< August 16 August 18 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep.. CitiCat ♫ 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HedgeStreet[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with the same name, Hedgestreet (talk · contribs), with no other edits than related to Hedgestreet. This is a part of several Advertising pages added to the project including Hedgelet which resulted in a deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgelet. Appears this is just one in a batch of WP:SPA Accounts used to promote Hedgestreet on Wikipedia Hu12 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→ See also WP:SPAM Case: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Hedgestreet_http:.2F.2Fspam.hedgestreet.com
→ See also WP:COI Case: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hedgestreet

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 issue is whether we can write a verifiable, neutral-point-of-view article on Systemshock; these two policies are fundamental to Wikipedia. To satisfy them, we need multiple, independent reliable sources (forums, blogs, and wikis generally don't count as reliable) that discuss the subject non-trivially. This is what notability refers to. Although it is clear that Systemshock is mentioned on independent sites, these are generally short references that don't establish notability. The lack of substantial third-party information needed for verifiability means that we cannot sustain an article on Systemshock that conforms to Wikipedia's core policies. — TKD::Talk 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systemshock[edit]

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

A friend brough this article to my attention. Fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank is lower than 100k [1] Computerjoe's talk 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless for almost every english speeking person, also it certainly dosen't warrant an article being lower than 100k.--Kkrouni/Ккроунл/ΚκρΩυνι 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computerjoe's talk 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's put that to one side and concentrate on demonstrating notability. Look at the criteria at WP:WEB. Anything there? An award perhaps? --Malcolmxl5 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thanks. I have flagged up this AfD with the members of the WikiProject South Africa and also WikiProject Computer science to get some opinion from people with a bit more knowledge in these areas. --Malcolmxl5 07:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no reference to directory listings. User:GuildWarsZA 12:24 18 August 2007 (GMT+2)
  • I'd consider the "top 100 sites" a directory listing. Corpx 15:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One line mentions in a magazine etc is not enough to deem notability. Per WP:N, the article must be either about the site, or mention the site significantly to count towards notability Corpx 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability sourced. Being mentioned by a random editor of a gaming magazine is not enough.--Svetovid 20:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No basis for nomination.. CitiCat ♫ 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspies For Freedom[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aspies For Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I nominate this for deletion because there is bullying of aspies at Aspies For Freedom by their Joint founder Sorry, but this is nothing personal, I just think that it's best that this goes now due to Amy Nelson's bullying tactics that she employs against ANYONE that disagrees with her or some other thing that Amy thinks is right when in reality it is not, I don't want other aspies subject to it, I support the aims of AFF but not AFF themselved due to the way they treated numerous members who only wanted a safe place to go

feel free to discuss this, remember this is nothing personal against Amy Nelson, despite the grief she has caused to countless aspies, myself included--Pika Pikachu2005 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching Legacy of the American Football League[edit]

I'm not sure what this is, seems like some kind of timeline or something which is WP:NOT territory, I tempt to speedy it for lack of content but placing it here instead. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 23:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MastCell Talk 16:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Journal[edit]

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

This type of non-notable local paper is made fun of on The Simpsons as The Springfield Shopper. Speciate 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - Kankakee County, Illinois has a population of over 100,000, and the newspaper has a daily circulation of 26,000. Of course I subscribe to the New York Daily News, which has a circ of over 800K. Anyway, here are another couple of sources - [3][4]CitiCat ♫ 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources turns up at a later date, it could be taken to deletion review to consider re-creation. MastCell Talk 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Boursicot[edit]

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

Simple and obvious failure to meet WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 22:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I don't put much faith in ghits when discussing AfDs, I will comment that I don't find the number particularly high. More to the point, the search doesn't indicate that the artist has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", as called for in WP:BIO. I'd argue that the link provided, a promo piece in a magazine devoted to the galleries of British Columbia, Alberta, Washington and Oregon, does not match this description. Victoriagirl 16:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.. CitiCat ♫ 19:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu Tejam[edit]

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

Article is about a 'title' which google could not define, but it speaks more about a person (seems to be N. T. Rama Rao) whose article here doesn't even mention the word 'Telugu Tejam'. Google brings up nothing relating to this being a title either. Lastly, there seems to be a book written by "N.T.R" called Telugu Tejam, but that is certainly not what this article is about. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a title of King is not an award. And the title/honor/award itself has nothing to show that it is a notable award. i said 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I is right. A title is in no way a reward. A 'title' can often be a negative thing; They gave him the title of 'coward' when he confessed he was scared of killing the spider. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I didn't say 'reward' I said 'award'. 2) I didn't say the title itself was an award, but the bestowment or conferring was an award. Thruppence 11:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True - I meant 'award'. And that is not necessarily true either. It is, in a very vague sense, but it was not even slightly indicated in this article. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Express Challenge Cup[edit]

Optical Express Challenge Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article does not meet notability guidelines. The match was a friendly match that was given the ceremonial title of "Challenge Cup", and although a trophy was awarded, it is not recognised as a major tournament, nor is is likely to be competed for ever again. Furthermore, the article does not cite any sources. - PeeJay 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Advertising, and info in other article anyway. ELIMINATORJR 23:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alturas (frequent flyer program)[edit]

It's a FF program for an airline - what is the notability in such a thing that it requires a seperate article? There is nothing novel about it, it does not represent an advance in FF scheme technology or anything that would make give it notability within the field. It requires a single line on the airline article page. Here's I'll write it." Alturas is the frequent flyer program for Santa Bárbara Airlines." What more need to be said? we are WP:NOT a business directory (there are quite a few of those articles knocking about - I think a few more AFDs are in order). Fredrick day 22:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried to ((db-spam)) but someone else thought it "didn't look like spam". <shrug> --Fredrick day 09:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Rhymes[edit]

Book of Rhymes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Rumoured album by an artist whose own article was deleted for insufficient notability. WP:CRYSTAL. Same for the two rumoured singles. Paul Erik 22:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Come Back Home (Monkane song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Forever (Monkane song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prod was removed from all three articles by the same anon IP without explanation. --Paul Erik 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 copyvio. Nothing has been done since the AfD was started. No prejudice to re-creation, of course. ELIMINATORJR 23:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Combat Control[edit]

Air Force Combat Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is almost entirely copyright violation, copied from http://www.usafcct.com and http://www.specialtactics.com Ward3001 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both Afd and WP:CV are OK, but if nothing is done to the article soon it needs to be deleted. For legal reasons, Wikipedia should not have such blatant copyvio of an entire article sitting unfixed for months or, in this case, years. Ward3001 17:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have known only one "Air Force Ninja" in my 20+ years of govt service and they dont have the time and wont take the time to edit wikipedia. I vote "KEEP" and get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.36.19 (talk • contribs)

Fortunately, this is Wikipedia, and there are rules about copyright violation. You get over it. Ward3001 23:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Povratak na Kosovo[edit]

Povratak na Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable video game mod. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep
And yet very popular on thee balcans ... You can't say it's not natable just beacause you didn't hear for it ... A game like this would never get into USA because it is somewhat contoversal for USA audience who were not allowed to see Albanians on Kosovo as terrorists... SSJ 5
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Only two established Wikipedians wished to keep this article, one of them weakly so. The other keep comments -- including a duplicate by an SPA -- are evidence of an effort to promote this company through Wikipedia, probably with an underlying conflict-of-interest. As DGG observes, if one were to prune the spammy content from the present draft, little text would remain. All of this evidence comprises a compelling case for deletion. Xoloz 15:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoplet[edit]

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

I originally deleted this on the mixed grounds of no assertion of notability and being very much in the nature of advertising materials, given several of the temporarary, unecyclopedic information that is included. However, following discussion at my talk page, I'm persuaded that more people than the tagger and I should consider the case. I note that the three references all come from the same source. I do not agree with the notion that "Every industry deserves to have a darling and a hero" in some way gives a right to an article. I believe that there are serious conflicts of interests in the authorship also, given the nature of the message on my talk page. Splash - tk 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Rewrite:
Shoplet.com is an on-line e-market place whose core competency is the sale of office and office related products, and competes against the large brick and mortar retailers such as Staples, Office Max, and WB Mason. Shoplet.com was launched in 1994, and maintains its corporate offices in Silicon Alley, New York. Since its inception, Shoplet.com has broadened its product offering to cover over 200,000 products covering office supplies, office furniture, ink and toner supplies, paper supplies and printing services. In March 2004, Shoplet.com expanded its operations to include servicing the public sector when it received its first Federal GSA supply contract. Today Shoplet.com is the holder of 5 Federal GSA supply contracts (GS-35F-0736P (70 Information Technology); GS-07F-0091T (84 Surveillance Systems); GS-02F-0141P (75 Office Products); GS-07F-5601R (73 Cleaning & Maintenance Products); and GS-28F-0015T (71 Furniture)). Shoplet.com currently serves the entire United States and Puerto Rico though its web of approximately 140 distribution and fulfillment facilities strategically located nation wide. Shoplet.com’s distribution and service network encompasses an operation of 120 people. OPI, the office products industry publication, named Shoplet.com as the emerging office supply store of the year and fastest growing company in its sector in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Shoplet.com is also a premier benefactor and sponsor of the City of Hope Foundation whose mission is the prevention and cure of cancer and other life threatening diseases. This affiliation and philanthropic effort is due in large part to Shoplet.com’s founder and CEO, Tony Ellison, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker. Nymonsoon 13:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.. CitiCat ♫ 02:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's Discount Furniture[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bob's Discount Furniture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a regional furniture store. Doesn't show how the company is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (companies), and there doesn't seem to be any coverage of this chain in reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opus (magazine)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Opus (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is the second nomination; the first nomination resulted in a speedy delete. Student newspapers have no inherent notability and need the requisite multiple reliable references to meet WP:N. This one doesn't. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Closing early per Godwin's law. Friday (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Shit (Group)[edit]

Non notable, fails WP:BAND, disputed CSD, the user who has created this has given no sources. The sunder king 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The way we gauge notability on Wikipedia is by sources. We don't just take your word for it. (Nothing against you- we don't take any editor's word for it.) If the music press is giving them significant coverage, we can maybe have an article. If not, we can't. My town has lots of local bands too, but this doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Show me where Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly says they expect them to be huge, and we can talk. Until there are sources, all we have are your assurances that "many" expect them to become notable. And that's not enough. Friday (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. If more sources can be produced, the article on CUrio can be recreated through deletion review, and this AfD closure should not bar the re-creation of the CUrio article if further evidence of notability turns up at a later date. MastCell Talk 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curio (magazine)[edit]

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

No notability established by way of multiple reliable sources as required by WP:N. Delete view. Also nominated Bootleg (magazine). Bridgeplayer 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip[edit]

NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is either an inappropriate commercial article, or creationist harassment, or a bad joke. Filll 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways. If Project Steve is proposed as an AfD, the discussion will stand on its own, and I doubt we will lack for participants. Until then, the subject is rafting. We can't debate a hypothetical AfD. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"We can't debate a hypothetical AfD." True enough. But we can examine what "Happy Couple" is actually doing with (1) creating an unnecessary article (2) making slurs concerning the organization associated with the content of the unnecessary article and (3) making sure to diminish an established article about a notable topic in several places, including the actual AfD for the article he himself created. You noted the invocation of Project Steve before, but it seemed to me that your evaluation of its significance was not correct. Rather than going another round with the, "But we're not discussing Project Steve" thing, we could just agree to disagree on what "Happy Couple"'s unsubtle allusions to it mean. --Wesley R. Elsberry 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is only that Project Steve has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, per Wikipedia policy. Acroterion (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not arguing for keeping the article as a separate article, but I'd be interested in hearing about when the New York Times became a non-notable source. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NYT article is about the Grand Canyon and its role in the creationism/evolution debate, it is not about the NCSE trip. At best the NCSE raft trip recieves incidental mention which is certainly not sufficient to establish notability. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to disagree, but the Jodi Wilgoren NYT article I linked is essentially a split-it-down-the-middle report on two rafting groups, one an antievolutionist group guided by Tom Vail, and the other the NCSE-sponsored trip. Calling half the article "incidental mention" doesn't strike me as an accurate summary. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that NCSE did not create the article. The article was created by "Happy Couple". Look at "Happy Couple"'s comments about NCSE on this page. I see a pattern here; "Happy Couple" is not trying to do NCSE any favors. Failure to recognize that it's a setup will make "Happy Couple" that much happier. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is not particularly noteworthy, even though it was published in the New York Times, as noted above. It is not particularly relevant. It is not really encyclopedic. Sure Wikipedia can include this level of fine detail, but should it? Should we have a separate article on every field trip you can go on hosted by a creationist? Every type of lecture given by a park ranger in every national park in the world? Every individual park ranger and their specialties? Surely at some point this starts to reach the point of vanishing returns, even if Dr. Scott is a notable figure in this case. To leave this as a real article is to cater to a creationist troll. It is more akin to advertising, which we should attempt to minimize in Wikipedia, particularly in this instance.--Filll 13:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever the motives of the creator of this article, the material is not noteworthy enough for its own article. If WP went through all information with this fine a sieve, the sheer volume of information would become unmanageable (some argue that it already is!). If the material must be here, then let's move it to Eugenie C. Scott or somewhere. -- WolfieInu 12:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. --Haemo 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flaws and All[edit]

Flaws and All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references, sources... no content at all, really. Just a Beyoncé album track. Suggest delete or merge to album article. - eo 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 B'Day. There are not sufficient sources in the article to verify the information or prove its notability. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creole (song)[edit]

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

No references or sources, seems to be all speculation. Just a Beyoncé album track that seems to have suffered from "Unreleasement". Suggest delete or merge to album article. - eo 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Song is not notable if no one will ever hear it. Speciate 22:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dgip[edit]

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

Seems to be the author's own research and ideas. Although references are given, not notable enough for an article, methinks. Chris 20:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Clean Up. ELIMINATORJR 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in women's sports[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Homosexuality in women's sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In summary, its a poorly cited, poorly referenced, orphaned, POV-riddled, speculation-filled, un-encyclopedic article that almost qualified as an essay or rant that shows no signs of improvement. I cannot believe this hasn't been nominated before. Cornell Rockey 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment per WP:AFD - "If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Your promise to re-nominate should instead channel that energy into improving the article itself. Please do not re-abuse the AfD process which is suppose to be reserved for hopeless articles. Benjiboi 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent community[edit]

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

Long essay-style article that fails WP:N and is completely WP:OR. Jauerback 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a slight case of WP:COI, judging by the only contributer to the article. Jauerback 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Regardless of whether or not it's notable, it's irrelevant to the article. Calgary 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. the wub "?!" 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game collector and limited editions[edit]

List of video game collector and limited editions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pure listcruft; furthermore, this list does not add anything to Wikipedia. What collector's editions there are in the world is completely insignificant information. MessedRocker (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing administrator (and, ostensibly, anyone else) Xizer has specifically advertised this AfD [10] on the site s/he mentions above- though, in his/her defense, the mention does not say "vote to keep this article!", but rather asks if the article is useful and if the info can be found in other places. Also note that Nindanjoe below has zero other contributions to Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, I'm a huge gamer, and I've never- in my entire life- heard of specifically collecting limited editons of games. Collecting retro and classic gams, sure. But limited editions? There's no forum on that site that is devoted to limited editions. I honestly don't know what that one site (of the many, many, many sites devoted to classic gaming) have to do with this. -- Kicking222 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's article deletions should be based on its policies, not on the opinion of some neckbeard trolling Wikipedia. Despite the fact that thousands of people collect limited edition video games (and this is from MY personal experience), that is not what is up for debate here. The debate is whether the article is listcruft. Unlike some of the article examples given on the listcruft policy page such as "List of people who have ears," this article actually has useful information. Have you ever wondered why I am defending this article so valiantly? Maybe it's because I collect limited edition video games. There you go! You just heard of someone in your whole life who does collected limited edition video games. Xizer 02:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically every game that released an expansion/sequeal is going to have a "special edition" that bundles both. There is nothing more special about this. I remember when HL2 first came out, there was a special (or gold) edition, which gave you a tshirt with the box. Special editions, really are not special. Corpx 05:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • And then you wouldnt know anything about the CEs themselves, where this article serves to inform. Deusfaux 13:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some video games have a CE as defined, but the vast MAJORITY of movies do. That is the vast and appreciable difference, even if you refuse to accept it.Deusfaux 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not a popularity vote. You are supposed to explain how it's "Notable". Also, verifiability was never questioned.--Svetovid 12:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my next comment above. You are making claims not based in reality. As defined by the scope of the article, it is 99% complete. This list would only wind up 300 pages long, 300 years from now. Please stop presuming video game CE's are anywhere near the level of movie or dvd CE's. Also please read the defintion of one and understand how limited and focused the article is. Deusfaux 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims not based on reality? That comment was rude, and just not needed. Not everyone must agree with you: the ones that do, shouldn't be attacked like that. Just because video games have less editions than DVDs isn't a reason to justify this video game list. RobJ1981 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to point out Deusfaux is posting on many user's talk pages to comment at this AFD. I see this as canvassing: which is unacceptable. I posted on his talk page about this. RobJ1981 11:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rude? The suggestion of "300 pages long" was not a matter of opinion on which reasonable people can agree to disagree; it's a statement of fact which is so far beyond the actual situation that it needs to be called out as wildly inaccurate. Powers T 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paganistic Gromanism[edit]

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

A new (or is that "old as time"?) religion with no reliable sources. Was tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't think CSD A7 can really be applied to religions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MX (rapper)[edit]

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

British rap artist. I couldn't find any sources, so either fails notability or is a hoax. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skiatism[edit]

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

Psychological approach. Unreferenced so presume original research or at least non-notable. Already deleted once as expired prod. -- RHaworth 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meatwagon[edit]

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

Pure dicdef which is unlikely to grow into any form of article. Article claims it is a recently adopted slang term. Even if this is the case (as a police officer I've never heard it and there are no references to back it up) it's hardly encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 18:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 move the town article to where this article was. Singularity 05:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avola[edit]

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

Delete expired prod about a Sicilian noble family that has been around for a while but unsourced for over a year as well; many ghits for Avola but there is a town in Sicily of that name either from which this family took its name or to which it was bestowed. Either way, some think that any noble family is notable, so here it is for the community to decide. Carlossuarez46 18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bear Creek School[edit]

The Bear Creek School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired prod on otherwise non-notable school, but schools come to afd not delete by prod, so here it is. Carlossuarez46 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, I agree with the nominator that generally schools (particularly schools which cover grades 9-12) should generally be brought to AfD rather than PRODded. The introductory paragraph at WP:PROD clearly states "This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia ..." Can anyone really say that a high school is ever an "uncontroversial deletion candidate"? PROD is not meant to cover these types of articles; that is what AfD is for.
  • I do think that this school appears to be "notable". The introductory paragraph at WP:N clearly states The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". This is a small, very conservative Christian school that appears to be in contrast to the larger public schools in the area such as Redmond High School or Lake Washington High School. Although being "worthy of notice" is a very subjective test, I feel that a private high school is "worthy of notice" simply because it is an alternative to the public schools, particularly since I believe that most or all public high schools will likely have articles at some point.
  • Even by the more objective test that many editors apply, I think this school is "worthy of notice" because its athletes have earned notability for the school. One student won the Class 1A/B state girls golf tournament in 2005 [14] and another student just last week took sixth place in the women's pair final at the FISA World Rowing Junior Championships in Beijing [15].
  • WP:V requires that the information must be verifiable, not verified. While we all want to see articles have better sources, lack of sources is not a valid reason for deleting an article. If some of the material in the article is questionable and lacks sources, then that material should be deleted, not the article.
  • Admittedly the article needs to be improved, but it is much better than a stub and much better than many articles on many topics. The quality of the article, however, is not grounds for deleting the article. WP:SOFIXIT. -- DS1953 talk 03:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Smithies[edit]

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

expired prod, another English footballer who has yet to appear in a big league game despite being on a big league team Carlossuarez46 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychofreud[edit]

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

Delete contested prod; doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Pakman[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable biography, contested prod. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the request to restore after prod came from the subject. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arfeen Khan[edit]

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

Contested prod. I left a note on the talk page about notability two months ago, but nothing yet. I don't see how he meets WP:BIO, so delete. Chaser - T 17:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete no establishment of any notability, fails WP:CORP. Cheers, WilyD 15:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo International Film Festival[edit]

Buffalo International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability beyond its own "temporary prototype" web-site and associated blogs & self-publicity sites. No evidence from Google that it has ever held an event. Fails WP:CORP. -- MightyWarrior 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an active organization and has held events which are noted on the website.

The "temporary prototype website" I happen to know is because the website is being re-designed and the organization doesnt' want to be embarrassed.

The board of the organization is extremely prominent and includes Nobel Prize winners, Academy Award Winners and other.

Whether Google says anything about an event is not as important as local press which has covered it extensively.

The organization is currently supporting many extremely important Theater Preservation and History efforts in the city of Buffalo, New York and is forming aliances with other organizations there as an adjunct to the actual festival. This is noted on the website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movieresearch (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator failed to get support for deletion. Any merge proposal is a matter for post-AfD editorial consensus. TerriersFan 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Cowin[edit]

Non notable, fails WP:BLP due to a lack of multiple non-trivial sources about a living subject. Burntsauce 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to both then. In one mention that she formerly was at xxx; in the other that she latter moved to yyy. Both articles would be enriched, and we don't need a pseudo-biography for that. - Nabla 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved this from the log of the 14th to the 17th, to compensate. Nabla 13:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Delfouneso[edit]

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

expired prod, another player for a big team that hasn't yet played the prod-er also questioned whether the tournament in which he played is real or a hoax. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • He is not a professional, he plays for the club's under-17 team, which is not considered notable under current WP guidelines. Delete until such time as he plays for the first team or at worst is added to the first team squad list ChrisTheDude 09:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I don't mean this in an attacking sense, but why !vote in an AfD where, by your own admission, you're "totally unfamiliar" with the subject matter....? ChrisTheDude 09:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Is Emo[edit]

Hope Is Emo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable podcast. No references or sources. Also seems more an episode guide than an encyclopedia article. Miremare 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krystian Pearce[edit]

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

another expired prod on a British footballer who is one a big team but has never played a Premiership game. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Annerson[edit]

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

another expired prod for an English footballer on a big team but awaiting his debut. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Fonte[edit]

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

Expired prod, but is a player on Arsenal's books which I gather is a reserve position, does that fulfill notability? I'll let the community decide. Carlossuarez46 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arguments based on WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E were weighted. MastCell Talk 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Silvestri[edit]

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

This subject does not seem notable enough to warrant an article ElKevbo 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How you guys can call this "not notable" is beyond me... what would be gained by deleting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morthanley (talk • contribs) 20:39, August 17, 2007

  • Not saying its not notable, but there's just no historic notability in documenting every crime out there Corpx 07:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MastCell Talk 02:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Slade[edit]

Nominated for the fact that she has no other notability other her press attention for dating a footballer, thereofre it is not a good reason to have a page in this site. If this decision is to keep, then we all may as well allow articles for all other WaGs, wether notable or not. Dr Tobias Funke 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Scorpios[edit]

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

Should be easy delete. A new list of poeple that are Scorpios... I believe similar categories/lists were deleted in the past. Renata 16:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Adendum: found the category discussion. See here for snowballing delete. Can't find discussions on lists, but I am positive it came up somewhere before. Renata 17:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Groklaw. Singularity 04:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen O'Gara[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maureen O'Gara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete. Flunks WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E; attack page seems to violate WP:BLP, and once non-notable criticism (sourced mostly from blogs) has been stripped, nothing left. Merge with Groklaw or Pamela Jones seems best, since the controversy is the only issue discussed on the page. Prod removed with only reason stated "take it to AFD". THF 16:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. No reason to merge with other article(s) since none of the content is essential enough to be of encyclopedic interest. --Bwiki 21:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dream Team (TV series). ELIMINATORJR 13:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Martin[edit]

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

The lead says he's a fictional footballer, but the article writes as if he's real, and there are no references. Shalom Hello 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not sure who Daniel Martin is (there's a footballer name Dan Martin), but it's likely that the article is written in in-universe style. @pple 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logansport, IN Junior Chamber (Jaycees)[edit]

Logansport, IN Junior Chamber (Jaycees) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly not notable...reference link directs to a page that is still under construction. If it becomes notable we can always allow a recreation if suitable refs are located.--MONGO 15:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David zonshine[edit]

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

Nonnotable person, 1,000 ghits. His band "American Eyes" is not on Wikipedia (for good reason), nor is his group "Courage to Refuse." Shalom Hello 15:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There is no numerical consensus, but the strength of the respective arguments, based on applicable policy, is determinative. After meaningless comments like "very legitimate list" are dismissed, the WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO concerns, which are grounded in policy, outweigh the fewer opinions that British Chinese are a notable population group. That is undisputed, but does not really address the aforementioned concerns that this list is not an appropriate way for an encyclopedia to categorise notable members of that community. (This closure overturns an earlier non-admin closure; see bottom.) Sandstein 06:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Chinese people[edit]

List of British Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Similar previous AFD. There are about 198 countries in the world last I checked. If we create full "List of X people in Country Y" articles for all groups of people in each country, that's 39,006 articles. WP:BIAS states that we can't use the argument "Country X is more significant that Country Z, so Country Z doesn't deserve an article". I posted a query about this in the article's talk page, but got no response. An argument that Britain contains a significant population of Chinese people might be floated, but I'm sure that British Nigerians and Italian Chinese feel their population is significant as well. Lastly, the article is bait for redlinks that clearly have notability issues. I'll nominate other similar articles as I find them or they are pointed out. - Richfife 15:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people - Richfife 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin's note: this comment was originally left as a non-admin closure rationale, which I overturned per WP:DPR#NAC. Sandstein 06:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Wrong Venue Move to Redirects for Deletion, Non-Admin Closure. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 15:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrophobic[edit]

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

No sources, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DurinsBane87 15:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A rename, as discussed, may be beneficial. ELIMINATORJR 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes speculation[edit]

Sherlock Holmes speculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The entire article is unsourced speculation. Fails WP:V. Thin Arthur 14:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.. CitiCat ♫ 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tucket's Travels[edit]

Tucket's Travels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Novel is actually an omnibus and the fact that this omnibus has been published has been written into each of the novels articles Salavat 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete per reasons outlined below, including WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. — Deckiller 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars speculation[edit]

Star Wars speculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This entire article is speculation. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Thin Arthur 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forehead advertising[edit]

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

Recommended for deletion as per WP:NPOV. This is clearly an advertisement Unexplainedbacon 14:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reverted the page to an earlier revision, which is in much better shape, so changing my position to Neutral based on that now. Corpx 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 a plot summary at present - no problem with re-creation if it can be sourced out of universe. ELIMINATORJR 14:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Enemy, My Ally[edit]

My Enemy, My Ally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, WP:NOT a plot summarry, seems like a non-notable Star Trek book as well, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete : No reasons counter the argument that it has no reliable sources which support notability, and thus appears not to be notable. --Haemo 01:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jslibs[edit]

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

Contested prod. Lacks third-party references to show notability. Represents a conflict of interest, since the article was created by User:Soubok, who is the developer of Jslibs. Wikipedia should not be a publishing vehicle for personal projects that have attracted no general notice. Google finds references to things called 'jslibs' since the name is used in different senses, but 'jslibs soubok' gets only 196 results. EdJohnston 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:V, a foundation-level policy, is not negotiable. The article contains no sources that are cited to support any of its content. Recreation is allowed once there are sufficient reliable sources - which do not include the previously removed links to various Russian-language websites of indeterminate reliability. Sandstein 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early human rocket flight efforts[edit]

Early human rocket flight efforts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. For those parts that can then a paragraph in an article like Human spaceflight or similar will cover it. This article will be a magnet for those webcruft articles about theoretical Nazi programmes which never got anywhere but are written up as if they were fact. For example one of the cited sources for this article stated that its sources were "Reports of several Internet forums at the end of March 2001"[18]. Keeping articles like this only bolsters such speculation. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of disproof as evidence that these manned flights did occur? Please. And if the article acknowledges that the claims are unreliable, then how are such doubtful claims notable or encyclopedic enough to be here? The answer is that they are not. — Swpbtalk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 15:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Clearly this topic could merit a full article, but there is not enough good content here right now for one. Merging to Rocket does not exclude a future split out from that article. If someone wants to expand this article significantly in the course of this AfD, I would consider supporting keeping it. — Swpbtalk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting effort into articles and topics that are in imminent danger of getting deleted, pushed around, shortened to near-zero etc. is of pretty low priority to me, and probably others too. I'm tired of defending or improving stuff that gets frequently attacked. -- Matthead discuß!     O       03:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Early_human_rocket_flight_efforts#German_developments_during_World_War_II is documented, even though somebody asked for citations. The ill-fated vertical flight of Lothar Sieber is a fact, as well as the Me 163 being in service with nine confirmed kills. Also, as thousands of V-2 were launched with a 1000kg warhead, a human could(!) have traveled in there instead once, similar to the V-1 which definitively was tested with pilots. Of course, Peenemünde had to deliver weapons, not useless human space flights. -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, by "none of the content is 'documented'" I meant reliably sourced here on Wikipedia, not that no documentation exists. — Swpbtalk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 02:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 info dump. Cool Hand Luke 00:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of smartphones[edit]

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

Redlink Farm, no reasonable definition of "Smartphone". No references. Editors with WP:AGENDA intent on keeping the iPhone off the list. KelleyCook 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaywalk[edit]

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

Incomplete nomination from Introgressive (talk · contribs), with an editing summary of "No references, band vanity, what else?" Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 12:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, keep - for one, they've got a huge discography (42 albums, which do include some karaoke collections, but still), and their bio indicates they've toured regularly. They have a radio show on Tokyo FM, and were one of the bands that competed in the 1991 (I think) NHK Kōhaku Uta Gassen, which is generally reserved for one of the best bands of the year. They have an article on .ja; Nippon Crown is located here as well. I'm going to flag this discussion for attention from our Japanese associates to help with sourcing, just to help out. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW, appropriately enough. Daniel Case 04:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities on the 45th Parallel North[edit]

List of cities on the 45th Parallel North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another pointless list. It could easily lead to another 179 lists Malcolma 12:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was bulldoze. DS 03:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charl Ras[edit]

Apparent hoax, can't find anything on Google except a walled garden of similarly unverifiable articles created by same author (also listed here for deletion). Oddly enough, all of them cite "unpublished work" by "Dan Biddulph" as sources. At least one of the cited "sources" (New York Times, for Jacob Coates) is fake. NawlinWiki 12:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also including:

---

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

The result was delete. Singularity 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aa1[edit]

Aa1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Google search reveals companies like Aa1 USA Co., Aa1 Books, and Aa1 Work from home buissness, but nothing suggests a band Aa1. The only possible source is a german page that turned up on that search (which I have no chance of reading), but it doesn't look like it's talking about a band. (The wikipedia article is on page 2) Furthermore, the article doesn't mention the label its albums are released under. Fails WP:BAND. Panoptical 12:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was a7 g11 -- Y not? 19:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The office pub[edit]

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

This is just a random pub. Without any distinction in particular, it blatantly fails WP:N. There are no sources at all given for the content of this article. The PROD tag was removed by the article creator, who happens to have the same name as the article itself. Deranged bulbasaur 11:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 03:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLab GNU/Linux[edit]

AfDs for this article:
OpenLab GNU/Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable super-secret-SCOX-IP-free Linux distro, no evidence of third party coverage. MER-C 10:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch. This made me doubt about my recommendation, but I could find a few reasons why that figure may not make OpenLab "that notable":
  • It's unsourced and could be inexact.
  • African schools have fewer computers. Being on 5 computers per school in 200 schools is only 1000 installs.
  • It was true when the article was written, but it's not anymore. OpenLab seems to be dying.
  • The vendor provided incentive to use OpenLab, hence the userbase would be particularly fragile.
Since the full name ("openlab GNU/linux" -wikipedia) only gets 92 Google hits, I'm standing by my Delete.--Chealer 02:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 someone needs to definitely clean up this article. Singularity 03:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Vasiljković[edit]

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

My previous proposal that this article be deleted was removed without any significant changes being made. Most of the article strongly reflects one person’s POV. It requires a complete re-write. Otherwise, it should be removed.

Below, I have explained clearly my reasons for applying the AfD tag. In the first paragraph, almost every sentence is written in a biased tone, or contains information that is not verifiable.

(1 paragraph removed as defamatory comments were made)

I understand that Dragan is revered by SOME Serbs. However, he is considered a war criminal by many (Serbs and Croats). This article should not convey a POV for OR against him – it should be neutral and factual! Otherwise it should not exist!

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to express your own point of view, especially to lobby support for someone who is charged with a crime! That’s what Myspace is for. It is an encyclopedia – i.e. it is supposed to be objective!

Read the rules for Wikipedia if you want to contribute! If you can’t do that, write nothing!


… been held in an Australian prison for over one and a half years with convicted prisoners, yet he himself has not been charged.

Your tone implies that he is the victim of an injustice. This is your POV!

What makes Dragans case interesting…

Interesting to who? You? You are expressing your POV.

is that even though he has been an Australian citizen for over 30 years, no evidence of the allegations against him was required by the Australian government.

Again, use a neutral tone!

If it was the USA, Canada, NZ or the UK requesting his extradition, an evidence case is mandatory (House of commons 2003).

Not verifiable!

Dragan is revered by the Serbian people because after his role in the war

Not verifiable!

The Serbian people believe…

You do not speak for all Serbs!

They are petitioning for him to face the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague if he must face trial.

Are all Serbs in the world are signing this petition?

However, they also claim that he has already faced 18 hours of questioning at the War Crimes Tribunal and even rejected an offer of immunity for anything that he might have done. He was released and not one of his men were indicted.

Again, you are conveying YOUR point of view that he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

Therefore, the Serbian community believe that the accusations against Dragan are unfounded and are just a means to get him into Croatia. They are also surprised that Dragan (AKA Daniel Snedden) has not received the public support that David Hicks has.

This comparison is stupid - Hicks and Dragan have nothing in common.

In July 2007 Dragan was able to commence the defamation proceedings against Nationwide news. The court found that six out of ten of the statements against Dragan were libellous and defamatory.The proceedings are stood over in the Supreme Court of New South Wales until 27th July 2007.

You are only selecting the results of the trial that support your POV!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaark (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Speedy Delete g11 - Philippe | Talk 20:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last 4 feet[edit]

The last 4 feet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm concerned about the notability of this company; however, I want to bring it before the community to establish a consensus. Spring Rubber 09:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Motivation Questionnaire[edit]

Reading Motivation Questionnaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't really seem to be a notable concept. 215 non-wiki ghits, no evidence of mainstream coverage. It also turns out that the author of this article, Dduttaroy (talk · contribs) is the author of the only paper (listed in the sources section) on the subject. MER-C 09:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There was majority in favour of deletion, 6-4 with all but one of the keeps weak. Importantly, no notability has been asserted in the article and none of the keepers have been able to source anything notable, for example awards or independent reviews in significant publications. TerriersFan 16:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nation's Giant Hamburgers[edit]

Non-notable restaurant chain, no independent references given, fails WP:CORP. Recreated after deletion in November 2005. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 03:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bytch Killa[edit]

Mr Bytch Killa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page contains fictitious person without reference to printed materials that contain the subject in the article. Calroe 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus, NM[edit]

Lazarus, NM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a bogus show article started by someone with a checkered wiki-past. Tbone2001 08:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 lack of reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability. — TKD::Talk 11:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Sayer[edit]

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

Procedural, prod removed without addressing the concerns - no verifiable assertion of notability. The Rambling Man 08:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untold Story (Chopped and Screwed)[edit]

Untold Story (Chopped and Screwed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable mixtape that's not the subject of multiple, non-trivial sources. By "non-trivial", I mean it's not the subject of anything beyond a track list. Spellcast 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 02:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in Arizona by city of license[edit]

List of television stations in Arizona by city of license (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I don't see why we need a list that is listed by the city of license. --Hirohisat Talk 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dao[edit]

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

Alleged YouTube celebrity; but subject lacks outside coverage. YouTube stats are respectable, though dwarfed by other YouTube celebs'. Ichormosquito 06:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - most of the editing, actually all except for adding tags, was done by a single user. Seems to be a fan. Mostly the subject lacks notability, aside from his personal account on youtube and fansite. Zchris87v 06:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 links provided in the last comment are stories mostly about oil prices in general; this company is mentioned in the context of being representative of general trends. As brought up in the discussion, this isn't enough to qualify as a reliable source about the company. — TKD::Talk 11:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rozoil[edit]

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

Non-notable energy startup; article appears to exist largely just to promote the company. ghits [23] NMChico24 06:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those who have elected to have this entry be deleted simply do not see why this article and the topics discussed in it are relevant. If anything as it's creator I would say that this article should be given time so that it can be edited to provide more sources and or clean up to substantiate the points and information that make it worthy to be read. In short the COD type of heating oil companies were started during the 1980's in New Haven, CT and have since spread throughout the Northeast. Unfortunately there is not substantial data on the internet that is readily available that can back this. But I do know that Bigger Automatic companies have tried for decades to squash the COD business and this could be a real reason as to why we don’t hear that much about it. Whatever the reason may be, Rozoil is the Biggest COD company in the region, and because of this it is worthy of recognition. I do not think that this article is offering spam, and the reality is Rozoil is heavily searched word on the internet in New Haven. The more information that readers have about the oil industry, and the players involved in local, regional and global dealings with this subject, the better. I would not flag for deletion an article about the Hassane Tribe in the Western Sahara as a possible plug to initiate a tribal war, but would read it with interest. So the same if somebody is interested in the heating oil industry of new haven, or COD oil companies than they will have an article to read in Rozoil. So to close, this article should remain on Wikipedia, time should be given that better sources used as references, and the News articles that have made recent headlines about the company should prove it is worthy of attention and capable of providing a source of knowledge and information. Negevboy 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 lack of reliable sources found. The article only provides press releases and a source that mentions the company trivially, and no one has provided concrete examples of suitable sources. — TKD::Talk 11:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Butler[edit]

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

Artice reads like an ad and gives unnecessary list of places it services. Was originally tagged as WP:CSD#G11 but it has been around a while and may have some salvageable content so I am bringing it here for the community to review. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 02:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Animal Crossing Project[edit]

The Animal Crossing Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable web movie. Lacks reliable sources, especially since a search engine result for "The Animal Crossing Project" -wikipedia results in only 7 results, all of them either YouTube video links or forum posts. Alasdair 05:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a fan tribute, not an encyclopedic content. --Hirohisat Talk 06:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks any references or notability. Same reasons as above. Zchris87v 06:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as moot. The page at issue is currently a redirect, and redirects for deletion belong somewhere else. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic art music[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Electronic art music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page moved to History of Electronic Music

The article is a the histroy of electronic music but the user create it with the name art add because there is an electronic music article already exist. Two things same name. Now some adjust to move it in History of Electronic Music. There is no need for this Electronic Art Music, please vote delete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_music Susume-eat 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done is moved the page by copy-paste. You don't want to do that, for this reason, from WP:MOVE:
Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.)
I'm going to undo it. You may either propose the move by suggesting on the talk page, or being bold and doing it yourself, in which case the original page is converted into a redirect. Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Copyright-violative material removed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knud Olsen[edit]

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

This is a near-copyvio of this, using a few changed words and altered bits to get out of it. It's not direct, so thats why I brought it here. thoughts? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what needs to be done is to write it in your own words. --Malcolmxl5 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify. Yes, the issue was one of copyright violation. What needs to be done is to write the article in your own words. --Malcolmxl5 08:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close I have reduced the article to a stub to remove the copyright violation. The article can now be rebuilt using your own words. I invite speedy close as the reason for the nomination no longer exists. --Malcolmxl5 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amnesty International as applicable. Sandstein 05:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights groups and the Middle East[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Human rights groups and the Middle East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fixing re-nomination for deletion by User:68.72.37.26 on request by user. The reasoning behind nomination for deletion, as appearing on article talk page, is "The article appears to be dead (if it ever was living).. no one has edited it in months. All of the material appears in the parent articles, so the entire article appears to be redundant". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging applicable information onto the Amnesty International article and removing this article is what Avi and I seem to think as well. --Nosfartu 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 04:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sermon of the roar of a camel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sermon of the roar of a camel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously considered at AFD in June 2006 with an outcome of 'keep'; the basis for nomination was that the content could never move beyond being a dictionary definition. In August 2007, article was nominated for deletion by WP:PROD, a technically incorrect action for articles previously considered at AFD; the article appears here to correct this action. The reasoning behind second nomination for deletion was "Wikipedia is not a textbook of quotations from the Qur'an and Hadith. Nor should it contain commentary on the primary sources." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The sources mentioned by Josiah Rowe have not been added to the article. Sandstein 05:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Blake Collection of True Life Era Comics[edit]

William E. Blake Collection of True Life Era Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is not enough reliable source material that is independent of William E. Blake Collection of True Life Era Comics for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. Singularity 02:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cavaleri[edit]

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

Non-notable guy that gets up and cheers at basketball games. As it stands, the one reference refers to a user comment to a news story about something else. The two external links are photo galleries. Nothing I'm turning up from google meets WP:RS. -- Ben 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 02:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons at Holmdel[edit]

Commons at Holmdel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spammy article on a strip mall, has been tagged for cleanup since March with no improvement. Mall fails WP:RS and WP:N. Possible speedy candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 wub "?!" 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads Bellevue[edit]

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

Spammy article on a non-notable shopping mall in Washington state. Contains five links to the official website, so it's possibly spam. Even if the spam were to be cleaned up, there still wouldn't be anything notable about this mall. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete The sources given are all trivial mentions of the organization with a single sentence or are press releases. We can have an article about this when we have non-trivial independent reliable sources. JoshuaZ 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy[edit]

BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability, 330 unique ghits. Creator / primary editor appears to have a serious conflict of interest with the topic. Deiz talk 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to ascertain the relationship of either source with WP:RS. The second ref (German language) appears to be a press release. In any case, these would appear to be rather niche references. Deiz talk 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no evidence these satisfy WP:RS. The relevant section of the first reference includes a mission statement and general blurb about what companies in this sector should aspire to do, rather than any independent discussion or coverage of the organisation itself. The second appears to be a press release. Neither appears to satisfy either the spirit or wording of the relevant guidelines. Neither reference is used in the article. The COI is not given as a reason to delete, rather an indicator that the article was not created by an independent editor who saw a need for this topic to be covered. So, with huge respect DGG, keep on what grounds? Deiz talk 11:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I should have said more. Keep on the basis of its status as one of the 6 UNEP Global Environmental Centres [32]. I think this would also apply to the article above. The Centres are each a separate program, with nothing really in common except being jointly sponsored by the UNEP and some other body, but I suppose they could be merged anyway. DGG (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivarian Youth[edit]

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

Non-notable group as far as my sampling of Google is concerned, with 1820 ghits, Wikipedia being the third entry and Myspace being the second (not a good sign). Looks like a POV piece, talks like a POV piece, etc., etc. Delete. Kurykh 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think what has been missed here is that Bolivarian Youth is simply a section of Bolivarian Circles, which are very notable in Latin America and have affiliates in many cities in North America, as well as all around the world. POV can be fixed, Wiki is not paper. --Mista-X 09:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 02:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Alotian Club[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable club; only assertion of notability is the relation with Tom Fazio. -WarthogDemon 03:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit more research - seems to have loads of brushes with notability; the designer is notable, the founder's father is notable, and several very notable players have given clinics there (Phil Mickelson [36] and Tiger Woods [37]). It has also been included on a number of lists by notable publications, including Golf Digest [38] and golf.com [39]. So now the question is, is this all enough? Sure the designer is notable, but his company has designed dozens of courses, and he doesn't pass his notability on to the course. Sure, notable players have given clinics there, but thats a pretty common event, especially in the weeks preceding and following a major tournament. And sure they have been included on lists, but they have all been lists of "up and coming" courses - rather then established leaders. I would be inclined to !vote keep if this course had hosted a professional event, was in the list of top 100 private golf courses, or even topped the list of courses in Arkansas. As it is, its just another celebrity designed golf course with no special characteristics. Weak Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel→♦ 05:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Wendlandt[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable person. failing WP:BIO pppswing 02:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the db-bio tag. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MastCell Talk 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsford Plaza[edit]

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

Has been tagged for cleanup since October. Only sources are official website and another wiki, so it fails WP:RS too. Just a strip mall, no notability asserted whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is small, with no real information that is "notable" and that has been the case since october. Frankly, im sure i could find "notable" things about the place, but i dont really mind the deletion right now. if i ever find the need to, i can later. im assuming you do this a lot and know what youre doing, so i wont argue. have a swell day. Evaunit666 03:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quintard Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable mall. Has been tagged as ((local)) for ages with no improvement whatsoever. Fails WP:RS with a dose of WP:OR thrown in. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 10:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsdale Mall[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable shopping mall. This page has stayed mostly the same since its inception, with no sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of those hits are for an unrelated mall in Canada, or for articles about a mall in Scottsdale, Arizona. I've tried to find more information on Scottsdale Mall Erskine Village, with no luck, which is why I took this to AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing lots there that are in South Bend. The local paper alone has 36 mentions, which is more than enough to pass notability guidelines and enough fodder to add reliable sources to the article. Other reliable sources include this and this. The Canadian mall likely has a disproportionate # of hits because I used google.ca rather than google.com. It seems to boil down to a preference of deletionism over inclusionism.bobanny 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with most of what you're saying. Size may be a variable determining notability in many cases, but the reason why I said 800K was arbitrary is because the significance of size varies with the size of the population. South Bend only has about a 100,000 people, so a mall much smaller than that figure may be massively significant there, whereas an 800,000 square foot mall might be barely notable in a place like LA if there's nothing special about it otherwise. In some places, there's a lot of opposition and lively political campaigns when a big box-store development is proposed because of it's impact on the local economy and culture, whereas I doubt another Wal-Mart in Dallas would even make the evening news. bobanny 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any Wikipedia article that wouldn't be greatly improved with historical information if it's not already present (see WP:HIST). In this case, it appears from the sources that the significance (notability) of this mall largely derives from its failure as the Scottdale Mall and it conversion to an outdoor format as the Erskine Village; it's not just because people like shopping at Target. Obviously this is a phenomenon that others have found noteworthy and isn't limited to Indiana. (Although, it looks like still others find it trivial given that List of shopping malls converted to outdoor format is up for deletion now too). If you're proposing to delete this and create one for Erskine Village, it amounts to the same as what I suggested above by moving this to that name, except with the extra step of having an admin delete this, when it would probably be re-created as a re-direct eventually anyway. bobanny 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep — Caknuck 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway at the Beach[edit]

Broadway at the Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spammish article on non-notable shopping mall, consists mainly of a listing of stores in violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoops, I didn't see that, all I saw was a big list of restaurants. Rule number one -- clearly assert notability in a Wikipedia article. Rule number two -- don't be afraid to re-read a questionable article. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete, per WP:V, a foundation-level policy. The article has no independent reliable sources, and indeed none seem to be available immediately through Google. Also, the "tribunal"'s website, not a reliable source in any case, is dead. This means we can't have an article on this subject until appropriate sources turn up. I will provide the deleted content for recreation in that case. Sandstein 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan[edit]

International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has been tagged since March without any discernible input since then. I am not sure where exactly it falls in terms of attaching WP:Notability criteria though I suspect it falls in Non-commercial organizations. On the face of it it falls foul in that the depth of coverage is not substantial and multiple independent sources have not been (nor looking at ghits can they be) cited to establish notability (particularly having regard to requirement that trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability). There is also the rebuttable presumption of notability as it is an international organization however its coverage is still niche and thus falls down in teh second limb of that criterion, namely information cannot be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. Listed here to get a wider view on suggested deletion Dick G 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Special Advisor - Ramsey Clark（International Action Center, US） Perhaps a single sentence mention of Clark's involvement in the mock trial could be mentioned in his article if this is true and can be sourced.

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

The result was delete. Singularity 02:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Ancestry of Jatt Names[edit]

Common Ancestry of Jatt Names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article makes unproven claims that there is some connection between Jat surnames and those of Nordic and Germanic peoples based solely on surface similarities in sound - there is no valid linguistic or scientific basis for its claims and it seems to be promoting some kind of racist agenda John Hill 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless article can be re-calibrated in a more neutral tone along the lines of Ancestry theories of Jatt names or something similar. I am not an expert in DNA ancestry nor the evolution of surnames throughout population migration however that does not seem to be the issue. The article is prima facie OR and the editors should have responded to the neutrality tag by the addition of solid 3rd party sources - offering both sides of the debate - and a seismic shift in the article's tone. Without that it's not a useful resource. As a comment, the discussion in the article's Talk page is barely civil and as a result is damaging to the credibility of article's main proponent Dick G 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. the wub "?!" 21:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS PT-337[edit]

USS PT-337 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without addressing required improvements to this unreferenced essay that fails WP:N and WP:V Jeepday (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Made a minor edit but subsequently also found this and this which whilst not irrefutbale third party sources, nevertheless give facts for when vessel laid down &c. and co-ordinates of engagement (respectively). Also, this doesn't get through my firewall but may be useful tooDick G 07:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, the now-removed 'essay' is, given the detail (eye-witness account), likely taken from the 'action report' which will be available from USN records for a small fee. The link to that site is here (follow the link titled Sources of ship documents) and albeit indirectly is one of the references cited in the article. The 'essay' contains detail that wouldn't seem to warrant fabrication - not least because it doesn't make heroes of or sentationalise its subjects. I have not seen the actual report (nor am I personally going to go to the trouble of ordering it) but it is a publicly available document. Finally I wouldn't say this makes the craft 'notable' within all criteria but care should be taken when dismissing 'unreferenced' content, though I accpet the 'burden of proof' is on the original WP author to post his/her sources Dick G 14:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deleted content is not verified, if you beleive it is verifiable please do. It has been suggested that the content May Be sourced from US Goverment records, it is also equally possible that it May Be a complete fabrication or original research both of which are discouraged in Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've touched on a fundamental problem with Wikipedia in regards to sources that are books or hardcopy documents that have no urls. Like Dick G said, somebody needs to check the The National Archives (or similar research source) to confirm accuracy. A vast majority of pre-internet age documentation is not accessible through weblinks. Quite sad that the content of the Dick in a Box article is immediately verifiable and the deleted content about this World War II naval vessel isn't. We've got problems, kids. --Oakshade 02:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are getting off topic here, but... That is why it is important to list references when you add the content. When someone is working a clean up project like Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles or looking references, if there are no references found and none listed, there is no way to tell if the content is pure fiction or not. Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to assume bad faith of the original author. It's not like someone is going to profit off the content (I suppose one can argue some WWII vet might make up material to impress his girlfriend). Again, per Dick G, the content of the deleted material appears verifiable. --Oakshade 03:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Carlossuarez46 per CSD A7. Non-admin closure.--JForget 01:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Smith[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability. Autobiography. pppswing 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Adams (engineer)[edit]

Nate Adams (engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. A search of google yields a couple of hits for people with the same name. There is no mention of his band. ~ Infrangible 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Langill[edit]

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

Backup minor-league catcher, no other claims of notabilty, fails baseball wikiproject guideline, likely won't reach majors, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of couples[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic list, nonmaintainable. There are hundreds of thousands of couples of celebs `'Míkka 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Imad Mugniyah — Caknuck 00:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faud Mugniyah[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Faud Mugniyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

fails notability. Was the brother of a better known Hezbollah member, killed in a car bomb. Almost no mention of him in external sources other than wikipedia and its mirrors Isarig 00:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was WP:SNOW delete—reasons outlined below by numerous editors (and a unanimous agreement to delete so far), clearly showing that there is no need to leave this open. — Deckiller 02:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vibration village[edit]

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

Nonexistent, fan-created village from the Naruto series. Aside from the fact that most of the names in the article are not Japanese in origin (Travis?), the article notes that the village only exists in "the possible 3rd Naruto season". CSD tag was removed since it isn't a person, group, or so on, and PROD was removed for the reason that an AFD would be a better medium. Falls under Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Fancruft, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), etc. ~SnapperTo 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, article needs expanding on her other social activities rather than merely focuses on the resignation incident. @pple 04:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Almontaser[edit]

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

There is a news article about this person, but I do not think that she is notable. Bringing to AfD rather than db-bio because of the third party publication. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Wrong Venue Move to Redirects for Deletion, Non-Admin Closure. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 15:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrophobic[edit]

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

No sources, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DurinsBane87 15:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non admin). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Phoenix (organisation)[edit]

The article asserts no notability, and has no real world sources to discuss it; as such, it is just a repetition of the plot of several Harry Potter books, and since the plot of those books is covered in their own articles, this article is just duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently just arguing now for the sake of arguing. The 925 Google News hits I just mentioned obviously are the real world context, and the fact that the Order of the Phoenix is in the title of the book and film is precisely why it's notable. Finally, WP:FICT is not policy and therefore invoking it in an AfD process is not criteria for deletion. wikipediatrix 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've shown that the book and the film are notable, not the organization. notability is not inherited. You need sources about the organization, not about the book and the film. Being a guideline does not mean you can ignore WP:FICT for no reason, WP:ONLYESSAY. Jay32183 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONLYESSAY isn't policy either. wikipediatrix 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't appreciate being called a "nazi", please be civil. [[Guest9999 09:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Comment, I DID NOT call you a "Nazi" I said that you were taking a "Nazi" POV. There IS a difference! ** ko2007 ** 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Deletion is a last resort" is not an argument for keeping. The order is keep, merge, transwiki, delete. The article fails the inclusion criteria, so "keep" is out. "Merge" creates too much of a burden on the main page, so we cross that out. With "transwiki", you'll need to say where to transwiki it, and that place would have to accept it. They may not if they feel what they already have is better. So we are, in fact, down to "delete". Jay32183 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was transwikied, it would probably go here http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Order_of_the_Phoenix but I don't see any reason they'd want it.--Gyrcompass 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like the best transwiki target, but I think their current article is better than ours, even by fan site standards. Jay32183 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FICT is just meant to show how WP:NN can be applied to articles on fiction. WP:NN requires evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources - no evidence of which have been shown in this discussion. I agree the information should be available on the internet for those who want to use it but I do not think it should be on Wikipedia. [[Guest9999 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More