< February 17	February 19 >

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 23:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Roberto Carlos Ventura[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, recently replaced with a completely unrelated boxer's bio. Locriani 08:24, 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 Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bakharev (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan Workers Party[edit]

It should be deleted because it is not a legal organization and in this article nothing concern on realities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oguzhan620 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 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 speedy delete. -- Steel 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Treasure[edit]

Unverifiable hoax. This show does not exist. Squirepants101 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Obvious hoax; claims to be "a 19th century aniamted (sic) television series", yet animation and television weren't invented until the early 20th century.--TBCΦtalk? 02:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. HOAX. Period.SYSS Mouse 02:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some reliable sources can be found to verfiy this. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not suitable for mainspace. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 03:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Television in the 1800's?!? Just delete and get it over with. Smokizzy 05:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. Utter rubbish, television wasn't even invented in the 1800's --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 09:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A programme from the 19th Century? If it was so important it would have been created much earlier, it does seem to be a hoax.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax, this stands no chance of getting any reliable sources. Pea ceNT 15:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No entry on TV.com or IMDB. Filmography of actors listed doesn't list this show. Obvious fake. Delete and warn user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 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; no point in letting this go on. - Daniel.Bryant 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of historically male names now used for females[edit]

Is this list supposed to mean anything?? I'm quite sure that there is no absoluteness of the statement that until 1945, only boys had this name; since 1945, only girls do. Georgia guy 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous original research. Soltak | Talk 00:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As well as the above, inaccurate - Leslie, for example, has a separate female spelling (Lesley). In any case, covered in Unisex Names EliminatorJR 00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really relevant, but the spelling Leslie, in the U.S. at least is typically a girl's name. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 06:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be duplicate information (Unisex name), anything not there already could be merged. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless and unencyclopedic Matchups 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR at best. Mostly duplicated by Unisex names. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 06:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. This is basically a duplicate of Unisex names. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 09:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and is just a list a useless list as-well as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious WP:OR violation. Pea ceNT 15:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unisex name has it better (and that article really needs some cleanup too). Probably a case of someone starting an article without searching first. --UsaSatsui 16:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Unisex name already covers it with much more content.--John Lake 16:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list does not describe anything useful, or absolute. --Danaman5 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant and no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:OR, and WP:NOT#INFO. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Lacks notability. see Wiki doesn't collect info nor is it a directory (see sections above "doesn't collect info". BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 19:24, 19 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 redirect to Kerala Congress. - Daniel.Bryant 10:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KSC (Jacob)[edit]

WP:RS Zadeez 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Nardman1 01:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kerala Congress. Verifiable, somewhat notable organization [1]; but doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit its own article.--TBCΦtalk? 02:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:BIO and WP:NN. however if the nominator had left a description of why they though it should be deleted it would have been easier.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect In less than 30 seconds, I found a couple of articles that reference protests organized by the KSC, as well as non-trivial profiles of the founder of the KSC. This has nothing to do with BIO, and while not largely notable, there are definitely non-trivial articles about this org. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 16:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, I didn't look closely enough. There is more than KSC (!!!) The one mentioned in The Hindu was a a different KSC. I think in now agree with the Redirect Vote. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 16:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. The article can be reinstated once more WP:RS have been gathered. John Vandenberg 06:46, 24 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.--Hús ö nd 02:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppo Awards[edit]

Non-notable company award. Related to several recently-deleted articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeppo Network (2nd nomination). JW1805 (Talk) 00:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable award. Wooyi 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, should have gone with the rest of the network. James086 ^Talk 01:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, non-notable company, recently deleted articles. Daniel5127 | Talk 02:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is notable (Google UK search results) as it had a total of nearly 69,000 search results.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 11:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment when searching for an exact phrase "Zeppo awards" there are 183 results [2]. James086 ^Talk 11:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Tokek 12:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. In addition, I don't think that an award by a vendor to honor their users is really encyclopedia material.
Delete - per nom. As for that "look it's got 69,000 results on google", please see the number is big. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 19:23, 19 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jabba and slaves[edit]

Unencyclopedic... JW1805 (Talk) 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't an article, gone Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:06, 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.--Hús ö nd 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of streetlight manufacturers and fixtures[edit]

tagged for cleanup for a while, unencyclopedic, reads like spam near the end, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There wouldn't be anything wrong with an article on streetlight manufacturers and fixtures, but this is a product catalog, not an article. Unless someone can fix this, we'd better get rid of it. --N Shar 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned above; some sections sound like spam.--TBCΦtalk? 02:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per spam. Daniel5127 | Talk 02:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup This is a biased article which could be kept but it needs its NPOV text and advert like reading removed.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#IINFO —Tokek 12:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
Weak delete Even though I'm interested in roads, and traffic-related matters and have been, the encyclopedia has to take precedence here. However, Tellyaddict's comment is a fair point too. --sunstar net^talk 16:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep How can this possibly be labeled unencyclopedic ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.69.179.85 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete this is a product and company catalog which Wikipedia is not. Awyong J. M. Salleh 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wiki not being a directory. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 19:27, 19 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. - Daniel.Bryant 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads Music[edit]

notability Zadeez 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this company has multiple notable artist on wikipedia. I take it similar to Metropolis Records, don't be prejudiced against indie record labels. Wooyi 01:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as the article states it encompasses other labels including Horizon, which is certainly very notable. Also has enough independently notable artists. —siro χ o 03:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a Notable company, you can tell this by looking at the Google UK Search results.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They seem to have many established artists, but the article needs references. TellyAddict: The Google Test is not really valid most of the time, and applies less here, where "Crossroads Music" is a relatively common phrase. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable by association with notable artists. Needs clean up, but not deletion. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:30, 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 Merge to Paul Zane Pilzer. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:02Z

Economic alchemy[edit]

Neologism coined by one writer, completely unreferenced. Little to no sign anyone else uses it. PROD tag added, but removed by Black Falcon (talk · contribs) with the summary see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2B%22economic+alchemy%22+-wikipedia -- the term has use within a specific community - the same Google search I conducted which showed that this is a neologism coined by one writer, with little to no sign anyone else uses it. Calton | Talk 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Paul Zane Pilzer ZimmerBarnes 01:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Paul Zane Pilzer. I removed the ((prod)) because I did not feel it was a case of uncontroversial deletion rather than a desire to keep this a separate article. Cheers, Black Falcon 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Assuming the author is notable, a stub of this size has no reason to be split off from his main article. A redirect would cover any issue of "people wondering what Economic Alchemy is about". -Markeer 12:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as above, I suppose; yet another breathless announcement that the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Major tranquilizers are indicated in cases of optimism. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:13, 19 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, however this probably was a keep if the debate adjudication only focused on the part after the article was updated. - Daniel.Bryant 10:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Hollows[edit]

Possibly notable, but article, especially at end, reads like spam EliminatorJR 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Though it's true that she's been mentioned in a BBC article, the WP:BIO criteria states that the person must be a "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person"--TBCΦtalk? 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak keep~~.(edit: Keep now, due to updates, clear notability) ~~Considering the Google News Archive Search results [3], I am wary of deleting, however this is a borderline case, and further research is needed.~~ —siro χ o 03:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "primary subject" rule at BIO is under dispute and is more stringent than the general notability criterion for WP. BIO is a mess right now and changes from day to day. She is a significant subject within the BBC article, but I would like to see more resource material to fully establish notability. I think this article needs to go to cleanup. --Kevin Murray 03:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. I've removed the advertising spiel at the end of the article. The user who created the articles is currently adding lots of people who have gained DBEs. Some of these are obviously notable but others must be borderline - this bio is mostly copied from BBC and other articles. Question is, are people notable purely because they've got a DBE? EliminatorJR 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete pending a re-write and addition of references. Montco 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Based on new references, I will change the delete opinion to weak keep. The spam for her consultancy probably needs to go. Montco 04:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless additionial references are provided. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unless additional references can be provided sunstar net^talk
Mild Keep Seems somewhat notable, but, per above, more sources would definitely help.Faysals 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Page is copied heavily (word for word in many cases) from Here. I have additionally tagged the article as copyright violation. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't fall under CSD criterion - it's not unquestionably a copyvio. Tag removed accordingly. 〈RED VEЯS〉 20:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "She started her career in London. After rapid promotion, she became head teacher at Calverton Primary School in the east London. Calverton appeared in the press, described as one of the worse schools in the country." and "Within three years, Calverton became the most improved primary school in the country, with results far exceeding those achieved in far more affluent areas." and "Sharon was invited to Downing Street to tell the Prime Minister, his education ministers, and advisors how these improvements had been brought about. After her presentation, the Secretary of State, David Blunkett asked her to join the prestigious Standards Task Force." and "She established a reputation as someone who could bring about high standards of educational achievement through the reform of traditional practices. She was soon invited to become an advisory head teacher." are lifted word for word from the website is not unquestionable. I will be removing these sections because they are unquestionable violations. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small question - why has most of Hollows' page been gutted? While some was copied from the BBC, the BBC was cited and credited as a link. What is the problem? What about Anne Rogers Clark -- this was copied directly from the NY Times obituary!!Veronica Mars fanatic 13:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which brings us back to the original point - are people notable purely because they've gained a DBE? While the subject's achievements in her workplace are obviously very commendable, the third-party references were only generated from her award. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of educational staff who have improved school results without gaining an award from it, do they all need a wiki page? EliminatorJR 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep tending to delete, living person and most of the article's claims are unsubstantiated by references or sources therefore we could run into trouble Alf photoman 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article seems to have had some cut'n'paste problems but subject is notable. I have added another reference prior to the Honours, showing it wasn't just that recognition. --Dhartung | Talk 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References seem OK, and she's notable enough to have been awarded a DBE. However it is important that we are impartial, and seen to be impartial, and are not biased towards any particular commercial interest. Accordingly, we should eliminate the link to her own comments, and watch the article carefully for signs of commercialisation: she is no longer a teacher, but has set up her own "consultancy", presumably to capitalise on her fame. WMMartin 13:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I may be biased as I am the one who created the page but she is an educator who turned around one of the worst schools in the entire UK and was created as DBE for that; and is now an industry consultant, I believe she more than merits a page on Wikipedia. Btw, my vote was deleted by User:WMMartin --why??? Am I not allowed to vote as the author of the page?Veronica Mars fanatic 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not a "vote" EliminatorJR 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, Veronica Mars fanatic, I think we were both contributing to the AfD debate at about the same time ( you can check the edit times in the history of this debate ) and I guess I must have clicked something incorrectly when I made my posting. I certainly wasn't aiming to delete your comments, so sorry for that. As it happens, you'll see that we both feel that the article should be retained, so it should be clear that this wasn't meant maliciously, but was a pure accident. WMMartin 11:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw -- to those who feel the page needs fixing; please review current edition which has been updated to reflect other editors' concerns. Thanx. Veronica Mars fanatic 15:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the added info mainly duplicates the existing page, unfortunately. Despite the fact I nominated this for AfD, I'd actually quite like to keep it, but at the moment I really have to conclude that the only thing that is making the subject notable is her DBE. Even speaking as a teacher myself, if we had pages for every educationalist who had been successful in their job ... you get the picture. EliminatorJR 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too have had doubts about school educators, but in this case she's N. I am not certain whether the final paragraph about her consultancy is spam.DGG 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung and WMMartin, this subject does appear to be notable based on WP:BIO guidelines. (jarbarf) 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung and WMMartin. I have removed the consultancy section as it didnt add to the bio per DGG; feel free to re-add a useful prose of her activities with the company. John Vandenberg 06:50, 24 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Killer7 locations[edit]

Listcruft. Killer 7 is a one time game, and a location list for it is much better suited for a fan wiki. RobJ1981 01:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Killer7--TBCΦtalk? 01:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe redirect, but do not merge: the material would have to be completely rewritten to be of use in the main article. Nifboy 05:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --User:Krator (t c) 12:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game may be notable, but the locations should stand on their own as notable. For example, are there newspaper articles talking bout Killer7's famous Battleship Isle? I don't think this merits its own article, and I don't think that it should be redirected, either - just get rid of it.
Delete the locations are not themselves notable and would not be useful in the main article.-- danntm ^T _C 20:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per danntm. --The Dark Side 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to the game itself. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game is pretty complex, but a list of locations does not help explain it better. JuJube 10:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main game article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've kept a copy at strategywiki:Killer7/Locations. -- Prod-You 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should be a section in the Killer7 article, but not in this form. It needs to be completely rewritten to make it worth it.DreamingLady 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge if the articles editors want it. BJ^Talk 14:05, 22 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. Chick Bowen 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AYA (band)[edit]

Band showing no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC -- not even a full album to their credit and other bands namechecked seem to be mostly redlinked. PROD tag added, but removed by Kangie (talk · contribs) with the edit summary Seems to meet some of the WP:BAND notability guidelines, which I'm not seeing. Calton | Talk 01:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Envy who, out of all of the band members, seems to be the most notable.--TBCΦtalk? 02:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least Merge. Hi, Im the guy that started the article. I'd argue that there has been enough activity on the article to warrant its place. More research could be done to add to what is present. The band is notable in the sense that it really was the vehicle for Chris Envy which eventually got his band Showoff on Maverick Records. AYA effectively broke up around this time. AYA never had any full length LPs mostly 7" and split 7". Another reason for their notability is that they were one of the preeminent pop punk bands in the Chicago suburbs during the early and mid 90s. This brand of music, mixed with the hardcore punk, indie, and art rock, scene which was more prominent, eventually lead to the forming of Fall Out Boy, which Chris Envy was briefly a member of, during the beginning. Also check out #5 "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Again, I would first recommend a KEEP and then later, I'd like to see the content merged with Chris Envy. Xsxex 22:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not being verifiable through reliable sources. Totally fails WP:ATT and WP:MUSIC. NeoFreak 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Selket ^Talk 05:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked at the Chris Envy article (should be stubbed) which would be a weak keep itself. The band was popular among punk rockers (a smaller group of socitey). The band was popular for 3-4 years (Earth is 4.567 billion years old) There groupies were in Homewood/Flossmore. (Where?). --Masterpedia 00:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per build the web. All of the members of this band went on to other bands that have articles, so this grouping is worthy for the historical aspect. As a result is was the band that was a crucial stepping stone for all involved. Redirecting to one of those band members isnt appropriate as it is systematic bias against drummers (seriously, someone needs to create a project for this). John Vandenberg 06:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BTW is a guidline on links. If the article fails to establish notability and meet the requirments of WP:ATT then it can be Jersey Turnpike of the web and it's still subject to deletion. NeoFreak 07:01, 24 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winfield High School (West Virginia)[edit]

This is just an unnotable public high school --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 01:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Non-notable school with no notable alumni or non-trivial media coverage.--TBCΦtalk? 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all criterion in WP:SCHOOL. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep after reconsideration. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools aren't inherently notable, and this one makes no assertion of notability. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete Some schools are notable, even if just for a good sports record, but this school has just about nothing to brag about. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 10:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Changed to Keep Recent improvements since the beginning of this discussion have changed the direction of this article. Has enough notability to hang on to. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The second half of your statement is a pretty thoughtless way of describing something that is probably loved by someone else, and the way it's worded adds no real value to this discussion. If you don't see something notable there, just say it simply, don't sink into what could be interpreted as a sneer. Please apply the Golden Rule.Noroton 16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if that's the way it was interpreted, I just meant it didn't have anything significant to keep an article on. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete clear case of non-notable school. Pea ceNT 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per article's improvement, should meet WP:SCHOOL now. Pea ceNT 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep High schools are inherently notable IMHO, and no harm would be done if every high school in the nation had a Wikipedia article (well, aside from attracting vandals). WP:SCHOOL is not official policy. This article is lousy, but perhaps the deletion nomination will get some local patriot to improve it.Noroton 16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thought about media coverage: Rich communities have money to spend, which means advertisers can support more local newspapers, which means more articles get written about local high schools, making it easier to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Newspapers in poorer communities may not have a Web presence or have as many of their articles on the Web. That may not overcome the objection about notability, but it's something to keep in mind. The Web, and therefore to an extent, Wikipedia, tends to emphasize what the rich have, de-emphasize what the poor have. I don't know about Winfield, but it doesn't appear to be wealthy.Noroton 16:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Additional comment: This school doesn't appear to be in a poor community at all (and wealthier than most of West Virginia) and it does have some coverage from several local papers) I've added a couple of small bits of information to the article. Noroton 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or merge per WP:LOCAL (latter preferred). This is simply more tedious schoolcruft from the schoolspammers. The claim "High schools are inherently notable" directly contradicts established consensus. However, a merge to an appropriate article about a school district is usually the best way to avoid inappropriate recreations. Xtifr _tälk 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments presented here. Soltak | Talk 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a school is just like a grocery store in the same way that a home is like a dormatory, a mother like a jailer, a father like a boss, a sister like a coworker. That's why we have grocery store yearbooks, homecoming celebrations for watermelon season and class rings for the store employees. Ah yes, I'll never forget marching down the canned vegetable aisle in my cap and gown to hear the commencement speech in the deli section. My point isn't that the metaphor is flawed so much as the idea is flawed: schools aren't school buildings just as homes aren't houses or apartments. Schools carry a lot more importance than that in the lives of students and communities. That's a good part of what makes them special. We allow Wikipedia articles for local communities because we recognize their importance to people, not because they're all significant far beyond their boundaries. High schools get seared into the memories of those who go there, whether they love the experience or hate it. They have a natural importance which I call inherent. When that basketball team won the state championship it was important to the community at large. How do I know that? Because it always is. Even to people who had no kids in the school at the time. Even to people who never went to the high school and had no children. High schools are one of the things that communities put their money, their interest and their hopes into. Take out the high school articles that don't identify some notability for people far beyond their borders and you really just diminish Wikipedia.Noroton 05:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Noroton (talk · contribs) has improved the article since it was nominated. --Eastmain 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, Noroton did spruce up the article, but a reality TV show contestant isn't really worth keeping the artice. Possibly the state championship, but that would be a streach. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I originally leaned towards "all schools are notable," but Soltak's arguments convinced me, it's pretty much tantamount to "all supermarkets are notable" or "all post office buildings are notable." Krimpet 03:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the article has substantially improved since it was nominated for deletion. WP:SCHOOLS is a proposed guideline which is unlikely to gain community wide acceptance, and the current version of this article clearly demonstrates notability anyhow. RFerreira 07:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references, and notability not proven. Seriously, if having a reality show contestant as an alumnus is taken as a claim to notability, we might as well just fold up the tents and move on. WMMartin 13:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made by Noroton, article now meets WP:SCHOOLS criteria for inclusion. Myles Long 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Meets my criteria for H.S. notability. Thanks for nominating this page for the High School Article Improvement Drive. ;-) — RJH (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just added significantly to the content, making the article two or three times longer. It is now a substantially different article. I was surprised to find so many awards for academic excellence for the school (I hadn't seen them when I was searching the Web before). It seems to me the school is, academicly, one of the best in the state. I think editors who have voted here should re-evaluate the article. Noroton 20:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the vast improvements to this article are such that it now meets the bastardized WP:SCHOOLS proposals. Also see User:Silensor/Schools for supporting rationale. Silensor 20:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the court case. Schools with such more generally relevant material can be N.DGG 04:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noroton's additions have substantially improved the article, and thus, with notability now asserted, I'm happy to change my vote. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, article now meets various proposed WP:SCHOOL guidelines and firmly illustrates the notability of the subject. roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the rewritten version passes a reasonable bar for notability, backed by reliable sources. (jarbarf) 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are notable, and this is a particularly well written article. Yamaguchi先生 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yamaguchi, et al. --Myles Long 19:15, 22 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. The most common opinions were: keep as a notable topic, delete as original research, merge into Mars, and merge into Global warming. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martian global warming[edit]

See WP:V, WP:OR, either merge, delete, or redirect to Mars--70.107.112.158 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mars--TBCΦtalk? 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this should be a section in Mars. Dave6 ^talk 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was already a proposal to merge (which I made), so I'm not sure why the AfD was proposed before the merge discussion was completed. I'd rather the material ~~not be deleted~~ (clarification) be merged rather than deleted outright (end clarification) but abstain from !voting as I was the proponent of the merge. Raymond Arritt 02:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Merge and allow the information many people are adding to remain so the article has a chance to become fuller instead of constantly deleting valid information. Rameses 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mars. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mars. Information seems valid, but it makes more sense to me to have this as a paragraph in the Climate section of the Mars encyclopedia. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Why is this even in AfD? The nom should have been more precise as to delete, merge, or redirect. This should be in the Climate section of Mars. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mars. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 09:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely not delete or redirect, and do not merge. The Mars article is currently already long. This notable issue deserves its own article and this article stands a good chance of getting longer soon. Many good sources and external links. I see no violation of WP:OR and WP:V. Pea ceNT 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into...well, if Mars is getting too big, why not Atmosphere of Mars? Some sections from the Mars article (such as Climate) can also be brought into there, fleshing out that article nicely. I don't think this issue is significant enough for it's own article right now, but in the future, if this particular issue does become so, it can be forked out again. Just a thought. --UsaSatsui 16:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough info to merit its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs)
delete or merge - there is almost no real content here; this is last-gasp nonsense from the solar variability people which is so non-respectable that mainstream solar people (Solanki) won't even touch it William M. Connolley 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May as well point out that Mr William Connolley himself is a climate modeler (potential interest with article). SYSS Mouse 03:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep may seem silly... but Mars is 62K and given that talk of climate change and global warming is all the rage these days, it's a curiousity. Can't be systemically biased in favour of that one blue rock called Earth. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, because we wouldn't want to offend all those people living on Mars, or present Neptunians with an Earth-centric view of Martian life. --UsaSatsui 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That rock is not blue: it is the water that coated the rock that make it appears blue. :pSYSS Mouse 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That should be "that makes it appear blue" while we're pointing out obvious stuff. :)CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete While it may be verifiable, an observation for three years does not show anything worthwhile of an article. SYSS Mouse 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole premise of the article violates NPOV. Selket ^Talk 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain that, please. --UsaSatsui 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article exists solely to advance the position that global warming is due to solar and not human activity. --Selket ^Talk 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...you do realize this article is about Mars, right? --UsaSatsui 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge at the very least): This subject is not notable. See WP:Notability. There are NO scientific articles directly related to "Martian global warming." By creating such an article, and by giving evidence that was never published in a scientific journal, this article also violates wikipedia's policy of no original research. See WP:NOR. This article has NO content (the content of the title is almost as informative of the content in the "text"). If people believe that the one sentence of this article merits some note in an article (even though it violates wikipedi policy), then merge it with Mars or Atmosphere of Mars, or both. Better yet, create an article such as Climate of Mars; this topic is notable and is an embarassing gap in wikipedia Mars series. Furthermore, this stub can not be expanded to an article because there is no published source of material relating to this subject. Finally, the title of this article is very deceptive. Lunokhod 18:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that talk of climate change and global warming is of huge interest these days, it's worth having pages like this which will be among the most viewed on Wikipedia. Having well read articles and both sides of the debate will promote Wikipedia and give it more relevance. Brittainia 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Climate of Mars, which seems to have just been started and needs a lot of work. Unless that article is to be deleted, this content would belong there, and if this proves relevant, it could be split off again. Mars is too big to add all of this in detail. Atmosphere of Mars is about the content of the atmosphere, which is not directly related to the climate (any more than we think of air and weather as linked on Earth). Rigadoun (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggested "Atmosphere" because I would suggest merging "Climate" into "Atmosphere" as well, since climate is a function of the atmosphere. --UsaSatsui 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, no. On Earth, ground and oceans also play a major role in the climate system, and I suspect ground does on Mars.--Stephan Schulz 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Details. I wasn't defending my suggestion anyway, just explaining it...merging to "Climate" is fine by me. --UsaSatsui 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Climate of Mars. Mars is already too long and it fits much better into the climate article. Oren0 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to Climate of Mars. I've considered improving the article, but I see no way to do it substantially. About the only verifiable fact is that the southern ice cap has shrunk over the last 3 Martian years, possibly due to dust storms. That is not worth an article by itself. All the rest is speculation with no reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see why it needs to be merged. This is more about political expediency among the Wikipedia members that want to stifle climate debate. This is in case anyone draws a parallel between Mars and Earth. The article is primarily about Mars. Just because it is inconvienient, it doesn't make it less interesting. Leave it alone. Mixino1 10:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Climate of Mars. It's the best place to put it. MER-C 12:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no "global warming" on Mars. Instead there is climate change of unknown magnitudes and unknown directions of temperature change on numerous time scales.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jespley (talk • contribs).
Delete - non-noteable biased unscientific speculation designed to mislead people trying to understand the Earth Global Warming evidence. WAS 4.250 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any valid sourced claims into Climate of Mars. -- Scientizzle 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the valid sourced claims of regional Martian climate change are already in Climate of Mars. Everything else falls under "Lack of verifiable information from reliable sources" Mishlai 02:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i agree with Mishlai - Climate of Mars already contains the sourced information - the rest is at best speculation, ruled out by WP:OR --Kim D. Petersen 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
smerge Smerge - it's OR by synthesis. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with global warming~~Keep For those wondering why this is up for deletion I would like to explain a little about the edit wars around global warming which I mistakenly wondered into. There is a lot of ill fealing around the subject of global warming, and the result is groups of people who are simply deleting what others enter without comment. When there is debate it is almost impossible to find consensus on either the smallest issue (See Hockey stick controversy & Hockey stick controversy II. I'm probably totally out of my depth! There are legitimate views being silenced and numerous complaints of not adhering to WP:NPOV - If anyone with a neutral stance on global warming can help both sides work to improve the various articles you will find it hard work but rewarding! Mike 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it should be part of the global warming article, unfortunately that is an impossibility given the current climate - hence keep the article because it is substantiated and is an important additional piece of evidence (which would just get deleted from global warming) Mike 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not worth an article in its own right and not really notable as a separate topic. --BozMo talk 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Climate of Mars. Both articles are quite short, and the global warming topic really is about the Martian climate. So unless either article gets ridiculously long (like the main Mars article), this is best being a topic within the Climate article. -Kain 15:42, 23 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 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Malaysian Society[edit]

Non-notable student group. No references or even assertions of notability. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by article creator. Calton | Talk 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG criterias; doesn't seem to have had any non-trivial media coverage or notable alumni.--TBCΦtalk? 02:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mango juice^talk 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst I am delighted to read of this organisation, it is in no way notable. Existence is not notability. WMMartin 16:26, 19 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. Not really appropriate for userfication. Chick Bowen 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scuba research[edit]

Info dump of statistics, appended with the name of the generator of the stats. Intent looks like promotion of a consultancy -- which just happens to match the name of the article creator. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by article creator. Calton | Talk 02:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the relevant and verifiable information into Scuba diving, and redirect. My problem with this article isn't the self-serving opening statement, it's that this is basically a link page to primary data available elsewhere on the web. The data itself has value certainly, but wikipedia's expression of that data should be a summary of the data as a tertiary source. Best example I see here is the three links to the Certification Censuses (Censi? What's the plural of census?) for 2003, 2004 and 2005 listing diver counts for those years. Great data...except that all that's there are the links, not the bottom line number. Add the result in an appropriate place in the main article on Scuba diving and then footnote it with links to those reports. -Markeer 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the content is references to differnet pages of a single external website. It may be sufficient to add its reference (with a few words of explanation) to the list of external links in the scuba diving article. Peterkingiron 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if anyone will take it. Clearly a well meaning COI/SPA, but the content needs to be used as a source; it isnt content in its own right. IMO it is not worth bothering the scuba diving contributors with this content, and the redirect will take search queries to an inappropriate page. John Vandenberg 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Jayvdb. There isn't enough useful content to be worth merging. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point in userfying non-biographical data. Half of the article uses data culled from "Cline's Quarterly Dive Industry Survey," which seemingly violates WP:OR as the article was written by Clinegroup. Caknuck 02:10, 25 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 Jordin Sparks and Robyn Troup, redirect the rest. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol contestants[edit]

(View AfD)

Sanjaya Malakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(see separate discussion)
~~Antonella Barba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ already redirected
Gina Glocksen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jordin Sparks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Jordin Sparks's album)
Rudy Cárdenas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sundance Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
~~Robyn Troup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), redirected.~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.47.131 (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC). Invalid addition after most decisions below were formulated. Should be separate AfD if at all. --Kevin Murray 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable reality TV contestants. Either delete, or redirect all to American Idol (season 6) --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 02:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to American Idol (season 6)--TBCΦtalk? 02:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sanjaya Malakar, Rudy Cárdenas, Sundance Head and Gina Glocksen - failure of WP:BIO as entertainers with non-widespread recognition. Struck Antonella Barba, already redirected. Added For Now, Jordin Sparks's album and Sundance Head - another wannabe. MER-C 02:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Except for Sparks. Others don't assert notability. --Kevin Murray 03:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & provide sources Jordin Sparks may meet notability. This should be tagged for lack of sources, not AfD --Kevin Murray 03:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found 38,000 g-hits. Just looking through the first couple pages I found two independent sources, which makes me think that a diligent search will demonstrate notability for her. --Kevin Murray 03:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Reality TV Magazine]
Glendale Teen Advances to Next Round on 'American Idol”, WTVL (website) By Erin Zlomek, Reprint fromThe Arizona Republic, 1/19/07

38,000 hits warrants an article almost right off the bat. Whatever happens, Jordin Sparks should be kept. IMO the others can have articles but not stubs (they need to be full articles well beyond the capacity of the season page). CrazyC83 12:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. If we keep these, every reality TV/game show contestant would get notability. Having their names in the main article is enough. 216.36.121.170 03:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. American Idol does get far, far more viewers every week than any other similar show, so it does have significantly greater notability right off the bat. However, there is no point in creating nothing but stubs. If at least a Start-class article can be made out of them, then I think they should stand. CrazyC83 04:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jordin Sparks per WP:Notability. She has 2 albums, has been in magazines, etc. She is notable even without being an Idol contestant. Redirect the others. -- Black Falcon 04:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if not a stub (i.e. Jordin Sparks), otherwise redirect back to American Idol (season 6). Length should be the defining factor at this point since they are on equal footing. CrazyC83 04:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the Idol Wikiproject, Semi-finalists can have their own page. And if you look at season 5, they had their own page until they were eliminated. What's the big deal folks? These pages have existed for what. 3 days? 4 days? Of course they are small. If it's 3-4 weeks from now and they are still this small or the contestant has been eliminated, then redirect. But it's too early right now. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Woohookitty; time will tell whether they are worthy of staying as articles. Wasted Time R 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete except for Sparks, unless they are shown to individually pass notability guidelines for entertainers. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per guidelines at the Idol WikiProject. American Idol has much more cultural resonance than shows like Beauty and the Geek or Hell's Kitchen, and there's already a substantial amount of interest in this year's contestants. Let's not be too aggressive with deleting these; we'll probably have to restore most of them later. Note that each of these names registers at least 100 Google News hits, so they may already meet a strict interpretation of WP:N.Zagalejo 08:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Survivor and The Price is Right also get good ratings, should we make pages for their contestants as well? Even the best winners on these shows don't have articles and AI is no different. 24.185.47.131 (talk)
- You are wrong about Survivor — Category:Survivor contestants shows that over 70 Survivor contestants have their own articles. Wasted Time R 13:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Contestants on The Price is Right usually appear for one episode and are quickly forgotten. Idol contestants remain in the public eye for at least a few weeks, and the audience gets to know them pretty well through all the little human interest segments. It's wrong to call AI "just another game show." Zagalejo 17:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all except~~ Keep Jordin Sparks. Sparks' article was here long before she was on Idol. Elle Bee 12:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no opinion about others. Elle Bee 12:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Robyn Troup is misplaced here. Troup's notability is not based on American Idol, for which she was cut, but for winning a different high-profile competition, appearing on the Grammy Awards, and gaining a recording contract. Wasted Time R 13:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct on Robyn Troup. Keep her, as it is a fair-sized article already. Even if she wasn't on AI, she should have an article. CrazyC83 15:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hendry1307 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect per TBC as idolcruft. Names are NN outside of the American Idol fandom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.120.75.157 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, American Idol's fanbase is several million strong. Larger than a lot of countries. Zagalejo 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Woohookitty. --Briancua 19:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. per nominator. 172.161.115.143 23:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is getting quite tangled. I'd like to see separate Afds for each of these articles, not a mass Afd. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this discussion (which is where the Idol WikiProject guideline came from). Redirect all except Robyn Troup and Jordin Sparks These two, along with contestant, Tom Lowe, meet notability requirements outside of American Idol. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Please forgive me if I have placed this comment in here incorrectly, I am still learning Wikipedia. Regarding entry on Robyn Troup. She should still have her own page and should not be an American Idol Season 6 redirect as she was first noted for an event other than AI. The page was created before public knowledge of her involvement in AI and should stand as separate. However; I could not locate a source regarding her contract with Tennmen Records or any record company. I could not locate the existence of Tennmen Records at all. The sole record company located as being owned by Justin Timberlake is JayTee Records and there has been no mention of signing the artist Robyn Troup. I feel the Tennmen section should be deleted. LadyLyoness 04:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (copied from discussion page as placed by new user) --Kevin Murray 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The high viewership of Idol turns the contestants into celebrities with enough coverage in the newspapers to satisfy WP:BIO guidelines. Also, Idol is a notch better than "reality shows" in that getting to the finals there demonstrate a certain level of talent which the music industry does look at. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they have contracts and record songs, by all means. But being on a reality TV/game show alone is not enough to establish notibility, since they're long forgotton after the season is over. 24.185.47.131 (talk)
Delete all except Robin and Jordin. --theblueflamingo^Squawk 07:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except for contestants who may have been notable outside Idol. --Howard the Duck 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. They're all "notable" for being finalists on the top rated competition in the United States. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to AI (except Jordin & Robyn), with Category:Redirects with possibilities, until Final 12 is announced, then keep final 12 contestants and delete others. Elle Bee 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at similar programmes, such as The X Factor, all articles relating to finalists, no matter where they finish, have been deleted/redirected. The X Factor is the top rating competition of this kind in the UK, so the same policy should be adopted for both, unless we are to say that they are more notable because they are American, which doesn't make much sense to me. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leona Lewis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Howett, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verity Keays, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chenai Zinyuku. I think that only contestants who were notable beforehand (eg. Raymond Quinn), become professional recording artists afterwards, (eg. Leona Lewis, Ben Mills, etc), or become notable for something else, warrant their own articles. Judging by the precedents, appering on a reality programme, at any level, is not a criteria for notability. I think a review of the entire notability policy is required to determine where the borderline between notable and non-notable lies when dealing with these people, but it is my opinion that these people (or at least the ones in my original nomination on 18/02) are not notable enough for Wikipedia. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can fairly compare American Idol with X Factor. There are 1,490,000 google hits for X Factor, including all the non-relevant hits for the comic book series, etc. For American Idol, you get 17,500,000 hits. the vast majority of which refer to the TV series. Zagalejo 22:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population of the USA: 301,184,000, Population of the UK, 60,609,153. Obvious difference. If you do some simple mathematics, you will find out that in terms of the proportion or results to population, the number of American Idol links is about 0.5% of the population of the USA. The number of X Factor links is 4% of the population of the UK. American Idol contestants are not really of concern to many people in the UK, but they are possibly in the US. Equally, X Factor contestants are not really of concern in the USA, but they are in the UK. It is not fair to say that "If it is American, it is more notable than if it is British", and therefore, a uniform system for all articles, regardless of nationality, must be devised. That is why I am voting to delete these articles. Also, your searches are using the US version of Google, so obviously they are going to be misrepresentative and biased. Let's look at the UK results: American Idol, 805,000 results, The X Factor, 2,160,000 results. This proves that The X Factor is more notable in the US than American Idol is in the UK. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, if you put the search terms in quotes, American Idol comes out on top, 441,000 to 368,000. Honestly, though, I don't see the problem with having X-Factor articles, too. Wikipedia is not paper, and if there were as many UK users around here as American users, I bet the X-Factor AFDs would have been different. Zagalejo 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently over 80 individual articles on American Idol contestants, per Category:American Idol participants. Get ready for a lot of redirecting! Wasted Time R 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against the ones who have become notable. It's the ones who are "famous" just for appearing on the programme that I am trying to get deleted. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per American_Idol#Top-selling_American_Idol_alumni only about 15 at the very most have made it in the music biz; add another 5 at most who've become prominent somewhere else. So get ready to redirect 60 of the above 80. Better start now! Wasted Time R 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles nominated here are semi-finalists on American Idol. However most of the other articles are about finalists. This means that they meet the notability criteria at WP:BAND because they have "won or placed in a major music competition." Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will require further analysis. Many of the semi-finalists with articles have put out albums or had high enough prominence that they are notable enough for articles. CrazyC83 22:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 12 finalists in each year of American Idol, most of whom go on to obscurity, post-Idol vanity CD releases notwithstanding. "Placing" at a competition usually means top 3. There are still a lot of existing articles you are going to need to redirect. Wasted Time R 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Please forgive me if I have placed this comment in here incorrectly, I am still learning Wikipedia. Regarding entry on Robyn Troup. She should still have her own page and should not be an American Idol Season 6 redirect as she was first noted for an event other than AI. The page was created before public knowledge of her involvement in AI and should stand as separate. However; I could not locate a source regarding her contract with Tennmen Records or any record company. I could not locate the existence of Tennmen Records at all. The sole record company located as being owned by Justin Timberlake is JayTee Records and there has been no mention of signing the artist Robyn Troup. I feel the Tennmen section should be deleted. LadyLyoness 04:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the above post from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/American Idol contestants, and have redirected that to here to avoid further confusion. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per GW. Axiomm 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete., 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete I do not think we need even redirects in this instance, because a search will find their names if they are in a more general article.DGG 04:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, depending on how the search is set. At a minimum, these should be redirected. CrazyC83 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's not make Wikipedia less user-friendly. Besides, redirects are cheap. Zagalejo 16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are articles. Isaac 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. The whims of pop culture fade away long before an encyclopaedia entry should. - WeniWidiWiki 06:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine---when the season's over and these guys have faded away, someone can do this again. In the meantime, keep, at least for now. Isaac 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 06:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. They are notable as finalists on the show. --musicpvm 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it why delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.1.187 (talk • contribs)..
I was asked to comment on this AFD as I have participated in many of the ones relating to The X Factor. What makes someone notable in the USA should be the same for in the UK. The number of viewers of the show or the population of the country are irrelevant. Contestants should only have articles if they became professional recording artists after the show, or are notable for something else (such as Ray Quinn who was an actor before he auditioned for The X Factor). Therefore - delete Sanjaya Malakar, Sundance Head and Antonella Barba. Gina Glocksen has been redirected. Jordin Sparks appears to be the most notable of them all, ~~but I wish to stay neutral on that one. If her article is deleted, then so should the article for her album.~~ — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jordin Sparks appears to fail WP:MUSIC, therefore delete her as well as her album. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Woohookitty, this AFD title is somewhat misleading. Yamaguchi先生 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jordan Sparks article was here before she made it on American Idol. If it was good enough to keep then, it's good enough to keep now. Darrik2 03:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and provide sources Agree with Darrik2, if the article preceded the appearance on the show, it should remain. Also agree with WoohooKitty, "According to the Idol Wikiproject, Semi-finalists can have their own page. And if you look at season 5, they had their own page until they were eliminated. What's the big deal folks?" Furthermore, Wikipedia has biographies of people with far less talent and career history; for example, 1984's Clara Peller featured in Burger King's Where's the Beef? ad campaign. My biggest concern is lack of sources for awards section. Wayfarers43 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jordin Sparks article, redirect the rest. Due to her appearances on America's Most Talented Kid, etc., Sparks appears to have notability outside of American Idol. The others do not. -Big Smooth 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect excepting Jordin. When some get more famous later in the show, this allows for the pages to be un-redirected. Jordan 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sure some of these contestants have gotten more hits in the last week than have some articles posted here for a year. They are definately "notable." If dialidol has an article, why shouldn't the people the site is about. Most people who watch this show don't even know about dialidol, but sure know these contestants. KEEP KEEP KEEP. By the way, my username is p0wn, but I'm too lazy to log in. :P --74.130.71.74 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These candidates have notability, being the top few remaining. American Idol is the most watched show on TV and as the season progresses hits for these people will only increase. Deleting the articles just draws people to Google and away from Wikipedia. caz | speak 02:08, 23 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 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Laughing[edit]

College improv group, whose claims to notability are "Earlham College's oldest existing improv comedy troupe' and "cited as one of the most influential troupes in Richmond, Indiana's history" -- Today, Richmond, Indiana! Tomorrow, ~~the world~~ Wayne County! -- though, of course, no references. Member's names are all red links (except one protected name, not a good sign. Calton | Talk 02:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG and WP:V criterias.--TBCΦtalk? 02:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, & WP:COI. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:11, 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 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The game of inferno[edit]

WP:NFT. Only one google hit: [4]. The only author removed prod. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 09:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. James086 ^Talk 11:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete totally non-notable and unverifiable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and total garbage. JuJube 10:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references/sources. Oh, and appears to be "made up in school". WMMartin 13:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT just about says it all. Can't deny that "bizintigration claw pack" is my new favorite phrase, though. Did anyone notice that the author calls us all nerds at the bottom of the article? Nerds who can spell, buddy. -- Antepenultimate 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NN,WP:RS Pea ceNT 11:33, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Duvall[edit]

Plenty of Google hits but most appear to be self-promotion. I can't find evidence that Alexander Duvall satisfies the inclusion criteria set out at WP:BIO. Delete unless reliable sources are found.-- JeremyA 02:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see anything more than a club level performer with citations to his personally controled sites. Really need something more in the text and references to suggest notability. --Kevin Murray 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Spam created by user:Alexduvall. -- RHaworth 04:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Spam --Djsasso 06:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 10:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:31, 19 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Ake[edit]

Here we have one of a number of individuals kidnapped and fate unknown. The coverage is not primarily about them but about the kidnap. There is very little information at all. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the kidnap is notable due to terrorism-related kidnaps in Iraq and even if it's about the kidnap and not the person, the correct title for the article is the person's name. Nardman1 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sure, he's notable. But the stuff in there isn't very verifiable. PTO 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for cleanup not deletion. --Kevin Murray 03:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP policy says that notability due to involvement in a situation is not the same as actual personal notability. MSJapan 20:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidlines have morphed into a jungle of conflicting permutations. A big mess. He has two non-trivial articles; that's all he needs. --Kevin Murray 03:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no debate about articles on other Iraq hostages, like Nick Berg and Tom Fox. The criterion seems to be "if they're dead, keep 'em," and I don't buy that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mferrantino (talk • contribs)
Delete Individual non-notable. Please G-d, when he returns and becomes a big celebrity, THEN he will be notable. Avi 21:13, 12 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, W.marsh 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and verified. If absolutely necessary (although I feel it would be counter-productive), move to Kidnapping of Jeffrey Ake. -- Black Falcon 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple nontrivial sources with him/his kidnapping as primary subject. edit: but sure, if it must be done, move (and save redirect) to Kidnapping of Jeffrey Ake. —siro χ o 03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator needs a spanking for wasting our time. There are two independent sources cited. --Kevin Murray 03:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't bother moving it, this article is fine where it is, and is both notable and verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Chairman S.. Ford MF 09:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to keep all similar candidates. DGG 04:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, multiple non-trivial sources support the notability of this subject. (jarbarf) 00:51, 22 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 invalid AfD, speedy close. 70.107.112.158 03:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2[edit]

Vanity article, few reasons to keep - made up, no google hits. --Martical4607 02:41, 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 invalid AfD, speedy close. 70.107.112.158 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Melee[edit]

Vanity article, few reasons to keep - made up, no google hits. --Martical4607 02:41, 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 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bertholf (3rd nomination)[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Bertholf
Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeppo Network (2nd nomination)

Group nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeppo Network (2nd nomination) closed with "delete", except for Rob Bertholf which was not really addressed during discussion. No opinion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:36Z

Delete non notable. self-promotion. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self promotion with no acceptable sources. --Kevin Murray 03:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if after two AfDs there are still no verifiable independent sources I guess none will be forthcoming Alf photoman 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, only a soldier with tour of duty ribbons - self promotionLeonspence 17:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless very good reliable sources are found to establish notability. A WP:HEY effort will be required to sway my vote due to the abuse of WP:AUTO and WP:COI, and the page blanking. John Vandenberg 08:55, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Iraqi Sunni Perspective on Saddam Hussein[edit]

I just put a prod tag before realizing that this has already been done and contested a while ago. In any case, my prod rationale was: Hopelessly POV and original research. While there are sources backing up specific sentences, the article as a whole is an unpublished synthesis of published material. Pascal.Tesson 03:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although many of the statements are true, the article is redundant to Saddam Hussein and History of Iraq. POV also exists, and although I feel it can be potentially cleaned up, I don't think it's worth it as the "Iraqi Sunni perspective on Saddam Hussein" should be in the article on Hussein. -- Black Falcon 03:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay. Gazpacho 04:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original synthesis, and overlaps other articles anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV, essay. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete the perspective is clearly encyclopedic, but i'm not sure that there's enough good substance in this article to make it of any use to save it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:08, 19 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 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Francisco Martinez[edit]

Non-notable, vanity patent nonsense. "Verry" good looking man who won in his home game five times... 2005 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the reasons in the nomination. --Kevin Murray 03:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't believe this isn't a speedy candidate. Does "5 times winner in Dalen Homegame Poker Champion" constitute an assertion fo notability? Montco 04:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, even at a stretch. James086 ^Talk 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no references, missing citations not notable (guess that's enough) Alf photoman 00:35, 19 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. Cbrown1023 talk 15:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supervillain chronology[edit]

Crufty and ultimately impossible list to maintain. [[Category:Supervillains]] already exists- I propose moving all of the villains on this list into the category, and then Deleting the article. -- Wikipedical 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhero debuts. -- Wikipedical 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the category is an equal substitute in this case. This list gives not just names (like the category), but date of creation, creator, and the title of the relevant fictional work. In addition, it separates by decade and medium of publication (comic, newspaper, etc.). Also, it has sources. A category is far more inferior in this case than the list. -- Black Falcon 03:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support renaming to List of supervillains or List of supervillains (chronological). -- Black Falcon 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research and absolutely unmaintainable. Some of these names could possibly go into a category, but I'm assuming that the vast, vast majority of the 'supervillains' listed here are non-notable. --The Way 07:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this original research? Please explain. Please note the two sources below: The Golden Age of DC Comics: 365 Days and History of Comic Books. -- Black Falcon 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is definitely original research, and is too crufty for my tastes. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this original research? Please explain. Please note the two sources below: The Golden Age of DC Comics: 365 Days and History of Comic Books. -- Black Falcon 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. As an inclusionist and a comic nerd, it's painful for me to argue for any comic-related deletion, but this probably should go because the aforementioned cruftiness and impossibility to maintain properly. Ford MF 09:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is a very informative list--E tac 10:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has to be a limit to what Wikipedia can take, lists of non-notable comic book villains are something Wikipedia can't take. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable list with no assertion of significance of why a chronology is needed. The individual articles on these characters give their dates of creation and the main article on Super-villain gives history of the evolution of the concept. -Markeer 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more a directory or an inventory or something, but it's not a managable encyclopedia entry. Proper categorization could handle this. Agent 86 20:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list seems both useful and manageable; the question "who was the first villain to appear in [time period X]" is a reasonable one, and it is an unwarranted burden to ask the user to search all supervillain articles separately. RandomCritic 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although I strongly supported keeping the Superhero debuts article because it's specific, objective, and maintainable, I must acknowledge that the supervillain chronology is none of those things. Whereas the superhero debuts article inherently indicates what is noteworthy (the characters' debuts), the catch-all chronology lacks indications of significance. Wryspy 22:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm amazed by those above drawing a distinction between this and Superhero debuts since this article is clearly equally valid (or not valid, depending on your PoV) as that article is. The nomination is flawed because lists are NEVER redundant with categories (see WP:CLS and WP:LIST). Besides, as User:Black Falcon rightly points out, this list gives more, and different, information to that which the category provides, and gives line entries to villains who aren't considered notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages: which (contrary to User:The Way's apparent opinion) is a valid and appropriate use of a list, not a reason to delete one, and is an advantage over a category. As for WP:OR, well, that can be a ground for deletion but where information is superficially accurate, and clearly verifiABLE, I consider that just a matter for a tag for WP:V, to let the article evolve. AndyJones 14:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; Having never seen the article before, upon reading it, WP:ILIKEIT !! It's a nice article and has a pretty decent hope in hell of being a good or featured article. John Vandenberg 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It meets WP:LIST:
Information - lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists

Navigation - Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind

It's not open ended, there are a finite number of supervillains. We do need to change the name to List of Supervillain debuts. A cat is not going to allow someone to find debuts by year, so it is no substitute. - Peregrine Fisher 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peregrine Fisher. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST. Stickeylabel 09:21, 24 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 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralen Hlaano[edit]

I marked this due to Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction):

Fanfiction, on the other hand, may well be considered vanity (not by default, but often so), which is grounds for deletion. This includes, for example: anything self-published, put on fanfiction.net, or done by vanity press; information about a player's character in roleplaying or MMORPGs; and computer game mods or custom maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Maxwell (talk • contribs)

Delete. The top nonwiki Google result is from the Encyclopedia of Speculative Fiction. To call this original research is to give a bad name to legitimate research. YechielMan 19:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unverifiable and non-notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable as per nom.Veronica Mars fanatic 14:17, 19 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. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rabin[edit]

This should be a user page, not an article. Chickenflicker-♣ 03:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Poorly formatted garbage. --Kevin Murray 04:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD.A7 - no assertion of notability (although receiving "an A(90-100) on almost every test he has" is commendable, I do not see it as an encyclopedic assertion of notability). -- Black Falcon 04:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. An article is not a userpage. So tagged. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:32, 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 non notable does not meet minimum threshold of WP:NOTE, two anon comments, one signed, one not, were not counted and being mentioned in another Wikipedia article does not make notability . Dakota 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valence Mike[edit]

Strong Delete Self promotion; there is no known notability of this artist; John Brown from the White Rapper Show is more notable, and he doesn't deserve his own article. Also, per past nomination. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's referenced on Chopper City Records as well as the site itself. Hendry1307 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm reluctant to support a nomination which is based on the nominator's subjective opinion, but I would expect to see more chatter on the web about a notable contemporary musician. The one independent references does not seem significant enough to meet WP:NOTE standards, and I don't see it as being likely that more will be found. --Kevin Murray 18:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the page can be fixed, Keep. I noticed the original page, which was moved after being closed was renominated by the same user.

NOTE: This comment is not signed and is inconclusive, i.e. it does not explicitly authorize a delete if the page cannot be "fixed". Veronica Mars fanatic 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hendry1307. 172.161.115.143 23:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable as per nom. Not everyone who thinks they can rap deserves a page on Wikipedia.Veronica Mars fanatic 14:23, 19 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 redirect to Idiot. - Daniel.Bryant 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oaf[edit]

This is a dictionary definition entry which doesn't show much promise. It has also been deleted several times already, often used as a stage for personal attacks. I suggest delete, followed by page protection to prevent re-creation. (See also: WP:NOT, WP:PPOL) Tokek 04:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a paradigm example of dicdef. Unsourced dicdef at that. --The Way 07:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef with little scope for improving beyond that. Nothing that isn't already available at Wiktionary. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, or redirect to idiot. YechielMan 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as dicdef. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Idiot, preferably, though Delete would be reasonable too. Krimpet 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. "strike out or remove (something written or printed); cancel; erase; expunge", "(usually, the earth or the land) sprinkle with salt or other poisonous substance to prevent the future growth of crops" per nom. WMMartin 16:32, 19 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 Deleted by ChrisGriswold . —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:03Z

Veu[edit]

Theoretically, insufficient context may not be grounds for deletion, but practically, this looks like a lost cause, and I don't see how to improve it. I would welcome a dissenting view from a computer expert. YechielMan 19:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or redirect: It's really hard to figure out what a veu is when everything that shows up from a search is in a foreign language (and not consistantly the same foreign language either).--SeizureDog 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. VEU seems to be an acronym for Video Engine Unit, Video Electronic Unit, or Video Expansion Unit, and possibly the same as Video Processing Unit. VPU currently redirects to Graphics processing unit (aka Visual Processing Unit) but I think graphics and video processing may be sufficiently different from each other to warrant different articles, so I'm not going to suggest a merge/redirect. But if someone wanted to write a real VEU article, the present stub with its strange capitalization wouldn't be much help, so I don't care if it gets deleted. —David Eppstein 04:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. If this AfD has been extended because nobody is quite sure what the article is even about then that falls under "insufficent context" also a speedy catagory and so tagged. NeoFreak 00:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion, so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 04:35, 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 18:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm-Korps[edit]

IMHO, groups of online gamers are not-notable Alex Bakharev 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Suitable subject for a fan wiki, but utterly without notability for regular wiki purposes. Ford MF 09:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy. Article length is not an indicator of notability. YechielMan 19:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I contacted the author after he turned the page into a direct copy of Osea. He then proceeded to add little snippets about a seemingly non-notable group of gamers (something like a guild, I guess) into the article. It remains largely a copy of Osea and no work has been done. It shouldn't remain in limbo until he feels like explaining what this group is. Leebo⁸⁶ 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, the author has blanked the page Alex Bakharev 06:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability, vanity, fancruft. ~ Eidako 17:21, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan McKenna[edit]

Non Notable Person. A virtual unknown presenter, which results in an empty article page. The Dinkle 05:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of a large number of presenters on a little-watched satellite TV quiz channel. Not notable. Sam Blacketer 13:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Great Big British Quiz. Not notable, and little scope for expansion. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can not support AfD from new user, who should not be involved in or proposing AfD until experience is gained. Go contribute for a while then judge the work of others. --Kevin Murray 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are less than 1000 nonwiki Google hits of him, and he has received no independent press coverage. I will also respond to Kevin Murray's claim that a new user should not nominate articles for AfD. It's inappropriate to say that here. What it is okay to do is politely explain the workings of AfD on the user's talk page if the nomination itself is wrongheaded. In this case, regardless of the result of the discussion, the nomination was entirely appropriate. YechielMan 19:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree with you. There is a danger here of AfD being bloated by articles that should have been prodded or left alone. There is little good that can come from encouraging novices to jump in as gnomes, before understanding the system. --Kevin Murray 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. Nomination was appropriate. Agent 86 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I tend to agree that AfD nominations are easier to accept by seasoned editors in this case I must agree, no references, no sources therefore conflict with WP:V Alf photoman 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable as per nom.Veronica Mars fanatic 14:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but also noted that nominator has created an article about one presenter on The Great Big British Quiz and has now nominated all articles about other presenters on this channel for deletion.Hotmann 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A presenter on a national Sky Digital show is notable. Per WP:BIO: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." The Great Big British Quiz is a very well-known show in Britain. And, like Hotmann, I'm very troubled that the nom created an article on another Great Big British Quiz host, Carryl Varley, and then nominated most other current hosts for AfD. --Oakshade 07:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Carryl Varley article was done mostly for her previous role as a british singer in the 90's. It's been through AfD, and kept strangely enough. The Dinkle 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Subsume this and all The Great Big British Quiz presenter's pages into the show's page. A1octopus 10:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete small presenter on a small channel. Not really worthy. DannyDoodles 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not a problem, and this is not unverifiable, it merely lacks any effort being put into it. Also, I understand where Kevin Murray was coming from; while this nomination is appropriate, it is very curious to say the least. Also, nobody bothered to alert User:TVexpert using ((afd-warn)). John Vandenberg 07:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:39, 24 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 18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Fowler[edit]

Non Notable Person. A virtual unknown presenter, which results in an empty article page. The Dinkle 05:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of a large number of presenters on a little-watched satellite TV quiz channel. Not notable. Sam Blacketer 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Great Big British Quiz. Not notable, and little scope for expansion. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can not support AfD from new user, who should not be involved in or proposing AfD until experience is gained. Go contribute for a while then judge the work of others. --Kevin Murray 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: surely you should choose whether or not to support an AfD based on the merits of the article itself, rather than the amount of experience the user may have? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree with you. There is a danger here of AfD being bloated by articles that should have been prodded or left alone. There is little good that can come from encouraging novices to jump in as gnomes, before understanding the system. --Kevin Murray 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. That is no doubt the most ridiculous and twisted form of logic for a participant of an open source project I've ever heard. As a matter of fact I'm going to have to save that nugget of wisdom somewhere in my user space. NeoFreak 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same as with Ronan above. YechielMan 19:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Also, I would commend The Dinkle for being bold and jumping right into the wikiprocess with what appears to be a legit AfD nomination. Well done. NeoFreak 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable as per nom.Veronica Mars fanatic 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A presenter on a national Sky Digital show is notable. Per WP:BIO: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." The Great Big British Quiz is a very well-known show in Britain. And I too have problems with new users nominating articles for AfD. --Oakshade 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep As oakshade but also noted that the the user thedinkle that created this talk page has created an article about one presenter on The Great Big British Quiz and has now either nominated or voted to delete all articles about other presenters on this channel.Hotmann 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Carryl Varley article was done mostly for her previous role as a british singer in the 90's. It's been through AfD, and kept strangely enough. The Dinkle 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her IMDB page is sparse, but her personal cv seems pretty extensive--although I'm not familiar with the shows. If a handful of the achivements listed there can be verified, I'd go with keep. As for the new user/old user debate, anyone who wants to clean up around here should welcome to give it a go. -MrFizyx 00:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable British person. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete small presenter on a small channel. Not really worthy. DannyDoodles 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per oakshade and my rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronan McKenna. John Vandenberg 07:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:39, 24 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, I guess. - Daniel.Bryant 10:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Broadcasting Company logos[edit]

Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussion for BBC One logos. —tregoweth (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, as ABC is a huge media company. Well written, in-depth article provides a nice overview of the progress of the logo. Has several references, but needs to use specific citations. If anything, expand and improve, but don't delete. » K i G O E | talk 05:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd also like to point out the AfD for "Logos of Viacom.". —tregoweth (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It qualifies as notable, so I vote Keep. WAVY 10 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos? -- azumanga 17:28, 22 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. - Daniel.Bryant 10:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow 4 logo[edit]

Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussion for BBC One logos. —tregoweth (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and all the other related articles in this deletion log. The history of TV logos is, to my mind, an inherently nonnotable subject. There are also problems with references and fair use. YechielMan 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. This article talks about the significance of the logo and is well written, though it lacks citations. As for the issue of fair use, the logo [[5]] was uploaded with a fair use tag. It seems to fit the requirements, being a low-res image of a logo used to illustrate. » K i G O E | talk 04:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos? -- azumanga 17:27, 22 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. - Daniel.Bryant 10:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circle 7 logo[edit]

Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussion for BBC One logos. —tregoweth (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete per nomOo7565 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos? -- azumanga 17:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a well-established enough logo in the industry that it deserves an article. Amnewsboy 22:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's very first paragraph states (and stated before this nomination): "The Circle 7 logo is one of the most classic and familiar television station logos in the United States. First designed in the 1960s for the ABC Television Network's five owned and operated stations (O&Os), the logo, or a version of it, is currently being used by a number of TV broadcasters around the world," which certainly establishes the subject's notability. The material is certainly verifiable: 1150 Google hits for "Circle 7 Logo". Article needs references, but lack of references does not indicate material is unverifiable, or we'd have about 1 million fewer articles on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable, needs some work since some aren't exactly circle 7's but hey, I'm from Boston, and we use the WSVN varation of the Circle 7. Heck, we've used 3 circle 7s! --Saint-Paddy 18:34, 23 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 redirect to GMA Network; all useful and verified content was already in the #History section. - Daniel.Bryant 10:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Network logos[edit]

Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussion for BBC One logos. —tregoweth (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and merge info with main article. This stuff belongs on the subject's article page, not as a fork. Shrumster 10:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --- Tito Pao 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: ~~when I created this article, I based it on the NBC logos article. Why does that article not nominated for AFD?~~ Since that article was also nominated for AFD, I have no objection in case this will be deleted. My vote is delete and merge. -Danngarcia 13:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because it's not notable (seems like NBC logos will be kept), but because it is unverifiable. I'd change my vote if there were references. TheCoffee 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos? -- azumanga 17:28, 22 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 08:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny kington[edit]

Does not seem to be notable enough Alex Bakharev 05:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page, created by User:Danny.kington, fails everything, goodbye. EliminatorJR 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user page as seems to be an autobiography of creator. No reliable sources, hence not notable enough to warrant a page in the encyclopedia. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or user page~~ An interesting story, but can't see how it can be improved to meet the guidelines, unless his exploits have been documented by a dredible published third party. --Kevin Murray 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Changed to agree with YM below. --Kevin Murray 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not userfy because the article writer has no contributions outside this article. (If it were userfied, it would be a candidate for WP:MFD. Think in those terms.) YechielMan 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant vanity piece as per EliminatorJR; also non-notable.Veronica Mars fanatic 14:13, 19 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 19:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Damergi[edit]

Non Notable Person. A virtual unknown presenter, on a minor channel The Dinkle 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can not support AfD from new user, who should not be involved in or proposing AfD until experience is gained. Go contribute for a while then judge the work of others. --Kevin Murray 18:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonnotable like the other nominations by this user, who should be congratulated for his good work (and who would be wise to create a user page so that inconsiderate members of our community leave him alone henceforward). YechielMan 19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being direct is not being inconsiderate. You are way off-base encouraging this editor to continue with AfD after having virtually no experience as a contributor, and you are bordering on incivility by accusing me of being inconsiderate. Looking at his prior AfD contributions, he has not yet developed an understanding of the guidelines. No reflection at all on his ability or intentions; I wish him the best. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Kevin - I understand where you're coming from, so no problem on my part with what you've said. It's a learning experience and all that, but there's articles like the ones I've nominated that I know don't honestly deserve a wikipage. The Dinkle 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article appears to meet the criteria of WP:BIO. The only reason to keep appears to be an ad hominem attack on the nominator. Agent 86 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

86, protecting the procedures at AfD is not an ad hominem attack on the nominator. See above. --Kevin Murray 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , while agreeing that it is easier to accept nominations for AfD by seasoned editors in this case I must concur, no sources, no references therefore conflict with WP:V Alf photoman 01:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:: While I concur with Kevin Murray about very new users doing AfD's that does not detract from the validity of the nomination. Maybe the new guy/gal just has a bit too much chutzpah.Veronica Mars fanatic 14:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kevin Murray SriKorange — Mannfred5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
keep But also noted that nominator has created an article about one presenter on The Great Big British Quiz and has now nominated all articles about other presenters on this channel for deletion.Hotmann 06:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A presenter on a national Sky Digital show is notable. Per WP:BIO: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." The Great Big British Quiz is a very well-known show in Britain. And, like Hotmann, I'm very troubled that the nom created an article on another Great Big British Quiz host and then nominating others for AfD. --Oakshade 07:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Carryl Varley article was done mostly for her previous role as a british singer in the 90's. It's been through AfD, and kept strangely enough. The Dinkle 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete small time presenter on a small channel. Not really worthy. DannyDoodles 00:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This presenter appears notable, and I don't trust the motives of the nominator. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How nice of you to make the accusation, but you'd be very wrong, along with other peoples attacking opinions here. :) The Dinkle 00:57, 25 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 I was quite impressed - in light of the off-wiki discussion - at the level of policy-based debate that occured in this debate, I was unable to determine a solid concensus. - Daniel.Bryant 10:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theocracy (band)[edit]

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

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

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

Does not currently meet WP:N standards, specifically WP:MUSIC/WP:BAND. I had let this go for awhile hoping for more content on notability, but have not seen any. Within the past day, I placed an ((importance)) tag on the page. This was removed along with an edit summary of to "please do not put this tripe on here again." I felt that a WP:PROD tag would meet with the same hostility, so I have listed for deletion to gain other peoples opinions whether this should stay. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but willing to change opinion if sources that are reliable and not just interviews can be found. I can't find any, though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Change to keep per secondary source citations brought up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep--E tac 06:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment in what way do they not meet notability requirements? Playing at ProgPower is extremeley notable for a band of this genre, especially for a Christian metal band. They also appeared on the cover of the leading Christian metal magazine. Can't get much more notable than that in that particular genre can you? Reguarding the above comment, sources for what?--E tac 06:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment notability is established by non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources which are not affiliated with the article's subject. Sometimes being popular indicates that such sources are likely to exist-if they do, for example, if you know of a magazine or newspaper that covered the band-please cite them, and I'll happily change my mind! "Notable" does not mean "popular", "well-known", or "successful"-though all those things can make establishment of notability more likely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment This page is already linked to from the article and the prog power thing is already sourced --E tac 06:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This I see. However, what we'd be looking for is in-depth coverage of the band itself, not just a name drop or "who features them", or something that mentions them in passing but really isn't about them. The article also suffers from a lot of advertising. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment advertising? well that could be discussed and removed without putting the article up for deletion right? You know you could find a thousand band articles on wikipedia that don't have the "in depth coverage" you are looking for sourced either nor should it be required if you have proof that they meet any requirements of notablity. Being featured on a magazine cover and being part of a large festival generally known to be for the top bands of their genre seems to be enough by itself in my opinion to prove that at the very least they are one of the more notable bands within their genres. Just because a band isn't mainstream shouldn't prevent it from retaining notability. When was the last time you heard power metal or progressive metal on the radio or read an article about them in the newspaper or saw a documentary about a band within that genre on tv? Nonetheless a Christian metal band within that genre? For that matter what about black metal? Hardly any bands in that genre are on major labels or recieve any kind of media coverage at all yet there are tons of them on wikipedia? and they should be because somone who is interested in that subject should be entitled to find information about them here, Just like anyone who is interested in reading about a band like Theocracy.--E tac 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The source need not necessarily be a mainstream one! A magazine that does more specialized coverage in this area, or music criticism that focuses specifically on this genre, would work fine. As to the advertising, yes it can be, which is why I mentioned that as a secondary concern-that in itself is not a reason for deletion unless the whole article is a blatant ad, which here is not the case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment It has already been proven that they were the cover story for magazine who does just that which is somewhat hard to properly source since it is not an online article, also these may or may not be considered noteworthy under current policy but there are tons of metal sites that have reviewed this album or interviewed the band. I am not really sure what makes a internet publication noteworthy or not though.--E tac 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment It looks like that magazine is reliable, so I'm going to change to a keep. I can certainly help you cite that as a source if that's a problem, or see WP:CITE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm not convinced that one cover in a tightly genre-based magazine is enough to pass WP:MUSIC. This entry has been deleted for the same reason once before and I can't really see what's changed since. The creator's attitude doesn't help much either - I went looking for Ghits (found about 15 that weren't myspaces etc) but did find this page. Hmm. I'm also willing to be convinced though. EliminatorJR 07:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Funny that blog you brought up is over 2 years old, I didn't even know about this band then and I don't think I had begun to edit anything on wikipedia nor is my name Christopher and at that point they hadn't appeared on the cover of the magazine nor had they played at ProgPower. What is wrong with my "attitude"? I have been perfectly civil in this discussion and I think it was quite rude of you to refer to me as having one. Also isn't the fact that it is "tightly genre based" kind of the point? They are in a genre that doesn't recieve a lot of mainstream press so of course that is going to be where you would find them if they are notable within that genre, especially when they are feautured on the cover.--E tac 08:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Apologies if the blog article wasn't you, but your reaction to the tags that were placed on the article today were poor. You wrote "please do not put this tripe on here again", and later "grow up moeron, I don't know what your beef is with this article". No-one likes their work being AfD'd, but without the procedures Wikipedia would sink under the weight of worthless articles. Despite this, having thought about it I'm going to change my vote to Weak Delete - I don't think the band has quite enough to pass WP:MUSIC yet, but it's not far off. EliminatorJR 08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment Well I don't really appreciate the way User:Moeron goes about things here and yeah I probably shouldn't have reacted like I did and I apologize to him if he is reading this, but I really think he could benefit from reading this, especially the 5th paragraph under "fundamentals".--E tac 08:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment ...and yes before anyone adds anything I understand that I can be one to, however my main problem is when people just go around quoting policy, posting templates about policy on my talk page without taking the time to really discuss the issue in actual words. Also normaly when I get confrontational it is because I am trying to better the project and rather than studying up on every single policy and treating it as canon and getting rid of everything not perfectly in line with it, I try and edit using common sense. Also I realize some of my problems with the user have been with image copyrights, I really don't fully understand this policy and if rather than taging the image and puting a template on my page, Moeron would actually try and communicate with me like an actual person and not a bot it might actually help me understand the policy so I could no longer be violating it. Also it seems a lot of the band articles on wikipedia have images uploaded with similar tags which makes me feel like I am being unfairly singled out.--E tac 08:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep AdmiralTreyDavid 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Theocracy played at the largest progressive and power metal festive in the western hemisphere last year... If that doesn't count for something, then I don't know what does. They're a really new band, and they're rising quickly in the world of Progressive metal. The founder, Matt Smith, started writing the first music in 2002, the first albumw as released in 2003, and by 2006 they were esteemed enough to play in ProgPower USA... They're as relevant if not more relevant to hudnreds of bands on Wikipedia. If you delete the article now, it'll only have to be recreated as they grow much more popular. AdmiralTreyDavid 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Just because they played at a major festival doesn't make them notable right away, just like every band that plays Ozzfest, Austin City Limits, Bonnaroo, South by Southwest, ect. shouldn't have it's own page based solely on that. You say "They're a really new band, and they're rising quickly in the world of Progressive metal" and that is a factor. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; one cover story in this genre is little to go on, as per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. The band is welcome to have a page once they become more notable in their scene with multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, but as it stands now, they are still in the process of getting there. I have no problem with the group having a page like you say once they grow more popular. As for the other bands that are included on Wikipedia, plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:Please see Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument and it is not a "crystal ball" statement as you claim as there is evidence that points to the fact that they are a rising force in their genres.--E tac 13:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the genre is small (especially for the Heavens Metal fanzine) HM Magazine is a reliable source, and a cover appearance indicates in-depth coverage. Based on the other information presented, I would not necessarily be convinced, but this source is enough to sway me. It does, however, need to be properly sourced. See template:cite journal. Dan, the CowMan 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: as mentioned at WP:N, WP:MUSIC, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, there should be multiple sources on the band itself (ie, not an album or specific show, but on the band itself). -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep --Athensbum 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC) The debut album has been reviewed by dozens of print & online publications, and TWICE by none other than well-known critic Martin Popoff (once in BW&BK and another mag), in addition to the HM cover story. As for copyright issues on the photographs. . . I have taken most of the photos used by the band on the Web site, in the album booklet and so on. Matt and I are both more than happy to grant usage for these images on Wikipedia. I'd be happy to address any questions about the pictures used. Anyway, to the point: following are a list of links to just a handful of positive as well as negative (balance?) reviews and articles about Theocracy.[reply]

Positive: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], #26 on Victory Zine's top 70 songs: [12], [13], [14]

Negative: [15], not so much negative as not really positive: [16], and that's all I came across in 10 pages of Googling. . .

Comment Moeron you do realize that WP:MUSIC does say "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted", I think enough proof of the bands notabiltiy has been established, even if they barely would make it under the policy (which is greatly biased towards commercial music which this band is obviously not). When you put it all into perspective the band is clearly notable enough to be on wikipedia. I don't really see what you are trying to prove here, nor do I see how this is beneficial to the project.--E tac 10:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey there! Oh, yeah, I do realize that, but the policy that preceeds WP:MUSIC is WP:N. "Commerical music" may be biased in your opinion on Wikipedia, but there are many bands that aren't like that that pass notability, such as those that have played ProgPower such as one of my favorite bands, Sonata Arctica. Theocracy just isn't there yet. What, specifically, is the proof here? I have already mentioned above why playing at ProgPower doesn't exclusively make them notable in-and-of itself. As for the magazine, that is one source. There should be multiple sources, as per WP:N and WP:V. Also, please WP:AGF; I am not here on a WP:POINT and never have in my nearly 12,000 edits. I am just trying to make Wikipedia better; everything can't be on Wikipedia and must adhere to the WP:FIVE. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. An above user also mentioned they have also been reviewed by a well known music critic. Just because something isn't online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I am sure it could be properley sourced. Also what about this section in WP:MUSIC, Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city. It is rather vague isn't it? How many other Christian Power metal bands from that area are there? How many of them are on magazine covers and recieving any type of coverage at all? How many are playing in the largest prog/power festival in the western hemisphere as one user mentioned above?--E tac 22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly, you are starting to understand what I mean! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this does appear to meet WP:MUSIC now with the addition of reliable sources. (jarbarf) 00:43, 24 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. -- Steel 18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eternus Cognatus[edit]

Guilds in Warcraft World are not notable Alex Bakharev 06:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - unremarkable group. So tagged. MER-C 10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly delete per notability criteria of the last 50 World of Warcraft guilds that have come up on AfD. -Markeer 13:15, 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 merge and redirect to Jason Steele. delete, given the article that I originally was going to merge into was deleted at AfD as well. - Daniel.Bryant 11:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie the Unicorn By Jason Steele[edit]

Non-notable Flash cartoon and recreation of previously deleted article - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie the Unicorn. No significant change in subject's notability - lots of Google hits due to common terms, but nearly all are blogs or Newgrounds-type links. No major citations in first 100 results or so. Delete MikeWazowski 06:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sourcing from significant independent sources, as required by WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is this article even different enough from the old, deleted article to make this AfD necessary (vice speedily deleting as a recreation of deleted material)? --ElKevbo 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referring to research done -- http://www.spatulamadness.com/blog/?p=80 --, it has been viewed 8,000,000 times. This sould be considered significant enough to warrant an entry, especially considering the other memes around.Greatal386 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for basically the same reasons as stated by Greatal386. Cliph 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the aforementioned reasons. The article clearly meets the guidelines of WP:WEB, and there is really no question of its notability. 67.60.59.251 05:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no doubt about the notability: you can find several remakes and t-shirts and the video is already widely known. Clearly, Wikipedia would miss something without this entry. obeyssac 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zooobala 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep affirm no question of notability --Davidkazuhiro 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the Jason Steele article. To those who've asserted that there is "no question of notability" I ask that you please provide reliable sources to that effect, beyond a tally of downloads. (jarbarf) 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no non-trivial, reliable sources. Most of the references are to blogs or the author's web site. The one mention in a college paper calls it a YouTube classic but it is a one sentence example not a subject of the article. [r:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 10:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[Use]
Strong keepthis cartoon has become very popular and the page does have a lot of information about its creator and other details that are interesting. I don’t see how this article is even being considered for deletion with all the people that have viewed it.[r:halo2994|halo2994]]12:03, 25 February 2007

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

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

The result was delete. To Siva4kids: the answer lies in references which are independant and reliable to establish notability. - Daniel.Bryant 10:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siva for Kids Foundation[edit]

The charity does not seem to be notable Alex Bakharev 06:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 114 nonwiki ghits, not enough. YechielMan 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Charity exists for only 2 years now and this charity is founded and runned through multi-cultured young europeans, in which way should a young charity organization be notable without being deleted in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siva4kids (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 G1/A7/A1. - Daniel.Bryant 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qaransuge[edit]

Not notable bio, IMHO. Already was deleted once but recreated Alex Bakharev 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 if the recreation of deleted content is true, and A7 if not because the article fails to assert notability, and he has only 16 ghits including Wikipedia!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Steele (2nd nomination)[edit]

Recreation of previously deleted material - see original discussion. As before, Google search inconclusive, due to somewhat common name. However, using his films as modifiers, search on ("Jason Steele" Spatula) brings back only 75 unique on 152 returns, while ("Jason Steele" Charlie Unicorn) brings back 132 unique on 233. Filmmaker's IMDB listings are mainly related to the Knox films, which have been deleted several times as non-notable. Still no other citations outside of non-notable message boards and blogs, or YouTube. Delete. MikeWazowski 06:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again. Anyone can be a 'filmmaker' these days with YouTube and a camcorder. Would support G4. I've just speedied his mate's article: Robert benfer. Comments on the talk page by the creator about the page being recreated because he reckons the subject "deserves some press" demonstrates a WP:COI. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He seems to just make notability if the assertions in the article can be documented by independent sources, especially the film award. He appears to be a serious filmaker and more than a guy with a camcorder and Youtube distribution. I looked through Google and the name is common. Even adding "film" to his name brings back several others by the same name, so it is hard to use this rule of thumb. Unless the author(s) can produce meaningful source material this should fail. --Kevin Murray 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, anybody can be a film maker but not everybody wins a prize. If somebody convinces me that the Canadian prize is not-notable I'll reconsider Alf photoman 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and The JPS. Concur with Kevin Murray that notability may be established if independent verification of the award were to be produced. Lacking such evidence, though, renders this person non-notable. --ElKevbo 03:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly salt until independent, reliable sources can be produced. If the award were sourced to other than his own web site it would be close, but it's not and a quick search doesn't reveal an obvious source or much in the way of non-trivial coverage of the fesitval itself. Eluchil404 11:03, 24 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 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klayworld[edit]

Non-notable internet animation series. While Benfer has his fans (who have tried again and again to shove his information into Wikipedia, nearly all search returns are for blog mentions, bulletin board postings, and/or video sharing sites. No reputable third party sources have written about this series. Delete. MikeWazowski 06:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, not again. Delete, per every other AFD discussion on this issue. --Calton | Talk 15:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 03:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom SakotGrimshine 19:55, 21 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 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Clarence E. Walsh[edit]

Delete Non notable game element ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 06:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge It's a minor ship that only appears in 2 games. Delete or merge into the two game articles. Lrrr IV 07:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sufficient information is in the game articles (the remainder is gamecruft/backstory). --Dhartung | Talk 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insignificant game element.-- danntm ^T _C 05:08, 19 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kamins[edit]

Delete - does not appear to have the requisite 3rd-party sourcing to establish notability. Otto4711 06:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & research The article does assert notability with the Madonna connection, as "discovering" her and producing her first record. Not important but noticed. I see about 9k g-hits for his name and 3k when linked to Madonna. I thnik this should be tagged for cleanup and lacking sources. --Kevin Murray 19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He does appear to be notable, both from the article and from a web search. I wasn't able to find good references, but I'm optimistically hoping that they're in existence. YechielMan 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs sources, but is notable. Needs clean up, not deletion. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ my problem is that we are dealing with a living person but have no references to back the article up, any serious newspaper would refrain from bringing something without sources and encyclopedias would not touch it with a six foot pole Alf photoman 00:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not to be a dick, but if there are no reliable sources for the article then it fails WP:V. The "keep" !votes are striking me as variations on WP:ILIKEIT. Otto4711 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Otto, looks like you won, I'll see if there are sources by end of this AfD, if not I'll go for delete Alf photoman 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ha ha ha! I am victorious!~~ I mean, it's not a competition, I just want what's best for the project. ;-) Otto4711 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to references added by Dhartung, sorry Otto Alf photoman 00:30, 21 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 Deleted—no content. JeremyA 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina couture[edit]

Useless page bearing not informative material. Somnabot 06:37, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centrist Party (United States)[edit]

Non-notable organization. Claims to be a US party. It isn't even an option on Search by Party http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advcomsea.shtml at the FEC site. - OCNative 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FEC shows it's a non-authorized, unqualified party. Minor parties, like the Green Party and the Libertarian Party show up as authorized and qualified. OCNative 00:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This party isn't even fully formed, according to the article: "The Centrist Party...[is] recruiting a national official advisory board who will steer the party towards its first convention, where official party bylaws will be adopted...The national platform of the Centrist Party is under development." Maybe when it has a board, it could be an article. OCNative 00:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: this article is frought with problems (see Talk:Centrist Party (United States)), and I am not completely convinced of its notability. That said, we should have articles on third parties that have even a small amount of popular support (the counter to that being Wikipedia is not for things thought up after school one day). So if additional references can be provided, we may be able to salvage the article. Michaelbusch 06:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepImport007 09:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it looks like a valid party to me--E tac 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it starts showing up on ballots. Gazpacho 11:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but cleanup citations. Guidelines for notability start with articles on the subject in multiple verifiable secondary sources, and this article links six different newspaper articles on the subject at the bottom. Okay, so they aren't the largest newspapers in America, but while one might quibble with the college newspapers (justifiably), the Eureka Reporter and OK City Journal Record are (as far as I know) genuine regional newspapers. No criticism of the nom though, while I'd say this article passes notability, it's doing so by the skin of it's teeth. -Markeer 13:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Markeer. Also, the party does have a listing with the FEC (search for Centrist Party here). -- Black Falcon 18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it isn't that hard to get registered as a party. What it is hard to do is get on a ballot and earn votes. I say delete until the party actually gets on a ballot for something. State Rep, County Commissioner, Dogcatcher, anything. Right now the article is nothing more than spam for the party. Montco 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, press coverage indicates notability which may or not may be a footnote in history -- yet it exists Alf photoman 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tentatively. The novelty of this party's appeal stems from the absence of a narrow-issue focus (e.g., Greens), extremist orientations (e.g., Libertarians), and stated alignment on specific wedge issues (such as abortion). This makes the party a very odd creature on the bipolar American political scene, where the Democrats and Republicans use wedge issues to squelch "wasted" voting on other parties in much the same way adults use distraction to quiet petulant toddlers screaming at their mothers. In the highly unlikely event the Centrist Party ever begins to amass a voter constituency, it will face a barrage of incumbent-party rhetoric (here on Wikipedia and elsewhere) aimed at nipping it in the bud, as a party of its type poses the only conceivable threat to the two-party system. In theory, a centrist party could gain the broad support required to impose democracy on the U.S. (i.e., a multiparty system with proportional voting as a minimum standard). Because of the likelihood of suspect motives underlying "delete" recommendations, Wikipedia should adopt a protective attitude for now. The article should remain for a couple of years until this new party has failed to thrive; it should then be considered for deletion if any surge in interest was historically insignificant.--87.49.44.157 01:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll reply here. Based on newspaper coverage cited by others, the Centrist Party has arguably attained a minimum level of notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. However, this notability is temporal in nature: if the party grows, its notability will, too, but if it fails to do so, the currency of interest in it will pass, and it will fade into obscurity, joining countless others. I haven't "predicted" its demise, only noted that it, like any fledgling political party, has only the slimmest chance of success.--87.52.109.121 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Black Falcon; seems nomination may be in error. MalikCarr 02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Markeer. Passes notability, certainly - if six external reports aren't sufficient, what is? Well written and complete article. Very nicely done. » K i G O E | talk 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guns and Dope Party has no entry at the fec. Yet there is an article for them. Centrist party needs to be listed here [17]. Or Centrist party proves they are an actual party to stay put. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 05:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We needn't be judging the uitimate significance--the current information is sufficient for NDGG 04:30, 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 no consensus. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking in popular culture[edit]

Delete. Cruft, this entire page could easily be condensed into 2 paragraphs on the main page. Ckessler 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is unnecessary. Not only is 'popular culture' a rather ambiguous term, it is also unencyclopedic for an article as it will almost certainly result in pure original research. Anything encyclopedic can be found in the Stephen Hawking article. --The Way 07:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've shifted any actual media appearances Hawking has made over to a new section in the Stephen Hawking article. All that is left is an uncited list references to him in TV shows, music, etc. Ckessler 08:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep We can source it. When Hawkins is reffered to explicitly it isn't OR and this is a good way of keeping WP:V-compliant trivia off of the main Hawkins page. JoshuaZ 08:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's the problem. How can you cite this information in a a way that's consistant with WP:RS? Ckessler 08:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list and directory loaded with unreferenced pieces of meaningless trivia. We do not need a list of every time Hawking has been mentioned in a movie, TV show or song. Strongly oppose any merger of this contentless content to Stephen Hawking. If it's crap on its own it would be crap in the main article. Otto4711 08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, if this page needs to be deleted so does Mark Twain in popular culture, Thomas Edison in popular culture and Abraham Lincoln in popular culture. If the page is deleted then it's content will eventually end up on Stephen Hawking anyway. Philip Stevens 09:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existence of other similar articles is completely irrelevant to whether or not this article should be kept; the issue is whether or not this article meets the requirements of Wikipedia policy. Indeed, the articles you mentioned probably should also be deleted and I may nominate them in the next day or two (several 'in popular culture' articles were nominated for deletion yesterday and the consensus in all those AfD's appears to support deletion. Popular culture articles are inherently POV and suffer tremendous original research problems; what defines 'popular culture?' This concept of 'popular culture' is US/Western oriented and, as such, POV. This is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. --The Way 09:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd support deleting all these articles. The content deserves a paragraph or two in the main article, not an article of its own. JulesH 12:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overgrown trivia section. Gazpacho 11:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as sadly there is no current consensus (that I know of) regarding "X in popular culture" sections of articles on wikipedia, so my guess was this was a split-off article primarily intended to reduce article clutter. To that extent, I'd say it was an admirable split-off decision as most of the information is trivial to a primary subject, but of possible interest to the topic of how this scientist has been presented outside of his scientific field. Obviously no one is going to argue that Hawking himself isn't notable, the question is the relative notability of the details of how his celebrity personality (as opposed to his scientific contributions) has been presented. Celebrity is still a valid topic in it's own right, and I'd rather see this information in a sub-article than the main until or unless wikipedia decides that influence on pop culture is not encyclopedic. I agree Philip Stevens' argument per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is superficially specious, but in this case I'd say there's some validity to examples of the overall trend which this article represents. -Markeer 13:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reluctance to !vote to delete absent your seeing a consensus, but I would submit to you that !voting to delete these articles, if you don't think they should exist, is how consensus is formed. As noted, a number of "...in popular culture" articles have been nominated over the last couple of days and in each case sentiment is running toward deletion and in a number of cases the articles have been deleted. See for example the AFDs for References to Calvin and Hobbes, List of appearances of C96 in popular culture and Rush in popular culture. I am comfortable in asserting that consensus to delete this sort of article does exist. Otto4711 14:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I understand that some "in popular culture" articles have (quite correctly) been deleted, but I would suggest that your examples do not represent a consensus to delete all "in popular culture" articles but instead were case-by-case deletions of those specific articles. C96 or Rush certainly can't be compared to Stephen Hawking in a discussion of culturally pervasive individuals (in my opinion) so to my mind deletion of those articles (which I admit I did not read pre-deletion) wouldn't necessarily be representative of a larger consensus to delete by wikipedia editors.

Granting that some individuals have sociologically significant impacts based on a public persona larger than their personal accomplishments, and granting that some detail of how and when that state is expressed is of encyclopedic value, I went with a Keep vote based not only on the lack of consensus on the larger issue, but with an assumed acceptance that THIS individual is a clear exemplar of a significant pop cultural icon. In other words, lacking an existing consensus against all "in popular culture" articles occurs, Stephen Hawking is most definitely NOT a place to start building such a consensus. -Markeer 14:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that of the other articles Otto4711 refers to the AFDs of, this is by far the best article. But that's primarily because of a couple of useful bits and pieces scattered throughout the article, that show both Hawking's attitude to popular media and other people's attitude to him. I think this could (and should) be usefully condensed to a few paragraphs in the main article, which is why I feel deletion is appropriate). But for this article, it isn't as clear cut as for the others. JulesH 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Rush is at least comparable to Hawking for purposes of this sort of pop culture article. There are other AFDs open which are also comparable, including Sammy Davis Jr, The Who, Aerosmith, Aleister Crowley and Elvis Presley. The only one that's running close to being kept is Crowley. I would definitely say that Elvis has had a far greater impact on poular culture than Hawking and his pop culture article looks to be on the way out. I'm not saying there is no place for "...in popular culture" -style articles. There are some that are well done including one for Joan of Arc and one for of all things the Superman logo. But these sorts of data dump articles where editors play games of I spy for everything that might possibly be in some way connected to or inspired by a person, place or thing are worthless. Otto4711 16:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about consensus, but there is a style guideline about it. It's WP:TRIV, which says that such things are not worth keeping around in list form. Gazpacho 00:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge -- the nom writes "this entire page could easily be condensed into 2 paragraphs on the main page". That's true, but yet it is not in the main Stephen Hawking article. Seven of the sentences are sourced and should be merged to Stephen Hawking. Thus, this is a case for WP:MERGE rather than deletion. -- Black Falcon 18:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as most if not all of this article is unable to be attributed through the use of reliable third party sources. Failing that, cite what you can (IMDB profiles, news articles, DVD commentaries) and merge that content and that content only back into the article. Watch as the section expands with "Character X obviously is based on Steven Hawking, although nobody ever mentions it" and "In Episode Y, A Brief History of Time appears in the background for 1/2 second", gets split out, and ends up back here. -- saberwyn 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Brent Spiner quote here is impressive for establishing notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That quote has no reliable source. It is currently sourced by a Snopes article which does not confirm that the quote was actually said by anyone, let alone Spiner. Otto4711 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have no idea why this page is being considered for deletion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually a keep reason. GassyGuy 05:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourced or sourceable appearances, but delete those that can't be. MalikCarr 03:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly add a few of the facts to the main article. This is trivial information, much of it can't be reliably sourced. I agree with JulesH that it could be condensed, but this article gives the concept undue weight. GassyGuy 05:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia, not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 17:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To me, for this "In popular culture" article to be kept, it would have to actually be an article about Stephen Hawking as an element of popular culture. This is not, and comes nowhere close. The only elements that would be useful already exist at other pages (see, for instance, Descent (TNG episode)). While it might be reasonable to keep this bad article around in order to make a good one, I feel the chances are so low, we should just delete. Mango juice^talk 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep We do not have such a section for Albert Einstein, and perhaps we should. This would be a start. DGG 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That we don't have such an article for Einstein is a good thing, as a willy-nilly list of every appearance of Einstein or someone with Einstein-like bushy hair would be exactly as useless as this article. Otto4711 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And thats what 90% of the article would be. A list of very minor one-shot characters with wild white hair. -- saberwyn 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARY. There is a precedent for splitting off sections into subarticles that go into detail on various aspects of a topic. Pop culture is always something (not me, so much but) lots of people are interested in. These subarticles are a good way to manage this sort of information. I suggest looking at Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc as an example of how this type of article can be done well. --Aude (talk) 23:03, 23 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 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Me Con[edit]

LGBT media conference, no evidence of notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-18 07:05Z

Delete Vanity, Doesn't assert notability. No references aside from their own web site. By their own words, this was the "first annual" convention with an attendance of 600. "First Annual" often means "only". I'd suggest author come back next year after he's gotten some press.
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. YechielMan 19:53, 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. Fails WP:NOT --Madchester 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Contestants on The Amazing Race[edit]

I cannot see this article serving any purpose that the current individual series articles of the Amazing Race do not already serve. This is basically just a list of names. WP:NOT indiscriminate lists, prodded as such by Madchester 17:14, 17 February 2007, prod removed by Evrik 06:45, 18 February 2007 claiming "it is a structured list that assists with the organisation of articles" and that it "could be the basis of a good resource". As the list serves no other purpose than to name those who participated in the Race, and because those lists already exist on the individual episode pages (and considering there may be a place in the future for articles such as Amazing Race 5 contestants, currently up for deletion) I respectfully disagree with Evrik on this one. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 07:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need a list of contestants on a show. Also, take note that this list consists of first names only which makes it absolutely, 100% useless. Even if full names were given, these individuals are non-notable. If this type of information is somehow notable, it should be found in the main article (or articles on each season, if they exist). --The Way 08:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless list. Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We don't need this kind of encouragement for other people to write "articles" on reality TV has-beens which, judged by the community countless times, don't deserve an article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television personalities. MER-C 11:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lists of non-notable people like this neither needed nor wanted. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is a structured list that assists with the organization of he Amazing Race articles. It is a Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), does not violate WP:NOT as it is the basis of a good resource for an very popular television show. --evrik ^(talk) 14:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is simply a list of non-notable individuals, many without an individual Wikipedia article. I have no problem with list pages linking notable topics/articles, but this is ridiculous. Even the introduction and infobox is simply copy and pasted from the main The Amazing Race article. --Madchester 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Madchester - even with surnames, it'd still be a list of nn people EliminatorJR 19:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already better covered in the individual season articles. I don't really see the need for a listing of all the contestants on one page. BryanG^(talk) 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important companion piece to article and categories. --South Philly 21:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of no value whatsoever, redundant to the info provided on the respective season pages. Tarc 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Pure redundancy (along with many non-notable people) in a separate article provides no additional value to understanding the series or its contestants. Tinlinkin 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - WeniWidiWiki 06:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of non-notable individuals. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 12:32, 22 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 08:02Z

Depression symptoms[edit]

Largely unsourced and unencyclopedic article. It is not needed and all information is already in the Depression article. Darth griz⁹⁸ 07:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio [18]. Tagged as such. Resolute 07:37, 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, with no concensus to redirect. If someone wants to pursue a merge/redirect or redirect proposal, please do so on the talk page (and not through AfD) - WP:MERGE and WP:REDIR have info on the process involved. - Daniel.Bryant 10:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Rue[edit]

Despite the fact that she was in Hole for a short period and left after recording one album, we know nothing about this woman, who she is, and where she is now, there is also no information available about her from any sources besides being in Hole (I think). Nothing in this article can't already be said on "Pretty on the Inside" or "Hole (band)". I mean, the only reason way someone will look up this person is by clicking on a link on Pretty on the Inside or Hole out of curiousity on who this woman is. But once they click, they won't see anything they haven't already seen on Pretty on the Inside or Hole, I suggest a redirect to Hole (band). FlareNUKE 06:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree with the nominator that there isn't much info on her. I found some verifiable references and posted them at the article, but even cummulatively the information is not significant beyind establishing her as a prominent member of a notable band. I found equally scant information that she was involved in one other band after Hole. I think that she was noticed, which is the definition of notability. Is there value to a separate article and can that ever be more than a stub? I see little harm in leaving what we have, and referencing readers on to Hole wiht the hope that more information can be found. --Kevin Murray 19:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the prolix nom. There is no information in this article that's not in the main Hole (band) article. YechielMan 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per YechielMan. --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kevin, possibly early close since no one's recommending a deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:35, 19 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 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mentos song[edit]

I'm fairly certain that this would qualify for speedy deletion, but because I have some doubt, I'm going to list it as an AfD. Адам12901 ^Talk 08:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete used only for one commercial. Impossible for article to expand. Non-notable song. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 09:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was gonna say Merge, but it's already covered in more detail at Mentos. Lrrr IV 09:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's redundant to the main article of Mentos. I don't think it's likely someone would search for it, so I doubt a redirect would be appropriate. James086 ^Talk 13:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviouly nonnotable, even silly. YechielMan 19:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but make sure references from page are included in main Mentos article first. MalikCarr 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big Delete It's you I fell into. JuJube 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mentos, do not pass go. (jarbarf) 00:43, 22 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, thus kept. Note that this is the same result as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hawking in popular culture. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr.[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of trivia. We do not need a list of every time Davis is mentioned in a TV show, film or song. Otto4711 08:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (edit: Strongly oppose merger of this content back to Sammy Davis, Jr. because it would be no better as a section of that article than it is as a standalone.) Otto4711 08:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a trivial, indiscriminate, non-encyclopaedia list of information. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia section. Gazpacho 11:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Artcle created in line with other trivia sections on people, such as Stephen Hawking in popular culture, Emperor Norton in popular culture and Henry Darger in popular culture. A separate article also streamlines the main Sammy Davis article, and provides a place for people to see how Sammy is often depicted in popular culture. Gareth E Kegg 16:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawking article is also up for deletion. The other two aren't yet but may well be soon. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is insufficient to keep an article. As for the idea that this article "streamlines" Sammy Davis, Jr. that may very well be true. However, if this information doesn't belong in Sammy's article, the solution is not to dump it off into another article. The solution is to remove it completely. Otto4711 18:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 22:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARY. This topics is notable enough, with substantive material. A brief summary section of pop culture references in the main article on Sammy Davis, Jr. and a link to this subarticle is a suitable way to organize the material. Pop culture keeps appearing across Wikipedia, so while it doesn't really interest me, it does interest lots of people. I suggest looking to Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc (featured list) as an example of how these lists/articles can be done well. --Aude (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting is not a valid retention criteria. And if this list were anything approaching Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc there would be no problem with it. This list is nothing like that one and there is no indication that it can ever or will ever be like it. WP:SUMMARY is a guideline. If a list falls afoul of an actual policy then guidelines don't matter. Do you honestly believe that Wikipedia is served by knowing that Adam Sandler said the words "Sammy Davis, Jr." in a song about eating turkey, or that They Might Be Giants mentioned his name once in a podcast? Is that really the sort of information that belongs in an encyclopedia? Otto4711 15:57, 24 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 trivial and superceded by the actual announced nominees and winners. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longlists for 79th Academy Awards[edit]

Delete as trivial and superceded by the actual announced nominees and winners. Otto4711 08:43, 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 Merge to Metro Transit Routes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:07Z

Metro Transit Route 552[edit]

The entire collection of articles are extremely short, trivial route descriptions. No geographical context nor encycopedically valuable information is given. The routes in question is not notable and of no interest to people outside of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. These articles should be deleted or merged into a "List of..." page. --Адам12901 ^Talk 09:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Polaron has a good idea to merge them into the Metro Transit article. --Адам12901 ^Talk 00:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The articles do have a list, at Metro Transit Routes. Some of the articles have been expanded. I believe that there was a previous AfD that failed beforehand, but I'm not sure. -Tropicality (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They also have a category, Category:Metro Transit Routes. -Tropicality (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category was created by the person who created half of those routes. The only article in that category that is notable enough for an article is the Hiawatha Line, the light rail system in MSP. --Адам12901 ^Talk 10:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - unremarkable bus routes. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. No relevance to the wide world. MER-C 11:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any of them that cannot assert their notability (which may very well be all of them). I just can't see most bus routes being notable. If they are kept, they need to be renamed...there's more than one Metro Transit. --UsaSatsui 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into the Metro Transit Routes article. Most of these can just be put in a table of routes that includes destinations. Those that are notable (i.e. those where more can be said than just this is a route that goes from A to B) can be split to their own article. However, I am not familiar with the system to indicate which ones are notable. --Polaron | Talk 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bus routes are notable enough for an online encyclopedia. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Polaron. See list of Egged bus lines for a good example of how to make a good list on this subject. YechielMan 20:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Polaron. I can't think of any other public transit system articles that include separate articles for each bus line (the articles for the NYC and Chicago systems don't, and those systems are larger and more notable than Metro Transit). Eco84 | Talk 00:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I don't know of any of these routes that are truly notable (even the crime-plagued Route 5). Maybe a brief route description at Metro Transite Routes for each would be reasonable, like a description of the routes' origin and destination, and any notable connections. Even that is stretching it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, buscruft. Edeans 03:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I like Polaron's suggestion that these be a table. And I note Eco's comment that there isnt even one for larger cities.. I like the city, but this isnt the place to start what could be a very large expansion of content.DGG 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a structured table like list of bus routes in Manhattan. Specific routes with a lot of information can be split off. --NE2 14:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge If they aren't up to snuff, expand rather than delete. Just H^{editor review} 23:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is more notability than length. --Адам12901 ^Talk 04:06, 21 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 trivial and superceded by the actual announced nominees and winners. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longlists for 78th Academy Awards[edit]

Delete as trivia and as superceded by articles for the actual nominees and winners. Otto4711 08:45, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center of Jewish Studies Shanghai[edit]

No refs to support notability. Ideogram 08:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems a harmless little article. Peterkingiron 19:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems legitimate to me. Wasted Time R 21:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't seem to be suffering a lack of Ghits... tag for more sources, though. MalikCarr 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, with a need for more citations. » K i G O E | talk 05:22, 19 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 certain content and redirect. - Daniel.Bryant 11:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Rodgers[edit]

Maybe enough assertion of notability to prevent speedy, but if so only just. Only "claim to fame" seems to have been being on TV once. No sources are cited, see no reason to believe this guy passes WP:BIO or WP:N. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:59, 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) 08:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't think a runner up on a reality show is enough for an article, and most of the article (i.e. the stuff about what happened to him after the show) looks potentially unattributable. JulesH 09:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into the article Superstar USA as a Notable Contestant. --Ozgod 05:38, 21 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 all speedy deleted as tagged. JDoorjam JDiscourse 19:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard Studio[edit]

completely non notable, the only thing found on google was their myspace page...which is obviously far from notability. I'm also listing the following, as they are directly related. --Адам12901 ^Talk 08:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all. Vanispamcruftisement, or in the case of Fam festival, zero content. So tagged. MER-C 11:07, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flirtomatic[edit]

nn website [19][20] Mzlc 09:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You have given linking to an internet search. You can see that it is well known enough in that respect. Certain claims to notability made within the article are in need of citations. It does not follow that the article therefore qualifies for deletion. I declare that I have been involved in editing this article, but am not the originator, and have no connection whatsoever to Flirtomatic the company. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 18:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I initially tagged this for speedy, but the originator took the time and trouble to read our policies and was able to persuade me (see article talk page, mostly) that the article passes our criteria not just to avoid speedy deletion, but just about to pass AfD. Very prepared (!) to defer to a good argument for deletion, but currently I'm for keeping. --Dweller 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I appreciate the authors' contention that this article meets WP:WEB, but fail to see how we can write a verifiable neutral point of view article about a topic with no coverage in secondary sources. We can't, and are left with an article that is uncited promotional material and/or original research by editors with an obvious conflict of interest. I think in this case there is an inconsistency between the aforementioned principles of WP:V+WP:NPOV+WP:OR+WP:COI and WP:WEB, and the first four principles should trump. Of course, if this has been the subject of nontrivial articles in reliable sources, then by all means keep, but I don't see those citations in the article. - 71.232.29.141 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep 265 thousand registered users is enough, and the partnership they claim with the News of the World is V--to the extent anything connected with that paper is V. DGG 04:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until sources provided. Unfortunately a claim to notability that isn't backed up with reliable sources isn't a claim at all on wikipedia. As long as they can provide information which meets the criteria in WP:WEB thats fine, but until its provided it shouldn't exist. Google hits and alexa traffic ranks are no longer sufficient to meet the requirements of notability, they can be used as an indicator that something might not be reliable and it requires investigation, but thats the extent of their usefulness. A user count, sourced or not, also doesn't meet the criteria laid out in WP:WEB. Multiple non-trivial coverage by sources independent of the subject (and the coverage has to be from a reliable source) is required. Right now I'm not seeing that. The sun article (if thats what you'd call it) appears to be only a brief description of the sites content. So some third party reliable coverage needs to be shown.--Crossmr 20:41, 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. The "keep" position depended on the idea that the BBC article could function as a source even though it (perhaps by misattribution) didn't mention the website in question. That strikes me as flimsy; we really can't keep articles unless they're verifiable through reliable sources. Chick Bowen 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Will Fail[edit]

nn website[21][22] Mzlc 09:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was quite widely reported at the time. Probably nn now, but possibly Redirect to Ken_Livingstone#Reaction_to_7_July_2005_London_bombings? EliminatorJR 11:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge with London Bombings article. The website is now more or less down, but the fact that it existed and was notable at the time requires specific mention. Notability is not lost over time. Shrumster 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this being a phenomenon while it was up. I'd leave the article. It was certainly notable for a time. I've heard that it may come back up. In any case it seems wrong to delet it just bacause of a legal dispute, that doesn't diminish it's notability (and might increase it). 69.120.112.147 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn flash in the pan, footnote in 7/7 article now failing WP:V completely. Fails WP:WEB hard. Article claims notability with BBC report which has no mention of the site or its graphics. More evidence of failing WP:V. D Mac Con Uladh 17:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The graphic in the BBC article is from the site, just misattributed. AmbientArchitecture 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:WEB and WP:RS. And claiming that "it may come back up" smacks of crystal ballery to me. If sources can be found that are non-trivial mentions of the site and/or document the legal battle between the site's owner and Transport for London, then I'd reconsider. Caknuck 02:27, 25 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 08:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destee[edit]

nn website Mzlc 09:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB. Alexa = 952,602: [23]. MER-C 11:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Webbiz123
coomment article edited to meet criteria. WP:WEB(Webbiz123 20:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete for same reason MER-C stated. --pIrish 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site is non-notable. The wording runs like an advertisement (point 3). There is far too much information on the webmaster, but not enough about the actual site (point 2). Also, the only reference listed is an article that was written seven years ago; something more recent would be more appropriate. --pIrish 14:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the edit history. A user with the same name as the article made 9/15 edits, all adding information about the webmaster. This article is blatant self-promotion. --pIrish 14:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Working on the article to improve it. Please leave comments in regards to the problem area. So far we have added reference source to meet the notaries requirements listed at WP:WEB. Editing the reference tag now so that it is in wiki format. Add notes with additonal improvments if they required. Thank you (Webbiz123 13:48, 21 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) 2007-02-23 08:09Z

Herupets[edit]

nn website Mzlc 09:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB. Alexa = 5,523,567, [24]. MER-C 11:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:15, 19 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 speedily deleted as WP:CSD#A7. riana_dzasta 13:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AssureTech Ltd[edit]

nn company Mzlc 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:05, 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 speedy delete. -- Steel 18:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empire imobiliare[edit]

nn company Mzlc 09:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:05, 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 Keep per consensus. No delete vote. Pea ceNT 09:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scentura[edit]

nn company [25] Mzlc 09:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if the references can be verified. With that amount of news coverage, it's obviously notable, but it's suspicious that most of the newspaper report footnotes link to one piece on an advocacy website, [26]. Sandstein 13:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am the creator of this article.
1st There has been over a twenty news reports and a major appelate court ruling on this company, so it is hardly non-notable. The "non-notable" link which Mzlc provides[27] has 3,350 hits on google. Exceeds all the requirements for Wikipedia:Notability.
2nd The footnotes link to Ripoff Report because ripoffreport.com is the only site which has these articles. I checked LexisNexis and all of these articles are available there. I can move these articles to another site if needed. Calendar 15:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives the original source as well, and that should be enough. Keep DGG 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've worked for this company and tell you first hand the article describes a factual description of the company —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamjames (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Petrovna Valetova[edit]

No claims to notability Ideogram 10:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board notified. Pavel Vozenilek 11:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: she does seem to be mentioned in some independent publications. But yes, we need to deal with the artist cruf, it seems that anybody (and their dog...) who has painted something and managed to get it exhibited somewhere want to be in Wikipedia... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, formally WP:BIO is satisfied with several non-trivial mentions and an independent exposition, which leads us to wonder whether WP:BIO is strict enough not top convert Wikipedia into an artists phone book Alf photoman 17:34, 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, Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Alf photoman. She does seem to satisfy criteria for notability - but one must question whether the article will ever expand beyond a stub. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Works written about her seem to demonstrate notability. --Oakshade 02:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alf photoman. MalikCarr 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 16:41, 22 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 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Phouska[edit]

I can find no evidence that this film is notable, but I may well be just not looking hard enough. Neither of the links in the article count as the needed reliable, third party, non trivial published sources. Delete unless notability can be established. J Milburn 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I've added a review from the film festival mentioned in the article. The film title also transliterates as I Fouska that produces more ghits (mainly in languages I do not read). Nuttah68 13:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ah, the google results from the alternative translation certainly look like they confer notability. J Milburn 13:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have an article on the director of this movie, Nikos Perakis. We also have an article on another film of his called Loafing and Camouflage, which won several awards. I like having an article on the director, like having one on Loafing and Camouflage, but recommend deleting this one, which won no awards and doesn't appear to meet the standards in the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (films). Simply to be shown at one film festival is not enough, in my opinion. The link added by User:Nuttah68 is not to a review; it is just the entry for this film in the program of the festival where it was shown in 2002. EdJohnston 03:00, 17 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, Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:N, lacks substantial third-party coverage. Sandstein 13:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's still a stub, lots of potential, decently cited, and we need more representation of Greek cinema in WP. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:48, 19 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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Bhaduri[edit]

Not notable enough for Wikipedia[28]. The article cites wrong references. For eg. [29] doesn't mention that "the book has become a cult hit in campuses across India". The few newspaper articles such as [30] are either book reviews or press-release types of articles. I couldn't find any source that asserts notability. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Passes the letter of WP:BIO criterion... "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." This authors books have been reviewed by at least two reliable sources [31] [32] and another article about him in The Telegraph [33] . The nom's contention that the Deccan Herald review and article [34] is a press release is simply wrong and the review is even credited to the writer Tarun Cherian. --Oakshade 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author has written a single book, and in my personal opinion the links do not establish notability. Note that such reviews appear for many books everyday in many newspapers. Deccan Herald publishes reviews for five books every week. This is just one of them. Just having two or three reviews doesn't make a work or an author notable. The reviews do not talk about the notability of the author or his work. While I appreciate the effort that you put in wikifying this article, neither any of the links provided nor 874 Google results assert notability. The author has written only one book that doesn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria, and as an Indian I can assure you that the book is certainly not a "cult hit". utcursch | talk 14:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursch, per your comment "Just having two or three reviews doesn't make a work or an author notable," WP:BIO dissagrees with you. --Oakshade 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[35] is about several "MBA authors", out of which only Chetan Bhagat is notable -- the article is not about notable authors but some B-school alumni who've turned authors. [36] is a write-up on two books (the other one by Bob Hoekstra) which doesn't assert notability of either the author or the book. The review by Tarun Cherian is one of the several reviews that appear in Deccan Herald weekly under the "Browser's Nook" column sponsored by a book store. [37] is a book excerpt. These don't make up "multiple independent reviews". Besides, WP:BIO is a guideline. Name a single published author who doesn't have two or three book reviews? Such reviews appear daily -- publishers make sure they do. I don't have any enemity with this person, but there is not a single source that establishes the notability of the person. utcursch | talk 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to ignore WP:BIO, that's okay. Most editors dissagree. --Oakshade 16:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seemsw to be well sourced.Baka man 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for nomination is not lack of sources. It's lack of notability -- none of the sources assert notability. utcursch | talk 15:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting the guidelines by providing significant sources. Though I would argue that note 1 does not support the assertion of "best seller" status. --Kevin Murray 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed under "Best Sellers" for that week from a reliable source. I'm curious as to how the reference doesn't support it being a "best seller." --Oakshade 22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "best-seller" reference is sourced from a single book store (Crossword Book Store). The book store sponsors the book reviews section in Deccan Herald and many other newspapers. Also, the "best-seller" list is weekly. Finding a mention in a weekly "best-seller" list of a single book store doesn't make a work notable, in my opinion. The book certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). utcursch | talk 14:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an author, not a book (his one book certainly passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) btw). And charging the Deccan Herald as not a reliable source is quite a stretch in an attempt to delete this article on a notalbe person. --Oakshade 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I feeling way to nice to express my opinion about nominations for deletion as NN with reliable sources, especially if an author was listed as best-selling Alf photoman 00:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The version that I nominated for deletion didn't say it was best seller. Also, see my comment above. The "best-seller" list is the weekly best-seller list of a single book store. utcursch | talk 14:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even without the "best-seller" assertation, this person passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply above. Two or three reviews are available for every published author -- they don't make up "multiple independent reviews". What matters is assertion of notability. Honestly, I think you're being biased because you put a lot of effort in saving the article from prod and wikifying it. Have an honest look at the article -- is there anything that establishes notability? Authoring a book that made it to No. 3 in the weekly best-sellers list of a single book store, in some category doesn't make one notable enough for Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the charge of bad faith, but when an article subject passes the letter of WP:BIO, it's quite a simple effort, as it was with this article, to contest an imporper prod and clean-up. --Oakshade 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assume bad faith -- I even stressed that I appreciate your work. I'm sorry, if I sounded otherwise. As somebody who lives in India, I personally don't think that this guy is notable enough to have an aritcle on Wikipedia. If others believe he does, I don't have a problem. utcursch | talk 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple independent reviews of an author's book are a valid way to establish the author's notability. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (books) --Eastmain 01:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Manzhivago
Keep, pretty sure that best-selling fiction authors meet WP:BIO and all that. (jarbarf) 00:47, 22 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) 2007-02-23 08:10Z

The Berkeley Connection (2006 film)[edit]

The page has not been substantially added to since its creation nearly 18 months ago. The film has not materialised and no information seems to be available about it, as such I propose deletion on the grounds of WP:V and lack of reliable sources, it cannot be shown the film was even made. Malla nox 12:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL until the film is released, if ever. Also no evidence of third-party coverage by independent sources. Walton monarchist89 17:03, 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 11:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Oh[edit]

Apparently non-notable contestant on a reality show, other claims from self-published web site hence not attributable to a reliable source. Delete JulesH 12:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential delete if the two singles did not meet WP:MUSIC. If they charted, then keep. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe they have, no. Certainly if they have, they haven't exactly generated a lot of buzz -- "I Wanna Dance With You" gets 9 ghits, with 3 being her official sites and 2 being wikipedia and the answers.com mirror. "Where Are You Now" gets more -- 13 in total, perhaps because it's been around longer and so more wikipedia mirrors have its title in them (5). JulesH 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep television reality contestants. Meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which exact criteria of WP:BIO is met? Because I don't see any evidence that any of them are met in this case. JulesH 18:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her article doesn't mention being a notable actor or television personality. It does say actor, but no evidence of this is provided. It also says she's best know for being on a reality show, so she's apparently not gone far as an actor. It's possible that the host(s) of that reality show are notable actors or television personalities, but I don't see how this would extend to everyone who has even been on it. Until she starts popping up in sources which refer to her as a television personality and/or actress, I don't know why we would consider her one. Friday (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in independent sources. Having been on television does not trump WP:V and WP:N. Friday (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Friday. No coverage outside of her website and a couple of forums.--Kubigula (talk) 04:45, 21 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on individiual Wikipedia language editions[edit]

See below for the rationale.

Afrikaans Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Albanian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arabic Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Basque Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belarusian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bengali Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bishnupriya Manipuri Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bosnian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Breton Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bulgarian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Catalan Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cebuano Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cherokee Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chinese Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Croatian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Czech Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danish Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dutch Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
English Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Esperanto Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Estonian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finnish Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
French Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Galician Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Georgian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
German Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greek Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hebrew Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hindi Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hungarian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Icelandic Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ido Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indonesian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Italian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Japanese Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kashubian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Korean Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kurdish Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Latin Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Latvian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lithuanian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Luxembourgish Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malay Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Neapolitan Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Norwegian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Persian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Polish Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Portuguese Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Romanian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Russian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scots Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Serbian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Simple English Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slovak Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slovenian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spanish Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Swedish Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Telugu Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thai Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Turkish Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ukrainian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Urdu Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uyghur Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vietnamese Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yiddish Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Category:Wikipedias by language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Discussion[edit]

I see no reason to have articles for individual language editions of Wikipedia. None of them are particularly notable and they're all part of one site: Wikipedia, for which we have an article.

Most of the articles do not go any further than providing minor statistics. Such statistics are derived from various tools such as toolserv already available for public use.

In the case of several of these articles (most notably Chinese Wikipedia), that information should probably moved interwiki to meta/wikinews/whatever. The details about the infamous block is already explained in Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China

--Cat out 12:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Spanish Wikipedia explains about the Enciclopedia Libre fork, Catalan Wikipedia explains it was the first to have non-english articles, German Wikipedia is a very complete article, etc...
Also the statistics are interesting to read an explanation of the development of each project (better than the statistics page which can be quite confusing). I don't see any reason to delete those articles.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A wiki reaching 10,000 articles or 50,000 articles isnt all that notable and easy to read on a graph. How many admins/users/edits/articles a wiki currently has can be accessed via Special:Statistics
As you point out Enciclopedia Libre has its own article, that means Spanish Wikipedia (the article) is redundant. Information on Catalan Wikipedia isn't all that notable. German Wikipedia probably belongs to meta. --Cat out 12:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zh:Special:Statistics is quite difficult to read for me, better if there is a page in English explaining it.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reject keep all/delete all format of this discussion. A few of these, such as those mentioned by Xtv, are quite notable and deserve their own article. Others probably fail WP:WEB and ought to be deleted. —An gr 12:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, these should be nominated separately, some of them may not be notable but others are. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. People should review the 66 articles link here. They can vote/discuss on which ones too keep and which ones to delete. --Cat out 12:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A though, we could have two noms. One for the tiny pages (a paragraph or two) and one for larger ones. --Cat out 12:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For example, the Finnish Wikipedia specifically is quite well known in Finland and it has received wide press coverage. However, this is currently not explained in the article. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats nice. Wikipedia is well known in Finland. Can be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, a wikinews article or meta article. --Cat out 12:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the Finnish Wikipedia may be independently notable as it has been the subject of articles in newspapers and magazines such as Helsingin Sanomat and Suomen Kuvalehti and has also been discussed on national television etc. Also, the different language editions of Wikipedia are usually not just translations of each other but largely independent projects with different editors and different audiences. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a blunt way to put it: every language version is an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is notable as a whole and individual language versions are not.
Statistics of any language version is indeed interesting and can be presented at Special:Statistics. Statistics on articles about individual language versions will become outdated in a matter of seconds.
The social structure of any language wikipedia isn't notable, such a thing would also fail to meet WP:WEB as well as WP:OR.
--Cat out 15:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the social structure of individual Wikipedia isn't notable, then why has the social structure of particular Wikipedias been covered in the press? When the New York Times covers AfD debates, they're covering the social structure of just one of the projects, as no project has exactly the same AfD policies and voting tendancies. Every Wikipedia is different in many ways. -- Zanimum 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some content. I don't think these can just be deleted. Some of these variants of Wikipedia (perhaps most importantly the German one) are notable in their own right, because of ways in which they differ from the rest of Wikipedia. Some of them are only notable because of the notability of Wikipedia as a whole, and could perhaps be deleted. But I suspect that many of them have information which, if they are to be deleted, should be merged to Wikipedia. So, I think anyone who wants to delete them is going to have a lot of work on their hands sorting out the useful from the unnecessary. JulesH 13:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to project space. Most are not notable as articles due to a lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Some are, though, such as German Wikipedia. These could be copied back to article space and develop as articles, while the others could be left in project space to report statistics, events and such. Sandstein 13:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to project space. I'm not convinced these should be documented seperately in article space, but there's no need to throw them out either. Sandstein's idea is a good one imho. --kingboyk 13:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel meta would be a better place for such articles. Meta is underused. --Cat out 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Project space isn't for encyclopedia articles, and Meta isn't an encyclopedia. The question is whether any of these websites is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and some of them are. Cool Cat's claim above that the article Wikipedia encompasses all the languages could be true in principle, but it isn't true in practice. The article Wikipedia is exclusively about the English-language Wikipedia. —An gr 14:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case merge to Wikipedia or Wikipedia non-english versions should be your answer? --Cat out 14:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Move them all to project space, and then anything enyclopedic and relevant can be merged into the main article. --kingboyk 15:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not project space. They have no business at all in project space, which is for housekeeping tasks of English Wikipedia, not for encyclopedic content. Merging the ones that are too nonnotable to meet WP:WEB into Wikipedia, while keeping separate the ones that are notable enough is a good idea. So is moving English-version-specific information from Wikipedia to English Wikipedia (which is definitely one of the ones that should be kept). —An gr 16:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they're encylopedic content we have no business deleting them in the first place :) If they're not, I think they're fine in project space or perhaps on meta? --kingboyk 16:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject keep all/delete all format of this discussion per Angr, the problem here is that WP:WEB would accept some and reject others, so the macro-AfD would have to result in an overall Keep to preserve those of value. Some of these certainly are AfD-worthy debates, but the global AfD won't address those. Better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail, right? :-) -Markeer 13:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be a bit more specific? Which ones you precisely believe should be kept? --Cat out 13:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mass nominations are discouraged for a reason. Many of these are quite deletable, at least in the English-language Wikipedia (they might be more notable in themselves), but others are not - commenters will focus in on the most or least deletable of them. I suggest that instead of nominating them all, you nominate a borderline case, like maybe the Japanese Wikipedia, and see how that goes. And yes, for the ones that aren't kept, cross namespace move is preferable to delete. Deco 15:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject keep all/delete all format of this discussion per Angr. German Wikipedia should be sufficient as an example of a fairly long article about a Wikipedia that is clearly notable enough in its own right. I don't really see the benefit of deleting such articles, moving them out of article space, or merging them. Rl 15:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep against the global deletion but feel free to renominate the useless ones individually. --Irpen 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have that kind of patience or time to spend on bureaucracy --Cat out 16:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then don't. There is no deadline. -- Black Falcon 22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some of those articles deserve to be deleted but many are valid and informative. Also, many of these articles do contain notable information, and while some may be stubs that list only statistics, quite a few provide encycolpedic information. RyGuy17 16:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment - although I understand why users are complaining about this mass nomination, I do think that the nominator was correct to nominate all of these together. Logic dictates that either foreign-language Wikipediae in general deserve their own articles, or they do not. The only exception to this would be if some of them have appeared in the news (making them the subject of multiple non-trivial independent sources per WP:WEB), but I can't see that this is substantially the case. I'm not certain whether these articles merit deletion or not, but either all of them should be deleted or they should all be kept. Walton monarchist89 17:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is the case that some of them have appeared in the news, making them the subject of multiple non-trivial independent sources per WP:WEB. The German Wikipedia, for example, was all over the news in Germany in light of the Tron case (see Tron (hacker)#Naming controversy for details), and because it has published books. Probably some of the others have also been in the news in countries where their language is widely spoken. Others haven't, and I'm not in favor of keeping those. But this nomination would throw the baby out with the bathwater. —An gr 20:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Choose a number (such as 50,000) and delete the Wikipedias that don't have more articles than this. 80.47.228.177 17:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject/keep whatever per Angr. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject/keep. Some, like English wikipedia, absolutely need an article and as it is about the 10th most popular site on the internet it clearly doesnt fail the notability test. If any of the otehrs need deleting it should be doen on a case by case basis. Also wikipedia is 53KB and therefore it wouldnt be practicable to merge any useful info into this article, SqueakBox 17:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep its simply not ruth members in my wikipedia are not members in the wikipedia comunity. we see ourselves as a difrent comunity, diferent in mindset and diferent in laguge--yidi 17:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Reject keep all/delete all format of this discussion. Per above. Though some are self reference or not written in an encyclopedic tone, I believe most of them are notable on their own merit (except iff you count only English mentions, though I would reject such interpretations). Otherwise keep all.--Dami 17:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, oppose mass deletion. Ideally, all of these can be noted in a subarticle linked under the Wikipedia#Language editions section, perhaps entitled Multilingual Wikipedia. This solution also allows for individual language versions that fail notability standards on their own to be redirected to an article within the encyclopedia, thereby reducing the animosity which is sure to be perceived by some who won't understand why <insert favorite language version> doesn't merit inclusion. Tim Shuba 18:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they are all notable.Baka man 19:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject keep all/delete all format of this discussion per above. "Wikipedia is notable as a whole and individual language versions are not". Ascertaining this would be a research project requiring knowledge of numerous languages. Surely, Wikipedia is notable in part because it is available in so many languages? Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep/Reject keep all/delete all format of this discussion per discussion. Surely you're joking - Wikipedia for $language is not notable to Wikipedia?! --Dennisthe2 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. All are notable, appear in local media, have social impact... What else do you want? --Tone 19:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If English Wikipedia is notable (and it is) so should others be. The problem may be keeping them up to date, but should we not try to? Peterkingiron 19:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're neutral, they're verifiable. Let them be. --D. Webb 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Project Space and assess from there. Most of them are crap and would fail all the reasonable notability guidelines. The rest of them are essentially duplicating information which should be housed in Wikipedia. If that article is too large, possibly there can be a mass merge of statistics etc. to another page, but as it stands we have a lot of Wikipediacruft. GassyGuy 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, possibly renominating some individually. Valid forks from the main article, and clearly English and German Wikipedias (for example) would be notable at any rate. I'd consider moving some of the smaller Wikipedias into a list article, but a mass nom like this isn't the place to do it. BryanG^(talk) 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Very few new users actually know about Special:Statistics. Moreover, statistics in foreign languages don't do English-speakers much good. Finally, these pages are useful in encouraging multi-lingual readers to contribute to the other Wikis. -- Black Falcon 22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. These articles are not only notable, but they are also useful for Wikipedia users who want to visit a Wikipedia of a different language. Nevhood 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Russian Wikipedia since it was awarded a state prize last year for being a top educational website in the Russian language. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I suggest we simply merge them all into an article entitled "Versions of Wikipedia" or something in that direction.SergioGeorgini 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Many of the non-English wikipedias are large enough to be notable, and have very different policies and styles than the English edition. Perhaps merge all non-English wikipedias of size <10k as a compromise? Tbjablin 02:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reject/keep If you actually tried to research these individual versions of Wikipedia, I would say that almost all of them would be notable. There may be several exceptions, but keep in mind that ntability for these Wikipediae should be based upon coverage by media worldwide; no english coverage for the Kashubian Wikipedia does not, by any means, preclude it from notability. Notability might also be established by these Wikipediae's connections with Wikimedia. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dennisthe2. MalikCarr 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not going to go through each of the nominations here, but considering that in many cases Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia in existence for that language, I would say that they are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to meta. Then we'll decide what to do with them, individually, MER-C 08:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Overbroad blanket nomination. Many of these clearly meet notability criteria on their own, so I can't say delete to all. If there are those that don't meet the standards, even after very much checking, they should be moved to Project: namespace rather than deleted. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - The Chinese Wikipedia is notable at least and while relatively unsourced, there seems to be enough there for a full article rather than cramming it back into Wikipedia. Japanese Wikipedia, Finnish Wikipedia, and Swedish Wikipedia look notable. [[It's harder to defend Latvian Wikipedia and Catalan Wikipedia but these should be nominated individually - Aagtbdfoua 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - If we delete all those interwikis, then we must also delete the Jimbo Wales article, angela besley's, wikipedia and so on. -- Walter Humala Godsave him! ^{(wanna Talk?)} 14:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're over estimating this AfD. Jimmy is independently notable as a businessman, etc, and so is Angela as an co-founder of Wikia. -- Zanimum 14:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many but not all or merge: I agree some of the articles, as they are now, should be deleted. The Slovenian, Luxembourgish, Malay articles tell nothing but dry statistics, and there are many more in that category. But any article that tells the actual story of the site should be kept, or at least merged into a larger article. Without an article on the Persian Wikipedia, how will anyone know it was started by a university? Without an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia, how will anyone know about the changing language policies, or similarly the Serbian Wikipedia's technical issues? Really, these need to be tried seperately, not as a whole. If nothing else, in groups. -- Zanimum 14:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete all OR Move to meta OR Move to Wikipedia name space: I created two of these articles but I don't think that we should keep them. I only created them because they were red links in the template. My primary vote (which is not actually a vote) here is to delete them from Main name space. The Statistics page has more information than many of the articles. Nearly all of them are stubs. However, if the articles aren't deleted then I reccommend that they should be imported to meta or moved to project name space. --Meno25 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all: Merge all articles (except may be the German one) into one article named Other languales of Wikipedia or any similar title. The articles are too short to keep. When we have enough data about a certain article we would create an article about it. --Meno25 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all but some of them could be nominated individually. Agree with Zanium.Vints 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Obviously Wikipedia is notable enough for its own article. Thus it is important to document it. These foreign language parts of Wikipedia are also important to document. Now maybe the quality/content of these articles is minimal, but that doesn't mean any should be deleted. At the least, I'd say "Non-English Wikipedia" should be a section or article on its own, but I'd prefer each article be separate anyway, not just a table or list. And even if a case could be made for substance being necessary, with so many nominations, it's difficult to say which ones do meet that requirement. Checking them will be quite the burden. FrozenPurpleCube 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In a way it feels un-necessary with these kind of articles, but this is one of the better ones of these types......Turkish Wikipedia, Icelandic Wikipedia and so on.

Cangbush

Comment Is there a lack of server space for deleting those articles? -- Walter Humala Godsave him! ^{(wanna Talk?)} 20:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Server space is one of those things you should let the developers worry about. Besides, deleting a page doesn't actually free up server space. BryanG^(talk) 07:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --5ko 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep alll definatly keep all, the arguement doesnt make any sense, and they cant be all merged into the wikipedia article beacsue its too long and policy itself will eventually make the article's longest sections be splintered off, the english wikipedia article is quite long, as is the german one, i really think they are very useful and most projects are not exactly like wikipedia, just about the only thing they all have in common is neutral point of view, some accept fair use others not, some require preview before save others dont etc etc and many combinations. as for enciclopedia libre, thats differant from the spanish language wikipedia they are two differant websites, EL is not associated with esWP in the least. the statistic pages offer just that, but the article pages offer information on milestones for any given wikipedia edition which a research would definatly want to find out, so would a reporter, or a student writing a paper. keep all. sure they start off as small stat pages, but they grow like any other article.qrc2006/email 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) STRONG KEEP
Keep -- the indiscriminate mass-nomination format of this AFD does very little to clarify issues, or lead to useful discussion. 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
keep all and possibly delete the ones that do not yet have any content. The articles on the two non-en ones I know best had relevant things to say--some of which I knew and some of which I didn't, and all of which would have been helpful to know ahead of time. Having the material conveniently available here is extremely helpful. The material about the individual sites available on the individual sites does not necessarily pass COI, but these articles do.--Furthermore, the information on the different interpretaions of N and V and other policies is very relevant to discussions here. DGG 05:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep all --Igrek 08:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep all. No fooly jokes.♦ --Paukrus 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep all --Butko 12:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violent Keep (clarification per request)--Alnokta 14:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per the above, but spare the violence. (jarbarf) 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It may be best to merge all of these articles into one main article. They should be kept, but as one main article listing all the different languages Wikipedia exists in. --19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep there is always something special about each language edition! Teixant 22:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I reject the notion that we can use the web measuring sites to measure how notable a non-English language site is how can we judge how well-trafficed the Kashubian Wikipedia is, e.g., because only 50,000 people speak Kashubian and Kashubian speakers form a majority in no country (by which most trackers track traffic). Carlossuarez46 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Since most of these articles provide nothing more than minor statistics such as inception date and number of articles, the data would be best handled in a table format in one article. The exceptions and special notes are few enough that they could be handled below such a table. The main article Wikipedia is large enough that such a merged article should be a separate article. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Re-nominate each one separately. Nohat 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I hate mass noms. Keep all articles and indivisually nominate each article which may fail guidelines. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 05:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. There is no way you can tell the story of 200+ wikipedia language versions in a single Wikipedia article. If you look at some of these language articles they talk about specific things not common on other wikipedias, and a lot of the ones I looked at provide a lot more information than simply statistics. I'd love all of them to stay. --Vanka5 07:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject keep all/delete all format of this discussion or, failing that, keep all. dcandeto 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Every national Wikipedia is a national domain and a standalone online community often large enough to be notable --ssr 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I concur with ssr's statement.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mu A single AfD for projects ranging from hundreds of thousands of articles to merely hundreds is way too broad. Some of the projects (eg the German one) are significant enough for an entire page. Is there any main-space info about the (no longer wikimedia associated) Klingon wikipedia? Andjam 01:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and pass legislation against these inherently problematic mass nominations. Yamaguchi先生 02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I agree with Yamaguchi on mass nominating things. Actually, it would be fun to nominate all cities of all countries for mass deletion and then ask "how about putting them all in the country's article?". If Wikipedia is a country, English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia etc. are its cities. For the same reasoning, all cities of all countries should be deleted as well. Then we should go on for mass deletion of all human beings that are from the same family. Such as George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and all those other Bushes should be united under "Bush family" article. It wouldn't be right. Wikipedia is the name of this family, and the family name of all Wikipedia family members. Turkish, Indonesian, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish etc. are our first names. --Nerval 03:31, 22 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) 2007-02-23 08:12Z

Space War Online[edit]

A noncommercial computer game that does not assert its notability; no substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources is evident. For that reason, the article also fails WP:NOR and WP:V. Sandstein 13:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of independent non-trivial sources to demonstrate notability. Only external links are to sites affiliated with the games. Delete unless more sources can be found. Walton monarchist89 16:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources presented and available. Wickethewok 14:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and reads like a PR piece. BJ^Talk 13:57, 22 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, move, and cleanup/refocus article. Article tagged with cleanup requested at new location. - Daniel.Bryant 11:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley Quixote[edit]

This fictional character has appeared in a newspaper column, a play, and is still appearing on the radio, according to the article. However, I must question whether those appearances add up to notability: a Google search on "Wiley Quixote" turns up only 134 hits; several of those hits appear to be for other users of the name (such as a Marvel Comics character created three years earlier) and when "entries very similar to the [ones] already displayed" are eliminated only 38 are left. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, you don't need to add a vote to your nom as this is not a vote. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got in the habit of putting my nomination and my not-a-vote into separate sections for a couple of reasons. It's not unknown for really significant information to come up during the course of an AfD -- positive proof that what looked like a hoax is not one, for instance, or vice versa, or a substantial re-write of the article. I want to be able to change my not-a-vote without leaving people scratching their heads asking why we're even discussing a deletion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to this article, it looks like a stealth bio for the "Appalachian poet Jim Webb"[38]. I recommend a move to Jim Webb (poet). --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 5 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) 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Dhartung and rewrite the article to focus on him. At least we can source him, and the character can help establish notability for the creator (rather than the other way around). --UsaSatsui 21:44, 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, —Doug Bell ^talk 13:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move per reasons given by Dhartung. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:47, 19 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; nothing was really achieved as a result, and I'm not relisting this for a third time as that would be purely silly. - Daniel.Bryant 10:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Levinson ML-3[edit]

This is a discontinued piece of audio equipment, referenced only to a site which describes equipment from that manufacturer. Could not find independent writeups of it in mainstreem publications, other than blogs and fan websites devoted to high end audio equipment. Appears to fail WP:RS and WP:N. Inkpaduta 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:[reply]

There is a photograph of the amplifier - it is an actual product. It is also discontinued, which means that keeping it here doesn't serve to benefit the company - only historical preservation of knowledge of the product. The information seems objective. Why delete it? --I am nitrogen 06:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Photographs exist of a great many things that are not notable ebough for Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia's notability policy WP:N and reliable source policy WP:RS require that something has been the subject of multiple nontrivial coverage in independent and reliable sources. The fansite listing equipment made by the company is neither of those. "IT IS HARMLESS" is not a valid reason for keeping an article about a piece of audio eequipment if it was not notable in its time. Perhaps someone can dig up a couple of reviews in an audio magazines from the days when it was for sale. That would help. Otherwise the articlew should be deleted. Inkpaduta 15:53, 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) 05:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Although not currently produced, it is a very famous high-end amplifier, though predating the Web.DGG 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A famous piece of audio equipment doubtless has been the subject of multiple articles in independent, reliable and verifiable sources. If someone would add two or three such, as nominator I would be happy to keep the article. Right now it does not have such sources. It appears to have been extremely high priced equipment sold to audiophiles, so somewhere in an audiophile magazine there should have been articles. Saying "it is famous" does not satisfy WP:N {[WP:V]] or WP:RS. Inkpaduta 18:47, 12 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, —Doug Bell ^talk 13:28, 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 08:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DuneRape[edit]

Fails WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, notability not established and no sources given - Jvhertum 13:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Jvhertum 13:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also unverified and unsourced, with no evidence of external coverage by third-party independent sources. Walton monarchist89 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; basically, some game somewhere that may be sometimes even published. As it stands it doesn't justify its existence, really. Smells strongly of a hoax or a TMUISOD unless there's sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source.--Empire Earth 12:03, 21 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 08:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hogsmeade-Village.com[edit]

Another Harry Potter fansite. Possible to argue that it claims notability based on longevity (founded 2004); has an Alexa rank of 265,457 [39]. However, the site creator is given as "Andrei Dumitrache" and the page creator is Blue man dumi (talk · contribs) which suggests a conflict of interest. Sam Blacketer 13:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator wasn't actually suggesting speedy deletion - if it had been nominated for speedy it wouldn't have had to go through AfD at all. As the nominator says, it is possible to argue that the article claims notability based on longevity, meaning that it isn't eligible for CSD A7. However, delete per lack of notability, lack of independent coverage by external sources, possible WP:COI. Walton monarchist89 16:54, 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 Speedy delete, fails to assert importance in line with our speedy deletion criteria. Hiding Talk 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayRadioPlay![edit]

Non-notable band, this article has been speedy deleted at least 5 times, but I'd like an AfD consensus before salting. yandman 13:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Yandman, PlayRadioPlay is signed to Island Records, a major record label, and is one of the fastest up and coming new bands right now. You can't say a band isn't notable when they'll have a major label release on Best Buy store shelves all around the country in less than 6 months. I just spent 2 ours redoing this article after someone spammed it last night. Give it a rest and let the article be. And learn something about a 17 year old kid that's following his heart while you're at it. --~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 14:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, if this page gets deleted, thousands of others bands wiki's will deserve deletion as well, considering PlayRadioPlay! gets more traffic than most bands on MySpace. Sorry I won't post anymore, I feel very strongly about this subject.--~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 14:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Your argument here is a perfect example of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because someone is going to be successful soon doesn't mean they're notable now, unless it can be verified with independent sources. Likewise, just because there are plenty of other Wikipedia articles on obscure bands doesn't mean that those articles belong on Wikipedia - it just means no one's bothered to nom them for deletion yet. A MySpace page doesn't constitute evidence of notability, even if it gets a lot of traffic. WP:MUSIC demands third-party reliable sources, i.e. sources independent of the band itself. Walton monarchist89 16:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - PlayRadioPlay IS NOTABLE RIGHT NOW, he will only be MORE notable in a few months.--64.134.178.245 07:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I'm working on citing sources right now. Dan's been in several newspapers. --~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 14:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lisa. Unfortunately, the dreams of a "17 year old kid that's following his heart" aren't a good reason for keeping an article. And per WP:CRYSTAL, the fact that he may have an album released in 6 months time, and that it may be popular, is not a good reason for keeping an article either. Most bands on MySpace don't deserve wikipedia articles, which is why myself and others spend far too much of out time deleting scores of them. yandman 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yandman. Fails WP:MUSIC; no evidence of coverage by independent third-party sources. Only external links are to the band's official site and MySpace page, which do not constitute adequate external coverage. See my comments above. Walton monarchist89 16:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Tag the page as unsourced and it will be taken care of. The page has only been up a few days, give it a break. The reason it keeps getting remade is because enough people keep visiting it that it gets remade. PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW ABOUT PLAYRADIOPLAY. that's the reason wikipedia is here.--64.134.178.245 07:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a highly trafficked MySpace page does not constitute notability. This article is completely unsourced except for the MySpace page; "official" website only sells merch. Band hasn't even released a single EP yet. PlayRadioPlay does not even appear on Island Records' website. Nothing about this band currently warrants being included in wikipedia.--Mbc362 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PlayRadioPlay! IS a notable artist with thousands of fans, a MAJOR record label, national tours, an EP that will be released in just a few months, and an LP release that will be in about a year. Just because YOU haven't heard of a band doesn't mean it's not notable! PlayRadioPlay! is really in a bad spot, because the general demographic of his fans are teenage females, and most wikipedians are older males. Even though PlayRadioPlay doesn't have an official release YET, he still has gained the attention of thousands of people, gaining millions of MySpace plays and views. It's impossible to say this isn't notable. There are far worse wikipedia pages out there, go find them. --~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 07:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep PlayRadioPlay! is a very notable up and rising artist. He has gained national and even worldwide support on myspace.com. He is already very accomplished and is continually growing.

-ClayRadioClay! 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep PlayRadioPlay! is a big up and coming artist. He has a huge following and is a signed act. He has a EP that has a set release date and has played numerous shows. This is a band that will be huge in a few months. They already have a huge following underground but pretty soon he wil lbe more main stream. He is very noteable because of the amount of people he has listen to his music everyday.

-Thegetawayplan9 23:26, 19 February 2007.

Keep Wikipedia can't delete this page. PlayRadioPlay! is important. Maybe not to EVERYONE, but to SOME people. And those people count. Wikipedia was made to inform the masses on different subjects, INCLUDING bands. If you have an article on My Chemical Romance, you have to let PlayRadioPlay! have one too. Using the fact that PlayRadioPlay isn't 'mainstream' as your reason to delete it is wrong. Just because PlayRadioPlay! isn't favored by some wikipedians doesn't mean a thing. I could care less about your article on 30 Seconds to Mars, but it's there. I could care less about your information on The Killers, but it's there. PlayRadioPlay! deserves to have a page. PRP! helped me in times of need. Dan helped me, he really did. Information on him, and PRP! is important to me. Without him, i might not be here today. If you get rid of this page, you get rid of my help. Martin Luther King Jr. helped people and he has a page. Why can't Dan? He has the right for freedom of speech and, if you delete this, you are suppressing his right. AlixTheEskimo 07:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)AlixTheEskimo[reply]

Keep PlayRadioPlay! as they are a notable artist and they're becoming more popular by the minute. If people intruiged by the band come to wikipedia to read about the band, they will have no page to view, no information to read, nothing to learn. Even if a band is not 'worthy of a wikipedia page' why get rid of it just because one person thinks so? I'm sure there are people who do like that band, and they should not have the right of reading about that band taken away from them.

Keep While you mat not consider the band notable does not mean that you can try to delete them. Although not hugely notable to some of the general public Dan or Play Radio Play is signed to a major label and is currently in studio recording a brand new EP to be released this year. He has thousands of fans, which if that isn't enough to prove notability. The deletion of this page would be closer to Wikipedia vandalism then cleaning up of the site. There are far worse pages on Wikipedia that deserve attention then this wonderful musicians. Wikipedia is an informative source and should not have articles deleted because thet have no significance to an insignificant individual. Thus why I vote KEEP on this article.

-7:09 AM, 20 February, 2007.

Keep PlayRadioPlay! is most definatly a notable band. Dan has done so much to make PlayRadioPlay! what it is today. By deleting PlayRadioPlay!'s page, it's showing absolutly no respect to all of his hard work, and all the other upcomming bands who have been put down by the man. PlayRadioPlay! deserves just as much attention as any other band. I vote keep for PlayRadioPlay!

-Bry Leigh 11:37 PM, 19 February, 2007.

Keep PlayRadioPlay! is a notable artist and his music is loved by many. just look at his myspace, kids all over the world are crazy over him. he has over 5 million plays on his myspace proving that hes very popular and well known making him worthy of having a wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itsferlove (talk • contribs) 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep PlayRadioPlay is a legitimate music project that is rapidly gaining fans having just recently been signed to a major label. Deleting the page is completely unnecessary and would go against Wiki's main purpose: allowing people to gain information on a range of topics. Very strongly against Deleting.

- Amy - 20 Feb 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ameztv (talk • contribs) 07:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I don't understand why this is being deleted. It is becoming a very big band, certainly a lot bigger than many of the bands wikipedia has pages for. They are signed to Stolen Transmission record label, which has artists that have a wikipedia account. PRP has over 70,000 friends on myspace. He is playing at The Bamboozle music festival in New Jersey this year. A full-length EP will be out this year, and it WILL be successful. If the problem with this is that there are no EP's out yet, you can solve that by just putting his upcoming EP under his discography section as an UPCOMING EP. There is certainly enough hype to do that. Also, there is a lot of information about how and where Playradioplay! came from in his blog section on myspace, so there is no lack of information. My main arguement is that there are many artists that have wikipedia articles and are not as popular as Playradiplay. Junejo 07:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PlayRadioPlay is definitely a "notable" band. How could a band with 1704590 Myspace views not be notable? If this were to be banned, then so should most other bands.. deleting this would defeat the whole purpose of Wikipedia. Information worthy of sharing should be shared, and this is definitely worthy information and a worthy band. I vote to keep this article.Beccaronica 07:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely legitimate group. No reason for deletion. Don't set an unreversable precedent.Fiaworldrally 07:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: isnt it more work to delete them then just keep it up? i vote KEEP : ) _Hicklingt 07:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playradioplay is in fact a notable artist. Dan has an incredible talent, which makes his music very unique Just because there is no actual website for PlayRadioPlay! and only a myspace, shouldn’t be a reason, for deletion . He is signed to a MAJOR record label, an EP will be released within a few months. PlayRadioplay! may not be known to most adults, but teenagers word wide if haven’t listened, have heard of PlayRadioPlay! He is becoming more popular day by day, with well over a million plays. If that can’t be suitable for a wikipedia article I don’t know what can. -KaraOh kara 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry to say it in the face of such enthusiasm, but I don't think PlayRadioPlay yet meets our guideline WP:BAND. Based on that, WP:INN, and WP:CRYSTAL, I agree with the nom that this should be salted until PlayRadioPlay meets the guidelines. Which I hope will be soon, and I wish the band and their supporters the best of luck in making that happen. William Pietri 07:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- - What guidlines is PlayRadioPlay! not meeting other than people CLAIMING it is n't notable, and not having sources? An article has to be up for longer than a day before it's expected to be fully sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.134.178.245 (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - If you can demonstrate that PlayRadioPlay meets WP:BAND through verifiable information from reliable sources then the article will be kept. Discussions like this stay open for five days, so you'll have plenty of time. If not, then you are welcome to recreate the article as soon as PlayRadioPlay meets WP:BAND guidelines. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - From WP:BAND
      "#6 Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."
      PlayRadioPlay! is the most prominent representative of a new genre of music called "Electro Pop" or "Synth Pop" in Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, as well as online.
      "#8 Has won or placed in a major music competition."
      PlayRadioPlay! won a national competition to perform at Bamboozle Left on October 15th and 16th, a major music concert in Pomonoa, California with many notable acts, including Dashboard Confessional and Brand New. The event was hosted at Cal Poly Pomona Athletic field with 68 bands on 5 stages.
      In about a month, PlayRadioPlay will have qualified for more of these criteria, as he is currently shooting a music video that will receive national airplay, and is about to have an official release that will receive national airplay on public radio.--~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 08:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      - Hi, Lisa. That looks like progress. Can you show us where we can verify that information from reliable sources? And do you have anything more? Note that what might happen in the future doesn't count for this discussion. See WP:CRYSTAL for more information on why. William Pietri 08:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Hey william.Here are two (of many) press releases about PlayRadioPlay publically announced on AbsolutePunk.net
        PlayRadioPlay Signs to Major Label
        Bamboozle Lineup Additions--~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 08:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        You're making progress, but I think you should go back and check out WP:BAND, WP:V, and WP:RS again. In particular, I'm thinking of this bit: "[The band] has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Any information in the article has to be verifiable from reliable sources. Forum posts generally don't qualify. William Pietri 08:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        http://www.thebamboozleleft.net/page-lineup.php --Ameztv 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep. That's proof that he played at a 68-band festival. But it doesn't demonstrate that he won a major music competition. They also don't list PlayRadioPlay on their list of artists or their Buzz Bands section, which suggests that PlayRadioPlay wasn't featured. William Pietri 08:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        PlayRadioPlay didn't play at the festival. He did win the contest though.--~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 08:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        Ok. Can you prove that? An article in a newspaper announcing the winners would be a good start. And can you find reliable sources saying that the contest is a major one? William Pietri 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is the press release about him winning, but having to drop.
        PlayRadioPlay Drop Bamboozle
        and the only way I know how to prove that bamboozle is a major even is to link you to The Bamboozle's SOURCED wikipedia page. --~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 09:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at the references people have dug up so far, I don't think we have enough material from reliable sources yet for an article. Remember that, as it says in WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." What we can't verify, we don't put in. Forum posts don't count as reliable sources, and even press releases would be of limited use (if we had any). The only thing we have is that he was on the schedule for one of many music festivals, but we don't have proof that he won a competition, or that the competition is a major one like, say, the Eurovision_Song_Contest. Does that make things clearer? William Pietri 16:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PlayRadioPlay is a band with devoted followers that is known by far more than just "its local town". He's known by word of mouth by at least every kid in your normal highschool setting. if not as popular as hellogoodbye, without even having released his first album, he is moreso. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.55.94 (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Please note:

This is not a straw vote, simply restating what others have said before you does not further this discussion. If you have a new argument or proof of PlayRadioPlay!'s notability, please share it. Additionally, the fact that Dan Hunter is directing people to this page and the fact that the vast majority of the users voting to keep have no other contributions to this encyclopedia has not gone unnoticed.
PlayRadioPlay! is not mentioned on either Stolen Transmission Records' or Island Records' website. No proof that it is signed to either company is given. Additionally, blogs or message boards are not considered reliable sources.
Wikipedia is not MySpace. People go to MySpace to find and listen to bands they could not otherwise find, people go to Wikipedia for encyclopedic matters.
"PRP! is notable because it will release an EP soon and it will be successful," "This is a band that will be huge in a few months," etc. is not a valid argument per WP:Crystal.
"There are far worse wikipedia pages out there, go find them" is not a valid argument per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
"Wikipedia was made to inform the masses on different subjects, INCLUDING bands," "Wikipedia is an informative source and should not have articles deleted because thet have no significance to an insignificant individual," etc. is not a valid argument per WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING.
"If you get rid of this page, you get rid of my help. Martin Luther King Jr. helped people and he has a page. Why can't Dan? He has the right for freedom of speech and, if you delete this, you are suppressing his right." is not a valid argument per the true meaning of freedom of speech.
"Even if a band is not 'worthy of a wikipedia page' why get rid of it just because one person thinks so?" is not a valid argument per WP:HARMLESS.
"If this were to be banned, then so should most other bands" is not a valid argument per WP:ALLORNOTHING.

When PRP! does release an album and it turns out to be even mildly successful, sure that could make PRP! notable enough to include in Wikipedia. We're not saying it can never be included, just that it doesn't meet the requirements (yet).--Mbc362 16:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: u shouldnt delete this page because people luv this guys music and ur takin that away from them.Alot of poeple listen to his music,and its very important to Dan and fans that you dont close this page. I have one question for whoever is deleting this, have you heard this guys music? It keeeps me goin every day!=] Thank you and i hope you make the right descion.

Keep: I have something to say! FYI, just "someone" did NOT spam the PlayRadioPlay page! That someone was Dan, the writer and recorder and sole artist who made PlayRadioPlay! And now he is blocked for it! Here is his most recent blog that can be viewed on PlayRadioPlay's myspace.

"The Wikipedia Battle and New Song Leakage

)

First of all (hehe), this is going to sound unusual... A few days ago I logged onto Wikipedia.com and defaced the PlayRadioPlay Wikipedia page by changing all of the text to neon green and pink font, and adding "Daniel often spams his own Wikipedia page", among other things. Being the power-hungry little boy I am, I then went to the George W. Bush article and changed all of the font to red, white, and blue, and added, "Anybody that takes down the patriotic font hates America!" (Joking, of course).

Well, serious Wikipedians didn't like this and the change to the Dubya article was quickly reverted. Also, the PlayRadioPlay page (as well as the Sky Eats Airplane page, which I posted a few funny pictures of Lee from my private collection on) was DELETED!!! A few days later, someone was nice enough to post a new LONGER PlayRadioPlay page, and the veteran Wikipedians are trying to get it deleted AGAIN. Thanks to everyone so far that has voted to "keep" the wikipedia article! I would vote but... I'm banned from wikipedia :)

In closing, I've learned my lesson, I'll no longer deface Wikipedia articles... however fun and amusing it may be. Someone should also remake the Sky Eats Airplane Wikipedia article since I was accidently responsible for it's deletion and I feel bad :(.

The wikipedia article (Thank you Lisa Suarez!!) can be viewed here

...

Oh well, I love all of you! Thanks for being totally radical.

<3 Dan" --Hiding Talk 19:01, 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, userfy and redirect. - Daniel.Bryant 08:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intranational conflict[edit]

Completely unsourced, reads like an essay and is better dealt with at ethnic conflict, civil war, etc. Cordless Larry 14:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and copy/move to the creator's sandbox. No citation or sources and seems as if this article is a work in progress by its author. Works in progress are fine, but not in the main namespace. Also redundant to the articles referenced by the nom, but if the author is willing to work on improving articles about internal violent struggles, s/he may wish to use some of this text in doing so. -Markeer 16:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy per above. However, also redirect to civil war for the time being. Though most ethnic conflicts are intranational, not all are so, and in any case intranational ethnic conflicts are a subset of civil wars. -- Black Falcon 22:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the way the article is organized is just funny.--Sefringle 04:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and "Userfy" I like that term - thanks!. This article has potential, but it does read like a work in progress.... - NDCompuGeek 14:36, 19 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 08:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZZalgern0n[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Lacks independent sources. IMDb page exists, but is unconvincing: his 'films' are "awaiting 5 votes", and have no details to them, etc. [40] Account seems to be by the person himself, User:ZZalgern0n, and seems to exist only for self-promotion: WP:COI The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTO; also lacks independent sources, as the external links are mostly to his own sites. No evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 16:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTO. Cordless Larry 17:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTO. No real name given hurts a lot, too. Put bluntly, vain vanity in vain. JuJube 09:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I considered nomination this myself. It could be an example of WP:VAIN, I think the problem is WP:RS. Malla nox 01:03, 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 keep. - Daniel.Bryant 08:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flashback (media group)[edit]

No independent assertions of notability. Claims to have over 100,000 active members between the English and Swedish groups; yet of the 3,000 odd member of the English forum, only 600 or so have posted, while only half of the 117,000 members on the Swedish forum have posted. Drat (Talk) 15:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or either you solve it by just removing the word "active". --RichardKoin 15:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - whether the members are active or not, this isn't evidence of notability. Although the fact that it's been checked by the Swedish police might make it notable, multiple independent sources are needed to demonstrate this. Currently all external links are to the site itself; third-party sources or links are needed to meet WP:WEB. Walton monarchist89 16:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - sources now added are more than adequate to establish notability. Walton monarchist89 10:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. No secondary sources to even establish notability. Some might argue that a message board having over 6 million posts is "large" or "inherently notable" -- it isn't. --- RockMFR 18:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boards ranked at BigBoards.com seem to be considered big boards around here, Flashback is. Anyway, don't focus so much on the forum, this topic is about Flashback Media Group (it should be renamed to that) and not Flashback Forum. -Freddo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.228.240.87 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I think this article seems edited/fixed. I don't see how it breaks any rules. I think it will be interesting to see this article grow. --MrToken 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there are no independent, reliable, verifiable sources to show why this is notable. The only sources are the site itself. Verifiability, Reliability, and Neutal Points of View are three core rules of Wikipedia.--Drat (Talk) 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This site has clearly made an impact on enough people to be called "notable" --KJS1982 10:10, 19 February 2007
Nice to see how the information is getting improved. It is good. --MrToken 18:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's in the Swedish news on a regular basis, that English readers cannot read them does not make the subject less notable. Nyp 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, then it should be referenced in the article. --- RockMFR 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can go through various online editions of major Swedish newspapers and use them as references in the article. The question is whether non-English sources would be left there. I've read other editors claim that non-English sources not should be used. I am not familiar with the all the policies of the English edition of Wikipedia, care to direct me to the applicable ones? I wouldn't want to waste my time on looking for articles that I can't use. Nyp 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)::[reply]

- Flashback in the media for various reasons: http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=443438 http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=699507 http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=644050 http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=593625 http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=664721 http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=664721 --MrToken 07:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more on Svenska Dagbladet. http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_12753673.asp, http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_13664888.asp and Göteborgs-Posten, http://www.gp.se/gp/road/Classic/shared/printArticle.jsp?d=355&a=277496. --Nyp 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Flashback has had a long history of being watched på SÄPO (Swedish security police), being prosecuted for offering "too much" freedom of speech, such as outing convicted pedophiles, hosting discussions about drugs and illegal computer hardware. As Nyp is saying though, how interesting would lots of tabloid articles in Swedish be for English users, just to verify that the site is what it claims to be? --Frater illum 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added sources now establish notability. Good job. --- RockMFR 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as recently added sources now demonstrate the notability of this subject. (jarbarf) 00:40, 22 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) 2007-02-23 08:15Z

Celtic Wrestling[edit]

Contested prod. Minor league independent wrestling promotion, no sources, no assertion of notability, fails WP:V and WP:CORP One Night In Hackney 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no proof of notability; external links are mostly to sites affiliated with the organisation, or to MySpace pages. Delete unless evidence of multiple third-party coverage is provided. Walton monarchist89 16:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no external, non trivia sources of information and therefore fails notability.--Vintagekits 16:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Maustrauser 22:09, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:17Z

Sydney Ling[edit]

Previous AfD led to no consensus. Subsequent review stated that unless article and notability was significantly improved within a reasonable period of time, that a new AfD would be warranted. I see little substantive changes, and it's been almost nine months. I believe that everything has already been said in the articles for creation archive (linked in the old AfD), article talk page, original AfD, and deletion review.

If a man demanding to be called Lord and then demanding his own Wikipedia article isn't vanity, I don't know what is. Thank you. Girolamo Savonarola 15:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to me that the Guinness Book of Records mention and the other external sources constitute multiple third-party coverage per WP:BIO. As to calling him "Lord", the article does not demand this, it simply claims that he is sometimes credited under that title (although ideally this statement should be sourced). (For all we know it could be his actual title - hereditary titles do exist in Holland, and he would be entitled to use the stated form if he were the eldest son of a hereditary peer. Even if it's a false title, that doesn't make him inherently non-notable.) Walton monarchist89 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holding a Guinness record does not in and of itself constitute notability. Girolamo Savonarola 17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The externally sourced notability - film career - seems trivial, weighed against the strong possibility that we're on the receiving end of promo for some individual or collective hoax/fantasy. The fake nobility isn't a good sign; there have no real Holy Roman Empire titles for centuries, whatever the alleged Imperial Council of Princes and Counts of Germany and Europe says. Googling finds a number of sites making extravagant claims [41]] [42] [43] but I can't find verification for any of it in NewsBank, Times Digital Archive, etc. Tearlach 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one minor accomplishment does not translate into notability, nor do friendships or business associations with notable persons. Almost nothing besides the Guinness record is remotely verifiable; my guess is that the aristocratic title is about as valid as Zsa Zsa's eighth husband's. --Dhartung | Talk 22:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need to guess about notability, it is clearly non-notable according to the article itself: his record for the longest film documentary was "featuring his grandmother actress Martha Stelloo," and then says "He has primarily been involved in packaging,promotion and the financing of US and European projects as well as low-budget independent European films," avoiding a direct reference to more than one--a film whose notability has not been established. Personally, my guess is that a hoax would make more extravagant claims. DGG 11:07, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:18Z

The Electric Universe (book)[edit]

Retroactive objection to proposed deletion; reason for proposed deletion was "Non-notable" with no further explanation. AfD nomination is pro-forma following undeletion; nominator has no opinion. ➥the Epopt 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of notability; only external sources are the book itself and the author's own website. Delete unless further external sources can be added to demonstrate notability. Walton monarchist89 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content has been changed with several internal links, making it an comprehensive overview of the Astrophysic with the electric point of view. Therefore it belongs into the Astrophysics category and should not be deleted. Thanx --Dkoerti 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong delete This is an attempt to try again to get an article on the concept Electric Universe, an extremely dubious example of pseudo science, deleted here repeatedly in several different formats. Cf. Talk:Electric universe (concept)/Archive. The remaining article in WP is Electric_Enceladus, a good candidate for deletion, which I have temporarily recategorized from Astrophysics to Pseudoscience. The article at hand is devoted to 2 reviews of the book, quoted in full, and to a detailed exposition of the theory--which has already been removed repeatedly. extreme length.

No, this book has nothing to do with the Electric Universe (Concept) article. --84.9.191.165 12:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of evidence that anyone but the two reviewers has ever read the book, and the reliance of the article on two COI web sites. it isnt even N as pseudoscience. Even if it were, the article here would need to be stubbified to remove unsourced material. DGG 06:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there are substanial references in the article and some demonstrations of notability. NBeale 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and misleading GB 05:46, 22 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, single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Shear[edit]

Two newer users have expressed concerns over the notability of this article's subject. These users are unfamiliar with how to file an AfD, so I am doing it on their behalf. Italiavivi 15:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator recommends keep. Italiavivi 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced reliably and passes WP:BIO. Only possible question is whether the article is sufficiently concerned with the person rather than the incident in which she was allegedly involved. If the incident, then the article should be renamed. Dekimasu が... 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - multiple independent coverage by third-party sources (news reports) demonstrates notability per WP:BIO. Good referencing and external links. Walton monarchist89 16:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a case of prejudgment. If Miriam Shear lied she is getting an entry she doesn't deserve. Also it is being hijacked by only one opinion other than mine. When deletion has occurred for their side it was allowed by them but if by me it was labeled always as vandalism. I had to push for the little input I could. I say drop the article. yisraelasper
Keep we cannot consider deletions just because somebody does not like the content of an article, and in this case it is properly referenced and verifiable though I don't know if it is really of interest to an encyclopedia Alf photoman 00:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete total POV, full of lies. Article is constantly being hijacked by Italiavivi who has a very non-NPOV agenda. The fact that an article is written about a person in a newspaper does not say anything about the notability of that person. We don't have articles about every person who claims to have been the victim of a supposed crime. The article fits all guidelines for deletion. --GivatShaul 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:GivatShaul is the 5th suspected sockpuppet of banned user Daniel575. Italiavivi 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't affect the argument especially with an online encyclopedia. The article on Miriam Shear would not have been put in any other encyclopedia. The rules were meant to enhance Wikipedia's reliability not to become an end to itself. yisraelasper

- Sockpuppet? What? --GivatShaul 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The incident is notable as expressing a well-known source of controversy, the continuing opposition of the Haredi community to women praying at that site. The only question concerns BLP, whether the article should be renamed. It would be good to have evidence that she does not oppose publicity. DGG 11:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Women praying at what site??? Now what is this?? --GivatShaul 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is called nonsense. Women pray at that site. yisraelasper
Keep Sources demonstrate notability from incident. --Oakshade 05:22, 21 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 blatant advertising. No Guru 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friends For Care[edit]

Quote from the article:"In case of enquiries please contact Prashant - +919860090703 or e-mail : friendsforcare@gmail.com." Advertisement, violates WP:CORP. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious advertising, no evidence of coverage by third-party external sources. Alternatively, borderline for speedy deletion under G11 (blatant advertising). Walton monarchist89 16:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. --Parker007 02:16, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:20Z

LDS Singles Hearts[edit]

fails WP:WEB the individual who created the article was seemingly aware of that and created it with the notability tag in place. He's had over a month to come back and add the necessary references but has failed to do so. Crossmr 16:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - really borderline for notability at the moment. The mention in Time magazine counts as an independent external source per WP:WEB, but the policy also demands multiple non-trivial sources, so the current range of sourcing isn't sufficient. Delete unless more sources can be added. Walton monarchist89 16:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs more sources... More everything actually. One mention in a magazine does not a notable site make.--MonkeyTimeBoy 06:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomOo7565 06:34, 21 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 and move to Derek Walker. — CharlotteWebb 00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Derek walker[edit]

This article seems to be created by a single-user account, is POV, and unsourced. Violates WP:BLP

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His role in the planning of Milton Keynes appears to be overstated; he is not one of the six founding fathers listed in Milton Keynes Development Corporation. If he is just the head city architect for a city of 250k, rather than the original architect and planner of the city, that doesn't seem so notable. Head of Architecture at the Royal College of Art seems to be enough to pass WP:PROF for me, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete unless sourced if the article gets reliable sources by the time the afd expires, I'd support a keep. i kan reed 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added two books to the article, but havent been able to find a source the "Head of Architecture" statement. John Vandenberg 21:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source that Walker is/was a prof. at the RCA and a former Trustee of the Royal Armories. Highly unreliable source that he was head (doesn't even give the correct name for the RCA). —David Eppstein 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David , just what journal is that? I have access, but only through the journal name. DGG 07:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have access, but google has two hits for "Derek Walker" "Royal College of Art" site:jstor.org, and only one for "Professor Derek Walker" in the The Burlington Magazine. John Vandenberg 08:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an editorial entitled "Royal Armouries plc" in Burlington Magazine (1994), vol. 136, no. 1091, p. 67. The specific sentence is "The architects of the building, including Professor Derek Walker of the Royal College of Art, a former Trustee of the Royal Armouries, have produced a dispiriting model: ..." —David Eppstein 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several book sources verify that Walker was the first Chief Architect of Milton Keynes from 1970 to 1976, very notable in the context of one of Britain's most important planned communities. --Dhartung | Talk 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sources in the article and noted in this AfD sufficiently demonstrate notability. -- Black Falcon 22:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Seems to have been sourced for notability now. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Seems to be notable. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--sourced in major professional magazine.(and could have been sourced properly initially.) DGG 11:34, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. I've tried to discount the less helpful comments, which were - in about equal parts - in the vein of "keep because I like him" (in the first part of the discussion) and "delete because he's not notable" (in the later part of the discussion). In both parts of the discussion there are also some commenting patterns that cause me to recall that canvassing or puppeting is not permitted in Wikipedia deletion processes. Among the editors who evaluated the specific coverage that Shmuel Yerushalmi has received, there is no consensus as to whether or not it meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Sandstein 08:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shmuel Yerushalmi[edit]

NN unpublished "protest poet", casually mentioned in one news story. Coordinated promotion effort both here and in hewiki. Delete. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Shmuel is not unpublished. I have seen his works in translation in Al Ittihad. His poems were certainly notable enough to gain the attention of the Israeli Internal Security authorities. The references at on the article are sufficient to demonstrate WP:N. Protest poets are rare in Israeli society, and I do not know any other case of a poet who has made the transition from right wing Zionism to anti-Zionist communism. He is a contravertial individual and you may not approve of his political ideas. But the deletion policy clearly states
"XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally."
Abu ali 06:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Eh, assume good faith. Of course his politics are repugnant to me, but that is not why I nominated him for deletion. I resent the supposition. Noam Chomsky's politics are also repugnant to me, but I do not dispute his claim to notability. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Abu Ali, "Protest poets" are anything but rare in Israeli society, in fact non protest poets are rare. We don't need every single one of them, only the notable ones. This is clearly a speedy delete. Amoruso 03:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete It is quite possible that he will become a notable activist and perhaps a notable poet, and I wish him well at both, but I dont think he is N quite yet vote changed, see below. .DGG 07:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I think that the testimony of a country´s Security Serice when they investiagate a radical activist and consider him dangerous and inform him that they keep an eye on him, and this is reported by reputable media both in the country itslef and internationally, is a reliable proof of finding him notable as an activist. The Security Service can be considered an impartical witness, they have no interest in Wikipedia, they only have an interest in which activists is notable and which one is negligable from their point of view, and they clearly consider yerushalmi notable. Adam Keller 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
KeepWhy delete this? Yerushalmi is a well-known poet and activist. His arrest and interrogation were widely noted around the world; his comments are frequently quoted; and his poems (in Hebrew at least) widely available. The claim that he is non-notable is wholly spurious. --RolandR 02:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note to admin: Abu Ali, Adam Keller and RonaldR come to each other for support on disputes/edits^{[44][45][46][47][48][49] etc.} - personally, i feel their voices should be counted as 1 vote... i'm neutral about this article, i never heard of him but i wouldn't mind giving him an article on wiki. Jaakobou 07:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou's opinion above is prejudiced and uncalled-for. There are over 1.5 million articles on English Wikipedia, and I had not come across this one until I saw it mentioned on User talk:Adam Keller; nobody canvassed me for support. I have, however, herad of Shmuel Yerushalmi, and have previously, off-Wikipedia, forwarded his poems to friends. So I agree that he is notable and deserving of an entry in Wikipedia, and I object -- quite genuinely and independently -- to deleting the article. In any case, Abu Ali's message to Adam Keller was transparent and available for all to see, so it can hardly be considered an underhand attempt to subvert Wikipedia. But whi knows how many off-wiki messages may have been exchanged by editors trying to delete this article. Any attempt to discount our opinions will be strongly resisted. RolandR 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also heard of my friend Assaf you want to see some of his poems ? He forwarded them to me in ICQ. How lovely. My little sister also wrote a few nice poems. Not notable, it's really a speedy delete. Amoruso 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I opposite to idea to delete a article about Shmuel Yerushalmi, becouse, Yerushalmi this well known exelent protest poet. I think, that this will be not according to justice and not according to moral. to delete so known and great poet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuval Halperin (talk • contribs) — Yuval Halperin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: I have a blog whence I post all the talkbacks I had written to news articles, in addition I compose and publish there many other political and general articles, if he deserves an article here on English Wikiepdia, then so do I and half the world. He's not influential, maybe he will be some day, but these days he's no different than any other blogger. He claims to a public figure? Try a self proclaimed public figure maybe. His interrogation was a nonevent, type in his name on both Hebrew and English Google and show me a single signifcant news source that covers this? freearmy — freearmy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Exactly, I'm starting articles on other blogs from Bama Chadasha, if that's a new criteria in wikipedia, truly embarrassing this article was even created. Amoruso 03:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we are getting used to it: attempts to remove the biography of anybody critical of Israel. Huldra 12:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Yerushalmi is a strong poetic voice in a time that postmodern artists have lost track of what happens around them and don't know when to take position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.48.206 (talk • contribs)

KEEP: I think. that very important to keep a article about Shmuel Yerushalmi, becouse Yeruhalmi is ones along poets write hebrew, that write against Zionism and in support of the peace and equality in relations between midlle eastern peoples. Hes very high voice for stabilisation and human rights. Him voice support to struggle against imperialistic wars and for socialic justace around the world. I wish to propose to cancel all plans and tryings in target to delete a article about Shmuel Yerushalmi, and to understand, that all trying to delete it, this political act, against freedom and justice. Attia al-Asam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.76.246 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Could people please avoid WP:AADD and discuss whether this man is notable under the criteria of WP:BIO or not? Sandstein 16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. The poet is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." He has numerous news articles about himself, about his initiatives, interviews, etc. -- Black Falcon 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Black Falcon. As the subject of multiple independent articles, he is notable. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Initially a Delete, but I'd like to see if there is a significant entry on the Hebrew wikipedia for this guy before I decide. It currently reads like a user page. The Prince 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at [50] ابو علي 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sorry, but just not notable; not a single reliable source to be found about this article's subject, just passing mentions in a year-old French news agency article. Should he gain prominence and have actual, verifiable published material about him, not merely self-published, then he might have an article. Wikipedia is not a soap box; inclusion of articles about individuals to promote particular ideologies, without any significance/importance, is just not appropriate.--Leflyman^Talk 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if casually in a news story it makes a verifiable source Alf photoman 01:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. By your criteria, I should have an article -- and probably you, too. Wikipedia has a greater requirement for notability than a mention in a single news story.--Leflyman^Talk 01:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Yeruhalmi is ones along poets write hebrew, that write against Zionism and in support of the peace and equality": He writes against Zionism indeed, though the support of peace and equality lies in the eye of the beholder - anyway, while that stance might seem worthy to some, I fail to see what makes him notable by WP:N standards. Wait until he gets his poetry published by serious publishing houses and reconsider then. Publishing vaguely "in different literary and political sites," is pathetic, even if these unnamed cites should be named eventually. --tickle me 01:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shmuel Yerushalmi publishes his poetry and essays in an open web forum and participates also in real life political activities. He is not notable by the Wikipedian standards set in WP:N and WP:BIO. But, as DGG correctly points out above, this may of course change in the future. gidonb 01:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Weak delete~~ Was interviewed in Sikur Memukad (whose reliability I am unsure of) but together may be enough to make arguably notable. However, a single mention and a very one sided interview is not enough to write an article. I can't find any other sources in English or hebrew that would be non-trivial reliable sources. JoshuaZ 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Changing position to weak keep since he is reffered to [51] as well-known (obviously highly partisan source but still relevant).JoshuaZ 01:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any secondary published sources about this Shmuel Yerushalmi. All I could find was a mention on IndyMedia (that is not a reliable source as anyone can contribute "articles" to it.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
Delete This guy writes poems on the internet blog website called "Bama Chadasha". It's like writing an article about a popular wikipedian, not that he's that popular in that blog website either btw. He might deserve mention in the Tali Fahima article if the story is credible, but that's it. He doesn't meet the notable criteria to have an article about him or we'll have one on every enthusiastic blogger. Amoruso 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per gidonb. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it doesn't seem that there are any non-trivial reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not a cause celebre yet. JFW | T@lk 07:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP should not be a part of a promotional campaign of someone non-notable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable, as the paucity of external references n the article shows. Isarig 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable, independent third-party sources to establish his notability. Beit Or 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it violates WP:NN and also WP:COI as well as WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. IZAK 07:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Shmuel is a poet, and he is anti-sionist. There are not many poets, and not many anti-zionists, in Israel. So the article about him should be kept
- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by P. Canarutto (talk • contribs) 08.51 UTC, 20 February 2007. RolandR 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the closing admin: Please note this is a new user's first edit. [52] gidonb 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Strong keep I have changed my vote from delete, on the basis of the evidence of publication, and the apparent attempt to delete the article on what might possibly in some instances be political grounds. I express appreciate to the eds. who clarified this, for I had not initially realized. DGG 11:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Leflyman and tickleme. This person is not notable now. Heck, I'VE written poetry in Hebrew, where is MY article?! Just being in a small subcategory doesn't make you notable, otherwise we should have an article on afghani poets in British Guyana, there are not too many of those either. Standard notability req's do not seem to have been met, so the article should be deleted. Avi 18:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is an obscure, unknown political polemicist. Guy Montag 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know if there are Afghani poets in Guyana (which is not British any more, it is a soverign state). If there were, they might well have gotten a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia has pages on all kinds of small minorities in all kinds of places. And if an Afghani poet in Guyana got investigated by the Guyanan Security Services for a controversial political poem, that might well make him noteworthy. By the way, how come so many people take such an intensive passionate interest in an obscure, unknown political polemicist? Adam Keller

21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

- This is the second vote of this user. Beit Or 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not expect to be counted twice (anyway, this is not a vote). I just wanted to refer to the arguments of the people writing before me.Adam Keller

21:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment an unusual and impressive number of editors have turned up to vote delete. Many of them are familiar to me and routinely revert my edits on sight. But they haven't put forward reasoned arguments for deletion beyond assertions of lack of notability (based on ignoring the citations in the article itself. More significant are the contributions of JoshuaZ and DGG who both changed their votes from delete to keep after examining the evidence and finding that the requirements for notability have been met. Will their voices be heard, or will their voices be drowned out by those who want to erase pro-peace Israelis from Wikipedia? We will see. ابو علي 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; the nomination blurb has been proven incorrect (no harm done by the nom though for listing it on Afd); the subject meets WP:BIO and WP:V is not an issue. John Vandenberg 22:30, 23 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. Sandstein 07:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotzine[edit]

No evidence that this is a notable publication; ^{[Check Google hits]} Google search results in 183 pages, mostly directory entries and self-submissions. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third-party sourcing, written like an advertisement (ex: "Now that Scotzine is gradually building up we are always on the look out for new members to volunteer there services and thankfully we have built up a small team that carry out various tasks, such as: Programming, Design, Photography and Research."), absolutely no evidence of any notability.--Mbc362 17:44, 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 08:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Carcer City[edit]

Speedy Delete Pure hoax. PURE hoax. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Total hoax, no references, nothing of value. Croctotheface 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 09:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax. Dbam 20:04, 19 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 08:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto: Carcer City[edit]

Speedy Delete Pure hoax. PURE hoax. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Going with WP:CRYSTAL here. ==Dennisthe2 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --The Dark Side 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 09:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a total hoax, unreferenced, no value whatsoever. Creator is a possible sockpuppet of User:Sean mc sean. Croctotheface 12:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definetaly a hoax no dout about it how would he know although the formality of the article is very believable but still no sources from Google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Czesc26 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax. Dbam 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax rubbish. However, not blatant and vandalistic enough to speedy even if we had a speedy deletion criterion for utter hoaxes, which we don't - this is borderline plausible. Yet, dragging this through the Process feels like waste of perfectly good time... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:50, 19 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 08:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probability control[edit]

I put a PROD tag on this article, but someone removed it, so here I am. As it stands, this article is errant nonsense, suggesting that a machine might be constructed to navigate among alternate universes (many-worlds interpretation of QM). DavidCBryant 15:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to be thorough, I ran a google search on "probability control" and got 14,100 hits. I reviewed the summaries for the first 50 of those. The term "probability control" is used to describe a feature of Code Division Multiplexing (CDMA) in Electrical Engineering. It is also used to describe some sort of statistical procedure in a number of math papers (I suspect this procedure is connected with the theory of Error Correcting Codes underlying CDMA technology … I didn't take the time to read any of the papers to be certain). It is also used to describe a feature of a number of video games. This article's reference to QM was the only one of the 50 that referred to quantum mechanics, and it came up at the top of list.

In my opinion, none of the legitimate uses of the phrase "probability control" are notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia, and the best thing to do is to put this article out of its misery. DavidCBryant 15:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge with quantum immortality. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extraordinary articles require extraordinary proof, but this article has no references. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not only no references, but no content except the one sentence statement. DGG 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete This may be a logical consequence of quantum immortality, which is SF (by Bruce Sterling, IIRC); but that belongs in that article, if anywhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. (jarbarf) 00:53, 22 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) 2007-02-23 08:22Z

NLP Hot 20[edit]

Non-notable record chart published on MySpace. Disputed prod. ShadowHalo 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. Article created by a single-purpose account (Gliky (talk · contribs)). The MySpace profile has all of 9 friends ... really says it all. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 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 Redirect to Muscle car. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:22Z

The Muscle Car Wars[edit]

anon Contested prod. This page is an unnecssary content fork from the Muscle car page. It contradicts its parent page and contains no actual info that is not discussed in more depth elsewhere Daniel J. Leivick 18:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for AFD here. Just turn this into a redirect. Friday (talk) 15:39, 19 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, which is the clear concensus after the rewrite stage.^{Note: modified close, see history} - Daniel.Bryant 11:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Engineering Fails (Movie)[edit]

Complete load of bollocks. Tried to speedy as nonsense when it got created - admin demurred. Listed here. Megapixie 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Henry Petroski or speedy delete. Real movie, nonsense description. Probably I should have listened to Megapixie and speedied it. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd suggest BJAODNing it because that image is pretty amusing, but I suppose that'd violate fair use. =( Anyway, the article provides no reference for the claim that it was a "blockbuster hit of epic proportions". ShadowHalo 14:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ed. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I replaced the obviously fraudulent page with a truthful stub. What's left now is to decide whether the short film has sufficient notability to merit its own article. ~~I'm neutral on that issue.~~ --Hyperbole 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The film appears in 80 libraries and appears to have been taught in numerous undergrad courses, including at least one at M.I.T. I can't actually find a reliable source for any of that--just catalogs and e-mails from professors on listservs--but I have no reason to doubt any of it. --Hyperbole 08:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it's been made presentable. Give it a chance. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - even cleaned up - I'm not sure that it's notable enough per Wikipedia:Notability (films). It's not even in imdb. Megapixie 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 18:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It now looks like a presentable stub and the film seems notable enough to stay in Wikipedia. However, I'd suggest moving it to When Engineering Fails (film) per the standard format. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The evidence of academic use is sufficient. DGG 11:45, 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. If anyone wants the limited amount of information relative to Sherlock Holmes to merge into that article, ask me or another administrator. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tennison Road[edit]

I doubt that this road is notable. Proximity to a football ground and some Conan Doyle connections aren't enough. A bit iffy 17:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see much here. The Sherlock Holmes connection is tenuous; the street isn't central to the story. The presence of a phone box fails to interest me. --Brianyoumans 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I belive that maybe this article is going to be a bit unnoticed, but remember every article counts to make Wikipedia even bigger. Besides the way it's been written is done very well. I'm the writer of this, and would be very dissapointed if this is destroyed

I've added a bit on the parks that might make it more intresting. Plus i'm going to write separate articles on these parks aswell including history of the parks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siemens2 (talk • contribs)

Comment - the reason I nominated your article for deletion centres on notability as per guideline Wikipedia:Notability, which says "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". Can you come up with sources like these?--A bit iffy 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Arthur Conan Doyle residency and it being a setting in the legendary Sherlock Holmes novels is notable per WP:LOCAL. And it is a primary road in a city, not just some sidestreet. --Oakshade 02:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Oakshade, can you come up with some evidence that the road is a primary road in London or even South Norwood? I ask because I happen to know the road and to me it's rather dull and unremarkable. The reason I know the road is because I lived for 15 years in that area, and I would not regard it as "primary".--A bit iffy 04:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "primary" is a subjective term and I respect your call on that. Certainly not "primary" for all of London, but it's also not "minor" in South Norwood. (former London resident typing here.) The added historic connection is what makes it more notable. --Oakshade 04:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I am often going down or past Tennison Road and in fact did so tonight on my way home. It's really not a major road, just a bit of a rat run with a small single decker bus route that follows many back streets in the area (it is a route that avoids principal roads on purpose). More important principal and feeder roads in the area like Selhurst Road, Woodside Green, Whitehorse Lane and Whitehorse Road are more notable from a transportation point of view and I am not sure we need an article on the address of every notable person. That said, I don't feel that strongly about this. Martín (saying/doing) 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to say Merge the interesting bits (e.g. Conan Doyle refs) into South Norwood, but they're already there, the road isn't notable otherwise. EliminatorJR 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything missing from South Norwood. Also the linked articles may also continue non notable places/things that could be merged. Regan123 21:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Arthur Conan Doyle reference (WP:LOCAL) and thus also per WP:NOT#PAPER. --Thisisbossi 12:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to show there is anything notable about theis road. Being mentioned in a work of fiction is not sufficient. Inkpaduta 14:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see any sources to proof the road is notable. So what if its mentioned in some fiction book? Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact, it's not even clear from the article whether Conan Doyle even mentioned the road: the article simply says he "...used the area as the setting for a Sherlock Holmes story The Adventure of the Norwood Builder."--A bit iffy 16:32, 23 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, who I find to present a much more compelling argument and obtain concensus with this well-based argument as compared to the people advocating keep. - Daniel.Bryant 11:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IQs in various European countries[edit]

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

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

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

This page was tagged for speedy deletion by Usedup (talk · contribs) with the reason: "Page created for WP:POINT reasons (noting the mixture of several studies in order to stress advantages). Pretty much identical materials already covered on articles of Race and Intelligence and IQ." An anon repeatedly removed the speedy tag, and the user requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. I felt the article was not something we could speedy delete, so I'm bringing it to AfD for a community consensus. Nishkid 64 18:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Material is redundant from Race and Intelligence and its sources have been widely criticized. Presenting these as established fact is strictly pseudo-science.--Ramdrake 18:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not an encyclopedia article. It isn't neutral, it's never going to be, and the sources don't look too reliable, either. Picaroon 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as funny as the topic is.--Sefringle 00:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete unless heavily sourced. Cbrown1023 talk 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is sourced but it is only sourced with two completely independent studies selected specifically for highlighting advantages. Usedup 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The list was obviously created to make a point. There is no other reason to compare these completely separate studies and rank them in the way that is being done. Usedup 02:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article have been created because the lack of specifing among europeans in Race and Intelligence. So I do not feel that article cover this one. Whites and also Europeans are a large group. Why shall for example ashkenazi jews have an advantage of been divided from other jews and groups, while europeans/whites, blacks/africans, etc have not this advantage? Recently there was a discussion about the article Ashkenazi intelligence. That article was obviously created to make a point and for highlightning advantages, like IQs in various European countries have been critized for. That article "survived". Another thing about Ashkenazi intelligence is that 20 discussed/voted for deleting that article, while 15 discussed for keeping that article. Still the administration (read: Cbrown1023) choosed to keep it. Why shall we have disscussions/voting about the articles, if he and the administration already have decided what the results will be after the discussions??? This discussion about IQs in various European countries feels therefore hope- and pointless. Cangbush— Cangbush (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Cangbush, just because Ashkenazi Intelligence made it through, and you're not very happy about it, please don't nominate this article for keep because you feel there should be reciprocation with that article. The Ashkenazi Intelligence page is primarily about a study, this is a complete and utter mix of studies. It's almost like our very own original research because it is comparing studies that no professional has compared, probably for a reason. I'm imploring you to reconsider based on the article's own merit. Usedup 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There exist 3 sources on this subject, so it is some sourced. Vinko Buj and two of Richard Lynn, the one mentioned in this article and the other is the one from IQ and the wealth of countries. I think still that the one of Richard Lynn in this article is more actual for the article, since the studies there are newer/up-to-date scientific studies from Lynn. Since the average IQ is higher among some nations in the newer studies: it feels maybe more provocating for some people. The Ashkennazi Intelligence article is not heavily sourced. There is only one bigger studies on the subject. The others have very small numbers of testpersons.SriKorange— Mannfred5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I can read here that the sources have been widely criticezed. Well there is an article called IQ and the Wealth of Nations inside here. If Richard Lynn is reliable there; He should be reliable when he do new studies too. Or have he got Alzheimers, so he has become lesser reliable? Molo5— Molo5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The Lynn and Buj tables are some similar, when it comes to ranking. The article is sourced, but there is few studies on this subject. Kavi— Kavitafrommadurai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong keep as per above arguments. Peace. Manzhivago. — Manzhivago (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep per above mr.M— Mannfredmannfred (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep. I see that the table and article have been expanded and added with two new sources TODAY. The article is sourced and it is a bit pitty if this article was only here for one day. Suganthi— SuganthinifromJaffna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Per Suganthi (above). French_Guyana— Helenparis444 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong keep. *This article is a lot better article and better sourced article than the other articles I have seen under -articles for deletion. *It is sourced with 4 independent sources + the external links. It is therefore a lot more serious than other -articles for deletion. *It is also a lot better than many, many other articles, which NOT are -articles for deletion. Ramduke— Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This is unbelievable. Can nobody see that the user who created this article was obviously trying to make a point by selecting these IQ studies? This entire article is laced with a WP:POINT upbringing. There is no encyclopedic reason for comparing completely separate IQ studies like this. Usedup 00:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note to closing admin: Sockpuppetry involved in all keep votes. I have tagged accordingly, and blocked all users. They have also done the same in other AfDs. Nishkid 64 01:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete POV fork, pseudo-sciency. Mak (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an unsourced OR-synthesis content-forking indiscriminate wreck. And nothing worthwhile is ever defended by a sockpuppet army, because it doesn't have to be. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:43, 23 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 10:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Cameron Dyer[edit]

Non-notable amateur actor. Pontius Pilate [53] is one of the many roles I have played, can I have a Wikipedia article please? -- RHaworth 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may not :) As for the article, delete or userfy. It's not verifiable or notable. --N Shar 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or properly cite and reference Alf photoman 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the page is amazing, and I personally have seen the actor perform. He is well known in plymouth espically around the Derriford area! people say they have played Pontius Pilate, but i dont think they could have played it aswell as Alexander! shame on you! do not delete this page we shall not be amused! Chrissie watson

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-23 08:24Z

Jacc Felony[edit]

Vanity page for a "backyard wrestler" (!) in a federation which turns out, in its 1 independent Google reference, to be a public-access TV program. Page may actually be a joke, but obviously fails WP:BIO anyway. Author removed speedy, importance and sources tags - I'd guess PROD would go the same way so brought here EliminatorJR 19:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete fails WP:N, and author removed AfD tags. Rockstar915 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom : no references from non-trivial secondary sources. Seems to be a promotional page with serious POV problems. Danski14 21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'"This page is intended to give the community for which Jacc Felony (real name Jeremy Groves), a wrestler in the Sacramento area that had done much charity work for the community for which he is involved. He is in fact a wrestler with the TWF (Tracy Wrestling Federatoin) and they do in fact broadcast their show upon public access stations in the Sacramento Area. The TWF is not a large orginization such as the WWE, but I feel as though his story, and controbutions he has displayed to the community for which he wrestles in should be displayed, and told for people in the Sacramento area to observe and read. The sources can be proved by a contact with the American Red Cross, Sacramento Area.rhsxo 16:14, 18 February 2007
'"AfD tag was removed due to the author feeling as though he fulfilled the requirements asked for by the AfD tags.rhsxo 16:15 18, February 2007
"This page is ment to be for informational purposes only. The people of the Sacramento area have attempted to find information regarding the wrestler that goes by the name of Jacc Felony (real name Jeremy Groves) so this page was created so they could learn more about this man. There has already been one page linked to a story posted by a Mr. Paul Harvey Smith who apparently observed Jacc's match back in 2000. More updates to make this page to make it conform to Wikipedia standards will be comming soon." 16:19, 18 February 2007
Comment Jeremy might be a great person, volunteer in soup kitchens, etc., but the fact remains that he fails EVERY criteria of WP:N. I suggest trying to get a local paper, etc. to write about him before submitting to Wikipedia. Thanks. Rockstar915 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"We are a local orginazation that serves the Sacramento area and I would like to inform [EliminatorJR] that this man is not a joke by any means. Jeremy has helped with local food drives on our West side food drives that the local churches have held. When I became informed that this article was up for deletion, we began to become upset. Jeremy has contributed so much to the community which he lives in. And yes he dose wrestler in the tracy wrestling federation which is broadcasted on our local tv stations here. He is actually only one of two wrestlers from the TWF that helps us out. I will make an effort to edit this page to the standards for which you have asked. Jeremy is an exceptional man with a story worthy of an encylopedia. Updates to meet the standards will be comming soon." 16:52, 18 February, 2007
Comment Please note I wasn't suggesting the subject was a joke, only the article which was light-hearted and had links which led to odd places. Unfortunately, as per the above, being a tireless worker for charity isn't in itself enough to qualify for a Wikipage. Please read WP:N, and if you can update the article to meet the standards, that'd be great. At the moment, though, it doesn't. EliminatorJR 01:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment" I will read through the entire wikipedia standards page for the posting, and ensure that what is posted in this article is in fact factual information. I will attempt to locate more up to date links so that this page dose not get deleted from wikipedia. It may take some time to compile these links, and rewrite this information, but the standards will be met to wikipedia standards. Charity016 19:23, 18 February 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furealism[edit]

Not attributable, not notable, possible hoax. Prod contested by anon user w/o explanation. N Shar 19:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete C1, A1, maybe? Rockstar915 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely not notable. Dar-Ape 02:46, 19 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 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piano in popular culture[edit]

Delete - a listing of fictional works in which pianos appear is trivial beyond the point of usefulness. If such a list could ever be completed, it would have thousands upon thousands of entries. None of the current entries contain any context for the piano's appearance in the work of fiction from which it is drawn and no assertion of real-world importance for these appearances. Otto4711 19:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "none of the current entries contain any context for the piano's appearance in the work of fiction from which it is drawn". Other reasons may be applicable as well, but I think this alone suffices. -- Black Falcon 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The purpose of this page is not to exist for its own sake but to keep garbage off the page for Piano. This is a standard practice on the Wikipedia; for discussion, see Category talk:In popular culture. So please, make it easier for the editors who work on Piano to keep this article free of junk by retaining the popular-culture page. Opus33 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to cause the people who edit Piano problems. However, offloading garbage information from that article to this one does not solve the problem, merely makes it someone else's problem. Otto4711 04:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem at all. It's not cluttering anything and it doesn't actively violate any rules. Cosmetor 08:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am taking an opposite view to that I have taken with Piano wire in popular culture below. This article is likely to keep growing as more and more people add more references. It would be undesirable for a serious article on the piano to be spoilt by this excrescence. However, Popular culture in the piano article needs to be promoted to a main heading there. The present article is a weak one, but should be tagged for improvement, rather than deleted. Peterkingiron 09:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm a little confused as to why you would want to keep "excrescence" in any article at all. Otto4711 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If people want to remove nonsense like this from Piano, why don't they just delete it rather than create a new article for it? Saikokira 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article suffers a Catch22 - if it is comprehensive, it is unmaintable. --MacRusgail 03:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the subject is fine, but the current article needs massive work. —siro χ o 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason except the nominator's POV, and Wikipedia is against POV. Cosmetor 08:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:SUMMARY, it is useful to have subarticles that go into detail about pop culture references and provide such lists. While these types of articles don't interest me, there are plenty of people who are obviously interested in this sort of information -- hence pop culture references and material keeps appearing across Wikipedia. Piano is a pretty broad topic with enough different facets to cover in the main article, that a subarticle/list is appropriate in this case. --Aude (talk) 22:46, 23 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. Note that this AfD can also be used as a speedy deletion reason for Violin bows in popular culture should that article ever be created. :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 07:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piano wire in popular culture[edit]

Delete - trivial to the point of worthlessness. Otto4711 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing to merge with Piano wire, and besides, what's next? "Violin bows in popular culture"? "24-gauge wire in popular culture"? "Stationary ergodic processes in popular culture"? We can't have everything. --N Shar 20:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per N Shar and nom. Also because it does not mention the Fawlty Towers episode in which Basil Fawlty says "Trespassers will be strung up with piano wire". Sam Blacketer 20:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Mentioned above is what kind of "...in popular culture" we'll get next. I have to say, with all the "...in popular culture" that is coming up, soon we'll have "Nintendo Wii Opera internet browser (or Internet Channel) Trial Version rubbish favourites (Opera.com and Wii.com) and slow loading times in popular culture". Seriously. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 20:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOT. --Peta 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The purpose of this page is not to exist for its own sake but to keep garbage off the page for Piano wire. This is a standard practice on the Wikipedia; for discussion, see Category talk:In popular culture. So please, make it easier for the editors who work on Piano wire to keep this article free of junk by retaining the popular-culture page. Opus33 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to make life harder for the people who edit Piano wire. However, offloading junk information from that article to this one does not solve the problem. It simply turns it into someone else's problem. Otto4711 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point of such an article, but nevertheless think the right solution in this case is to Merge with piano wire. It may be inconvenient to the editor to keep having popular junk added. However unless the section becomes very large (and so needs a separate article), it is probably better to put up with it (ignoring it). Deleting the article will certainly mean that 'popular culture' keeps getting added to piano wire, whether you want it or not. Peterkingiron 09:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging junk information into other articles isn't the right solution. The right solution is to remove the information entirely. Otto4711 13:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be "trash bins" to divert unsuitable content from other articles. Saikokira 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 03:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to piano wire. This is not junk, and not that indiscriminate (though it will need to be kept that way). If it has a verifiable cultural significance, there is no reason to delete it. —siro χ o 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the verifiable cultural significance of Quint's using piano wire for his fishing line as opposed to some other kind of wire or line? The article makes no mention of any cultural significance nor does it offer any hint of real-world analysis per WP:FICT. Otto4711 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is really not useful information - and is just an indiscriminate list anyway. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to piano wire. As it stands, a list of only three pop culture references doesn't qualify as enough "garbage" to fork off into a separate article. Caknuck 02:33, 25 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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stockbridge School of Agriculture[edit]

Non-notable school Seinfreak37 20:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Massachusetts Amherst. This isn't just a school, but a division within a University. Institutes of higher education are inherently notable. Soltak | Talk 20:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Following updates. Soltak | Talk 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: Hi, actually Stockbridge is a very notable school. It is one of the oldest Ag schools in the nation and is a fully acredited school in the Univesity of Massachusetts system. It has many notable alumnus and was named after the founder of the Massachussetts Agricultural College (now the University of Massachusetts, Amherst); Levi Stockbridge.--Agrofe 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article doesn't mention most of that. Perhaps you could add it, and some reliable sources to back it up? Soltak | Talk 20:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a unique situation. Perhaps the redirect is appropriate although Stockbridge uses some of the UMass facilities and professors it maintains it's own professors and faclities as well as holds it's own classes (made available to UMass studens as well). Stockbridge students can live in UMass dormatories, utilize the library and eat at the dining commons. It is considered a seperate school within the University of Massachusetts system. Much like UMass, Boston is considered a different school. Stockbridge happens to be in Amhest but is a sperate school. Alpha Tau Gamma is its fraternity.--Agrofe 21:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information is both interesting and encyclopedic. As the creator of the article, why haven't you included it with sources? Soltak | Talk 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd prefer to keep this as a separate article, rather than perform a merge, because the school has an identifiably separate history from the main instutition. It certainly looks notable enough. No objection to careful linkage, of course, and if we want to make it a sub-page that might be a good compromise. I'd like better references/sources, but I am confident these can be found. Let's Tag for Cleanup and References. WMMartin 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it has significant autonomy, within the U MAss system, as appears to be the case, it should be kept--as usual.11:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Recent updates have asserted notability, IMO. -Seinfreak37 14:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a result of recent updates to the article, I believe that notability is now shown. (jarbarf) 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School has significant autonomy and notability to stand on its own. Yamaguchi先生 02:29, 22 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 and redirect to Cleveland Municipal School District, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Young Middle School[edit]

Article went through AfD in June of 2006 and resulted in a No Consensus. Since that time no improvements have been made to the article, including dealing with cleanup and ref tags that have been around for eight months. This is still just a non-notable middle school. Hopefully some consensus can be reached this time. Soltak | Talk 20:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. -Seinfreak37 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, except possibly the claim that institution is a "gifted and talented school". My own experience is that schools are seldom gifted or talented - they may be old and damp, or new and centrally-heated, but unless the article explains what particular talents the school has ( perhaps it plays the bassoon, or can tap-dance ) I don't consider this to be notable. Incidentally, if the school were "for gifted and talented children" I would still not consider this per se notable - there are plenty of such schools, so more is needed. WMMartin 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cleveland, Ohio. As a National Blue Ribbon School there is an assertion of notability, but I think this article would be best served at the Cleveland article for the time being. (jarbarf) 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to appropriate locality (Cleveland, Ohio or parent school district) as suggested by WP:LOCAL guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:LOCAL. --Myles Long 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This just requires a cut and paste and redirect to a sub-bullet in the relevant spot at: Cleveland Municipal School District. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:01, 23 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, nearly keep; not that it matters anyway, because both end up with the same result. - Daniel.Bryant 11:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pallywood[edit]

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

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

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

Neologism coined for political purposes by a number of bloggers, but no evidence of widespread mainstream use. This is an exact parallel to Fauxtography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Hizbollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), two more politically loaded neologisms coined by the same people, which were deleted or redirected back in August and December 2006 respectively. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fauxtography and the subsequent deletion review; also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hizbollywood). The subject matter of the article is already addressed by Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the article itself amounts to little more than a poorly sourced dicdef. Our content policies disallow this sort of article - see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles on neologisms. -- ChrisO 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to this discussion. I thought I'd respond to some of the points that have been raised.

It appears that the term "Pallywood" comes from a short amateur film by a Richard Landes. It's self-produced and distributed from this page on a website by an anonymous person or organisation (see http://www.seconddraft.org/about_us.php ). The website is patently not a reliable source. The film doesn't meet any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (films) - I've not found any reviews of it from reliable sources, though it's mentioned in a university newspaper at [54].
The term itself is a neologism. WP:NEO applies: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."
- Jjay cites some sources at [55]. Of the 26 items listed, many appear to be blogs; some are press releases; some aren't even in English; and the only one which actually defines the term (as opposed to merely using it) seems to be a Toronto Star article of Aug. 31, 2006 which says: "Right-wing bloggers have dubbed that [alleged media manipulation] "Pallywood.""
As Chrislk02 has pointed out, the vast majority of the article's content is someone's OR. If the OR, non-RS and non-notable content is removed from the article, there is literally nothing left to keep.

In short, the article is plainly unsalvageable. -- ChrisO 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. -- ChrisO 20:11, 18 February 2007
KEEP, in fact, i think Hezbollywood should not have been deleted either but obviously some people don't appreciate it when they get caught lying. evidence for widespread use can be easily found if one was to not act naive and blind at the same time... also there is barely any relation to the world wide scandal from the battle of jenin controversy and the footage from the second intifada and the 2006 israel-hizbullah conflict. Jaakobou 20:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

52 videos on youtube have the word in it's description tags and more than five of them are the original video while even people who are anti-israel use the term to get more popularity for their videos YouTube Search for Pallywood Jaakobou 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- MouseWarrior 00:17, 19 February 2007]]
Keep, this refers to a specific phenomenon and is therefore not a neologism, and the term is increasing - 201,000 Google hits, and even if you disqualify the term in combination with "landes" or "documentary," it gets over 150,000 hits. --Leifern 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Tazmaniacs 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Everything in there is cited. --Leifern 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did some analysis on the refereces

no reference to palywood

Article titled "Jenin Jenin Film-Maker Admits Fraud," about the very phenomenon Pallywood describes

Does it mention pallywood? no, it dosent. making the leap is orignial research

1 reference to pallywood

Article about the court case related to allegations that the Mohamad al-Dura death was staged.

Does it mention pallywood? no, it dosent. making the leap is orignial research

no reference to pallywood

I agree, only passing relevance, though Landes, of course, created the film that led to the term

extensive content on pallywood

OK...

no refernces to pallywood

No, but it does discuss staged events for the benefit of media coverage

Does it mention pallywood? no, it dosent. making the leap is orignial research

just a mention that it is the name of an article by Richard Landes

Another article about allegations that the Mohamad al-Dura death was staged.

The only reference in this article to pallywood is in reference to richard landes article or what not. There is no other mention of it at all and any connectionts to pally wood (other than it is an article by Richard Landes) would be orignial research.

no references to pallywood

No, but lots of examples of fabricated quotes that are the exact equivalence of the Pallywood phenomenon

Again, no reference to pallywood and making the connection is orignial research

no references to palywood

No, but extensive coverage of Jenin, Jenin, the film that is alleged to be a hoax

Again, no reference to pallywood and making the connection is orignial research

no references to pallywood

About a staged funeral, caught on film, in which the dead person gets off the stretcher and walks away.

Again, no mention of pallywood and any jumps that make the associate are orignial research on the part of the creating editor

It appears that only a few of the references have anything to do with pallywood, and from what I can find it is mostly related to an article or something created by a professor Richard Landes. Overall, it mostly appears to be originial research and ,my nomination is delete. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, except for one case (about Richard Landes) all of your examples actually disprove the case you are trying to make. These are all about largely dissimilar media events that are alleged to be hoaxes and fabrications. The irony is breathtaking - you engage in fabrication to prove that there is no fabrication, and then label the view opposite of yours as "original research." --Leifern 14:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that the numerous articles that have no mention of pallywood constitue originial research. Sure, they may be involved with what the article is talking about, but the connection is made by the wikipedia editor, not the author of the article. This is orignial research on the part of the editor who makes the leap. If the articles contained something explaning pallywood and its connection, then it would not be. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, upon google search, i think that fauxtography and pallywood (200,000 hits) should stay while hizbollywood should have gone (only 500 finds on google) - the reasoning to remove because people title the subject matter "pallywood" and don't repeat that word inside the article is quite silly in my own opinion - here's a sample article: [56]

Chris's, it would seem that by your definitions a movie/phenomenon becomes notable only if a reviewer continues to repeat the title name inside the review about the movie... personally, i think the movie becomes notable if people talk about the movie, about scenes from the movie and they share that movie on the net in quantity... here's yet another sample of "original research" - [57] Jaakobou 15:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am slighly confused as to what you mean when you say, "the reasoning to remove because people title the subject matter "pallywood" and don't repeat that word inside the article is quite silly in my own opinion". There are many articles on a topic that may or may not relate to pallywood. That is not for you or I to decide in the context of the article. A majority of articles used as sources may describe something similar to pallywood etc etc. The fact is, they DO NOT MENTION IT, and it is therefore orignial research to make the conecntion yourself. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, that most people reffering to admitted fake photography and alleged fake photography by palestinians is using the term in some way or another as a descrpitive term to "the pallywood movie industry". either in the tag words of his article or in the actual text body. your "rant" about original research is on it's own some type of manipulation and feels like you cannot admit that the term is indeed prominent enough to get it's own atricle... please explain to me for example why you feel that the movie "jenin jenin" does not fall under the term "admitted stagings"... i'm pointing this out because your representation on the subject matter as if this article must have the word "pallywood" inside it is POV at best and Attempted Vandalism at worst. Jaakobou 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yOU CLAIM, "that most people reffering to admitted fake photography and alleged fake photography by palestinians is using the term in some way or another as a descrpitive term to "the pallywood movie industry"". If this were true, the sources above would mention it. However you dice it, making the conncetion yourself is orignial research. Sure, it may be black and white in your eyes but, then again if we all wrote what we thought was black and white wikipedia would be filled with innacurate POV articles. I am not disputing that the content is not valid or the concept is not real, I however am challening the name that has been created and this article. There are actually arguments here that the content is already included in other articles and this is just a neoligism. I agree with this because none of the news stories above mention the term and the leap is made that each of these stories or incidents is related to pallywood when the only connection was made by a wikipedia editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

source above is an article about admitted staging about jenin (see: jenin massacre), the term is therefore not needed in the article where muhamad bakri admits his complicity in fraud since his is a single production within' the industry. i guess we shall remain without an agreement but i tend to think it's either because you don't know the subject matter or for other less noble reasons. Jaakobou 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←You are free to challenge the reason why I am arguing this. I assure you, I have no WP:COI in this matter. The simple fact is, the connection between the term pallywood and most of the references above (considering the term is not in the article) is originial research, plain and simple. I am not arguing the validity of the content, it may be true, I am arguing that the term pallywood is neologism that does not warrant inclusion in wikipedia. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Resetting indent) The term "Pallywood" refers to allegations that news events are staged for the benefit of the Palestinian side in the conflict, and then reported as "real" news. All the references illustrate this, whether or not they invoke the term "Pallywood." There is no question "Pallywood" refers to this phenomenon, and no question that the references discuss it. The connection is self-evident, so the OR accusation is unjustified. --Leifern 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with Chris' reasoning for the article being WP:OR but regardless, I don't think that a lack of good references is a good reason to delete an article. How about you give the editors some time to produce good references that satisfy all parties and then re-nominate it? From my experience, the term is notable (and google supports that). Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect everybodys opinions, and the term may be somewhat notable. Should there be sources that are added that make the conenction in the source, I would not adverse to changing my Oppose nom to a Support. However, I still stand by the fact that making the leap that the articles are related to the phenomenon without an assertion of such in the article is orignial research. I can describe a boy to you. You may see a tall, muscular figure that appears to be a boy and you automatically assume it is the boy. If the person comes to you and says they are a boy, that is a different story. However, until such an assertion is made, it is realy just a guess or you making the connection in your head, which is what orignial research is. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, anyone on wikipedia who hasn't been quoted as saying he is a boy (or the fact that he is a boy hasn't been said about him) cannot be described as a boy in every article. I do not see that as the case on wikipedia, although I'm more than happy to be enlightened. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the boy example is a much more simplified version for the sake of demonstrating what I mean. I have attempted to explain why it is originial research but nobody seems to understand that, unless the article claims that it is related to pallywood, you, the writer, make the connection. Will you not agree with that? That 7 out of the 9 articles listed above make no mention of the term pallywood? They may describe a phenomenon similar or exactly the same as pallywood however, you are making that connection. That is why it is WP:OR, if any of those articles stated something like, "this incident, related to the pallywoodmovement was blah blah and blah", I would have no problem at all. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So out sounds like you have no quarrel with an article about the (alleged) phenomenon, but only with whether the term Pallywood is the right short-hand term for the phenomenon? In that case, you should vote to rename it, possibly with a redirect, no? --Leifern 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put. As proto states below, a Redirect to Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would not be innapropriate in my mind. This article seems to contain much of the information on the topic without the neologistic term pallywood being used. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as someone else pointed out, the alleged staging of news events is notable enough to deserve its own article, rather than being buried in another one, which is probably what at least some who vote Delete here are hoping for. --Leifern 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty clearly fails WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pper nom and Chrislk02's excellent references. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on what Chrislk02 says and nom. Glad that people are actually checking references.Park3r 07:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

52 videos on youtube have the word in it's description tags and more than five of them are the original video while even people who are anti-israel use the term to get more popularity for their videos YouTube Search for Pallywood Jaakobou 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>We all know how reliable you-tube is!</sarcasm> But really, you tube does not count as a quality source. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, Chris's reference-checking rather strengthens the case for keeping the article. --Leifern 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. The phenomenon is notable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it notable? But noone's arguing that, the notable aspects of the article are already covered at Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Proto ► 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leave a redirect to Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where the substantial non-neologism part of this article is already covered in greater depth and detail. Proto ► 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

huge difference between "biased media coverage" (worldwide) and between "staged scenes and acting" (by palestinains) - a.k.a. Pallywood. Jaakobou 13:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep movie by that name is notable zionist propaganda. Paul T. Evans 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, possible redirect as future editorial judgement. We don't need this. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News gives 26 hits including the International Herald Tribune and the Toronto Star. That can justify the article. [58]. --JJay 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Leifern and JJay --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Leifern etc., though perhaps with a clearer focus on the term and its usage, with the overlap with Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict minimised. Tewfik^Talk 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noteable subject even if the name sounds stupid. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only about the movie. // Liftarn
Keep politically motivated AFD Elizmr 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my comment above. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomOo7565 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. 6SJ7 02:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definately notable. --Djsasso 05:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the vote from IP 190.40.122.25 is me... sorry, i forgot to log in. Thomasbraun321 07:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above user's only contributions are an edit to Talk:Lebanon and a keep comment in this AFD and should therefore not be counted (note: this comment comes from someone who supports keeping this article). Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Chrislk02's list of how one jump too many has been made says a lot. If anything an article entitle "Pallywood" should be about the documentary, not the five or so incidents that might relate things that may also have been done in it. I have no objections to seeing Dr Landes' words quoted about the documentary and his crediting with having coined the term by actually producing the documentary that bears that word as it's title - once I'm reliably informed in the article about what the documentary actually is.--Alf ^melmac 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alf, please see my new comments at the top of this discussion. It appears that the film totally fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films). -- ChrisO 21:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, if that has consensus, then ignore my "if anything...." comment suggesting such an article be written after deletion then. Thanks--Alf ^melmac 13:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable and documented. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable how, documented how? I see a lot of assertions being made by people voting to keep, but few seem to be providing any basis for their votes. -- ChrisO 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. All non-notable, non-technical neologisms on Wikipedia should be merged into their associated parent articles. There actually is a need for a separate article that discusses the media phenomenon of staged events, but this isn't the correct title. —Viriditas | Talk 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sources are fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:41, 24 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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel of Fortune in popular culture[edit]

Delete - an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to document every appearance of WOF in any medium. The descriptions of the episodes in which WOF appears are plot summaries in violation of WP:FICT. Otto4711 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (edit: strongly oppose any merger of any of this material into Wheel of Fortune (US game show). It would completely unbalance the article and enormous trivia sections are to be avoided. Otto4711 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge The popular culture series of headers and articles don't violate Wikipedia policy, and the few sentences describing the reference do not constitute a plot summary "devoid of commentary" required for deletion. enormous trivia sections is an essay, not Wikipedia policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did not cite WP:TRIVIA as policy. Otto4711 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reasons why it violates WP:FICT or any other Wikipedia policies. If you want me to change my vote, you'll need to be more specific in pointing out what's wrong. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep since when were "X in popular culture" pages indiscriminate lists of information? Such pages have important cultural value and should be preserved. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 22:59, 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 speedy redirect to Cold fusion. Conscious 11:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion history[edit]

Article has been completely merged into Cold fusion. Kevin Baas^talk 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to preserve version history. Redirects are also cheep. --Farix (Talk) 00:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have thought of that. I'm not sure how valuable the version history is, but I know that the only (real) articles that link to this article are the article that it's been merged into and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Physics articles by quality/12. Kevin Baas^talk 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Farix. » K i G O E | talk 05:13, 19 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. — CharlotteWebb 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero debuts[edit]

Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supervillain chronology, this is crufty and ultimately impossible list to maintain. Category:Superheroes already exists- I propose moving all of the villains on this list into the category, and then Deleting the article. -- Wikipedical 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list appears to be useful, informative, notable, and maintainable. Indices to information are an important part of Wikipedia; few users would want to search every superhero article to extract this data, yet many would find the data useful, for instance, researchers into the development of the superhero genre. RandomCritic 21:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, maintainable, objective index with sources. This is the kind of thing that can be helpful to people doing research. It's not the vague catch-all that "supervillain chronology" is. This is specific. One writer I know has used this article for reference many times while writing about the history of superheroes. Wryspy 22:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent reference source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a finite number of superheros, so how this list is impossible to maintain I dont quite understand. Jcuk 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST. - Peregrine Fisher 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily manageable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this meets both the letter and the spirit of WP:LIST, and is meaningful beyond simple categories. (jarbarf) 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is a useful list. Dawn22 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commenters above, please withdraw this nomination. Yamaguchi先生 02:42, 22 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 17:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kehilat Orach Eliezer[edit]

Nonnotable synagogue in Manhattan (New York City). I live not far from there, and it's not even the third most notable synagogue on the Upper West Side, after we account for Congregation Ohab Zedek, The Jewish Center, and Congregation Shearith Israel. It's like a shack among mansions. Who cares? Out it goes. YechielMan 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's WP:NN as it's just basically a minyan (if that) that has been thrown together. There are tens of thousands like these and they are not notable, beyond the fact that the phenomenon exists, and they do not deserve articles about each one. Perhaps it has the seeds for an article about How synagogues are established and grow or thereabouts someday... IZAK 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Congregation has received extensive media coverage for its innovative and controversial approaches. Examples include: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64],[65]. WP:N and WP:V are easily satisfied here. --Shirahadasha 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shira, the media reports on many crazy things "extensivley" each day and then those reports get stored in cyberspace on the Internet and you can dig them up on Google at any time, but that does not make those items interesting or noteworthy (unless of course you have an agenda, then any crumb of "news" is worthy of being "noted") and in this case what you have is a barely functional congregation that, beyond a few headlines it has grabbed, is a totally unimportant place. There are tens of thousands of shtiebelach in the world, some with very important rabbis and members, and essentially NONE of them get an article on Wikipedia, nor should they, until such time as something REALLY significant can be connected to them beyond making a few local headlines that are carried by the Jewish news services. IZAK 10:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment IZAK, you appear to be making an argument that you disagree with what it is doing, which is of course your right, But I don't believe this means it isn't notable as Wikipedia policy defines that term. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Shirahadasha 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope Shira! I am using that object in my skull called the brain applying simple logic and reason based on facts. Oh, and I am not five years old, so I can stomach many things that I don't like! You know, the opposite can be said too you too, that it is not enough that you like this article/topic to "keep" it (and by now we know what you like just as we get to know about all editors based simply on their edit history and the type of articles they create and the POVs they consistently defend and uphold if they do it often enough. One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure these kind of things out.) Kindly do not put words into my mouth. Thanks, IZAK 18:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Weak Keep]We need to draft some real guidelines for synagouges. In the past, we have left in unknown Conservative or Reform synagouges created by the rabbi of the congregation, that have never made the newspaper or done anything ntable. Here we have a congregation that is in the newspapers regularly. If this gets deleted, then all the little congregations have to go, and all the unknown kiruv rabbis and community kollels should be deleted. --Jayrav 14:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cited by Shirahadasha satisfy me that the notability guidelines are met. It doesn't have to be really significant or famous, just notable.--Kubigula (talk) 23:07, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Random Day[edit]

Non notable series of web cartoons, and the first cartoon in the series. Appears to be made by a single purpose account, with no edits outside of these two articles to its name. Delete, unless notability can be established.

I am also nominating ...A Random Day! The Cartoon, the first cartoon in the series. J Milburn 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Google garners exactly one hit for "Drunken Hobo Productions". "A Random Day" is obviously a commonly used term, but when coupled with the author's name, this garners a single hit. IrishGuy ^talk 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Orderinchaos78 14:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources and any external indication of notability. Also persuaded by User:Irishguy's data on Google hits that this article won't meet the standards of WP:WEB. EdJohnston 20:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, and per nom. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 20:18, 22 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 and redirect to Dundee. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancrum Road Primary School[edit]

Non-notable, no sources provided. Seinfreak37 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy if you accept that it counts as a non notable group of people. Wikipedia is not a directory. J Milburn 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Given that it's not an article it's a sentence, I couldn't care less if it stays or goes, however aren't primary schools theoretically supposed to be merged with local education authority area according to WIKI:SCHOOLS (which, yes, I know, is not official policy yaddayaddayadda....) Jcuk 22:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:SCHOOLS not being policy is actually very important for the purpose of this debate, not merely yada-yada. » K i G O E | talk 05:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but definitely expand. One sentence is not sufficient, and it almost doesn't matter if the article exists. However, it has the potential to be helpful. » K i G O E | talk 05:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated, and there are no references/sources. WMMartin 13:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dundee per WP:LOCAL. The school guidelines suggest the same but are not approved yet. Yamaguchi先生 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Yamaguchi. --Myles Long 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dundee per Yamaguchi, this inspection report concretely verifies that it exists and provides additional useful information. (jarbarf) 16:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; an education in Dundee article would likely be the best target. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:58, 23 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 08:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Cameron[edit]

Delete - Speedy. Looks like a vanity page. Google search revealed no results. vi5in^[talk] 21:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per nom. Planetneutral 22:12, 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 08:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Magro[edit]

As of yet non-notable student filmmaker (good luck though, Dan!) per WP:BIO and particularly WP:AUTOBIO. Also WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Article's author (and subject) has also created articles about all of his own projects, which, although they need to be evaluated individually, likely will be in the same deletion camp. At least one of them has already been ((prod))ded. Planetneutral 21:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as it redirects to the above:

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without evidence of existing (i.e., not future) notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Page should not be deleted. As a member of Bucks County PA I find that the content is pertinent and relevant. Past of the beauty of wikipedia is that it can contain information not normally in a physical encyclopedia with specializations to niche and local audiences. In reviewing the material it is accurate and seems pertinent to have this included.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.39.146 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As the guidelines state: That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Wikipedia's policy is to delete everything unsourced because it fails WP:V Alf photoman 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Awyong J. M. Salleh 07:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN student filmmaker. Fails WP:BIO, not to mention obvious WP:COI case. See also Student Update. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portraits of Sari[edit]

Non-notable film. This independent film garners six unqiue hits on google. The filmmaker's article, Dan Magro, is also currently up for AfD. His other work, Paper Cuts TV Series, has been prodded. All of these articles have been created/primarily edited by PaperCuts which may denote a conflict of interest. IrishGuy ^talk 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Independent films are great, but not everything that is great needs an encyclopedia page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable student production. Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent future movie not on IMDB, appears to be a student production. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangefuzzz[edit]

No non-trivial sources are given to verify the entry. Are those official remixes, some I checked have not been released on singles. And what makes this non-DJ notable from the tens-of-thousands other DJs. Unless this is defined, this article should be deleted. feydey 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC with a clunk. --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 07:33, 19 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-encyclopedic list. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon references or spoofs[edit]

First off: A Man In Black nominated this for deletion a few months ago, and the result was "no consensus"; I didn't know about that debate when I decided to nominate this for deletion. I've had a problem with this article for a few months now. I discovered it back in December and, going against my initial instinct to nominate it for deletion, instead deleted most of the list items, leaving only the most "notable" items. The current page, though not as long as the one I purged back then, is nonetheless pretty bad. I can see a possible reason for having this page (separating this "trivia" from the main article to avoid clutter there), but that's a weak argument at best. The small section in the main article is, with a bit of expansion, sufficient: it mentions a couple of the more notable references, and provides links to the appropriate pages. Additionally, unlike this page, the section of the main article that deals with cultural references is much more high-profile, and therefore easier to edit to weed out extraneous, fancrufty information. There is no reason to have this information anyway - it's not encyclopedic in any sense of the term. Who needs to know about a Pokémon card parody by Nickelodeon Magazine back in the late '90s? I saw that spoof, and laughed at it, and could probably even dig it out of my old magazine piles to verify it. But it's not at all notable or important, and neither are almost all the items on this page. This is one of the useless extraneous pages that the PCP often catches a lot of flak about; the fewer of them the better. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft and listcruft that belongs on a fan wiki instead. RobJ1981 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance of anything remotely related to or in the opinion of an editor resembles something related to Pokemon. Provides no context for most items establishing the importance of the items either within the fictional realm from which they are drawn or the real world. Otto4711 22:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else. The keep arguments in the last AfD consisted of "It's useful/interesting, and we have to delete all popular culture references if we delete this!", so that's unconvincing. -Amarkov moo! 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Maustrauser 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 00:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else. This article screams fancruft. Its totally useless. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A textbook example of what's wrong with all "in popular culture" sections and articles: nothing but a non-notable, crufty wall of trivia. Krimpet

Keep and improve - While i agree with Krimpet's arguement that this is one of those lists that makes people want to crusade against all pop culture lists, both RobJ1981 and Jerichi need to remember that just calling something cruft is not an argument in itself and should be avoided at AFDs. First, the keep: Any subject that has become so well known that it is criticized, parodied, and referenced in a wide variety of media outlets deserves a section that appropriately details some of the more high-profile or notable cases (e.g. given South Park's ratings, the "Chinpokomon" episode would be high-profile). I could make a point and go over to Wikipedia in popular culture and delete the two rather lengthy lists found there. While there may be consensus for deleting the Miscellaneous section, I doubt I would get away with rming the first one which are "Landmark references." I'm not trying to make a "two wrongs make a right" arguement, i just want to show how editors tend to say, "Well it's Pokemon, and so if it's not highly important or ref-bloated we should get rid of it." The result is "cruft, cruft, cruft." How to improve: If you take a close look at Otto4711's arguements you can see that this list could be improved if anyone wanted to take the time to provide the importance of said pop culture references - the Wikpedia related article justifies many of it's inclusions because they are the first examples within a specific media (of course 3 of them could be rm for not fulfilling this criterion), this list could follow suit with many of the entries. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would argue that "Chinpokomon" or "Thirty Minutes over Tokyo" aren't notable - of all of them, they do definitely deserve to be mentioned. Ling-Ling too, perhaps, though Drawn Together isn't as well-known as the others. But these references and the few others that are relatively important can be contained easily in the section in the section in the main Pokémon article (as they already somewhat are). And while pointing a finger and yelling "CRUFT!" is hardly an argument in itself, it's an allegation that can't just be waved aside. It is undeniably crufty, but another, more important argument that I was trying to put forward (which may not have come through as well) is that because all of the pertinent information can fit easily on the main Pokémon page, this article is simply unnecessary. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 18:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if every item on the list were sourced it would still be indiscriminate and a directory. Unless those sources included verification that those items which resemble Pokemon were in fact intended by the creator to be a spoof of Pokemon (as opposed to some other similar card game or toy) the list would still suffer from original research. Otto4711 20:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not trying to say that merely sourcing the list will make it better. We should be discriminating in what is kept in the article. As in the example below, Kids Next Door spoofs hardly seem notable enough as the Pokemon allusions constitute OR unless someone can find a source saying the creators intentionally did it, and even then - it's such a unconsquential aspect of the show that it's still non-notable. e.o.t.d. is of the opinion that all the appropriate references after being properly sourced and having their notability and relevance expanded upon, would still fit nicely into the Pokemon article as a section, i'm disinclined to agree, as i managed to figure about eight entries that are notable, probable enough to be sourceable, and relevant to either Pokemon itself, the real-world, or the medium it was presented in (i.e. the KND episodes wouldn't have been changed much by not including the Ash look-a-like, however the Doctor Who novel makes some significant commentary that affects the overall impression of the reading). You can find an altered list at my sandbox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappernapper (talk • contribs)

Delete. Not worth having up; not notable enough. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the log, it seems that the reason the last nomination was "no consensus" even with a decent number more "deletes" than "keeps" is the fact that the "deletes" gave hardly any support to their opinions. It's of course not required, but please try to say more than "CRUFT!" or "USELESS!"; giving some reasons will help keep another "no consensus" from happening. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current references are notable enough, just not things like "In a commercial someone was playing a Pokémon game." Matty-chan 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Oh, really? Then tell me how this fantastically written gem (included in the article at the time I write this) is significant:

"A couple of episodes of Codename: Kids Next Door had shots of a boy in Ash Ketchum's pre-Hoenn outfit."

Yup, that's the very definition of "notable" right there (I'll end the sarcastic bit now). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is because he is a recurring background character. If he just appeared once in one episode then I would probably disapprove. Matty-chan 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times he appears is absolutely unimportant; what is important is that he is unnamed (and even unnumbered), and has no spoken lines, unless I'm mistaken. Even if he does, that little bit of info is not even close to notable enough for this list (which isn't really notable in itself). WP:NOT#IINFO. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 03:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge, something, anything. And clean up some at least. I would not like to see this disappear. At all. Cruft is not a reason to delete. Toastypk 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just think how huge a page would be if South Park had such as list. It also goes against the WP:NOT#IINFO policy. (Duane543 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. My reasoning from the first AFD stands: this is an indiscriminate collection of things people noticed while observing the works in question. All of these parodies are sourced only to the parodies themselves; there's no third-party commentary or even the hope of third-party commentary on them. This is the absolute lamest form of original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 24 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. – Steel 14:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Zed[edit]

Contested PROD. Article appears to be written by the subject WP:COI. For someone so 'notable' there appears to be very few independent websites attesting to his importance. It has been claimed that he is listed in Who's Who in America. This is a publication of the American Biographical Institute that does negligible research into the notability of individuals. Fails WP:Notability and WP:BIO Maustrauser 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete if sourced, the accomplishments would be N. and worth a keep.DGG 11:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rajan Zed's achievements/activities portray him as a strong candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Northern Nevada International Center and Nevada World Trade Council, which have him on their Board of Directors, are fairly well-known organizations. He was elected unopposed to the office of General Improvement District Trustee of Verdi TV District in Nevada in the November 2006 US mid-term elections. His activities/efforts in the inter-faith dialogue in northern Nevada, diversity initiatives in Washoe County School District, leadership in various ethnic organizations, volunteership and public service in social/cultural/other organizations, etc., show that he must be included in the popular enclyclopedia like Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.205.200 (talk • contribs) 19:24, February 21, 2007.

Actually, they don't, since Wikipedia has higher standards than Who's Who. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless extraordinarily good reliable sources turn up. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 24 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 17:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Comp/Quick Rod[edit]

The content of this article is too technically detailed to fit in an encyclopedia. It may have been pasted in from an external source. YechielMan 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It smells like a copyvio, but there's no evidence of that. the only reason I can see to delete it is that it's unsourced, which is enough. Should the article ever be sourced, it can also be checked for copyright violations. i kan reed 21:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 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. W.marsh 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babbello[edit]

This is a non-notable social networking website that fails WP:WEB - it has a lack of reliable sources that mention it in detail. Of the two references cited, the first is just a passing mention and the second, while credible, falls short of the multiple sources needed to establish notability. Google hits initially looks promising but after screening out babbello.com itself, Wikipedia, and wikis that mention the site we have only 124 hits, half of which are irrelevant. [66] Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria, no independent, reliable sources. Terence Ong 11:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/New Article Perhaps it is best to merge this, and other articles like that, to create one article for smaller, lesser known social networking sites (other than the Mega's - Myspace, Friendster and Facebook). Right now it appears more of an advertisement than an article on the history and notable changes of the site. --Ozgod 05:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 16:47, 22 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) 2007-02-23 09:22Z

Albert Abbasse[edit]

Article doesn't prove notability. Google hit [67]. Appears to be a regular guy who ran for office and failed. SilkTork 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Kathy A. 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , if possible speedy, claims about an evidently living person not backed up by references Alf photoman 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. SilkTork 00:26, 23 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 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gribbo[edit]

Dictionary definition for a slang term with no assertion of notability; creator removed prod. FisherQueen (Talk) 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By telling us that this name "is rarely written", the article is pretty much telling us outright that this supposed subculture is undocumented. The article cites no sources except self-submission web sites that encourage newly made-up stuff and that do no fact checking. Searching, I can find no good sources that document this supposed subculture. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 16:25, 19 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) 2007-02-23 08:32Z

Christian Coalition professional wrestling[edit]

Not an official stable for one thing. For another thing: the name of the team is speculation. I've seen no evidence TNA has called them that. WWE certainly never called it that. This is original research and crystal balling. Originally a prod was on it: and was removed with no reason. RobJ1981 22:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That group has never been called this. The only wrestling related term for Christian Coalition is that it's what Christian Cage calls his fans (the same way that Cena's fans were called the Chain Gang). TJ Spyke 22:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TJ Spyke, and also delete The Christian Coalition, a mirror of this article. McPhail 22:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I understood it that the Christian Coalition was more an unofficial name for the fans of Jay Reso, similar to John Cena's Chain Gang. Suriel1981 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Bring Back Later This is actually somewhat of a spoiler. The group hasn't fully formed yet and a name hasn't really been given. It isn't really notable yet, but it might be in the future. Gruntyking117 00:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Bring Back Later Same as Gruntyking117, this is a spoiler. Davnel03 19:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we just attach a spoiler tag then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MC511 (talk • contribs)

No, because as of right now this group doesn't exist. TJ Spyke 09:53, 22 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) 2007-02-23 08:33Z

Natasha Wheat[edit]

Appears non notable sources provide trivial coverage. Daniel J. Leivick 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If as stated she exhibited work at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago that would be a good start toward notability, but I could not find it in the references. "Natasha Wheat" only gets 22 Google hits, most not about the subject of the article. A review in a reliable source would help, since the references are blogs or non-independent sites or do not seem to say much about her. If the references provided show notability it is harder to find in them than it should be. Inkpaduta 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can show some references asserting the claims in the article Alf photoman 01:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. --MaNeMeBasat 16:43, 22 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. Mention in Washington County, Oregon if you want, but not a useful redirect. W.marsh 17:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Rogers (Commissioner)[edit]

Contested prod. Article does not assert the notability of its subject. Suggest redirect to Washington County, Oregon Katr67 17:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO for politicians. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 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. W.marsh 17:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bemmes[edit]

A Junior High school teacher who ran in the primaries for a seat in the House a few years back, getting only 1.5% of the vote (that's in the primary, mind you). We don't have articles for similar "politicians" (to use the term in its broadest sense) apart from this one district election. This was nominated before here, narrowly surviving, much like this guy, before a further precedent against this type of article was set by the unanimous deletion at at the second nomination). I can't see how this guy passes WP:BIO, his existence as a teacher is of substantially more consequence than his failed bid for office, and we don't have articles on teachers.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Peter Fossett - similar case, but got a whopping 2.3%.
Jeff Sinnard - got 2% (268 votes)

R. fiend 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete all 3 TB at any rate claims "a common man" as his notability, PF is "intelligent and thoughtful" . JS has run twice. DGG 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective article and strange selection of words. Not notabel, I guess. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reform of the date of Easter[edit]

The article seems to be about a nearly non-existent controversy. There are no calls or movements to change the date of Easter to a fixed date that I'VE ever seen, and I've been actively involved in church life, including liturgical reform, for a long time, now. And the article cites no sources indicating that there actually is such a movement. I think it may be the article creator's personal controversy. Carlo 21:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Aleppo proposal mentioned certainly is a matter of record. Some of the other suggestions I haven't heard of but none would surprise me. With a rewrite this could be a very presentable article. -- BPMullins | Talk 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the Allepo proposal is a proposal to bring the Eastern and Western calendars together. It has nothing to with making Easter have a fixed, yearly calendar date, which is the main thrust of the article. Have there been any such serious proposals? Carlo 00:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is one of the topics in the article. With a rewrite the article can be more clearly about Easter date reform in general. Here is a web page that states that John XXIII apparently had no problem with fixing Easter to a particular Sunday. The topic's larger than pinning Easter to a particular Gregorian calendar date. I'll add more references in a bit. -- BPMullins | Talk 02:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research with no attributions to any source. Reads more like an essay instead of an encyclopedic article. No reliable third-party sources presented to show that this topic is even notable. The article states that proposals have been made but doesn't say who made them. --Farix (Talk) 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cite sources. RandomCritic 04:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It is principally a historical article, although it does not mention several notable attempts to reform the date of Easter, such as the British Easter Act of 1928 which placed Easter on the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April (still on the books, but requiring an Order in Council that is vetted by both houses of Parliament).[68][69] — Joe Kress 05:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does indeed read like an OR essay. Remove the unattributed info, and very little remains. An article on the historical controversies around the date/computation of Easter already exists (Easter controversy). -- Pastordavid 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've certainly heard of the proposal before, outside WP. I've added a citation.– Tivedshambo (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, Contains little that isn't at Easter controversy. An article about the conference in Syria would have a different title. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, and no sources.--Sefringle 06:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No sources? What are those links at the bottom of the page?– Tivedshambo (talk) 07:30, 24 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?)} 11:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Cajon Valley Players[edit]

Makes no claim to notability. Salad Days 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until the article author can tell the difference between "professionally run" and "professionally ran"! Oh, seems non notable to me btw.... Jcuk 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --EarthPerson 03:47, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bai Di Castle[edit]

Contested prod, though no reason was given when prod notice was removed. Article is about a Three Kingdoms battle that never happened in history, not even in the novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms. It's only a stage of the game Dynasty Warriors 5, and the article appears to describe a player's progress in that stage. So in a historical perspective, this article is complete nonsense. _dk 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete someone's write-up from a game of Dynasty Warriors. reads exactly like my old Warhammer stuff. Totnesmartin 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fiction masquerading as historical information that will only tend to obscure and obfuscate real historical information. --Nlu (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It feels like I'm reading a walkthrough of Dynasty Warriors, not an appropriate encyclopedia entry mouselmm 02:46, 21 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 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ne'er-do-wells[edit]

Contested prod. Starting band which still has to release an album. Fails WP:Music. Garion96 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly non-notable. Statements indicate that the band doesn't even have a stable lineup, (e.g., "until a actual singer can be found") both the links provided are labelled "under construction," and since "2007 is looking a promising year for the band," any statements that might produce notability based on future endeavors run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. And... um... shouldn't the plural be Ne'ers-do-well? ◄Zahakiel ► 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i'm the writer of the Ne'er-do-wells article and also the frontman for the band. What can the harm be in leaving this article on. We are trying to release an album but it isn't that easy. We've performed in a variety of locations and every time have recieved a great reception. Just because we haven't yet released an album doesn't mean we are not a band, Enter Shikari are yet to release an album aren't they? Why do they qualify as a band? One article on Wikipedia is a big thing for our band it however barely affects you. Please consider keeping this article on, i find it unfair that we are removed due to not having an album, we are trying and we need some kind of way to express our band over the internet. Wikipedia, myspace and youtube are the biggest ways. A myspace page is being set up, we have submitted an article for here and we are going to record us at out next performance. Thank you for your time.

Hello... One of the most common arguments for keeping articles is that they "aren't harming anyone." Wikipedia is intended to be a serious encyclopedia with information that can be relied upon for accuracy and neutrality. It is not an advertising space for new bands, or for anything at all, so the issue is not about "harm" to individuals (articles rarely harm people, people with guns harm people) but about maintaining the quality of the site. The reason people want articles on Wikipedia is because they know the public uses it... but the public only uses it as long as they think they are getting good information. In other words, keeping articles that violate policies of verifiablity and notability do harm the project, if not the people. By saying that Wikipedia is one of the "biggest ways" to get publicity shows that you may have some misunderstanding of the purpose of the site, and I hope I've been able to clarify this for you. For example, the Enter Shikari entry indicates that they've been around for a while, have been included in a number of public events and have received a number of awards. I hope your album does well... if it does you will certainly be notable enough for inclusion. That way the encyclopedia will have a record of your work for information (not publicity) purposes. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) - P.S. You do a nice cover of "On A Plain" per your YouTube videos.[reply]

Delete - Obviously a vanity article; it was created by one of the members of the band itself. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vanity article at all and yes it is kind of for publicity and i understand what's being said about it being a place for notified information. Based on the rules of wiki my article should indeed be removed, but why is there need to call me vain? I'm far from it as has been stated in the article i wrote where i wrote something along the lines of having a lack of talent. The band is more of a statement and an attempt to show people if they try they can achieve any goal we are just a bunch of guys who enjoy music and entertaining. We have performed in a variety of places in Middlesbrough/newcastle and areas around. We have performed as a warm up to the lostprophets when they came to Middlesbrough. And thanks for the compliment regarding our covers on youtube, we are branching away from covers, they were in our early days when we weren't as good. Again i'll ask if you can not delete this article as it is valid and accurate as i wrote it so it is accurate even if there isn't much proof. The line-up of the band has been the same for nearly a year, the reason we don't have a singer is because we all enjoy trying it and switch around singing our own songs. Thanks

Ne'er-do-wells is the band name it is grammatically correct and if it isn't we don't really care its the name of the band regardless.

What's wrong with saying 2007 looks to be a good year?

Response - Try not to take it personally... the term "vanity article" simply means an article placed here for publicity, which you admit is one of your reasons (if not the primary one) for posting the information. It doesn't necessarily mean the person posting it is vain. You've realized that Wikipedia's policies would work against the article's presence here, and the discussion in this AfD is probably going to reflect the desires of our regular contributors to keep the policies fair by applying them equally to every entry. Your article's information may be accurate, I don't doubt that it is, but the standard for a band's inclusion in the encyclopedia is pretty well defined. You can check out WP:BAND if you're interested in the specifics. As far as, "What's wrong with saying 2007 looks to be a good year?" The policy I mentioned above, WP:CRYSTAL, prohibits articles (and the editors who make them) from making predictions about the future without a high level of proof. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when will the article be deleted?

The norm is five days for discussion from date of nomination and then if it is decided that deletion is the case it will be a couple of days after the close of the discussion. Or in plain English, any time after Friday the 23 depending on how busy the Admins are. See the bottom of this page WP:AFD for the explanation of the process. - X201 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the liklihood this article will be removed?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize Ranking[edit]

This "ranking" appears to be OR and duplicates unnecessarily the more standard affiliation list. Delete --Peta 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nomination. Nobel prizes are individual prizes, and not a contest between universities so any ranking based upon which college/university has the most is highly unofficial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unofficial though they may, be, universities use them widely--and the information occurs in most of the relevant university articles in WPDGG 10:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list is largely incorrect, according to the utimate authority: a listing on the nobel site here: [70] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lmbstl (talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as OR and redundancy. If the data is also incorrect per Lmbstl, all the more reason. -Markeer 14:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before somebody starts counting and sees his prejudice confirmed that Wiki is inaccurate Alf photoman 21:20, 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. W.marsh 17:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super coupe cup[edit]

About 250 ghits. No press coverage as far as I could tell. YechielMan 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources, an unable to find any in searching. -- Whpq 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 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 08:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Pet[edit]

Article reads like an ad; the company is apparently well-known in its field, but it's one heck of an arcane field! YechielMan 05:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing provided to suggest that this meets CORP. --Peta 02:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:CORP, no assertion or citation of notability -Markeer 14:03, 19 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 08:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.A.S.T.E. Rap[edit]

Does not seem to satisfy WP:BAND Alex Bakharev 23:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable. YechielMan 01:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Concur. Splintercellguy 08:30, 21 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 14:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beckham Fragrances[edit]

Not notable product, reads as advertisment Alex Bakharev 23:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Its a brand just like Axe (deodorant) etc. I think there might be wiki-users who find this interesting, like fans of David Beckham who didnt knew he had his own fragrance! Seb88 08:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not a brand like Axe, Axe has worldwide name recognition and consequentially, notability. If you think David Beckham fans would like to be aware of this, it might rate a sentence on his own page. NipokNek 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Axe is a more "well-known" product. You're right about that! But I still think that this brand is notable enough to have its own article.. Seb88 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, If its completely unacceptable to keep this article, would it then be possible for an admin to edit the original David Beckham page and add a few sentences about this brand for me!
I am, as a new member, unable to make any changes on the Beckham article so for that reason I'd be happy if someone else made it for me.. Just to make it clear, I still think this article is worth saving!! Seb88 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put in a link there to the website, so people can find the information from a more appropriate source, & we can delete this article. DGG 02:13, 21 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 Developmental psychology. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:01Z

Temperamental development[edit]

Original research Alex Bakharev 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It also provides insufficient context, and might be a repost or copyvio. YechielMan 01:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy merge/speedy redirect this belongs at temperament or maybe perhaps a mention at developmental psychology. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:16, 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 Merge to National Basketball Association. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 07:59Z

NBA Cares[edit]

The author seems to disagree with the GFDL policy Alex Bakharev 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this user really Jason Richardson? I suspect not -- in this case, we would have a WP:U violation. --N Shar 00:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NBA Cares has been heavily advertised, and has undoubtedly received serious press coverage (which is not cited in the article, but it's out there). It definitely passes WP:ORG. YechielMan 01:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NBA after a cleanup. --Peta 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Peta. (And $40 million? When the average player salary is $5 million? Who are they kidding?) --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 19 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 Emo (slang). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 07:58Z

Emo poetry[edit]

Merge with emo. This type of poetry seems to be a pop culture phenomenon so, understandably, there are few sources to be found... Still, I think the characteristics are helpful in identifying a so-called "emo poem." This article has some merit.
nothing here seems to be distinct from Emo. Emo kids write poetry? Who'd have thougt. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Poetry and/or Emo (slang). // DecaimientoPoético 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emo (slang) - Too little information to have its own article. Not even signifigant. — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing significant here. I've seen emo poems with few of those features, and poems with some of those features that aren't emo. So what's the point of this article? Oh, and it's also not really verifiable I think. kaiti-sicle 01:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with emo. It's not mentioned in that article, but it probably should be. I'd like to see at least one claim that an "emo poem" has been published in a serious periodical, but even without that I'd settle for a keep based on WP:NOT#PAPER. YechielMan 01:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I highly doubt this can be sourced. I also would debate the criteria. Is it really uncommon for a poem to have a rhyme scheme of ABAB, reference the heart, and deal with the mutability of love? Using those criteria, there are centuries filled with emo poetry. GassyGuy 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Emo (slang), it's surprisingly well-sourced but not really worthy of a full article. Krimpet 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep or Merge with Emo music. Emo poetry is especially melodic and lyrical, and is in some ways perhaps a type of "folk poetry" (hows that for a terrifying neologism). It is very closely tied in with emo music, much of its production either culminates in or eminates from songs. I look at Romantic poetry and think that this could have an article if we could name emo poets who aren't musicians. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I have with merging it into Emo (music) is that the article deals with the music genre. It would be a lot easier to merge it into Emo (slang) because, according to the disambiguation page, it deals with "a wide range of fashion styles and attitudes somewhat affiliated with emo music." // DecaimientoPoético 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with emo (slang); it already is sourced, but does not assert notability. ~Switch ^{t c g} 07:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emo (slang) per Switch. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:58, 22 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 characters in Heroes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 07:56Z

Mr. Muggles[edit]

Mr. Muggles is not a notable character in the Heroes series. He doesn't appear very often, and he's not a hero with superpowers; he's just a minor puppy. Other members of the Heroes WikiProject talk page have suggested that this page be deleted and merged to List of characters in Heroes.— ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reason - Might I add that this article was speedily deleted before, under the name Mr. muggles; just a bit different (a mispelling). So, in a way, this was brought back to life with a sort-of new name (capital M in Muggles). Just so you know. — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into List of characters in Heroes. Mr. Muggles is not nearly notable enough for his own article. Mr. Muggles isn't a Hero or anything, he's just the family pet for Mr. Bennets family. dposse 00:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The dog is barely more than a prop in the show. Agent 86 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in Heroes as the nominator. — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Peta 02:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't know much about the series but by the looks of his page, he definately doesn't deserve one. // PoeticDecay 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge, per Agent 86. JuJube 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. All the pertinent information has already been merged into Sandra Bennet's section of the List of characters in Heroes page. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless it's later revealed that he's got some superpower (which would render the series silly) we don't need to have articles for animal characters. A simple reference in the Sandra Bennet or Claire Bennet articles is enough. 23skidoo 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As much as I love Mr. Muggles, having his own page is something of a satirical tip of the hat to him. His information should be merged with Sandra Bennet or Claire Bennet. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 03:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While he is just a dog, I don't think all info about Mr. Muggles should be done away entirely. 24.83.211.180 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not merge. Unless he does something amazing and integral to the plot, he doesn't deserve his own page or to be listed as a character. Kolindigo 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no merge. The dog hasn't done anything notable on the show. It doesn't need a small section (likely to never be expanded much) on any character list. RobJ1981 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the fact that Heroes is a very good show, this page is unnecessary for a minor less than notable character in it. -- Marcsin |^Talk 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of characters in Heroes, I don't know why you didn't do this first rather than bother with an AfD. MrFizyx 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. He is a named character that is spoken of in dialogue, not merely an extra. He deserves at least a brief mention on the character list.--Jickyincognito 09:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - A google news search establishes notability, although the articles don't say much about him. - Peregrine Fisher 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Could be added to the list of characters in Heroes, but doesn't need a seperate article. (Third3rdIII 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Merge - The dog is an important motivator for the actions of Mrs. Bennet and Claire. Keep it around, though it probably doesn't need its own page. (Unless it demonstrates super-dog abilities. ;-) ) Twinotter 19:16, 23 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 blatant advertising. No Guru 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friends For Care[edit]

Quote from the article:"In case of enquiries please contact Prashant - +919860090703 or e-mail : friendsforcare@gmail.com." Advertisement, violates WP:CORP. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious advertising, no evidence of coverage by third-party external sources. Alternatively, borderline for speedy deletion under G11 (blatant advertising). Walton monarchist89 16:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. --Parker007 02:16, 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.