< February 12 February 14 >
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 delete without prejudice for including some of this information in the Viacom article. —Doug Bell talk 07:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of Viacom[edit]

This was nominated for AFD before.

When I found this article, I began to question why this is on Wikipedia. What this is a summary of the various logos used by Viacom since their existance. This includes the "V" that was used in the 1970's and 1980's and some of the more stylized versions later on.

Articles on other logos do exist, such as the Nike Swoosh and, similar to the Viacom article, this. But, this one is different. I see a lot of content that was be considered non-enecylopedic and are denoted in every heading using notes that are seen upon pressing edit. Second, I remember somewhere that while Wikipedia wishes to present the world knowledge, it is not the host of indiscriminate information. I believe this article is full of nothing that adds to the value of what Viacom is or did during their existance. While an outright delete is my main goal, a redirect to this article would suffice or even just a link to a Viacom logos website.

I also wish to point out that because of the Viacom vs. YouTube issue, many copies of said logos, including parodies, have been uploaded to the site. Since they are new, I have no idea if this will be a lasting impact on the logos themselves or part of some cheap and quick viral campaign. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 semi speedy - snowball. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Murphy[edit]

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

This is more or less a campaign page for a group of people running for the Federation of Young Republicans, not for any government office. None of the current candidates hold any political office. In essence, non-notable political ticket with a definite POV. I am not suggesting that the Young Republicans article be deleted, just this and individual pages for the various candidates. I'll be submitting those individually. Montco 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, the assertions in this article don't constitute notability. NawlinWiki 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Murphy[edit]

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

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for the presidency of a political organization. Montco 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crab soccer[edit]

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

10,000 ghits, but the game really isn't notable. YechielMan 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - changed to keep in light of references added. CiaranG 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article text
  2. References, or lack thereof
  3. History (if only one non-bot user edited, it's not as good)
  4. What links here (is this information relevant to some other topic?)
  5. Search engine test. (Does the quantity and quality of Google results affirm notability?)

The text and incoming links were inconclusive, the references were absent, and the Google results were not so many. So I nominated it. As it turns out, references have been found, and notability has been asserted. We live and learn. YechielMan 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, the assertions in this article don't constitute notability. NawlinWiki 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Colon[edit]

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

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, she is just running for an office of a political organization. Montco 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, plus the author blanked the page, which in my book, is a concession. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of the Jedi Order (Real)[edit]

Temple of the Jedi Order (Real) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is not written in a neutral point of view; it reads partly like an advertisement, partly like an argument, and partly like bylaws of an organization. It does not read like an encyclopedia article. The editor(s) who have authored it claim that the basis for notability is "Notability wise, the temple has over 900 members, and is substantial because it is one of the few Jedi groups who actually have been recognized by the government in any capacity". This does not pass any of the notability tests in WP:ORG. Specifically:

In the edit summary, one of the contributing editors threatened legal action if his content was removed again: "I will seek a federal injunction if necessary". This is an inherantly bad faith remark.diff

This article should be deleted. Recommend the contributors enter a small amount of content on their organization in Jedi_(census)#Related_movements. Jerry lavoie 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message requesting administrator assistance to speedy close this debate has already been posted at WP:AN. Jerry lavoie 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan elite[edit]

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

Severe NPOV violation. Barely falls short of speedy deletion as an attack page, because it doesn't attack a particular person. YechielMan 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no valid assertion of notability, part of slew of articles on "Team Murphy" by same author. NawlinWiki 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Barclay[edit]

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

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for an office of a political organization. Montco 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lover of sin[edit]

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

On Wikipedia, some articles are stubs... this isn't even a stub. It has no article content and is just an infobox, along with promotional band links (which are just "coming soon") WP:SPAM. The article has no use. Deathrocker 00:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Framingham Plaza[edit]

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

This article about a non-notable rest area in Massachusetts is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it. YechielMan 00:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no valid assertion of notability, part of slew of "Team Murphy" articles by same author. NawlinWiki 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Robison (politician)[edit]

Charles Robison (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for an office of a political organization. Montco 00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Webster (politician)[edit]

John Wilson (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minimal content. Article is on a city councillor of a small city. Notability not established and city (Markham, Ontario) is not large enough to justify its city councilors automatically being considered notable. Sixth Estate 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no valid assertion of notability, part of slew of articles on "Team Murphy" members by same author. NawlinWiki 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B.J. Perry[edit]

B.J. Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for the presidency of a political organization. Montco 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ Arjun 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anneli Rufus[edit]

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

Prod tag was removed without comment. If this seemingly nn author meets WP:BIO there is no evidence of it in the article. janejellyroll 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops i am tired Feeeshboy 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sundaysalon.org/archives.asp?offset=10

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=9741

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2005/08/16

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2003/03/31

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1070607

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/04/LV284573.DTL (San Francisco Chronicle: Berkeley author Anneli Rufus shares the pleasures of a misunderstood breed) ]

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/inquirer_magazine/13934871.htm (Philadelphia Inquirer: This Way Up - Only the lonely know... how contenting and liberating it is to be a loner. Extroverts should take heed) ]

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/06/news_pf/Floridian/Loner____or_paranoiac.shtml (St. Petersburg Times: Loner . . . or paranoiac?) ] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.192.21.44 (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no valid assertion of notability; part of "Team Murphy" PR campaign. NawlinWiki 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Tierney[edit]

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

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for the presidency of a political organization. Montco 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no valid assertion of notability, part of slew of articles on "Team Murphy" members by same author. NawlinWiki 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Fong[edit]

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

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for the presidency of a political organization. Montco 00:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no valid assertion of notability, let's conduct the campaigning for Young Republican offices somewhere else besides Wikipedia. NawlinWiki 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason_Weingartner[edit]

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

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for the presidency of a political organization. Pfunkbalr 00:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Touché. Unfortunately, this is the only one not from Team Murphy. He's from "States First," not "Team Murphy," according to the article. Not that that makes him any more notable.... --N Shar 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aha, I came back to it again while closing AfDs :P. Yuser31415 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great_Britain_and_Ireland[edit]

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

This is a content fork with the page British Isles--Triglyph 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have explained my reasoning more fully. There is an archipelago off the north west coast of Europe. It has perhaps twenty different labels attached to it. The most popular term, British Isles, is somewhat controversial. Perhaps for this reason, several other articles have been created that describe exactly the same thing - Great_Britain_and_Ireland and Britain_and_Ireland for example. There are also very full articles on Great Britain, Ireland, British Isles (terminology) and British Isles naming dispute. Use of the phrase Great_Britain_and_Ireland is covered in these. Looking at the policy WP:WINAD it is difficult under these circumstances to see why Great Britain_and_Ireland and Britain_and_Ireland merit separate pages from British_Isles, any more than Iberia would merit a separate page from Spain_and_Portugal or color from colour.--Triglyph 08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced. Other than keeping the article as is, there are far more appropriate options than deletion which you may not be aware of (setting up this deletion being your first and only edits from this account). The first is to redirect, but what to redirect to? United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Britain and Ireland? British Isles? There's no obvious answer, so a disambiguation page may be the answer as "Great Britain and Ireland" is a valid and likely search term. However, this is what the page actually is: it explains the above possible uses of the term and links to the equivalent meanings. It may need a bit of cleanup, but it looks fine to me. I'm afraid I don't agree with your original nomination or your expanded explanation as to why it should be deleted. --Canley 11:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Hogue[edit]

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

Non-notable (local only) - also appears to violate WP:COI and WP:OR. Peter Rehse 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - The dubious wikilinks are likely the result of blind linking. The names are what would generally be considered common names. -- Whpq 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katarzyna Izabela Miednik[edit]

Katarzyna Izabela Miednik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This young singer does not seem notable at all, and the article about her is promotional in character. Even though she has won some competitions, there is no mention of any albums recorded. Additionally, the corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia has been deleted on similar grounds: [4]. Mairene 01:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split Decision (TV series)[edit]

Split Decision (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Avi 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, but one might want to create a new article about wrestlers who died "on the job". —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:08Z

List of deceased professional wrestlers[edit]

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

Given the size and scope of the pro wrestling world, there are literally hundreds of wrestlers who could be listed here. Creating a list of deceased ones is not only impossible to compile but impossible to maintain. Hemlock Martinis 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consenus, now you have to take a drink. —Doug Bell talk 08:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moose (drinking game)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up in college one day. Inherently unverifiable. — brighterorange (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links given would have to be reliable, of course. One is to a personal site literally titled "Eric's Web Sites" and the other is to a collection of cocktail recipes and drinking games. Since anyone can make a website, I don't consider these reliable. However, Mathmo has found some news articles below. — brighterorange (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm surprised to see the rules in a news article, but I think that'll do. These are all about the top game. I'd be okay with blanking the second section and using these references to source the first. — brighterorange (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a mention of the second moose in the article [6] --AW 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you guys really think this site (barmeister.com) is a reliable source? It just looks like someone's collection of drinking games and cocktails to me; it could even be the same person that made the Wikipedia entry. — brighterorange (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, an encyclopedia isn't going to mention Moose the drinking game, but there are a lot of bar, drinking and beer related websites with the first Moose on them. I've found a couple with the second, like that one. I'd be OK with deleting the second part though, if we can't find more. I think the first is fine. --AW 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At the request of AW I have reviewed these comments. I still don't feel we have "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other", which is our criterion for notability". One source, at best, though personally I feel the article cited is trivial - filler for a local newspaper - and that's not "multiple". Sorry, I'm not ( yet ) swayed. WMMartin 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Off Topic Request for Help. Reading what I just wrote, it looks badly punctuated to me, but I can't work out how to improve it. Any guidance would be appreciated ! Thanks in advance. WMMartin 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still don't see multiple non-trivial sources. However, the one source that's left when the student newspapers are removed is an award winning one, so.... I'm actually wavering on this one, but I think the guidelines are pretty clear - if someone can come up with another non-trivial source I may be forced to watch my thinking change. Philippe Beaudette 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Cummins[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Probable WP:SPAM, WP:COI. Leuko 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Camp[edit]

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

Deleted multiple times under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7, but author keeps recreating article. NN summer camp, probable WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Leuko 02:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Your Meat[edit]

Meet Your Meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no sources that state this propaganda film is notable or any external sources that discuss it at all. It entirely exists on self-sourcing. It links directly to the sources in multiple languages causing Wikipedia to be a promotional tool for an otherwise bland and un-notable advertising campaign. SchmuckyTheCat 02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this counts for something. Zagalejo 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. There is a USA Today newspaper article about Baldwin's PETA award. USA Today is independent of PETA, right? Zagalejo 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you make a good point, Zagalejo. The article lends some support for notability. I originally thought the award was from PETA as well, but looking again I see it was something given out by the Linda McCarthy Foundation. (I'm more impressed by the information on changing Burger King's policies, but the problem here is the information all comes from PETA. Independent confirmation of that would change my vote.) I can't bring up anything on the AP article by following the link above. Wikipedia has articles on TV commercials (the Mac/PC series of commercials a good one), so in theory this could be an article, even considered as propaganda. But we still need more citable evidence. Noroton 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
soooo, what you are saying is that it isn't notable and nobody pays attention to it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said it's something people are interested in, but not easy to find real information on. Nevertheless, the article preserved and provided what little information was available, so IMO it served a useful purpose. Ah well... --Chinasaur 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balamurugan Garden[edit]

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

Non-notable street; most of the article is already included in Thuraipakkam. BuddingJournalist 02:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not most of the article is incluede in Thuraipakkam. Compare it if you want line by line. If some are there you can delete only that portion . why you want to delete tyh ewhole portion Balamurugan Garden?????

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future World Music[edit]

Future World Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:CORP. Nv8200p talk 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7)[edit]

Firstly, to summarise, this article has been split off from Big Brother 2006 (UK) and I am arguing that it is now redundant to a table already existing in the article for the TV series.

There have been several discussions already about whether this page should exist or whether it should just be a section in the Big Brother 2006 (UK) article. The main arguments expressed over May and June 2006 (around the start of the TV series) were that the section could get too long, and it should therefore be split, whilst others argued that it would be better for the section to be cut back.[13][14]

The article was created and nominated for deletion where concerns were raised that the article was unencyclopaedic; the importance was questioned; it was suggested that the weekly summary should be trimmed; and it was also suggested to wait until the end of the series before taking action. The result of that debate was to delete the article but the weekly summary remained as a section in the article for the series. However, during the series there were further discussions about whether the weekly summary should be trimmed or split on to a separate article.[15][16]

After the series finished, the series article underwent a peer review where it was suggested that the weekly summary was trimmed down. It was therefore trimmed down to around half its original size. Later on in the duration of the peer review, it was suggested that the weekly summary was split off into its own article.[17] This happened and since then, it has received very few edits, apart from fixing some dead links and correcting formatting. Meanwhile, the weekly summary section in the series article was turned into a table and trimmed down further, but not significantly.

Now, we are at the stage where Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7) is essentially redundant to the table at Big Brother 2006 (UK)#Weekly summary where the only noticeable difference between the two is that one is formatted as a table whilst the other is separated by headings. For this reason, I think Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7) should be deleted. Tra (Talk) 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg kendall-ball[edit]

Greg kendall-ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO •CHILLDOUBT• 11:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was The result was Speedy Delete as No assertion of notability (CSD A7). -- NoSeptember 10:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Huyuni Suratt[edit]

((a7:0|))

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

Incomplete nomination by IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RHaworth 13:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lurkeritus[edit]

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

It's a neologism, uncited, and probably original research. It's not an acknolwedged "psychological disease." My prod was removed by an anonymous user. Deranged bulbasaur 03:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable neologism, very few google hits (search for "lurkeritis", also), no secondary sources cited, and it's not likely that there are any secondary sources to be found. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although the arguments in favor of deleting had the discussion leaning that way. —Doug Bell talk 12:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Webster[edit]

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

Delete - Not notable, unverifiable. Possible WP:COI & vanity issues. 22 links to same *.hermetic.com domain are bulk of sources in article.

The Sam Webster article was cut & pasted directly from here. Looking in the history, and by comparing the autiobiography of the creator of the entry here, it is quite clear that the article was written by Sam Webster himself. Then banned user 999 copy & pasted the article to wikipedia. So in the original format, this is clear WP:COI. Most of the references and links circle back to the *.egnu.org domain the original article was hosted on or the spammy personal website *.hermetic.com which has 226 links from wikipedia. I think this is clear undue weight, since hermetic.com is essentially someone's private website. Also, the subject of the article has not authored a single book, and the scant interviews and secondary mentions of him are in zines and self-published books which do not meet notability requirements. - WeniWidiWiki 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more likely that Al Billings, who owns hermetic.com, had something to do with it... and the rest of the hermetic.com links from wikipedia. Khabs 07:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, but this is pretty compelling. Diff - WeniWidiWiki 07:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's not Aleph. Somebody else wrote it. Khabs 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suspect Khabs is the same user who made/edits this account. Check edit history. Captain Barrett 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Your comment is incomprehensible. What does it have to do with whether the subject of the article is verfiably notable? Khabs 17:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From another AfD, I put some credit on the listing in http://www.93current.de/groups.shtml, and a little on http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Fcrowley.htm. They both seem to list groups other than their immediate affiliation. He is mentioned in neither. The wiki article in http://www.egnu.org/thelema/Sam_Webster lists links for more of his writings than the one here, but examining them would require deciding on their theological merits, which is fortunately not relevant to WP. There is a problem with evaluating the in-universe sources as compared to the mainstream: a totally insignificant person to the initiated may be good at getting conventional interviews. I accept the material as V, but not as showing N.
and we have deleted articles for ministers of ordinary well-known religions who have done at least as much. The key distinctive accomplishment of this less-than-conventional figure is that he has acquired the basic degree that all conventional ministers acquire.

DGG 00:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You seem to have missed what he is notable for, as a pioneer of open source religion. Christine Wicker devotes close to 20 pages to this in her book, much of it specificly about Webster and his Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn. Khabs 01:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should also note that while http://www.93current.de/groups.shtml doesn't list his Golden Dawn order, it does list his church (Ecclesia Gnostica Universalis), next to last link on the page. Khabs 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn based on references provided by Hateless and the community consensus. YechielMan 19:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar tit[edit]

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

A google search reveals that people do use the term "sugar tit" as in the article, but there is not a single notable source - say, a news item or a significant fiction writer - to affirm its notability. YechielMan 04:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Academy of Higher Education[edit]

National Academy of Higher Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (and redirect National academy of higher education)

Unnotable accreditation mill. Started by a user who has been vandalizing Concordia College and University (a degree mill) in trying to give this place the look of a legitimate school. (This article is listed as that diploma mill's accreditor[20]).

It is not an legitimate accreditor, which means its "accreditation" is worthless. (And see List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning.) It is listed at Credential Watch as nonrecognized. A user has tried to say it is legitimate with a link that fails to prove otherwise.[21] FGT2 04:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained or given reason why it is notable, see: WP:CORP. Is there enough details to write an article? FGT2 04:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the notion that Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". That is not the same as "is easy to find extensive information about." Factors that indicate this organization is "attracting notice" include the diploma mills that use it to establish credibility for themselves (examples: International University of Fundamental Studies, Concordia College and University, American University of London, and Bircham International University), news stories about fraud incidents involving this outfit (for example, Cheyenne police chief defends distance-learning degree), and its appearance on fraud-alert lists such as http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CollegeGuide/NonAccredited.asp . --orlady 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three unaccredited places that give degrees in weeks (as opposed to years) make this notable how? onlineeducationfacts.com promoting Concordia College and University is notable how? Read WP:CORP: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both: 1) independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and 2) reliable."FGT2 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you Google for "National Academy of Higher Education" (including the quotation marks) you will definitely get results (in addition to results for the similarly-named legitimate national organization in Pakistan).--orlady 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But where did you get this information? Really some proof is needed, i have looked on Google as well as other search engines but i find nothing to match what you wrote. I agree what you said about allowing more articles, but this one seems nonsense to me. Rysin3 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have multiple, non-trival mentions, and therefore should be deleted. This is a WEBPAGE tied to diploma mills. Can you verify this is a real group or anything it claims to be? 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was posted by FGT2
FYI - I have (just now) created redirect pages, pointing to National Academy of Higher Education, for both Association of Distance Learning Programs and Association for Distance Learning, both of which were separately listed on List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, but appear to be components of NAHE. Since ADLP is the accrediting unit of NAHE, more diploma mills claim its accreditation than claim NAHE accreditation.--orlady 17:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW - closing early - Peripitus (Talk) 12:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Osbourne[edit]

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

Subject is rich and married to a rock star. So? The article doesn't discuss much that she's actually done that's notable in any fashion. A pittance to some charities, some health issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzmadmike (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 as nonsense (CSD G1). -- Gogo Dodo 06:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin janovich[edit]

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

Unsourced borderline nonsense about the Croatian knight (inventor of electricity) who just so happens to share a name with the creator of the page. Fails WP:V. janejellyroll 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoko[edit]

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

Unsourced slang term for a smoke break. Even if this met WP:V, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. janejellyroll 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now Strong Keep Calling it a "hoax" was a bit overboard on my part because I didn't really know whether "Smoko" actually existed or not, but the article was obviously pulling the reader's leg from top to bottom. Thanks to some fine work by some of the editor's here, it is now an entirely different article (is there anything remaining of the original at all except the title?). Different article, different opinion.Noroton 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep I've changed my view. The editors have done an excellent job in cleaning the article up. Good work! Maustrauser 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've expanded and rewritten the article, and added heaps of references, so hopefully that can pull this one out of the fire. I don't blame the original nominator, the original article ("Latin: Smokeus Breakus") was dreadful. --Canley 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome, page is now looking sweet as. Only got one question for you now, did you re-write it during your smoko break?! Mathmo Talk 14:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements implemented. Concerns brought up in the nomination have been addressed. -- Black Falcon 19:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan McKinnon[edit]

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

Subject of article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. Cannot verify claims in article. Nv8200p talk 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://www.eca.usp.br/nucleos/njr/

Núcleo José Reis de Divulgação Científica[edit]

Núcleo José Reis de Divulgação Científica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Disputed PROD. This appears (I'm not quite sure what the article is about) to be about a program at a university. I do not believe that any notability has been proven. The text is difficult to follow. If the article is to remain it perhaps should be in the Portugese WP. Maustrauser 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super capitalism[edit]

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

I could not find any rock-solid references on the web for the use of this term. It seems not to have gained wide acceptance. YechielMan 05:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living Receiver[edit]

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

Delete I would suggest a merge, but I think this is covered somewhere. As for the delete nom., non notable fictional element in a movie. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeVry DuPage[edit]

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

A Myspace page. Despite the article's grandiose claims to notability, there's nothing - especially no reliable sources - to indicate this is in fact more notable than any other Myspace site. On the contrary, the last paragraph, "About the Author", indicates it's original research. The author has removed ((unsourced)) and ((notability)) tags, so I'm forgoing PROD. Sandstein 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Smith[edit]

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

(Auto?) Bio of nn student filmmaker. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promotion. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per sources added. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 11:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxion[edit]

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

A comic strip, nonnotable under either WP:WEB or WP:BK. No third-party sources, such as reviews, are cited. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt for now and assume the note that it is published is an assertion of notability under WP:CSD#A7; what are the community's views on this? Sandstein 05:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Withdrawn after sources were provided. Thanks, Zeborah, for your work on this article. Sandstein 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a speedy delete, but I would like to see evidence of reviews beyond Sequential Tart, before I change to a keep. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Here's one from Cold Cut Distribution - granted they want to sell the comic, but they want to sell a whole heck of a lot of different comics from different publishers. Also one from The Comics Journal, another third-party edited magazine, and from Silver Bullet Comic Books (messy website but I think ditto). I find it harder to evaluate iComics but those are probably enough to start with anyway. --Zeborah 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your research. If you will include these citations in the article, preferably inline so as to source the content, I'll withdraw my nomination. Sandstein 06:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, for the most part. I still want to do something with the cast section (and if anyone knows how to make the "date" field in the web citation work when I only have month and year, that'd be good) but the page now has sufficient references to satisfy notability. --Zeborah 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkling (hand signal)[edit]

Twinkling (hand signal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Incomplete nom by anon user. Unlike most procedural noms, this is not neutral: Delete per WP:NFT. N Shar 06:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Brand Studios[edit]

Alternative Brand Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure if the (unsourced) assertion that these people were the first to found a webcomic collective is an assertion to notability, so I'll bring it here instead of speedy deleting it. Their activities fall short of thenotability standard of WP:WEB, WP:ORG or WP:CORP, and there are no reliable sources to support any assertion of notability. Their webcomics themselves are not notable, or at any rate not notable enough to confer notability on this collective. Sandstein 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:13Z

Safari Books Online[edit]

Safari Books Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't assert notability enough for inclusion under either of the two possibly applicable guidelines (WP:WEB and WP:CORP). It started off as an advert along with articles for Rough Cuts and Short Cuts. It still seems like an advert to me. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Doug Bell talk 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul King (New Zealand)[edit]

Paul King (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but notability asserted. Failed candidate, formed own party of no evident signficance. No sources. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
?? The article cites no sources at all and does not claim any media attention (not that that would be automatically evidence of encyclopedic notability anyway). Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 07:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, guess for some people it simply isn't obvious that they would have had media coverage.... that is ok, really quite understandable. So I went and added in a couple more external links to the article, both from major big NZ media companies. Mathmo Talk 14:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:14Z

Malakii[edit]

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

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but notability asserted. Several very weak claims to fame, questionable overall. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Talbot[edit]

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

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but having a production at Bristol Old Vic is a claim to fame of sorts. Not much to see, though, no sources (of course), and honestly if we need to know that thiey got a 2:1 in drama from Hull then we are reaching a bit. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:15Z

MaryAnne (ysabellabrave.com)[edit]

MaryAnne (ysabellabrave.com) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy (spam and/or lack of notability), bringing here to get broader input about notability as applied to youtube performers than just the few of us on the talk page. Should we copy that material here, or at least flag it, so that if page is deleted the discussion is still preserved? DMacks 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Voyagr7, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your question How many people does it take? is beside the point; it takes a few of them being reporters or whatever who "note" the subject in the media. Your observation It seems like the wiki requires a middle-man between the performer and her audience to validate her work. is spot on, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source compiling the work of others. It is no longer unusual for a YouTube "celebrity" to develop a following in a short period of time; what makes one stand out is making the jump to another source or medium. It's possible that could happen starting tomorrow. As of now, however, she is just one of many. --Dhartung | Talk 05:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Womensing[edit]

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

A Cappella group which utterly fails WP:MUSIC. Local to Vermont, the six-member group which has only had self-published discs, singing international songs, and cover versions of songs made famous by notable groups. Delete Ohconfucius 06:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Llama man 00:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Garner[edit]

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

Non-notable; self-written vanity article ENDelt260 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, his web site is written as if it were a commercial organization, and is very hard to take seriously from the home page--He has titled it "Garnering Innovation"--but it is different when one looks inside. This is written as a vanity article, so it is confusing until you get to the actual scientific work, but we are judging the notability of the subject. I wikified that article a little. I remind people that an official university web page is a RS for the academic work, but I even found 2 news items about his work. DGG 08:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, my problem is not that I dispute the notability of Prof. Garner but that the article fails to show references and cite sources. It does not matter what I know now, or what you know now, but what people can learn 25 years down the line from Wikipedia. Without sources and proper referencing the articles are completely worthless after the references just catch dust in some archive Alf photoman 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's not so much notability but verifiability that you have a problem with, right? I agree that proper sourcing is necessary. I'm less convinced that deleting articles is the way to achieve it. —David Eppstein 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaners (Max Payne)[edit]

Cleaners (Max Payne) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge Perhaps a notable antagonist in the Max Payne 2 game, it does not deserve its own article; not notable enough in the real world. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lords and Ladies (Max Payne)[edit]

Lords and Ladies (Max Payne) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge Non notable element in Max Payne. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpship (Battletech)[edit]

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

Lack of multiple non-trivial independent sources about Jumpships. Pure WP:CRUFT. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not necessarily; also not really a suitable criteria for deletion.M.U.D. 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could not find anything that would make this article look encyclopedic. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BattleTech technology (itself barely notable, or possibly not so at all). cab 11:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpships appear to be discussed in that article already. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpship (Battletech) at least has inline citations, whereas BattleTech technology has none as all; those cites would seem to be worth preserving, since someone went to the trouble of looking it up. cab 01:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws: Rising[edit]

Jaws: Rising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreliable sources, crystal balling. Probable hoax. Was nominated for speedy, but listing here for second opinion. Will support speedy. The JPStalk to me 07:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

Comment
Speculated to be made, even on a reliable source, does not constitute "made". Crystal balling isn't superceded by reliable sourcing. It's a straight to TV movie, or DVD (or whatever), on something that has yet to be. Fits the crystal balling policy, and lacks notability.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  02:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Llama man 00:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Williams Street Mix[edit]

The Williams Street Mix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college a cappella group (WP:MUSIC). Only claim to notability is this song ("Walk of Shame") for which there is no evidence that it is notable except possible trivial mentions. Savidan 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move no good because we dont have any sources for the claim that the song is notable. Savidan 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:26Z

Hullabahoos (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Non-notable college a cappella group (WP:MUSIC). Was kept in the first nomination because the group allegedly "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." However, the only citations (actually, there are only external links) in the article are to the group's own website, not to any independent, non-trivial, third party sources. Savidan 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not argue with the claim that non-notable articles should be kept on Wikipedia, only point out that not a sigle keep voter has referenced an inclusion criteria at WP:MUSIC. Some of the keep voters are explicitly arguing that the group is not notable
The argument for deleting the article started off as them not being notable and that is why I included it in my argument to keep the article. As long as the article follows wp:v, wp:nor, and wp:npov there is no need for notability guidelines. DanielZimmerman 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arlington Heights, Illinois. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:16Z

Arlington Heights Memorial Library (AHML)[edit]

Arlington Heights Memorial Library (AHML) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN local library branch SUBWAYguy 18:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sedat Laciner[edit]

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

Notability, self-promotional material Tumbleweedtumbles 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a (now modified) auto-biography. A search on Sedat Laciner on some of the main ressources for social science: Jstor, containing more than 143.000 journal issues; ProQuest more than 6.000 periodicals, and SAGE Publications/CSA Illumina with +1,200 resources gives 0 hit, neither as author nor as reference! Not having published anything or being used as reference in any respected journal nulifies IMHO any claim of notability. Please also see WP:AUTO, the combination of lack of notability and being an autobiography effectively makes the article unverifiable. Bertilvidet 17:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is even not a professor, but an associate professor. Bertilvidet 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user is a suspected sock puppet of User:Slaciner, and the above comment should thus be seen as sarcastic. Bertilvidet 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Travel Concession[edit]

Leave Travel Concession (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be about a minor Indian law, however, there is limited context. Also, it looks like a bit of a how-to guide, and possible copyright violation. Delete from me. J Milburn 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storms sexuality axis[edit]

Storms sexuality axis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable theory. I could only find one journal article relating to this and almost all of the Google hits for this are simply Wikipedia mirrors. Thus, fails WP:V and WP:Notability. Jackhorkheimer 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to hormesis per Choess. (I double-checked, and he's right.) Non-admin closure based on WP:IAR. YechielMan 05:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hormensis[edit]

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

I may be wrong, but the google results would suggest that (if this is even the correct definition of the word) that it is not a widely used phrase. In any case, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. J Milburn 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duck crossing[edit]

Duck crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • That "DIY Duck Crossing" item is actually from a blog, not a newspaper, but your point is still taken. --Calton | Talk 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this? ;) CiaranG 11:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two snares and a cymbal fall off a cliff.... -- saberwyn
  • I believe I've seen a Newt Crossing sign in Berkeley, California. --Calton | Talk 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trident entertainment group[edit]

Trident entertainment group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not establish notability. One casino group in the Microgaming stable. There are over 90 Microgaming casinos. Microgaming itself is notable: this is not. See also other afds: [27], and [28] Nssdfdsfds 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by previous occupation[edit]

List of United States Presidents by previous occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Per reason of Otto4771 about AfD nomination of List of Philippine Presidents by previous occupation that it is in a series of arbitrarily broken-out biographical lists relating to the presidency and that these information should be in the individual articles, and not broken out as a list. Kevin Ray 08:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:NOT#IINFO doesn't seem to be applicable. I've been convinced by the many arguments below. -- Black Falcon 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. This tit for tat Phillipine/US thing should stop, and we should not overly restrict our article base to the most populous English speaking countries only. NoSeptember 15:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game classification[edit]

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

This appears to be an unencyclopedic arbitrary list of game classifications. I thought I'd start an afd debate to see what people thought. Jules1975 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better Badges[edit]

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

NN company, WP:CORP. Delete - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the external links there is a [29] link to a scan of an article in the [The Face] June 1980 which describes MacFie as "the leader in his field" and mentions an annual turnover of 150,000UKP. The article includes photographs and more information that reinforces that claim. Wwwhatsup 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 13:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melewar Corporation[edit]

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

nn company Zhenghong 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 14:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septier[edit]

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

nn company Zhenghong 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay card[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary. - ∅ (∅), 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nat W. H. Chan[edit]

Nat W. H. Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article Nat W. H. Chan has been proposed for deletion as there is no real significance as an "top rated Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game player" as he's not listed in the current Top 50 players. Also, much of the information does not have a listed source and has little to prove of his nobility to have an article. I can't really put it in words, but if you look at the article, I think you'll get the picture. DiamondDragon contact 20:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JT Aultz[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO, not referenced RHB Talk - Edits 21:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all fairness, he is also known "for his mohawk hairstyle" Cedlaod 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:19Z

Joie[edit]

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

It is an article that has been made up using singers for the band members Lillygirl 08:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Punjabi origin[edit]

List of English words of Punjabi origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is almost two years old, and has never contained any content. I think it's past time we deleted it, and let it be recreated on the day somebody finds an English word of Punjabi origin. (Especially if they have something encyclopedic to say about that word.) Quuxplusone 08:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:20Z

María Inés[edit]

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

Recently tagged as unsourced article, the subject is a serial contestant in TV singing contests in Mexico, but has not won once, yet. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. She may have potential, but it does not seem that her day has come, yet. 74 unique Ghits, mostly directly for La Academia or its related blogs, chat and fansites. Ohconfucius 06:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources added by Oakshade should suffice WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Alf photoman 15:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy Clamato[edit]

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

Not every student group needs an article on Wikipedia. I recently made some large edits to the article, but before that,[39] the article pretty much only gave showtimes and explained improv comedy. It's really not notable. I would have listed it for speedy deletion, but the history log shows advice to list it here. Tell me if I am doing this wrong, please. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, all my edits were reverted anyway. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:21Z

TheCollegeWeb[edit]

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

Delete: The site this article is about is defunct and the new site isn't in any way notable. A vanity page from the beginning. Korranus 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Reyes Mortensen[edit]

Cecilia Reyes Mortensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Deprodded by creator. Ezeu 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The amount of money that she's won playing live tournaments strikes me as not being relevant to whether or not she meets Wiki-guidelines. Otto4711 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Career earnings are directly related to skill, time spent playing, and thus, notability. NetOracle 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, they aren't. Notability guidelines are silent on the subject of career earnings. So is WP:BIO, which states in relevant part that sportspeople are notable if they "have played...at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable." She has finished in the top 5% of the largest and most notable poker tournament in the history of the world and is a known quantity in the poker world beyond that. Jamie Gold has the highest career earnings in tournament poker at $12,00,000+ but he's been playing tournament poker for just over a year and not professionally. He is not notable because of how much time he's spent playing and the amount of time he's spent playing seems unrelated to his career earnings. He is notable because he won the WSOP main event. Otto4711 02:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She has been the subject of multiple profiles on ESPN during its coverage of the World Series of Poker. It is rather difficult to link to those in an article. As for whether finishing 374th out of a field of 8,773 is an achievement, with all due respect, let's see you do it. Otto4711 13:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not about us, its about her. --Ezeu 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 13:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sreelakshmi Suresh[edit]

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

The article has since been reworked and anything above this line may have been voted upon review of a previous version. Mkdwtalk 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it already has -- febtalk 00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Mendoza[edit]

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

Close to an A7 speedy, no assertion of notability and no secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Ideas[edit]

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

A think tank with no obvious claim to notability. No secondary or independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:22Z

Kolomna Bus Terminal[edit]

Kolomna Bus Terminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Substubs about 13 bus terminals in Moscow Oblast. All information in these articles is adequately conveyed by the List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast, moreover, these terminals are not really notable. Delete or redirect to list.

Conscious 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 13:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professor_Richard_J._Finlay[edit]

Professor_Richard_J._Finlay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this was a bad faith creation of an article that's also not really encyclopedic ( have a look at the page history to see the sillyness that the author intended.....Purples 10:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean move to Richard J. Finlay. Google shows there is another Richard Finlay. --Bduke 02:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 13:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Parking Lot is Full[edit]

The Parking Lot is Full (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Unreferenced. And very very few google hits. This started as a PROD but there was enough objection that I felt like it should be an AfD instead. WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: have you any WP:RS sources, perhaps amongst those numerous relevant Google hits (I count 57 of them) [42], to show that this is indeed a notable webcomic? As for articles on other webcomics: many have already been deleted, probably some more will follow. Fram 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Fram Among the much more numerous hits for "The parking lot is full" + comic (~1000), there are is an interview[43] that gives a brief history of the comic, starting with a print origin in a student newspaper. As this review asserts[44], in spite of its lack of fame, it may have been one of the very first webcomics. It mostly seems to be reviewed in webzines[45], but I'm having no trouble finding a lot of webzine reviews. Some come from interesting sources that I would not have expected to review webcomics.[46] [47] I think the case can be made that this is one of those cases where a webcomic is notable without being popular or famous. Balancer 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are reliable sources as far as I can see. The Humaniststudies.org one comes perhaps closest, but then again, it is not a review of the comic, just mentioning that they publish it along with others in their ezine (this link gives the staff of the magazine, making clear that it is not the kind of magazine we normally consider as reliable, having only one editor[48]). 1995, while certainly not late, is not exceptionally early for a webcomic (the review you cite talks about 1993, but then it was published in a student newspaper, not as a webcomic, giving an indication of the reliability of such reviews). As for groundbreaking... in what independently verified way? I know that deletion isn't a substitute for cleanup or sourcing, but then again, that wasn't my intention. I had seen the other reviews as well, but they are non notable or non reliable (mostly online) publications (webzines), so I don't see what they change to the deletion rationale. Fram 16:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About half of the ones I mentioned fail independence, which is why I didn't say "strong keep," and the rest are marginally "published" online; however, if I could find that many sources hovering near the borderline of the WP:RS standards in less than five minutes of looking, it seems a pretty sure bet that it passes WP:N standards overall. In retrospect, it's not surprising that there are only a couple thousand pages on the web that mention this comic, seeing as it ended five years ago. Balancer 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources which fail WP:RS does not mean that there are probably some sources meeting WP:RS as well. Let me point out that your previous posts, while perhaps not having that intention, at least convinced the next editor wrongly that the comic is "recognized as having historical significance", when no such thing is shown except in one user-supplied and mistaken review. As for the "couple thousand pages", all 5 pages you gave as a reference were included in my initial search of 57 distinct Google hits, indicating that a) it was a quite good and fair search for reviews of this comic and b) there isn't probably that much more you can find about it on the internet. So basically, we still have a webcomic with only about 50 websites referencing it in slightly more than a passing way (at least mentioning the author), and depending on your criteria, only one or none of these sources could pass WP:RS. Which rather conclusively means that for all we have been able to find, it still clearely fails WP:NOTE. Fram 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that before, from other sources. --Kizor 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since I don't start getting unrelated hits until the eighth page of search terms (results 71-80), and I keep finding relevant reviews of the comic hundreds of results down the list, your search definitely underrepresents the number of pages about TPIF, just as your searches have typically severely underrepresented comics. Those pages that I pulled out, several of which either come very close to meeting WP:RS, or could be argued to meet it, although typically not also the independence criterion for WP:N, are simply the first few reviews. Five years is a long time on the internet, and I have to say that I was shocked to find such a quantity of solid reviews online after all this time.
To emphasize how much you're missing through your inadequate searches, hit #463 was tantalizingly titled "Notable Webcomics" and dated from last summer. It did only contain a relatively brief user-posted review, of course, but it's gross misrepresentation to claim that it's only referenced on 50 websites.Balancer 23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, "how much I am missing through my inadequate searches" which returned all your previously given links, are all not meeting WP:RS, just like I expected. So in what way, relevant to this discussion which is intended to see if this comic meets the Wikipedia guidelines, was my search inadequate? It was a search to look for multiple independent reviews (excluding trivial mentions) by reliable sources, of which your extended search didn't return any: this was to be expected, since it would be very unusual to have a thorough review in a serious magazine or newspaper that didn't even mention the author of the comic. Look, could you please provide the necessary reliable sources to support your keep !vote instead of attacking the methods used by the nominator? I appreciate the effort you have put in your search, but if it doesn't return anything further, just say so please.~ Fram 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To invoke the Search engine test in claiming that an article is not be notable because it has low hits is an entirely different matter from searching for reliable and independent sources with non-trivial mentions. When you emphasize the low hit count your search has received, you are invoking (wrongly) the notion that this is a completely obscure topic, web content that the web doesn't even talk about.
As matters stand, the fact that the webcomic was (a) published in print by a source that may or may not qualify under WP:RS (student newspapers vary widely in this regard) and (b) talked about by, as I've pointed out, numerous sources whose status under WP:RS is open to question either way was enough for me to suggest that the article be kept on the basis of that open question and the strong probability that additional sources whose status is less unclear would soon be discovered (see Kizor's comment for clear vindication of that estimation). Balancer 11:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... But none of your claims is supported by WP:RS, making it basically a WP:ILIKEIT vote. Fram 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...except for the fact that it wasn't particularly early and wasn't particularly influential? Fram 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gull Dong[edit]

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

Lack of information and resources and referances Ensyc 12:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keesie has proven in other discussions, that she doesn't know the difference between a Poodle and a Bulldog, so pls give her comments very lil weight. Headphonos 01:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Gull Terr Ref is not a Gull Dong Ref at least read the articles before y'ah vote..huh ?? Headphonos 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? The one that says the breed is "primarily used for bear-baiting and dog fighting", or the one that says it's "used for baiting and dog fighting"? I found out later they were supposedly seperate breeds, which is why I made my next comment (or do you not bother reading all the comments before you reply?), but the first pages I found when I googled "Gull Dong" referred to them as different names for the same breed. My opinion still stands...if more than a sentence can't be written about this breed, it needs to be redirected to a more common name if there is one. --UsaSatsui 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some name confusion, but that might be why it's so hard to find good sources for the alternatives. I guess we need to determine the best name and merger/redirect to it, but I don't know what should be consulted as an "official" source for the name. Leebo86 19:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think both the Gull Terr and Bull Terr articles are just as bad. Perhaps they should all be nominated for deletion. At least if you group them all together its not quite so bad. Ensyc 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the Gull Terr infobox indicates that Gull Gul Dong and Bull Terr are alternative names for the same dog. If indeed all 3 names refer to the same breed, and Gul Dong and Gull Dong are same, we certainly don't need separate articles for all of these. That is what redirects are for. (The Dachshund article has this nicely figured out - Doxie, Dackel and Teckel all redirect to Dachshund.) One article on Gul(l) Dong/Bull Terr/Gull Terr is more than adequate, whichever name is the most popular, and assuming the implied content survives this AfD. Keesiewonder talk 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should redirect Bull Terr & Gull Terr to the Gull Dong article and then the Afd will affect all articles? Ensyc 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the Gull Dong should not be confused with the Gull Terr, even though your edit in the Gull Terr article on Wikipedia tells us that an alternative name for Gull Terr is Gul Dong. Please don't tell me we need an article on the Gul Dong, which is not the same as the Gull Dong ... ;-) --Keesiewonder talk 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RHaworth 13:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel madinga[edit]

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

It's an obvious hoax. Prosfilaes 13:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural nom following rejection of speedy. Original tagger (SatyrTN) has expressed a 'keep' opinion below and there are no other delete votes. WjBscribe 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment (burlesque orchestra)[edit]

Apartment (burlesque orchestra) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was listed for speedy deletion; I kinda felt it was borderline, but I didn't necessairily feel its good enough either. There area few sources which prove reviews, though I'm not sure about the level of the publications. Other claims are a bit unverified.

Basiciall, I thought it was better than the average speedy, but not sure enough to say whether or not its good enough - so opening it up to debate Robdurbar 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papa H[edit]

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

Hoax. Request for references has been removed without comment. -- RHaworth 13:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice, meaning anyone can create an article here but it should be longer than one sentence and preferably reference a source or two. W.marsh 15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London civil service, post office and municipal chess league[edit]

London civil service, post office and municipal chess league ([[Special:EditPage/London civil service, post office and municipal chess league

|edit]] | [[Talk:London civil service, post office and municipal chess league |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/London civil service, post office and municipal chess league |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/London civil service, post office and municipal chess league |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/London civil service, post office and municipal chess league |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Non-notable chess club. All external links are merely to the club pages. Has made no notable impact on chess, the London civil service, or the rest of society. MLA 13:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a league, rather than a club. It's one of the major chess leagues in London. A book is forthcoming (funded by an estate) on its history and contribution to UK chess and the civil service.--Nmcmurdo 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devonshire Rovers[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages created by the same user purporting to be players of this club:

Nick Yoxall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ben Mactaggart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Idan Carl Pidgeon-Laad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this latter already up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idan Carl Pidgeon-Laad)

--cjllw | TALK 13:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My delete vote stands too. West Kirby FC play in, and currently lead, Division 1 of the West Cheshire Football League [52] and it is inherently unlikely that West Kirby itself has a different "Regional League", let alone one with more than one Division. No independent evidence of it, anyway. Bencherlite 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a Sunday League team, in which case it really really really isn't even the slightest bit notable. --Steve Farrell 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence for the existence of this league, which, as noted above, is most likely to be a Sunday morning park league if it exists at all. I stand by my !vote to delete all related articles ChrisTheDude 07:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite clearly hoax. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.....which only serves to confirm (assuming any of it actually is true, which cannot be confirmed given the total lack of information about this club which Google turns up) that this club is wholly non-notable and does not pass any criterion for inclusion on WP. I once again stand by my !vote to delete this and all related articles ChrisTheDude 11:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The closest I can find to a source is this local results page which shows that a team called Devonshire Park (this club's supposed former name) plays in the Wirral Sunday League Division Four, which is, shall we say, ever so slightly below the threshold of notability..... ChrisTheDude 11:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 14:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daigo Umehara[edit]

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

It's been 6 months, and the article is still unsourced. (See AfDs from July 2006 and August 2006). Arguments raised in the past for keeping this include:

Anyone have any new arguments as to why this should be kept, or know any reliable sources discussing him? cab 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example: there is a Wikipedia article for Ken Hoang, one of the best Super Smash Bros players in the world. But is there an article about Smashboards? Daigo and Ken are notable because they are one of the best in what they do, which is professional gaming. Are SRK and Smashboards considered one of the most notable websites, and is Bang the Machine considered a notable documentary? Are Daigo/Ken only well-known by members of SRK/Smashboards? Therefore I would say that is an insufficent reason to say Daigo not well-known enough. Afterdeath 10:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boys of Computer Science[edit]

Bad Boys of Computer Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a no lonoger published webcomic meets almost no standards. Their are no refrences even from the webcomic page. The text on the page is written poorly. A major cleanup is needed of all webcomics as I am sure their are more that need to be deleted than just this. The Placebo Effect 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zarnock[edit]

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

Non-notable author, being a world record holder in an obscure hobby category is not encyclopedic notability, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of notoriety is on page 65 of the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records. Obscure is a matter of opinion where as there are 15,000,000 (15 million) Hot Wheels Collectors around the globe. Mr. Zarnock gets paid very well for his appearances across the US and Canada. --Krellman |15:59, 7 February 2007

  • Comment Are you saying that anyone who has held a world record at any point is notable enough for an article? One Night In Hackney

We are not here to debate the relevance of Mr. Zarnock’s status in the world of Die Cast cars. His book sales and his standing as an Icon in that realm does that by itself. It’s not just his World Record nor his collection that has brought him fame or for us to post him here, it’s the overall picture of what he is about and what he has brought to the community of 15 million Hot Wheels collectors around the world. A simple Google search will show that. If the article needs to be deleted, then so be it. He will still be the authority that he already is and others may read about him elsewhere. Marty Krellman --Krellman |11:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to gain consensus. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are there even any reliable sources for his film roles? The IMDB entry was authored by the same person who wrote this article, Marty Krellman of The Krellman Group who are also the joint copyright holders on Michael Zarnocks's website. One Night In Hackney 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed, looking at IMDB, Zarnock's entry is also edited by Krellman, and I cant find any third party sources to varify the film roles, and very little on the books mentioned. All we DO know is that this guy holds a GWR, everything else is incredibly fuzzy. TSMonk 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krellman 11:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic socialism[edit]

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

It has been over two years and this article still does not contain one reliable source or any useful content. It is still 100% Origional research and it is pretty clear that is not going to change. Sefringle 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

São José E.C and E.C Taubaté Rivalry[edit]

São José E.C and E.C Taubaté Rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Should be added to other articles Rysin3 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added three more references and an external link. Please, check the article. --Carioca 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Portuguese is not my strong point, but having run those refs through Babelfish they seem to pass muster, so I'll change my vote to Keep, articles on well-known rivalries should be included. Qwghlm 11:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wife[edit]

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

Dictionary-style entry; WP:WINAD. Possibly WP:POINT, due to ongoing argument at Talk:Marriage as to whether marriages other than man-woman marriages exist or are valid. Content is very sparse, most content besides dictionary content is unsourced opinion from User:Flammingo. -- Joie de Vivre 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a complementary term:

Husband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joie de Vivre 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and discussion[edit]

All new discussion threads should be created on a new line with a bullet. Add Keep, Delete, Comment, or similar, to begin.


Response:What does that have to do with whether this article meets basic criteria? Joie de Vivre 00:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then i don't see a problem keeping it, since it does. Do you have a list of desiderata? FlammingoParliament 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same reasons would apply to dowry and bride price, and not connected at all are wedding, bride and groom!FlammingoParliament 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: This is not a nomination to delete Husband (disambiguation). That disambiguation page takes care of all the concerns mentioned above. Joie de Vivre 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Deleting defamation] FlammingoParliament 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC) entries deleted by Joie de vivre: here, notes FlammingoParliament 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining, how does your comment contradict the article's definition? And how could the opinion of giving information on "wife" and "husband" be political, please? FlammingoParliament 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much a contradiction as an indication of the purpose of the article. When the article has little more than a non-inclusive dictionary definition with an error in it (Old German Weib was not obsolete), it doesn't look like the article was created for the sake of the topic. It was very obvious that it was there purely to make a point, and not very well at that. What point? I'm not sure, but it seems to be part of the battle between advocates of SSM and right wing Christians. I note, though, that the article has changed quite a bit since it was nominated, and may be salvageable. -trishm-
i am neither right wing nor ssm or who else, just interested in history and literature, as you see. Question, though: it never said, "Weib was obsolete" (which doesnt make sense to me right now), "obsolete" meant "not in use today", which is true, "Weib" means "Ehefrau" in both colloquial and legal German. If that is what you meant? Thanks.FlammingoParliament 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we were talking at cross purposes, and you've won me over. I didn't mean to categorize you, it just seemed that the article was being used as a weapon in some idealogical war. "Weib" is archaic, for sure, but still survives a weiblich, so I reacted a bit to "obsolete"; and I'm sure your German is far superior to mine. Now I can see the potential in the article. Trishm 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. There are many, many unsourced statements in Wife and also some in Husband. Joie de Vivre 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One after another, shall we? And yes, that's why more than one should contribute FlammingoParliament 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This cannot be WP:POINT for the reasons i stated above. I am not interested in the article marriage, but in the article wife. I do not really care what marriage says right now, and did not take sides in the discussion there (if there are sides, i dont know, but POINT says i'd illustrate my pov, which would mean i did take my opinion solely from there).FlammingoParliament 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet when you changed these articles from redirects, the article intros said "A husband is the male participant in a marriage. Compare wife" and "A wife is the female spouse in a marriage. Compare husband", and your edit summaries said "As by Talk:Marriage#husbands and wives redux".[63] [64] Looks to be straight out of the edit disputes there. — coelacan talk — 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i thought the discussion ABOUT the article marriage on that talk page. Sorry. Yes, there were two editors suggesting that might be worth having, too. i was not precise.FlammingoParliament 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the purpose of this article is not length, but what i just said, and have kept saying. It does not repeat the kinds-of-marriage issue from marriage, either. It is also not limited to the time frame suggested ~ten lines above this comment.FlammingoParliament 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see that it's not limited to that time frame, that's why I'm suggesting a set of such articles, divided by whatever historical segments are appropriate. There's very little to be gained in having these dicdefs and just filling them with a variety of historical anecdotes. If the coverage is too long for Marriage (and I'm not convinced that it is) then the way to do it is is by articles on those historical periods, not just dumping grounds for anything and everything from every time period. — coelacan talk — 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the too long coverage. FlammingoParliament 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you agree with me that the coverage there is not too long, then there's no reason for the content not to simply be back at marriage. — coelacan talk — 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me emphasize: It's not ABOUT the too long coverage.FlammingoParliament 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then why don't you explain what else it's "ABOUT". What you're putting in these pages are historical marriage practices, so they're really more appropriate for articles like Marriage practices in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and Marriage practices in the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries or whichever period-breakdown is most appropriate. — coelacan talk — 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. It's on "wife", "wives". --FlammingoParliament 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like "marriage practices" to me. That's the content of the article. — coelacan talk — 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not on the marriage practice, if i'm understanding that term in your sentence correctly FlammingoParliament 00:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"And customs" then, because all the content relates to customs of marriage. If we're taking "practices" alone not to include the after-ceremony customs (not how I meant it but I guess it could be interpreted that way). — coelacan talk — 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Coelacan's observation. Joie de Vivre 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That if it is about the long coverage it should still go back.....?????--FlammingoParliament 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original bulleted comment. Joie de Vivre 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's way more than dict now. And contains non-me sources.FlammingoParliament 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dicdef full of historical anecdotes from various time periods, which is exactly what my original bulleted comment said. — coelacan talk — 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Great, eh? (expl. see below) Though I would not say it that way, obviously.FlammingoParliament 01:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Har, har, har.  :-P Joie de Vivre 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That merge would put two different perspectives on a topic together, necessarily losing one of them.--FlammingoParliament 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? — coelacan talk — 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
indeed.FlammingoParliament 00:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cute. Please explain what you're talking about. — coelacan talk — 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ;) My pleasure. wife would be on relation to kids and village/town/legal protection especially throughout history (maybe including today) husband would be the same, necessarily different.FlammingoParliament 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously different, but very much related, so it makes sense to merge them into articles on the history itself. Nothing would be lost. That's what sections are for. — coelacan talk — 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Like what? Joie de Vivre 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsuccessful major-party United States presidential candidates' military service[edit]

List of unsuccessful major-party United States presidential candidates' military service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - arbitrarily broken-out list of information that should be included in the articles for the candidates. Not every detail of this sort needs to be broken out into a list.Otto4711 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just to clarify: This is a list of major-party nominees not just any candidate. That narrows the list considerably. We've had less than 100 major-party nominees in all of U.S. history and fewer than 60 who lost (some later won) and the list will only grow by a maximum of one every four years.Noroton 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (edited to correct a couple of errors)[reply]
I believe you are right as to what "indiscriminate" refers to in WP:NOT (which I'm guessing is why the nom didn't use that word). Certainly the list has an end and is maintainable. I just think that the criteria are kind of arbitrary and that the info here is better left in the articles about the candidates. If you have this, why not have List of successful major-party United States presidential candidates' military service? And it's only a short notability jump to List of unsuccessful third-party United States presidential candidates' military service or my Tajikistan example above. This information belongs in Wikipedia, but if you start including it in every format imaginable, it starts to become a database and not an encyclopedia. Recury 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I think we can use our judgment as to what topics are serious and important enough -- no rules will ever be enough to cover all contingencies anyway. I'd give a lot of leeway to lists of presidents or major-party candidates because scholars and voters have a serious interest in past precedents and behavior. I think it's a very big jump to third-party candidates because it's easier to be a third-party candidate and so we have so many more of them, and their impact on politics is so much less, so I don't see a slippery slope there. I'm not bothered by lists of presidents from other countries because this isn't your father's paper encyclopedia. If there's no TajikiWiki to handle the Tajiki list, then I'd accept one on the English Wikipedia. Incidentally, you say the information should be included on individual pages, but anyone interested in the topic is going to have a much easier time with it on one page with links to those pages for details. I think that's the only practical way to cover the subject for scholars and voters interested in it, and it's a serious subject.
Let me take about three steps back: We all know this electronic encyclopedia can cover far more topics than paper ever could. When we're thinking about how far that should go, it seems to me serious topics such as U.S. presidents need to be a priority, where we should be especially inclusive. In a big, powerful democracy like the U.S. or U.K., information on candidates and political history has enormous value to enormous numbers of people (inside and outside those nations) and anything that can (reasonably) help voters should be included. So topics that commonly come up in campaigns are valubable. For the same reason, I'd be inclusive about similar topics in other nations -- because it's important in those nations and, especially if they're poorer, Wikipedia can be an important resource to them. Perhaps, the standard should be a little harder (but not much) to meet for smaller nations and harder still for non-English-speaking nations with Wikipedias that serve them in their own languages. But a Wikipedia that limits itself this much on such a serious topic while a tsunami of trivial books, movies, television characters and video games flood the place becomes just the trivial hodgepodge you're arguing against. Noroton 21:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:37Z

Straphanger[edit]

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

previously tagged as a candidate for deletion for unencyclopedic content; I feel this is a decently reasonable article for inclusion but before removing that tag I though I would bring it to wider discussion. There has been some discussion already on its talk page. I feel this is a keep, but in need of cleanup Cornell Rockey 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete with no prejudice against the suggestion to create the article Amazing Race 10 contestants and then merge it there. If you need the deleted content for such an article, ask me or another administator to provide it. —Doug Bell talk 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Conley, Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable reality television (Amazing Race) contestants. Competing on All-Stars doesn't make them notable.

I just wish to add that there is currently a conflict between myself and the article creater Evrik (see [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]) which has led to Evrik falsely accusing me of Wikistalking (I "stalk" my watchlist but nothing else). Please note that I made it fairly clear with this edit that if s/he was going to create those two articles they would be put up for deletion on the grounds of notability.

Also up for nomination: Mary Conley‎ -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I WISH TO REGISTER MY EXTREME ANGER AT EVRIK MESSING UP MY NOMINATION. I have just discovered that Evrik has messed with the nominations I created David Conley and one other group nom for TAR contestants. He has also messed up the Articles for Deletion page by creating a subheading for "Amazing Race contestants". Let it be known that I am reverting all these edits and putting things back to their original state, as I feel that I, as nom, have a right to do. If other editors disagree with this decision of mine they are welcome to take it up with me on my talk page and I will be more than willing to discuss it. I believe this is part of a pattern of harassment of me by Evrik which is detailed here. Please also note that I will soon be creating a Request for Comment page in regards to Evrik’s actions in the past few days. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In light of this, Evrik is advised to use a lighter hand with the activities of PageantUpdater and engage other editors and administrators in policing what is seen as needing same. It is very unnecessary to brign personal disputes into AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--evrik (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. I am not wikistalking you, as I made clear here, people are not notable merely because they have appeared on reality television. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that four articles about Amazing Race winners were nominated for deletion for the same reason yesterday: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Branaman -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • David and Mary Conley had been previously created and then redirected to The Amazing Race 10. For purposes of this discussion I undirected it so that there would be a logical target if the decision here was to redirect. If David and Mary are deemed not notable enough to sustain either individual or joint articles, I will redirect the joint article back to TAR 10. Otto4711 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:38Z

Politics of Northwest Territories[edit]

Politics of Northwest Territories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub since August. No one has even made the slightest effort to improve this article. Can be re-created when there's some real content, more than a sentence. Delete GreenJoe 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:38Z

Jank[edit]

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

Neologism made up in school one day. Even the Urban Dictionary gives a different definition. Prod tag removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IKEA in popular culture[edit]

IKEA in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - a thoroughly indiscriminate list seeking to capture every instance of not only when someone happens to mention IKEA in a movie, TV show or magazine without any regard to the actual importance of the mention within the context of the program, but every mention of anything that sounds like IKEA or resembles IKEA or in some other way reminds whatever random editor who spots it of IKEA, again with no information explaining why the inclusion of this IKEA-like thing has any significance either in the fictional world from which it's drawn or in the real world. Otto4711 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This actually touches on a problem inherent in these articles. The information generally starts out in the parent article then gets offloaded to a separate "...in popular culture" article. Then if the pop-cult article gets AfDed the outcome is often merge. Which uts the information back into the main article until it bloats enough so that someone separates it again, and around and around. Otto4711 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was getting too big for IKEA, and that's why I splitted it. bogdan 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with your conclusion, I must still disagree with your assertion that WP:NOT#IINFO can't be cited. Consensus may not have been reached on the issue but that does not mean that the items for which consensus has been reached are exhaustive. There is some discussion on the WP:NOT talk page which I encourage any interested parties to view. However, even absent WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR forbids "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." I would assert that a collection of one-liners from a couple of dozen sources would qualify for deletion under WP:NOT#DIR as well. Otto4711 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm more willing to buy an argument using WP:NOT#DIR for a list of loosely associated trivial facts. Just as a general aside, though, there has been a tendency to misuse the WP:NOT#IINFO section as a sort of catch-all "I don't like it" reference in these afd debates. Some editors seem to refer to it whenever an article deals with something they feel is "trivial" or "unimportant", for example. Anyway, as both Otto and I mentioned, there's a broader discussion about this on the WP:NOT talk page, so I won't go into it here other than to advise that unless an article actually falls under one of the specific consensus sections of WP:NOT#IINFO you probably should not refer to it as it somewhat invalidates that portion of your argument. Find a more appropriate section of policy that directly talks about what you are dealing with (such as maybe using WP:NOT#DIR for lists of "random" facts). Dugwiki 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've also just gone through the article in question and done a massive formatting clean-up. Relevant fact tags have been added and references correctly formatted. Hopefully this can encourage someone else to come along and see if we can't get it up to standard. thewinchester 13:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 23:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McCullough[edit]

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

Non-notable CEO of minor company. -- Longhair\talk 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political epithets[edit]

This is an article whose encyclopedic value is questionable. It includes almost each and every political affiliation, converted to an epithet on the basis of mostly minority viewpoints that consider them such. A POV magnet of the worst kind. The main problem is that by including a certain term as an epithet, we are asserting it that as a fact, without the possibility of presenting competing viewpoints about the use of these terms. NPOV is not possible, regardless of the availability of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD of December 2005, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political epithets

That is already explained in the nomination ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your second point is flawed. Yes, highly visible featured articles are also vandalism magnets. However, those articles are really good and they have lots of committed editors who have already demonstrated that they can keep the garbage out. This is a completely different situation. GabrielF 02:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 17:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial seduction teachers[edit]

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

Is this article really necessary? It seems with the nomination of the template 'notable members of the seduction community' and deletion of Real Social Dynamics and Badboy Lifestyle that this is the next step. It seems like little work is being done to improve the page, looks like its probably been sitting idle for a fair while. And it seems redundant with the category notable members of the seduction community anyway. Thoughts? THE KING 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon:The Dark Knight[edit]

Doraemon:The Dark Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
D.A.R.K.5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jetameto Hayami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are no sources given, and a Google search produces precisely one result, which contains no information. In short, unverifiable. A previous version was speedy deleted as Doraemon: The Dark Knight, but this may be improved and so may not qualify for speedy deletion as a repost. Prodded, prod removed by author without improvement or comment. I also nominate D.A.R.K.5 and Jetameto Hayami, which seem to be this fictional anime's organization of bad guys and hreo, respectively. Again, no Google hits, no sources. Huon 16:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:40Z

Kevin Beary[edit]

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

Unnotable local law enforcement person from Florida. FGT2 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on United States Sports Academy, keep on Amos Alonzo Stagg Award, delete the rest. —Doug Bell talk 13:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Sports Academy[edit]

United States Sports Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an insufficiently notable trade school, and someone (Lucidagtha (talk · contribs)) has been heavily spamming on its behalf by inserting references to "honorary degrees" that there was no evidence that the "recipients" were aware of or accepted the "honorary degrees," suggesting that it is, in fact, non-notable. Weak delete on the school itself, strong delete on its associated "awards" and other vanity/spam pages. Nlu (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be notable that every single current news reference to it (see [71]) either came from the school itself or is a reference to it giving an award or a degree. Absolutely no indication that this "school" provides any real education. --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: see the U.S. News college page for it ([72]). Note how much of the information is "not available." --Nlu (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

** Amos Alonzo Stagg Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (withdrawn by Nlu (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It can be hard to find articles about the school itself, and not the awards given out, but I think that's partly because they give out so many awards. The fact that the awards seem to be taken seriously and the fact that they get a decent deal of press coverage from sponsoring the directors cup standings pushes them toward notability. US News probably does not have information on them because it is such a non-traditional program that they don't rate the school. The school claims a handful of notable alumni.
Weak Keep / Merge on the other awards articles, though if kept, most of them need massive cleanup and sources that do not originate from the school or the awardee.
Mishatx *разговор* 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL COMMENT

We recently had a mention in U.S. News and World Reports (http://record.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8575.html) citing our Directors Cup.

Also, if you are checking the validity of our honorees, please look up the Abbot Shi Yongxin, the leader of Chinese Chan Bhuddism. His presence was noted at our Academy by both the Mobile Register and the New York Times.

We have also worked with Soprt for Peace to create positive international relations through sport.

Please let me know how I can help to verify any additional data that you may need.

Thanks very much,

Amanda Lucidagtha 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I added data about the persons and awards that I was talking about that was true. I never said anything subjective, I merely mentioned that such awards, educational institutions, etc. existed. I feel that, in a list of honors and awards that an artist like Leroy Neiman has received, for example, it is important to update his entry to include his most recent, the 2007 Sport Artist of the year, for completeness and to keep his article current.

I did not add additional data because that would have been stepping outside of what I know.

I have added a quantity of information recently, this is true, because I only recently found out that there was no information on this subject on Wikipedia, and, as this institution has been in place for decades, I thought to remedy this gap.

As I said, please let me know if there is any way that I can help you to verify the data. I apologize for this inconvenience.

Thanks, Lucidagtha 14:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT

THE AWARDS I do not think that they should be deleted outright, as they are historically of importance, as they have been given to Olympic heroes, political leaders, etc. Also, they are mentioned in places outside of the institution, such as:

http://www.sanantoniosports.org/sidelines/index.html http://uhcougars.cstv.com/school-bio/hou-school-bio-maggard.html http://www.mccarthysports.com/cbi_staff.html http://record.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8575.html http://www.jimthorpeassoc.org/Awards/JTAPastWinners/RogersCarlos.html http://www.sportssafety.org/founder/ http://www.usatriathlon.org/upload/pdfs/history_miscellaneous_awards.pdf http://www.mackieshilstone.com/media/nr10.html http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf?/health/bio.html http://www.wnba.com/mystics/news/SPORTS_EXECUTIVE_JOHNSON_EARNS-209196-230.html (There are many, many others, these are just examples. Note also that USATODAY.com and MSN.com have a link for our athlete of the year awards and for the Director's Cup. ) http://www.pgatour.com/story/9841871/

IN ADDITION, THE PEOPLE Thomas P. Rosandich, Oppie Otterstad, and Christobal Gabbaron should not be deleted because they are national/international leaders in the sport and art community. I've also included a list of links related to them: http://www.carriagehousecenter.org/html/background.html http://www.gabarron.com/ http://www.fundacioncasapintada.com/ http://www.limelightagency.com/Opie_Otterstad/Press_eng/chicago_sun_times.html http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/gallery/opies_art/ http://www.opieart.com/main.html http://www.usolympicteam.com/teamusanet/49499.htm http://www.specialolympics.org/Special+Olympics+Public+Website/English/Press_Room/Global_News_Archive/2004+Global+News+Archive/Sargent+Shriver+Award.htm http://www.pgatour.com/story/9841871/

I think that this is about everything/one who was in question. Please let me know who/what else I should present information on, and I will be happy to provide it. Also, if this data is not complete or is not what you are looking for, please advise.

Again, thanks for helping me to get this right.

Amanda Lucidagtha 14:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:42Z

Stefan David Andrew Roberts, Viscount St Pierre[edit]

Stefan David Andrew Roberts, Viscount St Pierre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. This person (if he exists) is not a courtesy Viscount, nor does the Earldom he is supposedly the heir to still exist. Similar things have been done involving this name in the past (see the history of Earl of Jersey, for instance), so clearly someone with some kind of strange obsession. Proteus (Talk) 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted you via your talkpage. Martine Duparte 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Stefan Roberts, in its incarnation of 2005, gave the same biographical description (name, age, school) but claimed grandson of the Duke of Marlborough; its February 2006 version was same details claiming son of Earl of Shaftesbury. I am quite bemused by whoever's behind this, though I have to admire their determination.
Note also that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Martin Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts seems to tie into this... Shimgray | talk | 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:41Z

Andrew Martin Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts[edit]

Andrew Martin Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. See Stefan David Andrew Roberts, Viscount St Pierre above. Proteus (Talk) 17:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Albrecht Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable author. His books are published by "Crooked River Press" which is the subjects own "press" [80]. The books are actually published by Lulu.com which is a self-publisher. The article was written by Johnalbrechtjr which appears to be a conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of the month[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article. I have never heard of this phrase and can't see how much this can be expanded. The Placebo Effect 18:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, I would have normally relisted this, but it's rather obvious. Jaranda wat's sup 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MC Madden '94[edit]

MC Madden '94 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music artist who appeared to write the article himself (parts are in first person). A Google search for "MC Madden '94" returns 22 results, mostly from Wikipedia and the subject's personal music site. WP:AB, WP:MUSIC, WP:N. J Morgan(talk) 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:44Z

Ithkuil[edit]

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

Non-notable constructed language with no speakers. Has already been deleted once. Luvcraft 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know the language creator from elsewhere on the internet--I'll try to get ahold of him. --Miskwito 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I sent him a message. But I'm not sure if that's actually an appropriate thing to do...? --Miskwito 19:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as copyvio of [81]. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Fruzzetti[edit]

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

No apparent notability per WP:BIO, no third-party coverage cited. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Zeller for a related case. Sandstein 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:44Z

List of people that mastered Calculus at an early age[edit]

List of people that mastered Calculus at an early age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unconcise (why specifically "high school teacher", etc.), hard to maintain, useful? Icemuon 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how about - "This antiderivative list takes us to the limit and shouldn't be integrated into Wikipedia?" :) Dugwiki 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that's probably the reason for the mysterious exclusion of people who were taught by a high school teacher but not a university professor. --teb728 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chastity belt. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:48Z

Forced chastity[edit]

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

Completely anecdotal, no reliable sources for either the concept or the term. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NEO apply. Sandstein 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I agree with this redirect. --Ozgod 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 anyone thinks WikiSource actually wants this, let me know and I'll give you the content so you can transwiki. W.marsh 15:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man in the Arena[edit]

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

Clearly original source material that should transwiki to wikisource. Obina 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic villain[edit]

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

Unsourced dicdef and list that is purely original research. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 evidence of sources actually existing, despite claims. If anyone wants this content for a merge or to further work on the article in your userspace, let me know. W.marsh 14:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ball lock[edit]

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

I don't doubt that there's nothing people won't do to their genitals, but in this case, we have no reliable independent sources for it. The article fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Sandstein 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and add approprate tags to request sources. HalJor 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:V, it is up to you to provide sources if you want the article to be kept. You have the five days this AfD will run, after all. Sandstein 19:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and here's a site that promotes this sort of thing: Locknkeep. And a variety of ball locks can apparently be purchased at: Extreme Restraints. I'm unclear why this article is being nominated for deletion. Is it because of the doubted existence of the ball locks or their doubted use? Zotdragon 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of neither. It's because every Wikipedia article must be based on reliable sources, and this article does not have any. The links to the sex toy stores you provide do not substantiate the article's content, and the website that is now being linked to from the article merely references the term. These websites are also not reliable sources. Sandstein 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Colno Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Stories Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodstock 2007

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flunstellas[edit]

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

Non-notable Ideogram 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn PeaceNT 05:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish language names for the Falkland Islands[edit]

List of Spanish language names for the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is not about English but about Spanish names and therefore should not be here on the English wikipedia. Ity is also very POV. The Falklands are a British terrirtory with British names and to give the Argentinian names is unnecessary POV, see List of settlements in the Falkland Islands, SqueakBox 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No that is not a threat. I am not Argentinean and do not particularly care about the Falkland (or Malvinian) Islands one way or another. My comment was intended to convey the fact that the statement "The Falklands are a British terrirtory" is disputed by many Argentineans (and some others), and the nom's justification for deleting this article based on POV may itself constitute POV. It was essentially a spin (and apparently an unsuccessful one) on the phrase: "that and $3 will get you a cup of coffee". However, as my meaning apparently did not go through, I have changed the text so it is clearer. -- Black Falcon 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware that the English have controlled the islands for a long while, but not without controversy, and some maps include both English and Spanish nomenclature, notably those in China (rendered into Chinese of course!)--MacRusgail 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well I am happy to see this afd closed given the consensus, SqueakBox 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry! In my comment above, I made a reference to the nominator thinking it was SkierRMH and not recognizing it was you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article talk page is the place for this discussion. I a, going to remove the afd, can someone close this afd? SqueakBox 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well actually I know non admins can but I dont know how, SqueakBox 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete non-notable corporation. —Doug Bell talk 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic Perspective Entertainment[edit]

Artistic Perspective Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Comment - a list of credits can verify information, but doesn't really fit the bill for reliable sources for establishing notability. -- Whpq 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - true, but TV News reports, Magazine articles & the distribution & airing of the Company's works to a multi-national audience does. It's not the credits that are notible, but the company & the works themselves that they create. For instance, they created a video that was used as part of a U.S. national Fire Prevention Campaign & another that was used as a sequel to a very historic video by a equally historic Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductee (Grandmaster Mele Mel - "M3 - The New Message"). Playserious 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as far as I can see the focus of the material is on CS Vernon rather than APE. I'd say that goes more for establishing the notability of Vernon, and would be suitable for an article about her. -- Whpq 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is more verifiable info credited to her, but the videos they do are produced by both under the company name "A.P.E.". Jimmy Lee individualy is credited as director (along with A.P.E.) on the Mele Mel "M3 - The New Message" music video. The two individuals & the company are credited on the two Coco DVD's. C.S. Vernon & Jimmy Lee share director credit on the national "Take It Outside" music video. The company has a production credit. They also share director credit on the "Broke Celebrity" TV pilot produced for celebrity stylist/fashion designer Indashio (Indashio.com & myspace.com/indashio). Jimmy Lee is the videographer/editor for MTV2 Fight Klub, although the credit goes to A.P.E.Playserious 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-asserting my AFD contribution - removed by Bh1967. -- Whpq 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Whpq comment had been briefly deleted after some reliable sources (NBC-TV, ect...) were found by Googling "A.P.E. Films", "apefilms.com" & the individual video titles, rather than simply Googling "Artistic Perspective Entertainment". This members comment is again now as it initially was. Bh1967 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Note that you should not alter other people's comments. You are free to provide your own comments and replies, but you should not simply delete other edittors' entries. It could be deemed as vandalism. -- Whpq 14:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - That's why I left a note explaining the reason it was briefly deleted. It is restored. That is also noted :) Bh1967 02:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found additional info on A.P.E. co-owner Candice Vernon (also known as C.S. Vernon) at Internet Movie Data Base (imdb.com). Credits include Across the Universe (2007) (completed) (extras casting assistant), Take The Lead (2006) (movie extras casting), "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" TV Series (extras casting), Actress / Script Supervisor The Grasslands (2007) (film in pre-production)Playserious 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 non-notable student organization. Despite the few people that contributed to this discussion, the arguments to delete are sufficient. —Doug Bell talk 13:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Productions[edit]

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

Not notable. Article subject is not referenced by independent sources. Adam 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein 20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C-men fc[edit]

C-men fc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Just some person's online fantasy soccer team. Djsasso 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:49Z

Vesica Piscis (band)[edit]

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

Contested PROD that was taken to DRV and restored. This article is about a band whose releases are mostly limited to downloads from their website. There is no indication of notability per WP:MUSIC, and search engine tests give either irrelevant sites or sites about an album that also happens to be called Vesica Piscis that is not by this band. Coredesat 19:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Vulliez (3rd nomination)[edit]

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

Flash artist with no real notability of his own aside from the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny flash, no notable google hits aside from an extremely fleeting mention on wsj.com. Article consists entirely of OR, mostly added by Vulliez himself, who also narrated a spoken word version of his own article. Article has only gotten worse with the OR since the previous AfDs, which hinged more on the notability of the "Ultimate Showdown" flash rather than the notability of the author himself. Krimpet 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 13:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Score Metal[edit]

Film Score Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a musical genre, and even if it is, it is not notable since apparently only Rhapsody of Fire is generally considered film score metal.

Yes, the term exists, as it gets 10900 GHits. However, if you were to do a search that excludes "rhapsody", you would only get 288 GHits.

If each band in the world was to invent their own metal subgenre and we were to do an article per subgenre, we are going to have a lot of trouble listing all of those! A musical genre is not a genre if it only includes two or three bands!

Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 19:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mouhammad Faye[edit]

Subject's claim to notability is being a redshirt freshman for the GIT basketball team. Additionally, it is worth noting that the article appears to be written by the subject. Kuzaar-T-C- 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a harsh fate, and there's no guarantee that even if he makes it past the first season, he'll be promoted to a speaking role. :( --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(also, I'm not very in-the-loop on sports terminology, and didn't know that redshirt was what it meant.) --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first (one of two) edit. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first and only edit. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's second edit. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Faye-th!!! and no, i am no sockpuppet! 70.155.125.155 22:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)BuzzCzar[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Army (band)[edit]

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

Sources include the BBC website, reliable source. It wasn't originally listed when I added the deletion notice Rysin3 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this articl;e should remain. I will continue to improve it, there are more references to cite, and the ones I have given are good (in my opinion). The BBC website is a good example of this. It is my belief that this tag should be removed.--The Red Army Band 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This article now has plenty of worthy citations, is well written and relates to other wikipedia pages (Cornish Music, Dalla).--The Red Army Band 21:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Keep. With the release of only two singles so far, this band does not meet notability criteria for music, not to mention it probably fails Conflict of interest and Autobiography. The references are mostly self-published and what aren't are trivial. I would suggest the article be written later after the band is more fully established and more notable. Cricket02 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I change my vote to Keep as more reliable references have come to light. I did clean up and removed any links that were self-published/spam/adverts/blogs that are not considered reliable sources, but there are still plenty of reliable sources to consider this group to be influential in the local area and culture. Also, the author argues that although the article is within the scope of an Autobiography, it does not fail Neutral point of view, and I agree. Cricket02 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.*I would argue that it is written from a neutral viewpoint, and therefore not a conflict of interest. Also, the discography remains incomplete, as an album was released in 2005 (One Way Ticket). There are articles from the BBC, Radio Cornwall, and independent websites cited already, and the state of the artist is a large influence in the local area and culture, as can be seen from the wikipedia articles that already link to the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Red Army Band (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC).--The Red Army Band 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article that has been added so far on Philip Burley appears to me to be biographical and fairly irrelevent to that of the bands page. I suggest it is not merged therefore, unless subsequent editing deams it similar to the bands page.--The Red Army Band 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:51Z

List of Disney Channel actors[edit]

List of Disney Channel actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of Disney Channel Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Delete - This article was nominated not too long ago under the name "List of Disney Channel Stars" and was moved to this name as the outcome. I would not normally re-nominate an article this quickly after an AFD but in this instance I don't believe that an important issue was given due consideration. Much of the AFD focused on the utility of categories vs lists. I feel like overlooked in that was the discussion on whether listing actors by the network where their program aired is a good idea. I don't think that it is. There is some measure of precedent for deletion here. There are also a number of categories up for deletion of a similar theme and while the CFDs are still open sentiment is running in favor of deleting performer by network as a category scheme. It's no more proper as a listing scheme. Credits for an actor should be listed in the actor's article, and cast lists should be present and linked in the article for the shows themselves. Otto4711 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Categories vs lists" is not under discussion here. The first AFD nom was about the categories vs lists issue. As I said, overlooked in that discussion was the question as to whether lists of actors by the network they happen to have a show on is appropriate. This nomination is regarding that question. Otto4711 22:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an indiscriminate list and directory, bringing together people who may have nothing else in common than they happened to have a show on a particular network that someone else did. It would be like listing Desi Arnaz with Neil Patrick Harris as "CBS actors" despite their having nothing else in common and their shows appearing on CBS almost 50 years apart. There is no substantive connection. Even disregarding that, it's a poor organizational choice for an encyclopedia. A list of Disney Channel shows with links to the show, with cast lists in each show with links to the actors' articles, is the superior organizational scheme. Otto4711 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, you linked the wrong policy section of WP:NOT. The portion that deals with "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Dugwiki 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm recommending deletion based on the likelihood this would be virtually impossible to properly handle. However, I do want to point out that I don't consider the List of Nickelodeon actors a very strong case for afd precedent, since it had very limited discussion and was mainly a handful of editors saying "I agree with the nom". Depending on the outcome of this Disney Channel afd, I think this afd will make a better case to check for future similar discussions. Dugwiki 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:53Z

Sex Ant Toys[edit]

Sex Ant Toys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Naked Bodies Under A Naked Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Intergalactik Hotel for Morbid Souls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Heavenade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Adrian Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Adrian boyd 2007 wiki.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Sat heavenade 01.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Sat heavenade 02.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Sat heavenade 03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Sex ant toys heavenade cover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Minor band. 21 Google hits. Article does not assert nobility. References given are mostly (all?) to self-published sites such as blogs. No reliable sources are provided. Johntex\talk 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the contributors stating that the Sex Ant Toys page has no credibility, like David Fuchs Dåvid Fuchs, [[84]] have been condemned, banned and charged before by Wikipedia for abuse, libel, and block/ban evasion. The use of abusive sock puppets on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited and illegal within the Wikipedia Editors Community. We are here not to act as Police in search of who's who in doing and trying to delete our material. We have also confirmed through other sources other than Wikipedia, that the band Sex Ant Toys has been in an A&R pursuit from entities in the music industry. People are trying to vandalize their content in Wikipedia. Action for KEEPING THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE TAKEN. The Sex Ant Toys page must be approved under the common laws of Wikipedia.Void Sat News 08:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Void Sat News (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, that was a vandalized version of his userpage. David Fuchs is an established Wikipedian. You also have yet to provide evidence of any reliable sources that I requested. For future reference, there are no laws on Wikipedia. We have guidelines and policies, but we mostly run on consensus, and the consensus so far is to deleted. ShadowHalo 10:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm afraid you're mistaken there. An anonymous IP vandalised David Fuchs' userpage by adding the appropriate templates (the same anonymous IP did the same to Jimbo Wales' page minutes later[85]). Any editor can use the templates, but their use doesn't automatically mean the targeted user is guilty of any wrongdoing. And please don't resort to ad hominem attacks to try and make your point. An article should be kept or deleted on its strength, relevance, notability, verifiability and so on, not on who has contributed to or commented about it. ~Matticus TC 10:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record: Yes, my page was vandalized, and yes, I've also been blocked twice, I think, due to IP vandalism (when I'm editing on school comps or my little bro is annoying). You're right, google hits shouldn't be the method for requiring stuff, but they are often telling: for instance if all the links are to the bands myspace page, lack of third-party etc. is apparently a concern. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest you "userfy" the page by moving the relevant copy with to your userpage. This wasy you will have a copy in case the article gets deleted while you are looking for references. Later, if reliable sources can be found, it will be easier for you to make a new article. Johntex\talk 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 09:06Z

Scott Chasteen[edit]

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

Googling around indicates the contents of this article is a hoax and that the person named would not pass WP:BIO. No sources given to verify any of the article. i kan reed 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hoaxes are explicitly ineligible for speedy deletion. --Hyperbole 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe I was mistaken? I thought that extremely obvious hoaxes, like one that uses a photo of Tupac Shakur and identifies the subject as socializing with dead people, were speediable under {db-nonsense}. If I was wrong... well, I still think it should be deleted, just more slowly. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD says that "nonsense" does "not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." (emphasis mine). --Hyperbole 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 09:06Z

Vortaloptics[edit]

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

Nonnotable software company. Gives two links to independent sources (which is why I brought it here from speedyland), but they look like PR more than anything else. No explanation in the article of why the company is notable. NawlinWiki 21:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RC Quarterly[edit]

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

Minor publication with circulation limited to alumni of a school. Does not meet the basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability. Eight hits on Google, of which four are from the English website of the college, one is from the Turkish website of the college, one is from Wikipedia, and one is the curriculam vitae of an alumnus. This article does not provide any more information than is in Robert College#Publications. Donald Albury 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Advanced Access Content System. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 09:07Z

Arnezami[edit]

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

will this ever be anything but a stub? Misterdiscreet 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs and social clubs in Epsom[edit]

List of pubs and social clubs in Epsom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No more than a list of bars and such in the town of Epsom. None of the listed places seem notable (the ones linked are either links to something unrelated or chains.) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. Veinor (talk to me) 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda wat's sup 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon rocket[edit]

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

This is really more of a "how to" than an encyclopaedic article. It has almost no links inwards, no cited sources and is not written in a formal manner. It fails tests of notability, although Google can find many, relatively trivial, instances. Fiddle Faddle 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 18:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Christophe Avard[edit]

Jean-Christophe Avard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable bio, and a possible hoax. Prod was removed without explanation. May be speediable, but I am being careful not to be too trigger happy. Delete. J Milburn 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping Spree (variety show)[edit]

Shopping Spree (variety show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax article about a TV show on the fictional TV network UBS. Bradycardia 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the only one of Kevanbd's UBS hoaxes still on Wikipedia. The hoax actually went though five days with a prod tag (full disclosure: I prodded the article) but an anon account removed the tag with no explanation. I restored the tag, which I shouldn't have done. Instead, we properly have this AfD. By the way, the anon account which removed the tag has been warned repeatedly about removing prod tags without explanation or justification. Casey Abell 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Made Fun[edit]

Science Made Fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable website. Although there seem to be a lot of google hits, I don't think any of them could be counted as reliable, third party, non trivial, published sources. I may be wrong- delete unless notability is established. J Milburn 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda wat's sup 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leprechauns in popular culture[edit]

Leprechauns in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A page of WP:TRIVIA about Leprechauns. Nothing worth merging back to Leprechaun in my opinion. As it stands this is an indiscriminate collection of random facts (in violation of WP:NOT), and is furthermore completely unsourced. Articles like this are a bad idea; delete. Mangojuicetalk 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reasoning to delete Jaranda wat's sup 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Puerto Project[edit]

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

The two references are both broken links. The four externally linked sites seem to have been designed by the author of the the wiki page. Also, the article is written in first person and somewhat incoherent. I just don't think it's all that notable, and should be deleted until the author(s) can come up with some solid (non-broken and non-self-authored) sources. Hojimachongtalkcon 07:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG 05:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 09:12Z

Geyzer Blade Zero[edit]

Geyzer Blade Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Tsubasa copy.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
G.B.Z. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Geyzer Blade Zero.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
M.O.N.O. Fighter X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:M.O.N.O. Fighter X .jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:M.O.N.O. Fighter X copy.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,02003081514000NMCBMNC4.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
M.O.N.O. Fighter X Zeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:M.O.N.O. Fighter X Zeon.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:M.O.N.O. Fighter X Zeon 2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)


I believe this is just a story. WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a free web host, or, if not, this story/character is non-notable, with not a single google hit. The prod was removed. J Milburn 22:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! in popular culture[edit]

Jeopardy! in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Collection of random trivia about Jeopardy!. The Jeopardy! article has an abbreviated "popular culture" section; this was probably forked out to allow room for all the cruft we now see here. "In popular culture" articles are not a good idea; see also WP:TRIV and WP:TRIVIA. The list is very indiscriminate and unsourced (except for one item). Delete. Mangojuicetalk 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please don't use the argument that the "set evolution" page is a reason to keep the article. I looked at the AFD for that, and it should have been a no consensus, not keep, and it should be removed too anyway. Half the votes were "this is interesting" keep votes, while the other half were valid delete/merge votes. As with that article, this should go too, pure garbage of interest to no one. Booshakla 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. The article's interest to more people than "no one" is its raison d'être. It's easy to call something "fancruft" or "an indiscriminate collection of information" and toss it away, but such responses ignore the reality of the contributions made to the article and its history. Dozens of different users contributed to the article before it was forked, and dozens more contributed later. While I cannot endorse the article on other merits (it is poorly sourced, not many other pages link to it, etc.), articles like this are what make Wikipedia so useful and interesting, and set Wikipedia apart from drier encyclopedias. These sorts of lists are the neurons that send out dendrite feelers to so many other neurons. In the future, we're going to appreciate articles that collect information such as this, not indiscriminately, but discriminately, and most interestingly. Consider the following cycle. A future user sees a photograph somewhere of Vicki Lawrence in a white wig on the Jeopardy! set and wonders, "Were characters from Mama's Family ever on Jeopardy!?" The user goes to Wikipedia for the answer, but it is not there. Having done research to determine that such a thing did indeed happen, the user adds the information to the Jeopardy! article. Other users do the same, and the article bloats with useful and valid information. A split is proposed and executed. The split article is deemed in violation of Wikipedia policy and deleted. A future user sees a photograph somewhere of Rosie Perez in street getup on the Jeopardy! set and wonders... What is the appropriate response on Wikipedia to end such vicious circles? IMHO, it is to let such lists exist when they are appropriate and link to many other valid articles. Robert K S 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appropriate response is to remove that kind of irrelevant information. Yes, the information may pop up again and again, but it should be removed, again and again. Giving it a safe haven like this article may have been a necessary if problematic step when Wikipedia was smaller; now, there are enough dedicated editors to keep this kind of stuff out of articles. Mangojuicetalk 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as an editor who does far more deleting of fluff than adding of new information, especially to the Jeopardy! article, I assert that you are incorrect on this point. Despite an HTML comment warning in the Jeopardy! article not to contribute additional references (which are encyclopedic inasmuch as they testify to the show's cultural pervasiveness)--a comment which I added--editors are constantly tempted to contribute (valid) cultural references to the article, bloating it. I don't want to think about how much worse this problem will become when there is no forked article and no warning comment on the main page. Robert K S 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knifers[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. It reads as a how-to guide to smoke marijuana, including ways to make your hit better and to save money on it. Google comes up with 45,000 hits for knifers, but the vast majority of those refer to using a combat knife in games like Battlefield 2 or Counterstrike, or an abbreviation of the town of Yellowknife to Y'knifers. The entire article reads like a bunch of stoners started putting together nicknames for various types of "knifer" hits, and stuff, but I find no reliable sourcing to indicate the term is anything in general use. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 22:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus to delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Christian School[edit]

Delaware Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I prodded this because it fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Prod tag was removed by an anon user so I'm bringing it to AfD. It's a non-notable high school and a fairly lackluster article. Soltak | Talk 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps you have modified the article to meet WP:V, though the point could still be argued. However, you have done nothing to either assert or prove notability. Your assertion that there is no notability requirement is fundamentally flawed: WP:N is a WP policy. It's general notability criteria is that a topic have been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." Two of your references are directly linked the school (its own website and a city website) and the other two fail WP:RS. Notability guidelines are not met. Soltak | Talk 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any facts and figures for a school are bound to be linked with either the school or city - only they have them and the sources are perfectly good enough for non-controversial facts; ABC is not going to count how many kids are non-hispanic! WP:N states "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia" - it is not policy. Having said that, the educational achievements are plainly notable. TerriersFan 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing a very important fact: The words "policy" and "guideline" are used interchangeably. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. In addition, ABC wouldn't count the number of non-Hispanic students at a middle school because that information is not notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is neither a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information.; see WP:NOT. Soltak | Talk 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 09:15Z

Eclipse engine[edit]

Eclipse engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Frog5.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Frog.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Image-Crusade Divison Of Time 1 by Barony.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:EmeraldGladeCaverns.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
Eclipse game engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Touch of death productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

You have to scroll right to the bottom of this article discover that it is a "game engine" which, I believe, means a piece of software. Noatbility not established. Probable advert. -- RHaworth 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Berger[edit]

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

Beneath all the school in-jokes, all the article effectively says is "this person is a school teacher". However good he is, and however much his students (dis)like him, that is not enough - see WP:BIO. I cannot find any external references to the "numerous historical works" he is said to have published. Google entries that refer to him are, on the whole, copies of this article. (There are a couple of quotations in newspaper articles, but not enough to justify his inclusion as an educational commentator). The one book mentioned in the article ("A Berger: Memoirs" - Adrian Berger, Defton Press 2006 ISBN 0-441-59445) is not to be found through Google or Amazon and may well be a hoax. If it were simply that the article is poorly written and contains lots of material that is unashamedly said to be "unlikely to be true, and ... difficult to verify", I would have a go at cleaning up the article. But there would be nothing worth saving afterwards - hence my AfD nomination. Bencherlite 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it's even worse than that: when you remove from a Google search pages that refer to the murder of someone of the same name , you're down to only 2 newspaper quotes that undoubtedly refer to him that aren't WP sites or mirrors i.e. [86], [87]. Bencherlite 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Adrian Berger has told me that he does have a FIFTY-FIRST STATE CAMPAIGN. He is planning to make England a fifty-first state of America. His slogans are - "You can go further with Berger," and "You'll have no beef with Berger," just as the article states. 2) Adrian Berger is planning to write a book, called "Hays for Defence," which he says will take him several years to write. It will be a sort of biography on Arthur Garfield Hays, a well-known lawyer in the 20th Century. 3) He does have an eccentric teaching style, integrating into his lessons "Berger" minutes, an improvised time length, and incorporating signs into the sessions, such as the DOUBLE V, a typical American victory symbol, something that he explained personally to me.

Do not delete all of this article. There is some truth in it, but not all of it is correct. Keep in the elements of the text that I have confirmed as factual information, please, because Adrian Berger is the most enthuastic and knowledgable historian that I have ever met, with a most interesting background, directly linked to WWII. Do you not think that his life deserves to be recorded? Oliverholib 10:00pm February 13th 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.25.43 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Although the above comment was apparently written by an IP user, it is more likely to be from Oliverelholiby who left the same comments on the article talk page, which I suggested would be better here. (I have left a message on his talk page suggesting he uses ~~~~ to sign messages.) I remain unmoved, sorry. Bencherlite 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Oliver, the fact is that this encyclopaedia is not a free-for-all. There are rules and regulations about what goes on here. And, no matter how fantastic Mr Berger is (and I concur heartily, having engaged in many a witty repartée with him in my day), if he fails the Notability criteria, then little else matters. I know you may respect Mr Berger very highly, enjoy his lessons thoroughly, and admire him greatly for being such an eccentric figure, but he doesn't belong here. Besides, are not Messrs Worrall, Burcher, Bryant, Johnson, Tillett, Perrott, Bish etc etc not just as worthy? Would you also create encyclopaedic entries on all of these great men? If you really want to document KEGS teachers, then a KEGS wiki would be a place to do that (let me know if you are hell-bent on doing so - I could lend an expert hand!) Yours, DBD 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Medicine[edit]

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

Sorry, I am being idle on this one. Massively oversize article. Possibly entirely a copyvio. Has some references but are they independent? -- RHaworth 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi I am the author of the book and the article. One of my goal is to bring this research to wikipedia which I have tremondous respect for. I have done 18 years research on this article and want to keep building this information. I work as a Medical Doctor and these meridian theories helps me understand the disease process better. The original scripture for this book is Keiraku which is the ancient text on Meridian Medicine. Master Jiro Murai in Japan studied this art for almost all his lifetime and passed this again as oral teaching to Mary Burmeister who started Jin Shin Jyutsu in USA. Mary wrote her book which took her 22 years to put together. My backgrond in Medicine, Acupuncture, Acupressure makes this easier for me plus being trained in both western and eastern Medicine makes this effortless for me. If you still want to delete this article I respect your opinion. I can tell you a story "I had a patient with Ovarian cancer. She was only 39 yrs old and had a 3 yr old son. Just one week before she died she had terrible pain in her gums and died unable to speak. I learnt through Meridian medicine - that her ovarian cancer caused obstruction of large intestinal meridian which flows and ends at the gums. I learnt to respect this medicine which explains the location of pain in the body."

My medical website is http://VasuBrown.Com

Regards Vasu Brown, MD

Hi Morgan Thanks for your suggestion. I will do this for the future. It is little bit of a learning curve and since I did not have lots of time I wanted a quick update on what Meridian Medicine is about. I guess if this page does get deleted I will be doing the topic as you suggested in future. Cheers Vasu Brown

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

The result was delete. –Llama man 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette Fox[edit]

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

This person appears to have been awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia, "for service to the community through the Guilford Young Grove Retirement Village" [88]. Does being a recipient of such an award make one eligible for inclusion? The article looks to be a complete cut and paste from the external link above, so may fall foul of the policy on Copyright violations. -- Longhair\talk 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 also speedy delete other similar articles by this user; see User talk:DepressedPer26. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 09:18Z

Top Ten "Out of This World" Videos[edit]

Top Ten "Out of This World" Videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Top Ten "Out Of This World" VIdeos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Top Ten "Out of This World" VIdeos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Top 50 Guilty Pleasures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
MuchMusic's 100 Best Videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
20 Songs Parents Hated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Top Ten "Cool Cameo" Videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
MuchTopTens: Top Ten "Cool Cameo" Videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Top Ten "My Life As A Celebrity" VIdeos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)


Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information Evan Reyes 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 09:37Z

Tottenham Hotspur Food Poisoning Scandal 2005/06[edit]

Tottenham Hotspur Food Poisoning Scandal 2005/06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of relevance, niche article, irrelevant title, doesn't read easily and contains bias

In case anyone is wondering what's been going on with this nomination, the AfD nomination was by JamieLei but the process then continued on the article talk page, not here - so I've moved it. Hope I've done so correctly. Bencherlite 23:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 09:38Z

Life after Seinfeld[edit]

Life after Seinfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A large, overblown "where are they now" section that is not encyclopedic enough for its own page, and is full of OR. Any pertinent info can be found on pages for the actors and main show article. Booshakla 23:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The House Jacks (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Non-notable a cappella group (WP:MUSIC). Makes claims to be the "first", "origional", "pioneer", etc.—none of which can be cited to published sources. Was kept before in a confused, multi-article nomination which was marred by an abnormally large amount of anons and new accounts. Savidan 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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