wiki rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theking11811 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC).— Theking11811 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

commentAlso I would like to point out, that I randomly gone on to list of websites that are listed on Wiki and onto the internet forums and the first one I seletected was Jinx.com. So I went onto Alexa and look at there rank [30]. The Rank is 17,000+ . So if this is the first one I went onto and its rank is nearly 17 times as big, why do they have a wiki page, which is also much shorter, but not alluc? The Alexa rank proves what a success and what a huge site it is. --Dannyboy1010 11:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment you can't denie the notability has been proven sufficiently, please upgrade the status of this article to something like that of gURL.com as it only has an advertlike-feeling --Iyenweyel 11:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I can't denie I am a "single purpose account"(for now). But it is all in "good faith" as you can see in how much we tried to improve the article conform the notabilitystandards. So please some "good faith" from the side of the admins too... Iyenweyel 11:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now; the sources are almost all about allfg, not alluc. What's the relationship? Also, the coverage seems incredibly sparse for something asserted to be so significant. Compare YouTube, which is all over the news. Most coverage of this seems to be in comparison with YouTube or other sites, generally much more significant ones at that. I suppose the inevitable copyright and takedown lawsuits will generate a bit of coverage... My Factiva search turns up one source about alluc (the Financial Post one), the balance are just "and also..." in lists. I do not subscribe to the strictly legalistic "two = multiple" interpretation of WP:N, I like multiple to mean a British Standard Several, so we can compare and establish that it's not just reprints of press releases or whatever. Whatever, two sources for something asserted to be of global significance is woeful. Might be significant one day? Yup, might. Or might be shut down for copyright violation. Come back when we know which. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- commment *sigh* see references, full story on alluc by the Guardian and the National Post which is more significant than most articles on websites in wikipedia. if you would actually read the article you would know that alluc first was named allfg... plus I added even more articles from other newssites who give full coverage... the related articles are merely as a reference to the mouth-to-mouth-spread of allfg(later alluc) Iyenweyel 09:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up with the name, just because you don't seem to have understood, its a simple name change! Allfg 3-4 months ago changed name, so maybe the page should be labelled Allfg/Alluc for the time being? Because allfg was around longer than the name Alluc, thats the reason for the amount of articles for each. So that really doesn't seem to be a problem. And as for the copyright, this has been explained before. The Alluc site does NOT host any content meaning it is TOTALLY legal and will never be shut down. Simple. The people who are doing the illegal side of this, is the uploaders who upload to Youtube, veoh, dailymotion etc etc. Maybe you can consider these as an answer to you and a couple reasons why this should remain. --Dannyboy1010 09:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted that now, thanks. Does not change anything. One, possibly two, non-trivial sources about this site, but mostly the discussion is in relation to other, more notable sites doing the same or similar things. I'll wait for the news stories on the inevitable copyright shutdown case. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment please keep in mind that we are only newcomers and that we not yet know fully how the wikipedia system work, instead of just saying delete you could actually read the article and help us improve it...

Wikipedia improves not only through the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers. All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing.
New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.

WP:BITE Iyenweyel 10:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every day we delete hundreds, sometimes thousands of articles. Many of these are the work of brand new users. The solution is not to keep articles on crap subjects, it's to patiently explain to the new users why we have deleted their articles. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah it was said that it wasn't notable enough so we added extra articles and improved the refferencing. then it was said there was an "advert feeling" and we tried to adjust the article. so I don't get what's wrong about it now. And it has been shown that those that gave a delete reason usually didn't read the article completely...Iyenweyel 12:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Guy, Guardian article not especially about this site - sbandrews (t) 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick search on Google[31] shows that the site is notable by having been mentioned/linked to by several larger newsoutlets - as well as being mentioned on multiple international news-sources. So i'd say its notable (whether or not it will stay so - is another thing) --Kim D. Petersen 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this debate, and begin discussion on what to do with similiar articles. AfD is probably not the place for this discussion.. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ZIP Codes in Oklahoma[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. This article, however, is a directory. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, you've failed to make clear that List of ZIP codes in the United States exists, and shows, well, that every state and territory in the US has such a page. Not to mention Lists of postal codes shows that numerous other countries have such lists as well. As such, this discussion is not about this page, but the subject itself. I would suggest closing this, and getting feedback elsewhere first. FrozenPurpleCube 14:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - on its own merits I would hastily !vote to delete this any day of the week, but FrozenPurpleCube brings up salient points. Articles of this nature exist for every US state, and similarly themed articles for many other places in the world. Bringing them up individually for deletion (or even as a massive bundled AfD) is not likely the most appropriate method of dealing with the issue, a more comprehensive request for feedback regarding postal code lists is probably warranted. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and Umbrella Nom all entries in Category:ZIP codes of the United States by state --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close per User:After Midnight. Oh, my dear God, this is a horrific violation of WP:LIST, and doesn't do the job that the US Postal Service can do on their website. --Dennisthe2 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful information. We have lots of lists of places, people, and other things that someone using an encyclopedia would find informative. Carlossuarez46 20:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Might want to look at WP:USEFUL for a good explanation as to our wishes to delete this then, Carlos. Besides, like I said, the US Postal Service does a much better job of cataloging this. --Dennisthe2 21:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Parent category/list needs addressing and independent discussion first. As for usefulness, arguments could be made for anything from lists of lakes to lists of mammals, &etc which likely have far more thorough treatments in places outside Wikipedia. I think the 'usefulness here vs Post Office' argument is non sequitur. The point on usefulness in general here is taken, albeit based on the above essay. Look forward to discussing the parent. --Keefer4 | Talk 10:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here's my thought. The zip code lists, while certainly maintainable (they really don't change that much), run afoul of not only WP:LIST, but there's the WP:NOT factor (indiscriminate information), combined with the fact that, like I note, the USPS can do this much better. I find this fascinating as anything, but I can't pull the WP:ILIKEIT card to keep. The parent article, however, is overburdened a bit, if only for the links - it is in my opinion a fine listing of how the ZIP Code system is laid out here in the US of A without the overburdening of a list of every single zip code in the United States of America]]. (Granted, I don't know if this will survive either.) This is, in my opinion, something that is more suitable to a more static web page someplace - as I note, ZIP codes don't change that often, and while it's interesting, it is still something that runs afoul of the list factor. Heck, once my server is up, I would probably run it. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As mentioned above, the parent category with all 52 lists needs to be discussed. How many people are going to come to Wikipedia looking for ZIP codes? The Postal Service web site is a more reliable source of that information. I'd recommend deleting all of the lists. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 10:01Z

Liam's days[edit]

Non-notable. A short film with all action and dialogue improvised, i.e. three guys messing with a camcorder. Google hasn't heard of it. Deprodded. Weregerbil 13:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy if possible - WP:NFT applies. MER-C 13:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "movie" not on IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete No claim to notability made in the article. A1octopus 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Whyman[edit]

Non-notable and autobiographical vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 13:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Renata 00:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Should really be speedy. Renata 00:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MSJapan 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 03:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with recommendation to categorify. See Category:Academic libraries. It occurs to me that someone might want the list to do the categorification; if someone is genuinely interested, ping me and I can drop it off in your userspace subject to the usual provisos. -Splash - tk 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of university libraries[edit]

Wikipedia is not a mere collections of internal links, bordering on linkcruft. Almost all universities have libraries and the article does not discriminate between particularly noteable and non-notable libraries (this has been mentioned on the article's talkpage). On top of that, a portion of the links are redlinks at this point. Hence, I'm thinking delete.Seed 2.0 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is probably better served by Category:Academic libraries. Some of the individual libraries at these universities are notable for their rare collections, but a category is more maintainable than a list. (By the way, anything that's in the list that isn't in the category should be added to the category.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I think that's an excellent suggestion. -- Seed 2.0 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above suggestion of Category:Academic libraries. Bearian 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rebecca 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a vote, please provide a reason. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every university has a library. Most of them will be notable enough for articles of their own. Some will not, but should at least be mentioned in the article on the school--if they had a distinctive name, as even the minor ones generally do, that would be a redirect. But if we use only a category how do we get the minor ones into the category? This is one of the advantages of a list--it can include logically related but relatively non-important material. DGG 01:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No offense, but not every school's library is deserving of an article on WP. That's exactly my point. WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Honestly, I'd prefer not to rehash WP:Categories vs lists and WP:Categories, lists, and series boxes because we've done that about a million times. I'm okay with editing and adding (where appropriate) this list to Category:Academic libraries but that obviously doesn't make every school's library immune to WP:NN. -- Seed 2.0 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and reorganize in sections I looked at the article again, and it is a very incomplete and erratic list--too much so to be useful.

For the US, it gives a small number of universities only, and for most of the few included it lists some of their many campus libraries. In a few cases the individual subject libraries are notable, such as the Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library at Columbia, but almost all subject branches would not justify an article any more than most university buildings would. So this part is not convertible into a category under its current conception--but it could equally well be argued that it is not needed, since the libraries could be grouped by University in appropriate articles.

For Europe, it usually lists one library per university, even when there are several, and this part could be handled by a category; most European universities do not have major subject branch libraries.

For Australia, it lists many libraries per university, almost none having articles.

For Asia, it mostly groups them by country and lists very very few.

It would take work to make this a useful list, but it could be done. if handled by category, it would take enormously more work to make all the stub articles needed and this could not immediately be done. A manageable alternative would be separate lists per country or per continent, with them worked on in their different appropriate ways. I've userified it; if deleted, I can quickly start new & better lists for people to work on. if it is kept, the various people interested could work on improving it section by section. DGG 03:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorify per Bearian and WP:NOT#DIR. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise, if not delete per Bearian. List is unmaintainable and there are 100,000+ universities around the world that has libraries. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reorganize, categorize -- I'm with DGG, above. The current list is not helpful but a list of libraries by continent or country would be... the current library categories are erratic and need to be cleaned up as well, but could be used for this. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua (band)[edit]

This was a declined speedy, but I was not the one to nominate it. I in fact came across it on the talk page of a user I was warning for creating a nonsense bio. This appears to be a hoax article- although there are significant claims of notability, they are sourced to the bands official website, and I can not find any decent sources. This article could well have been created in good faith, but I think that the website it has taken its information from is making fraudulent claims. Delete, unless some good sources for all this info can be found. J Milburn 13:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless links to 3rd party non trivial articles about this alleged band are included before the end of this debate. A1octopus 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything either... although the generic name does make this hard to search for. --W.marsh 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band does exist see these sites for information. The wikipedia page has been updated.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=163121390

http://www.rockband.com/band.asp?sbn=joshua-perahia

As well as the band's official website http://joshuaperahia.com/

Cheers

Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 03:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 10:00Z

Burfing[edit]

Unverifiable neologism. Author reacted to the claims that it was unreferenced by copying the reference section verbatim from the Leet article, so don't feel like you need to assume good faith on his part. Recury 13:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism. Article claims to be based on the Jargon File, but I couldn't find it there, and in any case not everything in the JF is an article subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, he just copied the reference section from another article, so I'm sure it isn't in the Jargon File. Recury 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism with no valid sources. NawlinWiki 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki. Acalamari 23:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki. Ab e g92contribs 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerasimos Kalogerakis[edit]

META: This may have been a case for PROD, SPEEDY, or copyvio-deletion, but as I smell dispute here, we can as just well do a full blown AfD.

The article doesn't assert notability of the subject. It is -- as a claimed translation of a book cover -- most likely a copyvio. Not that it matters much, but the inappropriately used fair-use-images complete the picture.

NOTE: The entire Category:Epsilonism may deserve a look.

Pjacobi 13:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Could be copyvio but, if the Epsilon Team and Ellinokentrismos are notable enough to stay, then one of the major supporters of the ideas should stay. The article definitely needs work as do all of the articles in Category:Epsilonism. --Kimon^talk 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per the discussion below. --Kimon^talk 11:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria for notability. There is nothing in the article that asserts notability, ie outside reviews of his books or mentions of him.The analogy with the articles is not quite correct since they refer to ideas, however this is a bio. Baristarim 04:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the creator (and maybe only editor) of this article I have to support the reasons that led me create this article. This person is a quite recognisable writer in Greece. He has written dosens of books many of them were successful. If models and trash-TV personalities deserve to be here I don't understand why scolars should not. This person has made a big contribution is study of archaeology, paranormal and alternative history and his books are published by various ediotrs. I believe he deserves a place here. In time I could also expand more on his contributions.user:Panosfidis
- I agree that the article should remain (see my keep vote above) but, to Baristarim's point, his notability is not asserted. Models and "trash-TV" personalities don't "deserve" an article (actually, nobody and nothing "deserves" an article - WP articles are not rewards) but rather, have done something to make them notable persons. I would urge you, as you are apparently more familiar with the subject than I, to find something like a review of his work or someone outside of Wikipedia talking about him.
  PS. Please sign your comments --Kimon^talk 14:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely, if there were outside sources that talked about him, then if would definitely be a keep. Baristarim 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - O.K. here is another editor that publishes more than ten of his books
[32]
There you can also find his biography (in Greek) which I translated to English.
Here you will find an entry where he narates some of his paranormal experiences
[33]
Here you will find another publisher of his books
[34]
Now excuse my language about who deserves to be here and who does not. What I meant to say is that when it comes to a blond bimbo who only speaks about herself it is easy to make a biography because you have many sources (she always speaks abou herself!) When it comes to a scholar who rarely appears in public it is naturla to be more difficult to gather sources. The only source I 've got so far is the biography I found on the back of a book but I suppose (and hope) that I will find more in the future. So I suggest Let's wait a bit.
By the way he is not my relative or something, I just happen to like his books.

user:Panosfidis

Your references (1) and (3) above are just listings of books by the author, sold in an Amazon.com fashion. (3) is the person speaking for himself promoting his book. These are some examples that can be used to assert notability (as per WP:BIO):

A credible independent biography.
The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
Wide name recognition
The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
Multiple features in credible news media.
Commercial endorsements of notable products
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
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.
The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

A bio off the back of his book is not sufficient. Though I have heard of him (through friends in Greece) if objective, 3rd party information cannot be found, then I may have to change my vote to a delete and wait for the article to be re-created in the future with the extra support. --Kimon^talk 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK my last arguments after that I stop.

If you search in google you find 239 entries in english and 628 entries in Greek.
He was mentioned (and praised) in 90's TV-shows byAnestis Keramidas, another writer.
His book "The Ancient Greek Religion" became a best Seller (but I cannot prove it)
Many of his books are in the central library of Salonika (2nd biggest city in Greece)
He is the main contributor in the quite notable monthly magazine "Elanion Imar"

well that's all. If after that you still insist I have nothing more to say. user:Panosfidis

The actual number of hits in the English language Google is 31 and in the Greek language is 72 (your search was looking for "Gerasimos" and "Kalogerakis" but not "Gerasimos Kalogerakis"; it also brought in WP results). In any case, I'm not a big fan of using Google as a measure of notability. If that were the case, there would be an article on me (I've got 5000 Google hits).
If there's a transcript of one of Keramidas' shows or a TV-Guide type entry where it shows the agenda listing a discussion on Kalogerakis, it would be great!
If in one of those on-line bookstores mentions that the book was a best seller or the book itself says so, it would be great, since the source would also be included.
I am not familiar with that library but, I don't think that's enough. For example, the Library of Congress has almost every book published but, not all authors are notable. If his books were part of standard coursework at a university or cited by others, it would be different.
I'm not familiar with the journal "Elanion Imar", perhaps an article on that would be a good start in building a case for Kalogerakis.

I'm tending to change my vote to a "delete" now, as supporting material cannot be found. The fact that I've heard of the guy is not enough for an entry in a general population encyclopedia. I'll wait a couple of days and then, if nothing is added, change to "delete".

And yes, I'm well aware that this isn't a vote.

--Kimon^talk 21:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely not notable for the English Wikipedia. Knowing the deletion policy of the Greek wiki, I seriously doubt it would pass even there.--Yannismarou 09:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I cant fnd these things so do whatever. I am not a big fan anyway. user:Panosfidis

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Wknight94. NawlinWiki 14:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flubadeedoe[edit]

Blatant hoax, but not quite patent nonsense. Google throws up nothing, at all, not even a blog entry or something unrelated. The text also hints at its hoaxish nature. Delete. J Milburn 13:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely nonsense. Should have been speedied. Strong Delete. DancingMan 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I generally reserve the nonsense tag for things that make no grammatical sense, like a string of numbers and letters. I don't feel so comfortable tagging things like this with it, but if you feel it should have been speedied, please go ahead and tag it as such. J Milburn 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. "Professor Crankybottom"?!? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading through it again, I can't believe how leniant I was with this article. Oh well, I will tag it as nonsense. J Milburn 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klawrojna[edit]

Doesn't look notable. Only 27 links to the site -- Cat ^chi? 13:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and appears to fail WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Starblind. Baristarim 21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Must.^T ^C 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Artaxiad 22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 10:00Z

Almási Norbert[edit]

Too brief to show notablity. Matthew_hk t c 13:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 13:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After some research, it appears that his team, Újpesti Haladás, have no connection with multiple times Hungarian champions Újpest FC nor Hungarian Second Division team Haladás, but play in the third division of a Budapest league [35], many steps below professional level. The player is not even a member of the first team there, he plays in a youth team [36]. Oldelpaso 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Oldelpaso - good work. Bridgeplayer 15:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it wasn't for the research of Oldelpaso I might have said Keep but darn good work to find that out, so a definite delete. Tangerines 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:59Z

Reda Wahid[edit]

Possible a hoax, or very few information to show notability Matthew_hk t c 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely hoax, and even if it isn't there's no club called Agios Tyxonas in the top four divisions in Cyprus. Oldelpaso 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oldelpaso. Bridgeplayer 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, not at all notable. Also - Lebanese Cypriot??? Tangerines 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else; no notability. Acalamari 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Splash - tk 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic (behaviour)[edit]

Slang term without references. This isn't urbandictionary.com ccwaters 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nonsense. In any case, it's nn and unsourced and doesn't belong here. Seed 2.0 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense? It's not nonsense. This is a term in constant use in these two localities, and as such deserves its small slot in the "slang" section of wikipedia. Please explain what you mean by "nn" and how exactly a slang term can be sourced?

thanks -toaduk Toad 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NN = non/not notable ccwaters 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. the second question... read WP:NEO or WP:MADEUP. ccwaters 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up my slack, ccwaters. I'm a bit busy at the moment and that's exactly how I would have replied. Appreciate it -- Seed 2.0 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATT, dicdef, possible WP:NFT, WP:NN. For ToadUK's benefit:

"A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."

"Substantial" means that the source covers the article content in sufficient detail.
"Multiple" works should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.
"Non-trivial" means the source addresses the subject directly, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
"Published works" is broad, and encompasses published works in all forms, and various media.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
"Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

To put it directly, if you can't demonstrate published sources for a slang term, it must be deleted. Anticipating the further question "How can a local slang term be a Wikipedia article then?" the answer is that it probably shouldn't be one. Ravenswing 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nonsense. "Spinning out and thinking your friends head is a crow"? Come on. Even if this is a real term (which given the article I frankly doubt), Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary, slang or otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, Devil's advocate here. I'm not sure that's nonsense. Hallucinatory, sure, but not necessarily nonsensical. --Dennisthe2 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be localized slang, equivalent to "retarded" in definition and concept. Nonetheless, we aren't a dictionary, and this appears to be a dicdef. --Dennisthe2 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nonsense. Acalamari 23:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Videos on Youtube are imperssible as sources in almost cases, but on the assumption the keepers actually know their beans, then clearly the article stays. If the keepers are pulling the wool, then that ought to be demonstrable also. -Splash - tk 15:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khridoli[edit]

Made up art - only reference to it is one site. Non-notable. Peter Rehse 14:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible hoax. Ab e g92contribs 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's made up (are you an expert on Georgia?). The reason there are so few google hits is because of the various ways of spelling it (khridoli, xridoli, and using the Georgian alphabet). It is the national art of Georgia and is no less deserving of an article than Tae Kwon Do or Kung Fu. I strongly advise all who voted for deletion to visit the site in the article and rethink their vote. There are also some clips of Xridoli in action on Youtube. [37] Edrigu 15:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Khridoli (also spelled as Xridoli or Hridoli, as Edrigu correctly pointed out) is a national martial art of Georgia. It was suppressed under Soviet Union, but saw its revival in post-Soviet Georgia. --Kober^Talk 16:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ii is notable. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Girardi[edit]

Attorney bio, asserts notability, but I don't think he meets WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - borderline for notability per WP:BIO; most of the references are to his firm's website (hence not independent) but some seem to be from independent sites. However, more sources are needed to firmly establish notability. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Involvement in major cases shows sufficient N.DGG 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was apparently part of some major cases. Ab e g92contribs 21:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere involvement in big cases does not show notability for a lawyer. No suggestion that the cases are of any significance as breaking new ground or establishing new legal principle.Paul M Stanley 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems like it's only purpose is self-promotion.99DBSIMLR 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:59Z

Random Thoughts and Researches[edit]

DeleteThis book does not exist. Page created by a vandalism only account Dcooper 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is a copy of War and Peace. Delete. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. the bulk of the article is a direct copy from the War and Peace article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and clearly made up. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Ab e g92contribs 21:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ETV Network[edit]

NN company, fails WP:CORP; and apparently has "evolved into eVision" anyway. Percy Snoodle 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - only link is to their own website, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Hillsborough County Public Schools. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Shields Middle School[edit]

Non-notable middle school, one of over a hundred middle and elementary school stubs put up by the editor over 14 months ago, no substantive edits since. Fails WP:ATT, no real prospect of the article ever being sourced or improved. Some articles in the bunch have already failed AfDs. Article was prodded today, and the prod was immediately removed by an anon IP with no reason beyond "Please take to AfD." I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason with the same deleted prod:

More might be added, I have a feeling. Ravenswing 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the exception of the street address, the article isn't even about the school, it's about the teacher the school is named after. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Both schools should show reasons for notability. --Dennisthe2 18:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillsborough County Public Schools. No third-party sources cited nor found in a quick search. While there's no consensus on school-notability policy, most proposals have agreed on redirecting unsourced school-stubs to the articles on their school district or community. Barno 19:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Particularly NN--article is about the person the school was named after.DGG 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep James Madison Middle School. I object to these schools being listed together. Nardman1 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And your reason for so doing is ... ? Ravenswing 03:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All or Redirect All per nom. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At this late in the AfD, I am of the opinion that anything further should get its own AfD, rather than adding them in. As such, we might also put James Madison into its own? --Dennisthe2 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer, feel free. Ravenswing 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few minutes before clocking in. =) --Dennisthe2 18:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Delete all of the articles. These stubs have sat around getting stale long enough. In the future, can we get a bunch together either by school district or at least a bunch that the same creator spawned? I think that would be easier all around. Noroton 21:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would probably be more appropriate to do this by district, just to simplify the classifications - theoretically, in one shot, the articles get their redirects. --Dennisthe2 23:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prodded about fifty middle schools that this particular creator established; so far only three have been forced to AfD, and I'm hoping we can just avoid a lot of AfDs and see most of them get Speedied at the end of five days. I'm seeing a lot less consensus for the inherent non-notability of high schools, however, so I won't touch the rest of his stubs. That being said, there are a lot of middle schools in Wikipedia, locatable through categories, so anyone who wants to try a clean sweep is encouraged. Ravenswing 02:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess we'll just let the prods go through. As for the other ones... hooboy, that's gonna be a mess to clean up. --Dennisthe2 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Splash - tk 15:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphic Blue[edit]

Non-notable homemade CRPG; fails WP:WEB. Percy Snoodle 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - external links only include one independent review, which is not enough to establish notability per WP:WEB; other links are to sites affiliated with the game. Delete unless appropriate sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RPG made with RPG Maker, fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent, third-party reliable sources are found. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 07:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Website guidelines do not apply to downloadable games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the game doesn't meet WP:N, either - so even if you feel WP:WEB doesn't apply, the game doesn't pass the notability criteria. Percy Snoodle 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: My point is that the nominator has failed to establish a reason for deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment my understanding is that failing to pass the appropriate notability criteria - be it WP:WEB or just WP:N - is sufficient reason. However, Ii'm happy to be corrected. Percy Snoodle 08:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Cúchullain ^t/c 06:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Blurred Line[edit]

NN homemade CRPG. As written, fails WP:WEB, since it is not the subject of multiple non-trivial works; though listed reference might count as one so could be considered notable if others were found. Percy Snoodle 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment rereading the given reference[38], the "story" section would seem to be lifted straight from that website. Percy Snoodle 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn RPG-Maker game, but it's NOT a copyvio! The Allexperts site is sourced from Wikipedia under the GDFL. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment OK, my mistake - but in that case, it definitely doesn't count as a reference. Percy Snoodle 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable RPG Maker game. There's no reliable sources about this game, as compared to Super Columbine Massacre RPG (which is probably the only RPG Maker game that meets the notability guidelines). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be possible to find sources, though I'm not counting on it. Every search I've tried thus far has indicated that this is one of the most highly regarded games created with RPG Maker, so I'll troll through and see if I can find a notable review someplace. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... isn't common sense being forgotten here? The "quality" or so-called relevance of the source of a subject is directly related to its nature. This game is very notable as far as independent games go, and is quite relevant within its context, as Google hits may tell. But oh well, I see this will be a massacre of deletes, so I'll add it to my to-do list and eventually make an attempt at a better article. --Sn0wflake 01:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Keep. --Sn0wflake 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:N. What the RPG Maker community thinks doesn't matter unless that opinion can be attributed to reliable sources. Right now, this game doesn't appear to have any coverage in such sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you misread me? I'm talking about exactly that. Logic over a rule. --Sn0wflake 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In other words, you think we should toss the rulebook out the window and make an exception just this once because this game is just so awesome! Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Everything in Wikipedia must be attributable to reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, the warmth of AfD. I know perfectly well how the system works. And yes, I am saying to throw the rulebook out the window, because as far as I remember this is a discussion environment, and this proccess exists to access whether something is relevant or not. Within its context, the game is relevant. That's all. Also, please don't twist my words, this kind of prepotence often leads to unnecessary discussion, so don't put my comments as if I was some AOL kiddie, as have been respectul in them. --Sn0wflake 15:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was put up as a copyvio, but the one source is actually a copy of a Wikipedia article in the first place, so it was a circular source (which I've removed), not a copyvio issue. Mango juice^talk 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a notable game. Yes, it may be difficult to find officially reliable sources, but that is a reason to work hard and improve the article, not to delete it. I noticed that this game has won awards, per coverage atan RPG wiki and the original source. Matchups 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 07:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very very few RPG Maker games are notable, unless multiple sources are added, then this one isn't. RPG Maker awards are about as meaningless as Employee of the Month. - hahnch e n 11:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RPG wiki and the original source do not count as multiple, non-trivial sources independent of the creator. hbdragon88 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't the relevance of the italicised portion of Rich257's comment. -Splash - tk 15:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fadde Darwich[edit]

Category:Bouncers. Non-notable. Servant Saber 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He does fulfill WP:BIO since the two big morning papers (DN and SvD) have articles about him and even an ~~few~~ op-ed:s written by him touching subject-matters such as violence, substance abuse and other issues related to the club-scene and door-bouncers in Stockholm. The article however needs some serious expansion - as it is now it's just fluff and not substantial enough. Strangnet 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO at present. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand he is notable. but i dont think the article is good, need more info,BUT their is many pages and stories to confirm hes notability.--Matrix17 12:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references indicate that this person is notable in the English world. Rich257 19:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was a speedy nn-band. -Splash - tk 15:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Binge[edit]

I think this article about a band is probably a hoax, since I can't find any relevant hits on Google for the band. But even if it does exist, it doesn't seem to be notable at all and the article's totally unreferenced. Propaniac 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has no sources, and the band is not notable. Plus, the subject is likely to be a hoax, as the nominator suggested. Acalamari 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible hoax, no sources. Ab e g92contribs 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a hoax[edit]

I am a founding member of the band. Also, if anyone did, in fact google it, or search it on Altavista, or follow the link on the bottom of the page, they would see the Acid Binge home page. All original members and former associates agree that this is a very accurate description and history. Hd85ironhead 05:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. A pointless, barely-parsable article. -Splash - tk 15:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACK (domain transfere)[edit]

This article seems to be about an abbreviated response that one Web domain registry operator can give to another when transferring a domain between registries. The article's very difficult to read and hasn't been significantly improved since that was first pointed out several months ago. There doesn't seem to be any reason why this term needs its own article. The article is also orphaned. Prod was removed two days ago with no discussion (the remover did add the article's introductory sentence, which I guess he thought cleared the whole thing up). If it was kept, it should presumably be moved to "ACK (domain transfer)". Propaniac 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm abstaining on this one (in this case, there's very little chance of a WP:COI violation but my policy is to stay away from topics when a COI is even remotely possible). Hence, I will only say that both terms (ACK and NACK) are in common usage and relevant to a lot of users. Ack is obviously commonly used online and is probably obvious to most ~~users~~ native speakers but NACK may not be. I'm staying out of this but, if I may suggest so, instead of deleting the article, it might be appropriate to merge/integrate it into DNS. -- Seed 2.0 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term (and its opposite, canonically NAK, albeit misspelled in the context of this article) is used in computing frequently, and the definition in this context is consistent with canonical usage. This article, in short, is rather redundant. --Dennisthe2 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be moved to "ACK (domain transfer)" and it needs to be cleaned up a little, but it should not be deleted. According to ICANN's website, the negative of ACK is indeed spelled "NACK". The term NACK (spelled thusly) is very commonly used as a negative acknowledgement in computer science. As a data point, it's used 558 times total in these 33 RFC docs: RFC 527, RFC 937 RFC 937, RFC 2032, RFC 2357, RFC 2887, RFC 2961, RFC 3038, RFC 3048, RFC 3095, RFC 3269, RFC 3549, RFC 3684, RFC 3695, RFC 3816, RFC 3924, RFC 3940, RFC 3941, RFC 4046, RFC 4077, RFC 4164, RFC 4410, RFC 4465, RFC 4473, RFC 4535, RFC 4585, RFC 4586, RFC 4587, RFC 4588, RFC 4629, RFC 4654, RFC 4734, and RFC 4815. By contrast, the "NAK" spelling is used 1,144 times total in 124 RFC docs (I don't have enough free time to list all of them. By virtue of that data, I think it "NACK" should be treated as an official alternate spelling for the term. --Jonheese 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point there, I didn't realize that in re the spelling - I'm not only running off of the classic ASCII spelling, but from what I remember from the Jargon File. Certainly a redirect from the name you are referring to is sufficient, though? If anything, this would change my vote to a merge to ACK (computing). --Dennisthe2 06:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Axel (2nd nom)[edit]

Previously deleted today for a speedy copyvio. Page recreated, but still no notability. It appears the artist was in South By Southwest, but there are a lot of musicians in that festival. No notability was detected, just the blurb from SXSW. Primary page on Myspace with a couple of other bits. All this said, I'm wanting to say that this is more of a promotional page for an upstart musician. I wish him all luck, but still gotta fall under WP:MUSIC before you can be here, and I'm not seeing it. Dennisthe2 16:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. I nominated the original, believing him to be non notable, and not seeing the copyvio. J Milburn 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy notability requirements (WP:MUSIC). --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is a little bit of media coverage, but none of it is non-trivial. Does seem to fail WP:MUSIC. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 13:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Dale[edit]

Bumped from prod (concern was "Doesn't seem notable"), but with at least some source material cited this should probably get a full discussion. Procedural, I abstain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough for me. Xanucia 22:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, good NPOV, all sides addressed, good sourcing. No opinion on John Dale himself. Bearian 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I should like to register my disagreement with Xanucia's warmth towards lists! -Splash - tk 15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Jamaica[edit]

Finishing up the AFD process started by Nerd23rd (talk · contribs): AFD tag was put on the article on 27 February by Nerd23rd, but it was never listed here. Nerd23rd's edit summary stated: "in an attempt to merge content into more comprehensive article Education in Jamaica" The content was merged into Education in Jamaica, but later reverted [39]. jwillbur^talk 17:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up - this topic is appropriate for Wikipedia. Guettarda 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suitable for Wikipedia. Lists are one of the great things about Wiki! Xanucia 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make Category as list is maintenance burden and will likely never be complete. Also per WP:NOT#DIR. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs clean-up: formatting, sorting. -- User:Docu

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Education in Jamaica. The merge already stands. -Splash - tk 15:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary education in Jamaica[edit]

AFD tag was put on the article on 27 February by Nerd23rd (talk · contribs), but it was never listed here. Nerd23rd's edit summary stated: "content and history moved to Education in Jamaica so as to use only [one] page whereas a few pages are now used for the various levels of education in JA" The content has indeed been merged into Education in Jamaica. jwillbur^talk 17:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; restore merge until there's more content here. Since content was moved to another page, at this page should be kept per the GFDL (or have a history merge done). It's an appropriate topic for Wikipedia, IMO. Guettarda 19:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Education in Jamaica - is the parent article so long that there needs to be another article with only two paragraphs? Baristarim 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge as per Guettarda. It certainly sounds like an appropriate topic which should be expanded later. In the meantime, merge and preserve the article history. Noroton 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is covered by Education in Jamaica. If that article gets too long, this article can be re-created. --Richard 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Education in Jamaica. The merge already stands. -Splash - tk 15:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early childhood in Jamaica[edit]

AFD tag was put on the article on 27 February by Nerd23rd (talk · contribs), but it was never listed here. Nerd23rd's edit summary stated: "content moved to Education in Jamaica page." The content has indeed been merged into Education in Jamaica. jwillbur^talk 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; restore merge until there's more content here. Since content was moved to another page, at this page should be kept per the GFDL (or have a history merge done). It's an appropriate topic for Wikipedia, IMO. Guettarda 19:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge these articles into Education in Jamaica. Bearian 23:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ not much meaningful content, if there is any useful info it can be merged. Baristarim 04:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been merged already, so deletion would violate the GFDL. Guettarda 12:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, merge :) Baristarim 22:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Moore[edit]

This is a self-promotional vanity article LifeStar 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD 1

Keep I see no evidence of vanity or self-promotional edits going on with this article. It does need sources, yes, but the subject is notable enough to warrant an article and I don't see the issues that the nomination suggests. Metros232 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few months ago some wiki admins went through the process of removing self-promotional and vanity pages. These pages dealt with bloggers, independent bands, and other non-notable article entries on wiki. I've never heard of this person before and only found it because of a random article edit by an vandal anon user I was tracking. This article should be removed. --LifeStar 18:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "I've never heard of it before" and "there's a lot of vandalism on that page" are not reasons to delete an article. Metros232 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Those are my reasons, as this is really an opinion vote from other wiki users. I see the page as a vanity page, it fits from how I understood the wiki policies on listing deletion entries. Either case, this is to be left up to the community. --LifeStar 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - only sources provided are his band's site, his MySpace, and an "unofficial fan site", hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to meet WP:MUSIC. Whether it's a vanity page is largely irrelevant; delete unless appropriate sources are found by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the From First To Last page and redirect for now. If he breaks out on his own, maybe then this can be turned into a more substantive and sourced article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is obviously a notable musician and there is no evidence of any vanity edits. Suspecting bad faith nomination. Grue 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the article about the band. There are no independent sources on which to base a separate article nor does he appear to meet our generally accepted inclusion criteria for a separate biography. (By the way, the article desperately needs a cleanup. Not currently being "on good terms with his adoptive parents" is not encyclopedic material.) Rossami (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problems at all. Xanucia 22:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Since the band is notable and was their lead and front man, he's notable. As he was the lead vocalist, many of the independent sources I see about the band could be easily applied to Moore himself, as well. If he were still with the band, then I'd probably agree a separate bio isn't really necessary. Now that he's left them, though, it doesn't seem inappropriate for details of his biography to be in their article. The article does need a good sourcing, and its specific content does need to be cleaned up to be made more encyclopedic, though. Mwelch 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per consensus here, though continued debate on whether to redirect/merge this information elsewhere is encouraged on the talk page. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Road[edit]

Completely unimportant bog standard suburban road, like thousands of others in London and across the world. Nothing notable apart from there having been a murder recently. Regan123 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. The murder mentioned by the nominator isn't covered in the article, and even if the murder is notable (which it might be), the road isn't. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a major road, with a documented history going back over 500 years, and home to a number of notable 'firsts' (the world's first overpass, the world's first atmospheric propulsion system etc). I've expanded the article somewhat and if it's kept will tidy it up & expand further. I wish that instead of nominating this kind of article for deletion seven minutes after it was created, people would tag it and/or raise the matter of whether it can be improved at the relevant WikiProject (in this case, WikiProject London). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Was it called Portland Road when the overpass was built? Did it follow this particular route? Regan123 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes it was - don't have an exact date for the name but was certainly in place by then (see the Metropolitan Police link in the references for examples of the name in use in the mid 19th century). The Beulah Spa opened in 1831 so the road must have been in place by then; given that it connects Long Lane & Norwood Hill, which are both mediaeval roads, I'd be surprised if Portland Road's not mediaeval as well. Mediaeval records certainly show buildings at the northern end of it (where Manor Road & Goat House Bridge branch off now). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the road appears to hover on the edge of being notable enough for Wikipedia, it is a major thoroughfare in the South Norwood and Woodside, London areas, and it does appear to be possible to find some independent material on the street through a Google search. Also note that the road is a segment of the A215 road and therefore may be considered as notable as the myriad of other state and local highways that are listed in Wikipedia. I am therefore inclined to keep the article. (Wikipedia could use specific notability guidelines on roadways for cases like this one.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of its history. If the road has been around for nearly 500 years, that's longer than just about all the United States federal and state highways, and those articles always survive AfD discussions. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've expanded it further and added an 1845 illustration for a bit of background context. I agree that there doesn't appear to be anything particularly notable about the murder, which is why I haven't mentioned it in my expansion of this article. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, the murder actually took place on a different Portland Road. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep on the basis of its history, as above. Andy Mabbett 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even when the atmospheric railway stuff has been moved to a better place, there is plenty to say about the road. -- RHaworth 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the atmospheric railway stuff ought to be somewhere else - probably under London & Croydon Railway - but as the site of the pumping station was on this road (and led to the overpass etc being built), I think it warrants staying on the road's entry as well. Besides, it gives a pretext for the picture, which I think is - if you'll pardon the expression - atmospheric. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the atmospheric-railway stuff to London and Croydon Railway, but as I say above, I think that (if the road article is kept) it warrants staying on the road's entry as well. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments : So what is notable the Jolly-sailor station and the London & Croydon Railway or the road? Just because something notable exists / existed on a road doesn't make the road notable. Is there anything about the road that cannot be easily covered in the A215 article. In comparison, perhaps this AfD is relevant. As per the original nom on that, is the road central to the story? I see it has already been tagged for merger as well. To compare it with a state highway seems slightly odd. Perhaps we should have every London Road listed. Age doesn't make something notable - the M1 motorway is notable and is young compared with this road - I know which is notable. Regan123 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - by that logic, everything here can be deleted straight away, along with pretty much every road entry - even Oxford Street, Fifth Avenue and Champs-Élysées are only notable for what's on them, not for any intrinsic notability of their tarmac. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't follow you. Short articles do not put in place a lack of notability - I never said that. This road is simply not notable - it is a bog standard suburban road that happens to have had something to do with a railway line. The roads you quote are known throughout the world. How well known is Portland Road? What is about the road that makes it notable today? As to your other point, where have I suggested the deletion of these roads? I have done some work on many of them. What is in this article that can't be covered by a couple of lines in A215 road and the merge that has been tagged on the article? Regan123 23:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wikipedia is not a tool of the United States. There is a world outside of the USA with a long history. This article must be kept as it deals with local history and is very well written. Xanucia 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a UK Wikipedian who lives in the area of this article. Regardless of whether it is well known what makes it notable? Regan123 23:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Main and historic London road. Is "notable." --Oakshade 03:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In no way is this a main London road. It is a non primary A road that happens to have had something on it at one time. What makes this particular road notable? Regan123 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As said before Regan123 it is a main road in South London not every road that's important has to have primary status. Think about Oxford Street does that have primary status? NO. Anyway why has there not been a tag put on Dartmouth Road (in Forest Hill)? If either of them should go it must be Dartmouth! It's much less important than this article, but has never been tagged! Pafcool2 07:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not a main road, it is a non primary A road. The various sections of the A23 road don't have individual sections. Why does the A215 need them? No unique notability has yet been provided for this road. I will nominate the road you linked to as well shortly. Regan123 08:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are precedents for non-primary London roads that aren't famous in their own right having their own articles, eg Green Lanes, Camden High Street. I'd support moving the content and changing the individual road names into redirects to subsections of the single A215 road article, along similar lines to A1205 road, though. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a precedent, agreed - in fact there are times (like A4202 road) which goes the other way. As to the merge and redirect, I'd be more than happy with this. I have already done so for South Norwood Hill. Regan123 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold redirected - I've merged and redirected Portland Road, the section of Knights Hill pertaining to the road, and Beulah Hill to A215 road, and the atmospheric-railway stuff to London and Croydon Railway. This preserves the content but stops the silly situation of a relatively short road having a longer article than the A-road it's a part of. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and it's already been reverted! Man, that was quick... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not recommended to turn an article into a redirect while it's open for discussion at AfD. If there is a consensus to blank the article and redirect it, point it out for the closing editor. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 19:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that - but seeing as I wrote all but three lines of the article, and as Regan123 argues above it makes a lot more sense to have it on the single A215 road article, didn't think it would be particularly controversial; when I expanded the article I should have expanded the section on the main article which it duplicates instead of creating a content fork. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator did not give a reason for deletion.Cúchullain ^t/c 06:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayastha[edit]

Highly biased treatment. Randy_LeJeune 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to this version, and block User:Nikhil Srivastava for repeated vandalism. Did the nominator not look at the edit history? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be an edit war going on over this article at present. I can't see any reason to delete the article, but it does need serious attention. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No reason or rationale is given for deletion, either here or on the talk page. Retain it. - Rapscallion 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No need to delete the article. Things are sometimes debatable, but deletion is no solution. Please do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.122.11.131 (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - The nominator did not give a single reason as to why the article should be deleted so I don't believe it should be deleted. Raj712 08:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazed! Why is such a dispute, over an article which provides you with such an enormous amount of information, exisiting? I agree, opinions were expressed in the article and those were with solid bases, more solid than those on which many a popular truths exist today. Yet you protest, fine, I am ready to withdraw them for the present(only from the article). Now that I am ready to remove the objectionable material (which was very wisely communicated to me and has, in fact, been removed or reformed), how do you propose the page to be addressed as being biased? ‘Vandalism’ as you call it, is not my intention, nor can I be charged with it-if the case be discussed on basis of tangible proofs (of course, prejudices can’t be reasoned with). About My name being so frequent in the list of updates: It’s only a further proof of my readiness to acknowledge any information which I provide and be responsible for it, I say this on my Honour that doing good is my only intention in providing everyone with such an amount of information; I have reasons for every word I add. If I were bent on doing a mischief, I could have done it using a thousand false names(Internet is a beautiful medium for the shrewd and the unworthy!), if only my conscience would have allowed me to(and it won’t). As far as updates are concerned, you don’t like my doing it, do it yourself, update it with such information as I have done, with so much study as my good fortune has been to accomplish. I have nothing more to add.
Nikhil Srivastava 16:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "tangible proofs" like this one, you mean? BTW, if you want to "do it under a thousand false names", all that'll happen is your IP getting blocked. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after significant rewriting.Cúchullain ^t/c 06:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abeed[edit]

Article appears to be almost entirely original editorial opinion and comment. Would require a complete rewrite to be acceptable. If I thought the problems could be solved by a simple edit I'd just tag the article for improvement. But since I doubt the article can be sufficiently improved to meet policy, delete due to serious issues with WP:OR and WP:NPOV and, if desired, create a new article on the topic at a later date that is objective and not based on OR. Dugwiki 17:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - although some references are provided (hence not a case of WP:NEO), I agree with the nominator that the current article is unsalvageably POV and largely fails WP:ATT. Delete unless substantially rewritten and sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen, and as even stated above, all that fixing this article required was ordinary editors to use ordinary editing tools. An administrator hitting a delete button is not required. Uncle G 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think you're selling your work short. It looks like you literally completely rewrote the article from scratch basically. In essence you ended up "deleting" the original article and replacing it with an entirely new one. Thanks for the improvements. :) Dugwiki 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep In light of Uncle G's complete rewrite of the article, I'm changing my recommendation to keep. The old article has been entirely replaced with a more objective looking better referenced article on the same topic. Dugwiki 18:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Holocaust[edit]

This unreferenced and POV article was nominated for deletion previously; the last significant content discussion was in May 2005. Google Books does not provide a single relevant source. Olessi 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject itself may merit attention (it's covered a bit at Vistula-Oder Offensive#Looting, atrocities and the flight of ethnic Germans and expansion has been requested) but this "article" is little more than a dicdef and a dubious one at best when the article itself says that mainstream historians don't use the term. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-admitted POV.DGG 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baristarim 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and likely unsourceable. Unsourced is not a reason for deletion but unsourceability is. Even if it's not a neologism, it is unclear that the term is used often enough to be included in Wikipedia. --Richard 05:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV-term not used by any reputable historian. No encyclopedic relevance. Jesusfreund 09:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Cactus (band)[edit]

Not notable, only one article links here, very little editing activity Croctotheface 18:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After applying some rather extensive google-fu (lots of false positives), I vote weak keep. The band might satisfy WP:N, primarily because of its connection to Colin Meloy but the article itself is barely even a stub. -- Seed 2.0 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep also. Notability per connection to Colin Meloy. Mentioned in a sufficient number of places. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to mention that the article has no references, which I left out of my nomination. Also, per WP:NMG, Meloy's involvement makes it likely that the band has been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (which is the main notability criterion), but it is often best to merge and redirect pages on bands that are only likely to be notable for this reason to the page about the person in question, in this case Colin Meloy. Considering the small amount of information at the page, I don't think we'd even lose anythng by doing that. Croctotheface 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep... or merge/redirect. I'm a bit indifferent about this, but Colin Meloy's involvement appears to fulfill criteria #5 of WP:MUSIC. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect per criteria #5's qualifications. That said, I would think that since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there exist at least *some* references and citations, that we should keep this article. Rockstar915 01:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brampton Award for Civic Bravery[edit]

No evidence this award exists (City of Brampton website does not appear to mention it), no reliable sources therefore can be found for the assertions in the article. Author also created (now deleted) article for supposed first recipient, Kateryna Leonchenkova. I don't believe the subject would be notable enough for an article even if sources could be found. Lexicon (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this award really did exist, it would belong as a one-line mention on the Brampton, Ontario article. --Dariusk 03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:56Z

White torture[edit]

Not encyclopedic in the least and does not conform to WP:RS, and the article itself can never be WP:NPOV since its just allegations and not verifiable. The allegation from Amnesty could be added to Uses of torture in recent times, though even that article is inherently POV. Khorshid 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Amnesty International and US department of State are not reliable sources?! it's a type of torture, the allegations are allegations, that can be noted. I don't see any reason why the article can "never be" NPOV. The term is well used and therefore notable. --Rayis 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Rayis, this is so well sourced that one is left with the only conclusion that the nominator is pushing a pro-Iran POV. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly keep your nonsensical accusations to yourself. When I nominated the article, there were only two sources [40], one of which is Amnesty and the other US State Department, both of which are not exactly NPOV sources. BTW, Christian Broadcasting Network is definitely, definitely NPOV. Yes, indeed. Sieg heil to the neocons! *sarcasm* Khorshid 02:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it had two sources? Amnesty international is a POV source?! What, a POV against crimes against humanity?! If you believe there is another POV to this matter, add sources which discredits the topic. If you want more sources for topics, ask for them by adding ^{[citation needed]} to statements or ask in the talk, not nominate it for deletion. --Rayis 09:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is very well sourced, I see no reason to delete. Altosax456 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per above comments. Xanucia 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Range of sources have been added now to make it clear that the term is notable, used in various media, newspapers and articles, and describes a very specific method of torture --Rayis 23:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone else. Acalamari 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe the article was not well-sourced when it was nominated, but it's fine now. --Dariusk 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks fine, though could use expansion. Torture has a long history. The Behnam 10:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Could use more international coverage, but it appears valid and notable as it stands. I agree this is a questionable nomination. — RJH (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that there are sufficient references - Ozzykhan 18:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has some problems, most notably conflating the definition of "white torture" as psychological torture and as a specific technique of sensory deprivation by making everything literally white. However, that is a content issue and therefore not a reason to delete. --Richard 05:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme sensory deprivation is not a form of psychological torture? --Rayis 10:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. --Darth Borehd 01:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uses of torture in recent times[edit]

Article is inherently WP:POV and can never be WP:NPOV - this is the type of article that would have an NPOV and cleanup tag forever since much of this data is at the level of pure allegation. My suggestion is that the article be deleted and whatever relevant information is there about each country be taken to that country's article on human rights, and anything else to articles on torture, which I think is unnecessary since the information is just a rehash of info from other Wikipedia articles. Khorshid 19:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment where have you found that WP:NPOV is reason to delete? Also, could you eleborate on what you consider POV, especially with those notorious unreliable and biased sources as HRW, AI, WaPO, The Telegraph, et cetera. The article was started in Nov 2004. Strange this sudden and poorly substantiated AfD.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:DELETE - this article is not in any shape or form encyclopedic. It is inherently POV can never be neutral - please also read WP:NPOV. Furthermore, HRW, Amnesty, and other such groups are not in any way "neutral" or unbiased - on the contrary, they are political action groups like any other, often relying on second and third-person accounts which cannot be verified. Like I said, country-specific items can be taken to the respective human rights articles for those countries. An article simply listing uses of torture in various countries can never be neutral. Khorshid 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore there is no conspiracy or "cabal" at work here so don't start with that nonsense please. Khorshid 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly advocating human rights is not equal to being biased. HRW, AI and others do not limit their comments to one country. Since they respond to every instance of human rights abuse the suggested POV sounds hollow. Also, you failed to explain the bias of WaPo, Telegraph, et cetera. Could you explain the cabal logic?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}

Delete, ~~pending further checks~~. I find it troubling that the article makes claims of torture in some places without proper citations (or any for that matter). These are extremely serious accusations that must be backed up by rock-solid references. Wikipedia is not a blog and alleging torture without double- and tripple-checking one's sources (which must obviously be provided) is bordering on defamation. In any case, it's not appropriate. -- Seed 2.0 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more research (particularly relating to the non-US sections) and I'm afraid I'll have to stick with my original vote on this one. WP:NPOV is a huge problem here and it's likely to stay that way. Accusations of this magnitude must be backed up by serious, confirmable sources, every step of the way. In addition to that, I would like to point out that Wikipedia articles are not a place to voice one's opinion (and articles are not essays) - there are plenty of places on the Internet to do that but this Wiki's mainspace isn't one of them. -- Seed 2.0 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure this could ever be encyclopedic. Arkon 21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divide the article into Torture and Foo articles, it is a valid subject country-by-country because there is no indication that one country's practice is based on or relies on anothers. There is an article Torture and the United States and so we can take whatever's sourced and put it separate articles. The collection just seems to muddle the facts. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The topic discussed is clearly encyclopedic, contains a great deal of well-sourced content (and some which badly needs sourcing), and is verifiable in principle. There seems to be a major problem with the structure, insofar as the country-by-country structure keeps the article consistently too long. Torture in, and torture and foo articles would be a big help. However, I have to add that there are major patterns of regional use of torture (for example in the Warsaw pact and Operation Condor countries historically). Several early sections of this article could be retained together with an attempt at a global summary. See, for comparison, Use of capital punishment by nation. We could also have a productive conversation (on talk, not here) about how to clearly and concisely represent different types of sources: conclusions of judicial review and governmental inquiries, human rights documentation, refugee reports, medical documentation, press reports, etc. Of course, NPOV and sourcing concerns should be taken up in the article itself.--Carwil 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FYI, here are the unsourced statements I found:
- In 2002, in Cologne, Germany, a history of physical torture at Eigelstein police station only came to light because the victim died, and a post-mortem examination unearthed the facts.
- Under Enver Hoxha's Communist dictatorship, torture was widely used.
- The government headed by Baathist Saddam Hussein made extensive use of torture, including at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
- Israel has used "moderate physical pressure" on terrorist suspects defined as "ticking bombs" for their knowledge of imminent terrorist attacks against civilians which the information they possessed had the power to prevent, at least since the 1970s. In 1987 the Israeli Supreme Court formed a special commission headed by retired Justice Moshe Landau, to review the whole question of physical pressure during investigations of this kind. In their report they reinforced the criteria for the use of "moderate physical pressure".
- Russian army is believed to use torture extensively in Chechnya and the surrounding districts, as investigative tool, and as a deterrent/punishment for captured fighters.
- Torture was widely practiced in the Soviet Union prior to its transformation to a federation in the 1980s, to extract confessions from suspects, especially in case of alleged plots against the security of the state or alleged collaboration with "imperialist powers".

Note I'm not the author of the comment above but I'd like to add that I am concerned about some these sources being cited out of context. As I mentioned above, serious alligations warrant serious research and serious sources. Some of these sources are a tab bit outdated and some are less than objective. -- Seed 2.0 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Carwil. --Rayis 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is very important and notable human rights issue. Having POV label is not a reason for deletion but for improvement. Proper "pro" and "contra" can be provided. Unsourced statements can be removed, in agreement with existing policies.Biophys 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep nom gives no valid reason for deletion & topic is obviously encylopedic in its own right so shldn't be dispersed among 'human rights' articles. query splitting, uneeded until article is too long & as it stands, gives a comparative overview. ⇒ bsnowball 11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid arguments presented for deletion. Clean-up maybe, but deletion?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was thinking about that as well but I don't think cleanup is the way to go here for two reasons. Number 1: A lot of the material has a certain bias, which is fine. Balancing that bias (encyclopedias deal with facts, not opinions) is a Sisyphean task and, therefore, I don't forsee the cleanup tag ever coming off. Number 2: There are some good parts but the article itself is in need of a neutral rewrite (I'll admit that the line between a major, major cleanup and a rewrite is somewhat blurry and more of a technicality, ie. delete and rewrite vs. keep and cleanup). If this article is kept, it's only appropriate to mark the parts that need reliable sources since we (I think) can all agree that the article isn't exactly FA-material at this point. I think it would be easier to just wipe the slate clean and rewrite the article (using the good parts, of course and replacing the bad parts with something that isn't pushing a point). -- Seed 2.0 10:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. This is a serious subject and it hsouldn't be deleted just because it is difficult to present it objectively.--Darth Borehd 01:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry but I strongly disagree with your second point. In fact, I believe it is the other way around. It is a serious subject and making allegations of torture is extremely serious indeed. Therefore, at least a best-effort to reliably source every single claim must be made. And, frankly, I don't see this here at all. Without reliable cites, the unsourced parts are plain and simple in violation of WP:NPOV and since this is true of large portions of the article, it could make the entire thing unencyclopedic. -- Seed 2.0 10:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important and quite wikipedic. Verifiability is a big challenge, but human rights organisations such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch may provide respectable (if not infallible) sources. Stammer 09:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Impossible context. There is no way to tackle torture worldwide in an article. It can't be balanced because it is always looking down from on high to specific locales. I would suggest a list in place of an article. Make a list of allegations of torture by locality, with links to articles (contexts) in which this can be addressed in a balanced way. Bus stop 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- reads more like a current events article than an encyclopedic one. very POV... even if I agree with some of the POV.--Dr who1975 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Americans in New York City[edit]

Yet another useless list. Suggested merge to List of Irish Americans bt most if not all of the people listed are already there. Anything else can be transferred to NYC borough and neighbourhood articles. Such an article sets a terrible precedent - if we were to create such lists and articles for every single local group Wikipedia would become a nightmare, as I've described on the talk. Ultimately Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and this sort of thing is definitely not encyclopedic. Furthermore it fuels nationalism, something which harms Wikipedia in the long run. Khorshid 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a list, but a description of the group with examples of its notables. More sourcing would be a good thing. But the article about ethnic groups in (usually) foreign environments is no worse than Little Persia, Los Angeles, California and Tehrangeles which aren't nominated for deletion and many others. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Little Persian and Tehrangeles are neighbourhood articles, like Hell's Kitchen or Chinatown or Little Italy. Your examples are biased as usual because of my background, but what should I expect from someone whose remarks have thus far pinned me as a "pro-Iran POV"? You have proven yourself to be a bad faith editor in all three of the AfDs I have recently nominated. As for this article, the description is minimal and its just a list. If its kept, it should be renamed List of Irish Americans in New York City. Its called "calling a spade a spade". You've heard that one, haven't you? Khorshid 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists are one of the best things about Wikipedia. Xanucia 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep because it is not just a list. It actually looks quite interesting. I would be agreeable to cut out useless information, and to get sources. Bearian 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly rename - it's not exclusively about Irish Americans, it seems to be more of a catalog of IA culture in NY and the neighborhoods and such. The list falls in the constraints of WP:LIST, and makes a lovely index. IMHO, the spot about nationalism harming Wikipedia is more of a straw man argument. --Dennisthe2 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, for a lot of other ethnic groups (especially non-Europeans), this sort of article would never survive on WP and would be deleted in the name of combating "nationalism", so its not a straw man argument. If you don't believe me, you can even try your hand at an experiment to see how long such articles last. Khorshid 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have a good point - and I apologize. My !vote, however, still stands. --Dennisthe2 02:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dennisthe2 BlackBear 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tag for improvement, references, etc. The Irish in New York have been the subject of several books, documentaries, even movies and television shows. I therefore, have no objection to the subject, and so far as it goes, I have no objection to any local group for which reliable information can be found having articles as well. FrozenPurpleCube 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per norm --Rayis 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:55Z

Craigdownings[edit]

No assertion of notability per WP:LOCAL, article is also unsourced. No google hits to yield any information either. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines and would be very tough to properly source. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seed 2.0 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acalamari 23:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is full of articles on villages in America with 2, or 1, or even 0 inhabitants - places like Craigdownings. Why delete this? Keeno 09:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rahman jamaal[edit]

Vanity page from a non notable actor/rapper. The large number of poor sources provided on the talk page made me decide that this article was better suited to AfD. Please see the article talk page for the authors defense of the article. Delete unless better sources can be found. J Milburn 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Claims of notability are not sourced. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 23:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-evaluate the sources. This man's done a lot.--Sajeraja 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above user has two edits, both to this page. --Tractor kings fan 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, his accomplishments should not be looked down upon. But after evaluating, I don't see a reliable source (especially not in the article, where such things belong) that clearly demonstrates notability according to WP:MUSIC. Some of the better sources only mention him in the context of the film, while this article and this debate are about him. --Tractor kings fan 05:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article might be valid, but not in its current form. Needs better and properly references sources. PimpThatSnack 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author has added more sources to the talk page, and some first party (and therefore pretty useless) sources to the article itself. J Milburn 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 02:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll come back w/ more stuff. Thanks enough.--Rahmanjamaal 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bad-faith nomination by user who tries to systematically get all his own contributions deleted ([41]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VS System[edit]

Article is about a non-notable collectible card game. No non-trivial third party sources to verify notability of this subject. —M (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A collectable card game supporting both Marvel AND DC comics being non-notable? A cursory search indicated that this card game has enough of a market to inspire a PSP game based on the VS System. This is purely a matter for clean-up.Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even I've heard of this game and I'm the shittiest cards player in Europe!Xanucia 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their is no reason I can see for this to be deleted, many sources prove its Notability. The Placebo Effect 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Plenty of magazines mention it, including but not limited to: Inquest and Scrye. Furthermore, there are Internet communities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.148.145.48 (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, definitely notable. I'm not a CCG player but I've heard of the system. --Dariusk 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:55Z

List of Super Paper Mario Items[edit]

This is game guide content that has no place on Wikipedia. Item guides belong on a gaming wiki, not here. I believe this page was moved content from the main Super Paper Mario article which was getting cluttered. But in any case: a massive list isn't useful to non-fans of the subject. RobJ1981 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my inital prod. Pagra shtak 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT, because Wikipedia is not a game guide. It's up here pretty quick, given SPM's release date. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 01:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other comments. You guys have pretty much covered it. Hardcore gamer 48 02:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per per above. -- Jelly Soup 01:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 07:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of wiki farms[edit]

A list of Wiki farms that's basically advertising. The table on the page lists the name, price, and features. Price and features is blatant advertising. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 20:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The price column only lists whether it is a paid or free site. Maybe we can use another title for the column heading other than "price." I will change it to "free/paid." There is no advertising hype. Several people removed anything sounding like advertising hyperbole after the last couple deletion reviews. That was the main complaint of those last deletion reviews. Those considering the page for deletion should look at Comparison of raster graphics editors and the previous discussion at Talk:Comparison of wiki farms. All the problems mentioned in the previous deletion reviews have been solved. Advertising hype has been removed. There are no prices listed.--Timeshifter 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to keep the wiki farms list is because it is a good place to point people when pages are deleted by all the "evil" (just kidding?) deletionists. :) --Timeshifter 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just advertising. Graphics editors are notable in their own right, which web hosts are generally not. Nssdfdsfds 22:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-type hosting is not notable? Wikia.com, founded by Jimbo Wales, is not notable? Wikipedia is consistently one of the top sites (number of hits). The software it uses, and spinoffs, are creating all kinds of collaborative content on the web. That is not notable? It is easily as notable as graphics and image editors. Collaborative text/HTML editors such as wikipedia, wikia, and wiki hosts are just as notable as regular text editors, etc.. See

Comparison of text editors

Comparison of layout engines (HTML)

Comparison of layout engines (graphics)

Comparison of layout engines (XML)

Comparison of web browsers

Collaborative editor# List of current editors

Comparison of raster graphics editors

Comparison of wiki software

List of wikis

List of collaborative software

I put the previously-mentioned comparison page in the list also, for convenience. --Timeshifter 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are going to know name of graphics editing (I can name right now Fireworks and Photoshop). People aren't going to know what BrainKeeper is. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of Fireworks. I use IrfanView. Many people have heard of Wikia.com hosting. The subject of a wikipedia list must be notable. But everything listed on the list does not have to be a household word. There is a guideline somewhere that discusses this. It talks of "Nixon's Enemies List." I doubt you have heard of everyone on that list. But the name "Nixon's Enemies List" itself is notable. --Timeshifter 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the guideline info. The Wikipedia is not a directory page states:

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." --Timeshifter 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused. Yes, wikipedia is notable. Yes, wiki *software* is generally notable. No, wiki *hosting* is not notable. I do not see any comparison of web hosts on wikipedia, although I'm sure the software they use, Apache, mySql, etc. is covered Nssdfdsfds 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki hosts are just as notable as one-click hosters. See:

Comparison of one-click hosters --Timeshifter 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikibooks:Wiki Science. Wikipedia is not a directory, or a wiki how-to guide. The Wiki Science wikibook is a suitable place for this information, however. Krimpet (talk/review) 02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the guidelines and guideline sections you link to ban these lists on wikipedia. In fact, just the opposite. And you can not make up wikipedia guidelines on your own. I copied the appropriate section of the guideline you linked to. See my previous comment. Here is more below from the section I quoted from previously. It is from WP:NOT#DIRECTORY

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example."

A list or comparison chart is not an instruction manual or a how-to guide. Please read the sections you linked to more carefully. --Timeshifter 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very much a directory. Nearly all of the entries in this list are not notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia articles. Nixon's Enemies List is a completely different matter, because that list itself is the focus of that article. On the other hand, the list would be quite suitable for the Wiki Science Wikibook. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wikibooks portal link to wikibooks:Wiki Science. I will bookmark it. It links back to another list on wikipedia: "A good starting point could be Comparison of wiki software." A big problem with the secondary wikipedia-linked sites (such as Wikibooks Wikispecies Wikipedia Commons Wikiquote Wiktionary Wikisource Wikinews Wikiversity) is that they all require separate logins. Lists and tables require a lot of people contributing to them. So wikipedia is the natural location for lists and tables. Until wikipedia and its offshoots create a common login, then the offshoots will always be much less popular for editors to jump in and edit. Too many watchlists to bookmark and keep track of. So for now, let us keep wikipedia for the lists and tables, and use the other sites for more specialist info such as the how-to guides, etc. that you mentioned. I may actually contribute there. But there is no way I could maintain a list or table by myself, and wikibooks will not have enough interested editors to maintain lists and tables. Many wikipedia editors drop in on list and table pages, though. So that is why we should keep them maintained on wikipedia for now. --Timeshifter 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I thought of. Many people want a single NPOV table listing wiki farms and their features. I looked all over for such a list and this is the only up-to-date NPOV one I could find on one page on the web. Other wiki farms would not allow this comparison on their sites, because it lists their competition. As I said it takes lots of editing to keep such a list up-to-date, and especially to keep it NPOV. That requires that this list be on a wiki site such as wikipedia. And Wikipedia is the only wholeheartedly NPOV wiki site with lots of editors. So this is almost the only place this NPOV list could exist on a continual basis. So I ask people to consider that this is a notable topic, and that WP:NOT#DIRECTORY can, and has, been interpreted to allow many lists and tables on wikipedia, if the subject of the list or table is notable. Some of the lists or tables are content forks from the main articles covering the topic. I ask people to use common sense when interpreting wikipedia guidelines. I think the main point of the wikipedia guideline is to avoid unnecessarily duplicating database-type lists and tables on the web such as yellow pages, tv and radio schedules, hotel guides, campground guides, and other very detailed, commercially-oriented, stuff. --Timeshifter 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it is difficult for me when I have too many watchlists. I already have several for wikipedia and its offshoots. It discourages me from participating in more offshoots because of the burden of checking up on the many watchlists. A common watchlist for wikipedia and all its offshoots would greatly encourage me and others to participate in more of the offshoots. Pages can't be protected from vandals unless there are enough people watchlisting them. And pages are difficult to edit collaboratively if one is not watching and reviewing the latest edits. --Timeshifter 03:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This i svery closely related to the interests of a great many people here, the information is well organized and by no means indiscriminate, and the parallel of similar pages is relevant. There is not yet a substantial body of even approximately similar material at Wikibooks. DGG 03:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per above. 68.91.255.124 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the best list of its kind, and I think it's very useful info. --R27182818 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The best" sounds like I like it, and the vote above gives no keep reason having to do with policy. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given any remaining policy reason either. You mentioned advertising earlier on. But there is no advertising in the article. It lists features just like many such lists do in wikipedia. See the other lists and tables. You mentioned prices. There are no prices in the article. It just says whether the wiki hosts are free or paid. Just like the other lists and tables do concerning image editors, text editors, and one-click web hosts. The intellectually honest thing to do is to change your own vote to "keep". People wanting to be admins have to show their willingness to graciously admit errors in applying wikipedia guidelines. That is what I have seen on the admin incident boards. Admins are respected when they acknowledge making mistakes, and when they listen to new information. And when they discuss how they have learned new things as circumstances change. --Timeshifter 04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telling if it's free or paid is against policy. Wikipedia is not a directory. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not against policy. I suggest you read that section more carefully. I already quoted from it. Wikipedia articles frequently tell whether something is free or not. --Timeshifter 15:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3 of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY:Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.
The last sentence is the most important part. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. A comparison of Wiki farms is the yellow pages. (By the way, Wiki farm shouldn't have a page either). --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 15:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing original research by your creative interpretation of one sentence in a wikipedia guideline. I also quoted from that guideline. See my previous comments. The other parts of that guideline contradict your interpretation.

See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example."

We have to use some common sense sometimes with wikipedia guidelines. We have to figure out the spirit of the guideline. The fact that all those other pages have survived this long should tell you something. If it survives this is the 3rd time this page will have made it through a deletion review. You mislabeled it as the second nomination. You should look at the talk page and the previous deletion review comments more carefully when nominating something for deletion. You are wasting a lot of valuable wikipedia time by these multiple deletion reviews. There are wikipedia pages that are really bad and need a deletion review. There are other uses of your time, too. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Did you see my latest reply to your comment on my talk page? I found more pages of interest. Now that is an area where you could make a lot of people very happy. Learning to program the PHP code, etc.. To create unified logins and watchlists. To expand the user base editing on the wikipedia offshoots. Then we could have a lot more places to put these lists and tables. It does little good to put these tables and lists on the offshoots now, because there is not a large enough user base there. --Timeshifter 15:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware this is the 3rd nomination. However, it's the second under this title. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that Timeshifter's arguments for inclusion are sensible. A possible suggestion though - perhaps more columns can be added to list the features, somewhat like in this article? I'm not sure if that would make it too cumbersome. Or perhaps a "features" section can be kept for the more eccentric differences, but have separate columns for the more common traits. Esn 02:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.It includes a lot of information that may be helpful for some readers. Not advertising in my opinion.Biophys 06:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is obviously notable, nom's only valid arguments are on article quality, whuch is never the basis for deletion. Edit, don't delete articles that have quality issues. Jerry 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nolong[edit]

Non notable regional neologism. Perhaps a better fit at Urban Dictionary Mattinbgn/^talk 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced slang neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, silly. Has zero chance of becoming anytthing better than a substub. Jerry 22:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's second section is reposting of deleted contenct (CSD G4), and is borderline CSD G11. The issues raised in this and previous AfDs with regards to advertising have not yet been addressed. An article could perhaps be written about this subject, but more reliable sources with more non-trivial information must be found. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace Events[edit]

Repost of deleted MySpace Secret Shows, along with information about a couple other MySpace shows. Article's author claims the article is supported with reliable sources, but I don't see them.

Two of the "sources" are press releases, which are not reliable.
The Seattle Weekly article is about Lily Allen, an artist who happened to get her start on the MySpace Secret Shows. It only mentions the MSSS, which is not enough non-trivial coverage to meet WP:RS.
The Washington Post article is a list of events that is happening in the area, one of which is a MySpace Secret Show. Still a trivial mention, nothing more.
The MediaPost article is MySpace sponsoring a Franz Ferdinand concert; again, the MySpace Secret Shows get only a mere mention.

None of the sources have enough coverage of any of the events listed in this article to meet WP:ATT or the notability guidelines WP:WEB. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Please see this diff. I started work on the MySpace Events article today, and I hope that it's already more presentable. I've removed numerous problems with tone, grammar, advertising, and fixed formatting issues. I'm interested in making this article acceptable, and I've listed out a few problems I found and ideas for improvement at the talk page. My next endeavor will be to correctly cite the references (and most importantly, find new ones) in-line with the content; that should be completed today. Please let me know what else needs to be done to the article, and I'll attempt to salvage it. I think that with an additional editor (or editors) working on this article, the outcome will be much better than previous attempts. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The problem with the article is still sources. There doesn't appear to be any non-trivial coverage (meaning more than just mentions of these events) about any of these events from reliable sources. If you can produce those, I'd be willing to reconsider the nomination. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have found several sources that are not blogs and are independent of MySpace and advertising companies. Please let me know if the following are acceptable (the best appears to be the first one, so far):

1. News article from the Christian Post
2. News article from NeuMagazine
3. News post from HipHopDX.com
4. News post from NewsBlaze.com
5. News post from ToothAndNail.com
6. News post from BrooklynVegan.com

Keep in mind that I am still looking for more sources, even if these do establish notability of the subject. As soon as someone lets me know that these are okay, I can add them to the article. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re above - all of these appear just to be "xxx played a show which happened to be organized by Myspace" - not saying that's necessarily non notable, but it could all apply just as well to, say, Bugbear Bookings. The article needs to establish - and provide sources for - what makes events organized by Myspace different enough to other events to be notable. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Will abstain to give benefit of the doubt to Vendettax, but in its present state this is a prime ((db-spam)) candidate. BTW "Lily Allen happened to get her start on the MySpace Secret Shows" gives MySpace a bit too much credit; "Lily Allen happened to get her start through being Keith Allen's daughter" would probably be a bit more accurate. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously keep It has many many sources more than needed and it was rewritten to make it sound quite professionalMartini833 02:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentto iridescenti how many times does a person have to say this is not spam Martini833 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, on the contrary, this is spam. The language used is promotional, and this is a thinly veiled attempt to recreate MySpace Secret Shows, which was deleted in AFD and subsequently speedied and salted as G4. This particular incarnation is not a G4 candidate, but it is a G11 candidate, containing promotional language for various MySpace-related events. --Core desat 05:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed quite a bit of promotional language yesterday; can someone specifically indicate how else the remaining content should be worded so that it is not a G11 candidate? *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add multiple, independent, non-trivial sources that show that the events are noteworthy because they're organised by Myspace - not that they're just more in a chain of non-notable gigs that happen to be sponsored by Myspace. Remove all the non-neutral language ("great bands" etc) from the article - approach it from the point of view; if you didn't know what Myspace was, would you learn anything from the article. As it stands, there's nothing that wouldn't be just as well served by a single paragraph "they also organise some live music & comedy shows" paragraph in the MySpace article.

Although you might not like me saying this, you haven't rewritten the article, you've just moved the long laundry-list of bands to List of MySpace Events, which is itself a prime deletion candidate under WP:NOT.

I know you think we're picking on you, but we're not; Wikipedia isn't a directory, and unless you can show why these events are special enough to be different from events organised by any other promoter, all those other promoters would (rightly) complain if we deleted their entries but kept this one. Read through the deletion discussions for other articles and have a look at the ones that are getting mostly "keep" votes compared to those getting "delete" votes (and most especially at the edit histories of articles that have changed from being "delete" to "keep" candidates to see what's changed) to see the kind of thing that needs doing. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added List of MySpace Events to the nomination, btw. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged List of MySpace Events with ((db-repost)) as a repost of MySpace Secret Shows. I can't delete it myself since I've taken part in this AFD. --Core desat 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - where does "MySpace Secret Shows tour the United States, but are also in the U.K., Australia, Japan, Canada, France, and Germany" come from? List of MySpace Events shows one event in Canada and all the rest in the US. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of MySpace Events has been speedily deleted as a repost of MySpace Secret Shows. MySpace Events should also be Deleted but I don't see a valid speedy reason for it.--Isotope23 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I've continued to remove all promotional language that I could find. However, I have a few concerns regarding this AfD; please keep in mind that this is a civil comment and not meant to antagonize in any way. It strikes me that if a person voting had not previously seen or been involved in prior deletion discussions of this subject (MySpace Events, Shows, etc.) the voting would not be as unforgiving. I do not have a personal interest in either this article or its subject; I was not the author, simply a random contributor (I mainly work in the Wikify project). Someone mentioned above that readers need to "learn something" from this article to give it meaning. While I personally think MySpace is trivial, a lot of people do not, and the article did have sufficient content to educate me on the phenomenon of something that MySpace is doing (that I previously did not know about). It seems that if voters were to comment solely upon the current article content, and not base this upon previous discussions or reincarnations or how they feel about the subject matter, it would be a more focused and unbiased decision. I hope that this does not offend anyone, but I sincerely believe it to be a valid concern. Thank you. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont think it´s advertisement, or spam. It´s just a MySpace feature that personally I would go, beside the fact that is for charity (but it´s not because of it that I support this article btw) and allow unknown comediants . However, it lacks on some important thinks, like info not extracted from press releases. In the best of the cases I would merge it with MySpace, however the article is too long already. --ometzit<col> 03:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all this was never spam and dont hold grudges about myspace secret shows also the int. shows are real the main page has all of the links. Martini833 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Martini833, if you don't want people to think you're a spammer for MySpace, repeatedly recreating a page which was deleted as spam two days ago isn't the way to go about it... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reposted it because it complements this page so it doesnt become execively long. And of course im not a spammmer. Also iridiwatever ur name is if you really hate this article bcus of the myspace secret shows incident u shouldnt be editing wikipedia because that wouldnt make you indiferent. 65.11.27.42 15:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)— 65.11.27.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't repost deleted articles. Take it to WP:DRV.--Isotope23 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources. Appropriate for an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious repost of a salted article, should have used delrev. Jerry 22:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn´t matter if there is a previous deleted article. It could be in the MySpace page, yeah, but that one is too long already, so it can be in a separated page. Also, I agree with the content of this page, I think is a fair contribution to the encyclopedia and for that reason if the article is deleted myself and probably many more would just WP:BB and WP:IAR and do it again and again and again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextrevelian 006 (talk • contribs)
- Comment It does actually matter if there's a previously deleted article. Per WP:CSD, that's actually a valid reason to speedily delete the reposted content (as the previous AfD ran for the right length of time). If the article keeps being re-created without being able to pass the various requirements to be included, there's a high chance it would be salted and that those involved in the persistent re-creation would be asked to stop making a point and stick to creating an encyclopedia. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I read somewhere that if I dont agree with the deletion of a page that one can be re-created in order to achieve a point when is valuable for the encyclopedia, after adjusting to the given parameters--ometzit<col> 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes and no. Simply re-creating the page over and over again (as you appear to be threatening to do above) is most emphatically not the solution. If the re-created content can be shown to meet the criteria for inclusion, however, there's a good reason to re-create the page. The question is going to be, of course, whether or not the subject does meet the criteria. There's certainly a reasonably large current of opinion at the moment saying that it doesn't, so any re-created article would need to be a lot clearer in its criteria-meeting. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~~(just like the previous six times this article was deleted)~~(that was a joke). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:53Z

The seventh earth[edit]

Describes itself as an alternative view of the nature of this solar system. I would say that "alternative" is putting it mildly: "totally cranky" might be nearer the mark. Surprisingly large number of ghits for "seventh earth" but is it notable? Certainly it needs to be re-written to make it clear that it is pseudo-science. And as for the arrogance of putting it in Category:Wikipedia core topics! -- RHaworth 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very reluctant delete - WP:BOLLOCKS from start to finish, and not enough adherents to be a noteworthy pseudoscience — but I do urge everyone to go visit their website which is one of the most entertaining pieces of insane rambling I've read for a long time. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE. Anville 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fringe "theory" Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. A Google search turned up 2,150 hits, but a check of the pagesl ocated turned up religious writings and even a guitar by that name. So as a "theory" about the Solar System the number of hits is much lower. --EMS | Talk 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Someguy1221 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as interesting pseudoscience. There is no proof of notability though.Biophys 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think it actually is intended as pseudoscience. It seems to be a deliberately fantastic piece of art, and the artist has succeeded in getting it linked. DGG 02:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Yes, that is most probable. But the illustrations are beautiful.Biophys 14:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This needs references indicating that other noteworthy sources mention it before being considered notable (external links are to its own sites, and myspace/youtube). --Christopher Thomas 03:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bollocks. Michaelbusch 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Activesite[edit]

I do not think the subject of this article is sufficiently notable FisherQueen (Talk) 21:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. One of many thousands of business software suites, has no NPOV verifiable sources which meet notability requirements. Jerry 22:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sufficient assertions of notability. No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cryptic. -Splash - tk 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Sue Wood[edit]

NN comic book writer, unverified stub. Delete per WP:ATT and WP:N K@ngi e ^meep! 21:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I had placed the tags on this article a couple days ago when I came across it. It's something of a newer article and I wanted to give the contributors a bit of time to develop it (hence why I tagged it instead of nominating it) but fundamentally agree that it fails inclusion standards as it stands. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I woulda left it to gather dust before AfDing this too, except for the fact that the comics she created were recently recently AfD'd for notability and sourcing reasons-K@ngi e ^meep!
Keep Notable enough for me and of interest to many people. Xanucia 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep[[42]] a google search quickly shows refrences, comics she has worked on, created etc. --Xiahou 00:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add citations of her work in Amazing Heroes and Wandering Star. I'm sure Wandering Star was reviewed in The Comics Journal at some point, which should be sufficient for her (and her work) to pass WP:NOTE. I don't personally care enough to find those citations, but she's certainly attributable (even if not yet attributed). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. --Darth Borehd 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced substub. No prejudice against a proper article, but this ain't it. —Cryptic 01:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unsourced article in violation of WP:LIVING. Jerry 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adz[edit]

Article says it is about an "amateur" musician. No independently published references provided and a quick search didn't appear to pull up anything either. Only references are the subject's own website. Delete as not likely to meet either WP:N or the proposed WP:INCLUSION Dugwiki 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete misses WP:MUSIC by miles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Korg (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Acalamari 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La lucha abierta[edit]

Notability not verifiable. Peter Rehse 11:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable Dylan 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has no established notability in the English-speaking world. The article itself promises us that we will not find any sources for this subject due to the supposed secrecy as it is a supposedly illegal activity. It is not the place of an encyclopedia to release "secret" unverifiable information, so it is WP:NOT includable. Jerry 22:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Verify. -- Satori Son 03:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club Penguin Locations[edit]

Like stated in the template I moved it to a gaming wiki. The article can now be found at [43]. So I guess the article is now useless or can be redirected from wikipedia.--Cs california 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it up and replaced the game-guidish yous with one, a player, or a penguin. I also got rid of most of the repeated information, so it may qualify as a Wikipedia-worth article.--Coin945 05:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. In addition, this aspect of the game is insufficiently notable, and thus the contents of this article cannot be properly verified by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 03:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The price of oil and the economy[edit]

Redundant content is already available in the section Petroleum#Pricing. Madchester 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are at least 10 price of oil related articles on Wikipedia. (In fact I found one more orphan article today.) These definetely need a main article. Also, there are hundreds of potential backlinks. All of the material cannot fit in petroleum. -- Petri Krohn 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a speculative short essay. --Dennisthe2 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A surprising number of people have worked on this, but it is really a part of the Energy Portal. DGG 02:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Poor title, essayish POV tone, unsourced speculation. A trifecta! --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete title pushes this article into a POV corner from which it can not be rescued. Jerry 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WinHunter ^(talk) 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Spiliadis[edit]

This article fails to meet the Wikipedia notability standards

I am also nominating the following related pages because it fails to meet Wikipedia notability standards:

Delete -- not notable, no third-party sources. Dylan 22:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - non notable, no need to merge to Baltimore Urban Debate League (a generator of stub wikilinks). Cate |_Talk 13:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete -- Come on, what does "notable" mean? Whoever nominated these articles is purely abusing a very vauge policy. These individuals are major people that have been involved in the creation, management, and success of the Baltimore Urban Debate League. Most biographies on Wikipedia (unless they're famous) don't have a third party source, and are original sources of info, plus I asked these people DIRECTLY what their information was. I can publish this information in order to make it "verfiable". I think it's unjust and unfair to just delete them though. Adam 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as NN or merge one or two lines each into main BUDL article. So NN that my wife works for Balt City schools and never heard of BUDL itself never mind the people. He also dislikes "stupid stuff", whining, polka, and bad smells. She has two cats. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the information content of all five of these articles is nil; it's mostly cats and tofu. --Bongwarrior 04:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These are all NN. And comment - More importantly, I feel they trivialize your work on the Baltimore Urban Debate League article. Just looking it over you've got a lot of good work there and your project goal is admirable. But not every facet or BUDL is notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EarthPerson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per WP:BIO and WP:Music - non-notable singer. (aeropagitica) 08:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Morgan (singer)[edit]

Not-notable singer; fails WP:MUSIC. All the sources included are from her websites; there is no indication that she is known beyond her MySpace and her self-published Sonicbids website. The closest she comes to notable is being nominated for (didn't win) a small-time, Eastern Canada award and the unconfirmed claims of getting in the top 100 of Canadian Idol and having her songs "played numerous times on Canadian radio stations." Her album is not available through Amazon or other vendors; it doesn't have an entry at AllMusic. The article is written anecdotally, which further cements in my mind the problem that there are no third-party sources included. Delete. Dylan 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie is not yet well known, I know that. I think we all know that. But she's played on the radio all around Canada and she now has a music video on CMT. She's going to become well known, why delete this when it will be up again in a couple of months.

I know Melanie personally. There are linked articles on my created article of Melanie that do state that she made it to the top 100 of Canadian Idol. I put alot of work into this article, it's not against any rules, other than what you say that she's not well known. I'm trying to contribute and like I said she will be well known. Theres no need to rant about her not having success, its both rude and disrespectful towards her and her family. She is trying her hardest to become nationally known. She has a CD out, a music video out, she's met and has singers like George Canyon, Sherly Albert on her MySpace.

Also, I wanted to put this article up for her to get more known around the world. Maybe someone who is in the music industry would see her on here and next thing you know she'd be #1 on the top ten charts.

Therefore, I see the deletion of this article (which I have put hard work into, translating each and every word into my own words) inappropriate and you saying this article does not fit the standards of Wikipedia is a disgrace. I realise thats your own opinion, but just because you (Dylan) have reported MY article, doesn't mean that it should be deleted. I do not see anyone else signing it, you don't own Wikipedia. I've been a wikipedia user here for a long time and plan on being for a much longer time.

Thank You. WWEFreak666 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, WWEFreak, please understand that this AfD is not intended as a personal affront against you or Melanie Morgan. My discussion of her relative lack of fame is a demonstration that this article fails to meet the policies required of all Wikipedia articles, not a "rude and disrespectful" insult to her. I appreciate your contributions and I know you are contributing in good faith, but please read WP:MUSIC and WP:Notability for more information on the notability requirements of Wikipedia articles.

Regarding two of your objections: that she may become more famous in the future is not a reason why we might keep article; she isn't now, and that's all that matters as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The other thing is that I can appreciate from a marketing standpoint how Wikipedia may be a valuable tool, but this is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service: see what Wikipedia is not for more.

And finally, listing this article for deletion is the opposite of a unilateral decision on my part. I have nominated it, and I make no pretenses of "owning" Wikipedia. The purpose of AfD is to start a discussion to reach a community consensus. You just happened to be the first user to stop by this page and comment, but it's meant for everyone who wants to go ahead and chime in.

I can understand your concern in losing your hard work. If you like, I can show you how to archive the page in your own userspace so that it isn't lost, and it can be restored if Morgan as a biography subject ever fulfills Wikipedia's requirements. Dylan 20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Hús ö nd 17:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Middle School[edit]

Previously part of this mass AfD, this is yet another school with no claims on notability. Admittedly, it's an article which bends over backwards to look good, but ultimately there's no notability here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks good yes, but doesn't say anything: "6th Grade teams:Roadrunners, Synergy, Tornadoes" etcDGG 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 08:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Ann Roberts[edit]

This is an article about the victim in a 50-some year old murder case, unsolved. While I'm sure it is important to the family, I can see no way it is encyclopedic or notable. The article makes no claim that it led to anything important, like Amber alert, etc. It sounds like a close copy of a 'true crime' website article. --killing 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notibility is questionable... anyway It doesn't have any sources and so isn't verifiable.--Dacium 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources and cleanup Your confusing your own laziness with verifiability. Verifiability is finding references in Google that match info in the article and adding the sources. Any subject can be in Wikipedia if it is covered by at least two other sources. Not every article has to be "crime of the decade" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not Crime Library. The majority of this article was a copyright violation from here; I've removed that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 08:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat Day[edit]

Delete - Neologism, no possibility for expansion, WP:NOT a dictionary WLU 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete as per above - but how can you have the heart to delete something which references a page headlined "Blast the Sludge Out of Your Colon"? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately wikipedia must be ruled by the head, not the heart and glands :) WLU

But how about the colon? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a most rashly invented term. I've never heard of it, and it's unworthy of being in this encyclopedia. - XX55XX 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 08:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous cases of child murder after 1900[edit]

Request to rename is stuck trying to reach consensus. However one suggestion was to delete. In looking at this list, it appears totally POV and there is no inclusion criteria. So, it either needs to be deleted or totally overhauled. If someone can find a way to fix the problems and it is kept, it probably needs to be converted to a sortable list. Vegaswikian 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no possible objective definition of "infamous," and the cutoff date of 1900 makes it an arbitrary list. Otto4711 23:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --Dariusk 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list with no encyclopaedic purpose. --Folantin 08:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - irretrievably POV. No objective inclusion criteria given, and that's unlikely to happen. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "find a way to fix the problems?" How? The way to fix them is to delete the article. --Richard 05:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, then redirect to Grand unification theory. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:48Z

Unification theory[edit]

Only mentions one person holding this theory. I'm not convinced that the Notability criterion has been met. In terms of independent coverage of the book/theory, not written by the author - only one very brief "new book notice" or review is cited, and (after having used Google Translate to read it) it's not even clear to me whether it was written by someone other than the book's author. greenrd 23:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, not NPOV, and too messy to Wikify. Bearian 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's there, and use as a redirect to Grand unification theory. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make redirect to Grand unification theory per above. Someguy1221 02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above. Dthaiger 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: patent nonsense: every unthinkable aspect of the Universe is the sum of one fantastic equation., he equation was so simple it was invisible. Infinity equals Zero. Eventually later a redirect (to Grand unification theory), but only after a clenr page history! Cate |_Talk 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is original research. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 08:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MarchFirst[edit]

Article was speedy deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned finding an assertion of notability. The matter is brought to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the fifteen sources on the talk page and the 890 that aren't listed there. One of the bigger corporate collapses of the dot-com shakeout, and certainly one that attracted major media attention. ~ trialsanderrors 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, huge huge company in the field, one of the most spectacular flameouts of the dot-com collapse. You can understand why it was speedied, though, so cleanup is warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Company is clearly notable. Article is much improved. Rant: With all due respect for the problem of spam, this is a posterchild example of being overly aggressive with speedy deletion. This article was started in Feb 2004, edited by a bunch of users, but not very good (like many WP articles) and not explicitly asserting notability. Then in Feb 2007 someone slapped a CSD on it for not asserting notability, and it was duly shortly thereafter deleted by an admin. After a DRV and an AFD and a bunch of editing, it looks like we'll get it right and the article is much improved, but wouldn't it have been so much more pleasant and more efficient to either politely encourage editors to assert notability or at worst "put it on probation" via PROD? Speedy deletion should be for clearly uncontroversial deletes - even if you haven't heard of something, if multiple people have over the span of months or years edited the article, it's worth getting some more eyeballs on it rather than nuking it. Speedy delete ought to mean only "it's patently clear this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, let's not waste time discussing". Rant off. Martinp 17:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:CORP by a wide margin. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 some form. Shimeru 02:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of atonal pieces[edit]

The article currently is not a list of atonal pieces. It is instead a list of the names of 13 out of literally tens of thousands of composers who have written atonal pieces. For this reason the article is potentially infinite. Also the article seems to be contradictory with other “Technique” articles. For instance all pieces listed in the List of twelve-tone pieces would also need to be listed here because twelve-tone music can be looked at as a sub form of atonal music. At the very least it should be renamed with a more selective title and then rewritten. S.dedalus 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my coments. S.dedalus 05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, revise, cite. Hyacinth 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename and expand. There's room for a list of "notable" composers who've used atonal techniques, or famous atonal pieces. Right now this article leans towards the former. —vivacissamamente 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per vivacissamamente - famous atonal composers? - v.difficult to get a good name for it, sbandrews (t) 18:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Rename → List of composers of atonal music — Rebuild from content of atonality. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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