< February 20 February 22 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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]

The Angry Video Game Nerd (3rd nomination)[edit]

The Angry Video Game Nerd (3rd nomination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just wondering, why is this tagged for Deletion, there is nothing wrong with it. Every other famous Internet person has a youtube page so why can he not?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party 8 minigames[edit]

List of Mario Party 8 minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also in this nomination:

Listcruft that is much better suited for a video game wiki. Previous mini-game lists for Rayman Raving Rabbids and Super Monkey Ball have been deleted or turned into redirects. Mini-games are important: but an entire list on them all is game guide content. If people want to know all that detail: they can check gamefaqs. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a video game guide, period. RobJ1981 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RobJ, will you shut up about Game FAQs?! It doesn't matter that you can check it. Different sites are allowed to have the same info on them. Please read McKay's comment on the talk page for MP8. Henchman 2000 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not using this to blackmail other users, I don't even know what blackmail is. I am using it as a way to finally resolve the mini game dispute. Henchman 2000 09:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not believe this was said, ask Isotope23 yourself. Bowsy (review me!) 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this is nothing like gamefaqs, this is merely a list of the minigames we know about in MP8. If there were something like "When trying to cross the tightrope, the player should lay his wiimote down on the ground, because then you'll stay balanced and win every time" That would be a gamefaq. This information is encyclopedic. McKay 05:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, Gamefaqs isn't just a strategy guide website. If you ever take a look at the in-depth FAQs, there are detailed articles about the game.
Example: here
While it does contain strategy information, that's not all it consists of. Another example might be something like ::this. While not Mario Party related, it does illustrate that it doesn't have to be strategy related to be included on Gamefaqs, and just because it doesn't discuss game strategy doesn't mean it isn't information better handled by other sites. Gene S. Poole 04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft by it's very nature is unencyclopedic[dubious – discuss]. These things can never be unencyclopedic, which is exactly the reason that AfD exists, to get rid of articles such as these[dubious – discuss]. And please dont come to my talkpage to tell me I need to retract my vote, its an incredibly sophomoric thing to do. -Mask 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although, to add, thanks for the steamroom, edit, you did that part wonderfully, exactly what its meant for :) -Mask 07:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no wikipedia policy or guideline that says listcruft should be deleted. In fact, there's an entire List guideline page on how lists should be used (WP:LIST). Furthermore, there is no inclusion criteria for lists except for the regular WP:NOTABLE guidelines, which this article clearly passes. In addition, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) clearly states "The potential for creating lists is infinite." though it does mention how useful lists are if too large, and it counsels that many wikipedians feel that some topics are unappropriate because of their unencyclopedic nature. Oh, and me asking you to retract your vote is not sophomoric. Sophomoric would have been to change your vote. I'm merely stating that you have no ground to stand on, so your vote should probably be changed (or overlooked by the administrators) McKay 16:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely disagree. WP:NOTABLE states "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". Please, enlighten me, tell me where the minigames from the Mario Party series are the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. I agree, the games deserve the article, as they are the subject of such published works; the minigames of such games are not.
These lists, frankly, are unencyclopedic, and they contribute nothing to Wikipedia. Simply noting the names of the minigames contributes nothing; indeed the only person such a list would be of interest to would be someone who has already played the game and knows about the minigames; and adding descriptions of all the minigames makes such a list far too similar to an instruction manual. Witness [1]for clarification; although it's for the Mario Party-e, it has the exact same sort of information, and it's an instruction manual. This stuff isn't needed on Wikipedia. IMHO. YMMV. Gene S. Poole 05:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the manual you linked is specifically a how-to manual "press button b at such and such a time...". McKay 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an instruction manual which has descriptions of all the mini games. it does say how to do the minigames, and also has descriptions (i.e. Mario must catch the fish that princess peach requests without touching the wrong fish) which is essentially what we're looking at in the article. We have lists of the games, before the minigames were removed, we had descriptions of what the games were. That is what appears in your average video game manual, and as such falls within WP:NOT - see instruction manuals in the link I provided aboveGene S. Poole 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not an indirect treatement, it almost appears as if the writer seems to think that the minigames are all the game is about videos: minigame, minigame, minigame, character selection, minigame, minigame (not an indirect treatment It seems to me like in a minigames game, the minigames themselves are notable, just like in the Harry Potter series, not much is written about the characters, yet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) says we should get articles on people like Ron Weasley and even Gregory Goyle. Also, we have List of characters in the Harry Potter books and even crazy lists like Students in Harry Potter's Year, Minor Slytherins, and Inquisitorial Squad. Really, are there any articles that even mention "Minor Slytherins"? No. Yet there's a list. We have hundreds of articles that give a direct treatment on the topic of the minigames in MP8. Notable? YES. McKay 07:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But just because such lists exist is not a reason to propagate the issue. Perhaps the lists mentioned above should not be on wikipedia, either. Consensus can change. As far as I can see the lists in question serve the same purpose as an instruction manual, something that is, in fact, mentioned as part of what wikipedia is not Gene S. Poole 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion summary:
  • AMask: Listrcruft = deleted. Article fine now, but could get worse.
  • McKay: what's your problem if it's fine now?
  • AMask: listrcuft = unencyclopedic, purpose of AfD destroy stuff like this
  • McKay: Wikipedia policy = lists are good. WP:NOTABLE guidelines apply?
  • Gene: MP8mg = not notable, MP8mg = unencyclopedic because it's like this thing that fails WP:NOT
  • McKay: It's like all these things which are included in WP.
  • McKay: It's nothing like that thing that fails WP:NOT
Mask had problems, McKay responded to them, Gene had problems with McKay's responses, McKay responded to them. McKay 06:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They are currenty encyclopedic. A game guide tells you the following 3 things:

  1. The object of the game
  2. THe controls of the game
  3. Advice on how to win.

As the list contains only the first point, it is clearly not a gaming guide. Henchman 2000 09:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Game guide:
The contents of a strategy guide varies from game genre to another. Typically, the guides contain:
  • detailed gameplay information, for example, maneuvers that are not detailed in the manual
    not in the List of Mario Party 8 minigames (LMP8mg)
  • complete maps of the game, which show the placement of all items (including hidden and hard-to-find ones)
    not in the LMP8mg
  • detailed instructions for specific locations on how to proceed from there
    not in the LMP8mg
  • explanations of puzzles
    not in the LMP8mg
  • details of enemies, including techniques on defeating individual enemies (especially "boss" monsters)
    not in the LMP8mg
  • checklist of collectible items
    not in the LMP8mg
  • cheats and game editing, although this has been less common in official guides
    not in the LMP8mg
  • walkthroughs to help the player complete levels
    not in the LMP8mg
As you can see, the LMP8mg is clearly not a game guide. McKay 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's listcruft leaning towards a game guide. As I've stated before: other mini-game lists have been in AFD and deleted: the most recent Rayman, and the most recent Super Monkey Ball as well. Both of which are mini-game collections (while SMB has a story mode, but it's still alot of mini-games). These precendents are more than enough to determine this another listcruft, much better suited for a gaming wiki. RobJ1981 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RobJ, there is no such thing as a gaming wiki, and if there is, who cares, two wikis may have the same content and you clearly fail to understand this. Henchman 2000 14:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gene S. Poole, WP:NOT contains nothing against this list. Te closest thing I can find is a how-to guide, which it most certainly is not, see my comment about what a how-to guide really is. Henchman 2000 14:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Comment: See above. I never stated it was a how to guide, rather closer to things found in an instruction manual, which is also mentionedGene S. Poole 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Merge to Mario Party 8. The subject is not notable nor broad enough to have an article of its own.--Orthologist 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us blessed with children, in any school, in any place in this world, know full well that this topic deserves a large and bright spot... in any encyclopedia. We have an obligation, in my opinion, to provide the world with current reliable information. If we lose the children, we lose the world. Help to make this institution more reliable for our schools? Sounds like a good idea to me. Thank you for your time.Lee Nysted 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Please do not call Bowsy and Henchman meatpuppets. If you really think they are, start another sockpuppet case. However, do not directly say that they are meatpuppets unless the case is closed with that result. –Llama mantalkcontribs 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy is perfectly clear, they share the same computer, and there is doubt about whether they are one user or two seperate, regardless ofthat, they espouse the same views, and per WP:SOCK they can be assumed to be one person. I can refer to them as sockpuppets if you wish. -Mask
    Comment: We are not meatpuppets. How many times must you be told this for you to relise? Above, there is proof by Isotope, Llama man. I am also going to give you this source. Pay heed to it or you may find a similar message on your talk page. Henchman 2000 09:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry AKMask, according to WP ruling, they are not sockpuppets. Also, according to WP:SOCK, Calling them meatpuppets is definitely a bit of a grey area, as they are not strictly single-purpose users. Both of them have hundreds of edits, and they are contributing in at least two disparate areas (Wii games Mario Party games video games, and Spongebob). They may have interest in WP as a whole, but are only capable of editing in those two areas. I'm not sure, but to be on the safe side, you probably shouldn't be calling them meatpuppets. McKay 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Might want to reread the sock finding page, chief, specifically the part that says both need to be careful about meatpuppetry; soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community. Both of you need to keep that in mind.. They have not taken this advice to heart, and are now clearly meatpuppets. Those 2 and puppets and I claim my five pounds. -Mask 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC). -Mask 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Knock it off, both of you. The closing admin will decide how much weight he or she wants to give the opinions from Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs) and Bowsy (talk · contribs) as well as everyone else who participated here. Hurling accusations and labels will not change that. Please remain respectful and WP:CIVIL.--Isotope23 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the kind comments:

I must explain, if you can please excuse my use of your time; forgive my ignorance of much of the topic material itself?

I am a single father of 3 girls. (ages 11. 15. and 23.) I love Wikipedia; use it all the time. My children cannot use Wikipedia (as a factual reference) in our school system in Illinois, more often than not, because of either,

  1. Lack of pertinent (up to date) content, or
  2. lack of reliable sources, or most unfortunate,
  3. The ability of vandals to change the truth, at will.

I mention " the children" because it is timely to consider that most companies with a vision for the future, plan for repeat users well into the next generation, or more. (e.g., I cite Apple, Inc. as a primary example of this.)

Thank you for your time.Lee Nysted 15:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you don't think he's some guy whose reasons for Wikipedia don't matter to wikipedia, I'll note that his first point falls under "Wikipedia is not a Paper encyclopedia" our information can be up to date, and can fill niches that paper encyclopedias can't (like thousands of articles in Harry Potter categories)
Lack of sources falls under one of the WP trifecta WP:VERIFY.
and the third point falls under WP:VANDALISM.
So, his reasons are valid. McKay 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not plan for the next generation of users. We plan to be an encyclopedia of non-trivial, previously published material. Multiple, reliable, non-trivial works must be published on a subject for it to be included. It's nice you have kids you care about, but frankly, it doesn't matter in the context of Wikipedia. -Mask 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My final comment to AKMask: Thank you. You just gave the most salient, transparent, and powerful reason on earth, why, the above article should stay, here today. Good for you. Cheers!Lee Nysted 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AKMask, his reasons are your reasons. I thought I made that clear in my post. If you're going to make logical progress, you're going to have to attack the issues of WP:NOTE and WP:RS (and "Encyclopedic" like others are doing to varying degrees of failure) Not just say "IT'S GOT TO BE NOTABLE!!!!!" We all know that it has to be notable, you've got to show that our efforts of showing that it is notable are fallacious. Also, I fear that Lee has left wikipedia because of this argument. His last post seemed so ... final. McKay 06:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[reindent]

Or, you know, I could just point out that we should follow the policy. Or attack it, as you suggest I do. I prefer my way better, the "we should have encyclopedic content as per policy" way, as I call it. -Mask 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
 :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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]

International Monarchist League[edit]

International Monarchist League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep, is this a joke? The IML is clearly notable. It has a large membership, is constantly called on to defend the monarchy, is administered by notable persons (e.g. Denis Walker), has countless other notable patrons and supporters. It is the largest monarchist group in the UK, and perhaps the largest united one in the world!--Couter-revolutionary 09:16, 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 no consensus --BigDT 05:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation[edit]

Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research and POV. To the very least there is a problem of respect of Naming Conventions. Note that the article was created by a Single purpose account (User contributions). PS: At best, merge content into History of Europe. Tazmaniacs 18:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to spoil your illusion, but the Europeans have always used the fight against the Eastern civilizations as part of their cultural identity, not only against Muslims but against anything that came from the East since Roman times. Sometimes even defeats (such as Kosovo_Polje) are used to form national identity, while wars amongst the Europeans themselves are mostly regarded as tragedies Alf photoman 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My "illusion"? Alf photoman, please assume good faith and try not to get inside my head. How many Europeans identify with Thermopylae (Greeks and Victor Davis Hanson excepted)? --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith, and by the way the Greeks don't identify with Thermopylae, Macedonians sure do. But in central Europe the battle of Vienna is the great focal point of cultural identity, for the Balkans it is Kosovo Polje, for the French Poitiers and each of these battles were against Muslims. The great heroes such as Roldan, El Cid, Prinz Eugen and about a million more were always in battle against the Moors or Turks in popular culture, even though historically the reality is much more diverse ( El Cid for example had a better relationship with the Moorish rulers than with the Christian kings) . I think it is time to overcome this, but without understanding it Europeans never will Alf photoman 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but I happen to be a citizen of one of the nation you mentioned, and I absolutely disagree with you, and so do several millions of my fellow citizens. Please don't speak in the name of others people, and keep your anti-Muslim conceptions to a political forum. Tazmaniacs 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but I fail to see how you can claim that my criticism of certain European identities formed in battles against Muslims is anti-Muslim, or is it that you need to be attacked? Alf photoman 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. the ideological premise of tacitly identifying Europe with Western (catholic ?) Europe
  2. the methodological premise of supposing that “battles” are relevant at a macro-historical scale; this is conjectural history, a sort of pseudohistorical approach speculating upon “what if…?” (What if Napoleon would have won Waterloo ?); no professional historian engages in historical conjectures.
However, in order to save the work done, you could include the material to a History of Western Europe, mentioning these battles as “significant”, no more. --Vintila Barbu 12:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Note: because of the long comments which followed an exchange of comments in the beginning of this Afd nomination, I've taken the liberty to move them here, for better reading of the page. I hope this doesn't disturb any one. Please include any long comments under this section. Tazmaniacs 22:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had 'good faith' you would have asked the author to supply source and confront him over POV issues. Instead you just bring the article straight here hoping the whole lot is chucked into the bin.--Dacium 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should not assume that Adolf and his gang of loonies wanted to defend Europe or European culture because their self proclaimed intent was to supplant the European culture with their own amalgam of loonacities they were making up as they went along. By the way, I don't think that Attila and his gang were Muslims (but from the East), yet the battle against them (aiding the Romans) was what at the end of the day formed the Frank identity, which later formed the first Holy Roman Empire of German Nations (took 400 years but what the heck...) whose first aim was to convert Eastern Barbarians to Christianism (such as the Saxons, the Allemande and so on) and later the Moorish invaders (sic.) in Spain. And no, I don't think these battles formed the European civilization, but surely they formed the European identity. Alf photoman 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a place to discuss what you think, but to discuss the legitimacy of this article. Keep your personal opinions to yourself, thank you. The disagreement between us is a clear sign that we don't agree on what "European identity" is, if there is such an "identity", so the article is built on sand and fascist POV. PS: beside, you obviously know nothing either of Nazi Germany if you claim that they didn't think they were defending "European civilization." Tazmaniacs 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because they were intent on exterminating several vital components of European culture, such as the Slaws to start with and all other non-Aryans (whatever that is) to end with and their cultural achievements with it, besides especially in this case it is not what I think but I am citing (not verbatim) Mein Kampf. But certainly we don't seem to agree on what European identity, while you are quoting what it should be I am quoting what renowned authors define it as. And buy the way, I take offense in being labeled as fascist because too many of my family died because of them or fighting against them Alf photoman 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for offensing you. I have to insist that the title of this article is a source of continuing ideological debates which are best kept to a political forum, which Wikipedia is not. I am not quoting what "European identity" should be, I am pointing out that there is no single definition of that, as shown by the debate over the inclusion, or not, of Christianity to the preamble of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, debate which ended with the decision not to include it. I think this provides sufficient sources for my claim that this article is ill-named and should be deleted. Its author may include its content in History of Europe, where it belongs. I am not even adressing the concept of "macrohistory", in particular when it refers to "battles", sending for this to Fernand Braudel's work concerning long tendencies in history (he talked about the Mediterranean Sea, not about soldiers). Tazmaniacs 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets cool this, sincerely I don't like the content of the article either and I abhor the idea of wars being nation building, but that does not take away the evidence that it is factual, or at least generally accepted by historians. This has nothing to do with what we like or we don't like and that is the difference between history and the pamphlet of a political movement Alf photoman 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is precisely this: historians don't agree on what constitutes the "identity" of the "European civilisation" (assuming there is such an "European civilisation", which, for the sake of not engaging in philosophical debates, I will temporary accord you), much less on the concept of a "macrohistory" (if there really is such a concept), so the whole article falls under OR. The "factual evidence", as you put it, such as, let's say, the fact that there was in 732 a battle in Poitiers, headed on the French side by [[Charles Martel], does not entail the ideological interpretation that this event was a "macrohistorical battle" on which depended the fate of European existence. In fact, I don't see why, if the battle had been lost by Charles Martel, the existence of Europe would have been endangered. It would have been different, which is not the same. But the fact that Al-Andalus existed in modern Spain for 7th centuries did not "destroy European identity" (sic). All the factual events cited in this article should be moved to History of Europe, which is a NPOV title, and if the author wants to argue that they had "macrohistorical importance for the destiny of European civilization" (in particular the Christian part of this "civilization", leaving out Bosnians because, although they are a European ethnic group, they don't have the luck to fit into this ideological reading of history which excludes Muslims from it), well, let him argue that in a NPOV article: History of Europe. You can't seriously say this entry has got a NPOV name, and much less back-it up with serious sources. I have already cited the debate about the European Constitution, I think this is enough source for a Wikipedia debate. We all have more important things to do than political arguing here. Tazmaniacs 17:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with Tazmaniacs that we need to wind down the level of rhetoric, and stop the naming calling first and foremost. Then a better title needs to be found. I personally do believe the article is worth keeping though its present title needs changing, and it needs to be sourced - it's biggest weakness is the lack of references, which I am beginning to rectify. As to Tours, I think Bury - one of the truly great giants in the field of history - said it best: John Bagnell Bury, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, said "The Battle of Tours… has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.”[1] Let us discuss this rationally, and no one engage in accusing those of differing opinions of bad faith. old windy bear 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't build a 21st century Encyclopedia on historical accounts of the early 20th century. Would you imagine what kind of account of World War I it would do? With, for example, a section supporting the French views of the epoch, and calling Germans names, while the other would support Germany, and insult French? Or something about colonialism calling Black people "niggers" and "barbarians"? No, all my respect for Bury, but there have been some progress since in historical research and views, and Bury rather belongs to historiography, as do all historians from this period. This article should be deleted, because the name is very POV, and its content transfered (that's not difficult) to History of Europe. I can't see any other way to find a consensual decision, and I don't know why you don't consider this simple solution: the list of battles will remain, just as part of the History of Europe, instead of some Original Research concerning "macrohistory" (not to say "European civilization")? Tazmaniacs 03:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the battle fought over Tours on wikipedia, it was really ugly - of course people don't mention Victor Davis Hanson and William E. Watson, two of the most respected historians of this era, both of whom say today that Tours was a battle of incredible importance. However, you may have suggested a way to settle this without a long drawn out fight - I would certainly be amicable to change the title and leave the list, remaining as some sort of subtitle to the History of Europe. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. We can debate the individual battles, such as Tours, afterwards, but I certainly think your suggestion that the list remain, but retitled to remove the offensive wording is a reasonable and fair solution. I owe you an apology for saying you were only acting out of POV. In attacking your motives, I was doing the very thing I was condemning, and I apologize. I like your idea of leaving the list of battles but retitling it, and old windy bear has begun referencing the entire article, and I will help him source each article. Stillstudying 12:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how historians are valued, but there are reputable scholars considering the battle of Tours of little importance (like Tomaž Mastnak for instance, which you will find in the same article on Tours). Also while mentioning Hanson, one should remember his main theory but also his conflicts like the one with Jared Diamond (the two proposing two different drives for progress: Hanson - an aggresive culture of warfare and pragmatism and "democratical values", Diamond - an environmental preconditioning), and realize that when some people argue for macrohistorical importance, actually they speak within an ideological framework, within a paradigm, therefore their assessment is strictly conditioned by their premises (and not by some premises with quasi-universal acceptance in various historiographies worldwide). My point is when someone invokes a historian like Hanson and represents his POV, he actually represents his whole theory of how the world is changing/progressing. Therefore even if a scholarly reference would argue for a series of battles (I am not sure if Hanson argues the battles he chose to be all of macrohistorical importance or just examples to promote his theory), that would be at best only a POV which furthermore needs balanced by other POVs. And last, but not at least, the POV supporting macrohistorical importance relies most often on speculation and at best analogies (for the case of Tours: that Islam would further advance in Europe, that Ummayads would have continued a conquest in Gaul or furthermore in other European lands, that the ascension of Charlemagne would have been eclipsed by the insuccess of Martel to stop the Muslim forces at Tours, that the situation of Gaul would be the same as the situation of Iberian peninsula etc.), which even when coming from scholars, they still should be taken as they are - simple claims, not actual arguments. Of course, it shouldn't be us, the editors, pointing that but we can invoke those scholars debunking these myths (and as I mentioned before, for the case we're discussing there are already references in the article on Tours). The burden of proof lies on those claiming the macrohistorical importance (i.e. the positive claim) and just saying the world would have been drastically changed it doesn't make it so. Daizus 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, every historian had his or her own perspective, or philosophy, which you could call point of view if you want. But the wikipedia policy is simple: we are barred, as editors, from interpreting anything, and can only cite the original scholars and their theories. So while Hanson may have had a framework he put Tours in, believing that it fit into his theory that the Carolingian control of Europe, and the feudal systems which would carry Europe through the Dark Ages after Rome's fall were assured by Charles Martel's signal victory at Tours, it really does not matter. We won't settle the Tours argument here - oldwindybear and others have been fighting that for years! But the fact is that most of the western historians of today do believe Tours was of macrohistorical importance. Hanson believes even if it was not in the grand scheme of stopping Umayyad conquest of Europe, it certainly was in that it assured Frankish dominion of Europe, which led it safely into the Middle Ages after Rome's collapse. Watson is even more fervant in praising Martel. My point is, you said their saying this battle changed the world does not make it so - but it does for our purposes. Hanson and Watson, just to name two, make detailed and strong cases for why that battle was a crucial turning point in history. Hanson in particular is a very well thought of military historian, and his analysis of the battle is first rate. Watson is another very well known modern historian who has made a very detailed and complex argument that historically this battle determined the fate of Europe as we know it. We can only cite them, and those in opposition, and let the reader decide. Stillstudying 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"But the fact is that most of the western historians of today do believe Tours was of macrohistorical importance" - this is still to be proved. I haven't seen anywhere in this article, in the article on Tours (or any other battles listed in this article) any decent attempt to review scholarship and historiographies (possibly none of us has the ability or the knowledge to do it, then we should refrain from hiding behind assumed majorities). Let me browse few historians from my own bookshelves: Pierre Riche (1989) claims "the battle of Poitiers for some was an unimportant military action stopping a raid while for others was a significant event for the destiny of Charles Martel and the Carolingians" (nothing about an iminent conquest of Islam/Ummeyads, though), while the same author justified with another occasion (1962: due to constant Arab raids and invasions, the dukes of Aquitania called Charles Martel and thus the southern Gaul was ruined and gradually fell under Austrasian/Carolingian authority (nothing particular about the battle of Poitiers). According to Lucien Musset (1965), Charles Martel intercepted the Arab offensive (heading for St. Martin sanctuary to pillage it) and defeated them but that didn't stop the Arabs which kept invading the southern parts of France in the following years (730s). The significance of Charles Martel southern campaigns was that the Austrasians started to focus on this rich region and attempt to drag it under their authority. My concern is - who and how has estabilished the "mainstream" of interpretations is to value the battle of Tours (or any of these battles) of macrohistorical importance?
Hanson's perspective is not given at all, so the work of the editors is not complete until it is shown the macrohistorical significance given by Hanson is tributary to his specific and perhaps controversial view (like someone nicely observed in one of the paragraphs below, ultimately a Hegelian view). As already suggested, perhaps it would be a nicer/more fruitful discussion (or even article), the opposition of paradigms: to take a simple case based on two of our examples so far - a historian of Annales like Pierre Riche and a historian like Hanson. Daizus 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we agree to merge this content into History of Europe on the grounds that this article is bound to be OR and subject of endless, tiring, debates. I thank Achileus for his quick, and to the point, comment, refering to the 1851 work, which shows all the problems lifted by this article. Note that at the time, scholars didn't even feel the need to say "Europe", as "World" was a synonym. Europeans found after World War I that there were other states to take into account. I also do agree with Daizus, who points out that the reason behind our controverse concerns the philosophical nature of this article, rather than a simple historical account (I'm sorry for having taking the point a bit too seriously, but it is, in fact, a serious matter, which clearly provides a dividing line, for philosophical & political matters - that mustn't stop us from speaking like... Greeks in an Assembly...).


Thus, it is impossible to try to NPOV it by providing sources from historians;
first, as we all known, history is not a science in the same sense as physics, and can only tend towards objectivity, without ever achieving it (see Paul Ricoeur's interesting account on this).
Second, this article does not concerns a historical debate but a philosophical reading of history, mainly based on Hegel's reading. It doesn't ask itself if X did happen? or how much was the cost of grain before the French Revolution? And how was the climate during the time preceding the French Revolution? - see the works of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie on the history of climate, which, although Ladurie is known for microhistory (:), is certainly of macrohistorical interest - dinosaurs, anyone? ) It is, of course, on purpose that I refer to historians, such as Braudel or Le Roy Ladurie, who claim that battles are, after all, events which belong to a short time-span compared to long-time span such as climates or geographical influences (work on the Mediterranean Sea, the real "hero" of history for Braudel, and which is the basis of any geopolitics - i.e. seeing long tendencies and continuities between the Russian Empire & the Soviet Union, not to say today's Putin's Russia...)
Thus, apart of the problem of a "Western civilization" (which is, I think, a concept a bit more convincing than "European civilization", especially today), and of a very ideological attempt at identity politics, which may have been done, or not, on purposes (but which explains why I adamantly refuse this pseudo-opposition between Islam and Christianism, which clearly is POV far from being mainstream), there is a real, philosophical problem, about the importance of battles in general, that is, of "macrohistorical battles". As someone pointed out at the very first of this Afd, "macrohistorical battle" is a contradiction in terms. Referring to the historians above, I agree with him. Beside merging the content of this article into History of Europe, Philosophy of history might be an article that will interest you — it is a passionating subject! To recall you that there are very different perspectives on this "philosophy of history", I'll recall Nietzsche's words here, concerning "Great Events":

Ye understand how to roar and obscure with ashes! Ye are the best

braggarts, and have sufficiently learned the art of making dregs boil.
Where ye are, there must always be dregs at hand, and much that is spongy, hollow, and compressed: it wanteth to have freedom.
'Freedom' ye all roar most eagerly: but I have unlearned the belief in 'great events,' when there is much roaring and smoke about them.
And believe me, friend Hullabaloo! The greatest events--are not our noisiest, but our stillest hours.
Not around the inventors of new noise, but around the inventors of new values, doth the world revolve; INAUDIBLY it revolveth.
And just own to it! Little had ever taken place when thy noise and smoke passed away. What, if a city did become a mummy, and a statue lay in the mud!
And this do I say also to the o'erthrowers of statues: It is certainly the greatest folly to throw salt into the sea, and statues into the mud...

Thus Spake Zarathustra, II, "On Great Events"

If there is such a thing as a "European civilization", one thing is sure: it is not a fixed, permanent, essential identity, to which we should refer to as a myth which must governs our politics. "European civilization" is what we make of it, and if ("with 'if', says a saying, "you can put Paris into a bottle"...) the Third Reich had won, than Europe would still exist, although it would be certainly sad. "If" Charles Martel had not won, than maybe Al Andalus would have extended itself, and the wonders of that place, and its tolerance towards Christians and Jews, and its amazing knowledge concerning architecture, medicine, philosophy, etc., would have permit Europe to avoid the Wars of Religion, the dark Middle Ages (which were not as dark as we think they were), and immediately pass to the bright Renaissance and then Enlightenment... One needn't be Muslim to acclaim the wonders of Al Andalus, especially compared to the dark period that succeeded to it, and not buy the fairy tale that "Islam" is a threat to so-called European identity. Around the inventors of new values, doth the world revolve... indeed Tazmaniacs 18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can support renaming this, or somehow putting it with the history of Europe. Tazmaniacs are you aware that Sir Arthur Clarke, the famous science fiction writer, helped create a number of computer models that postulated "what ifs" and asked what would have happened if, say, the Umyyad's had won at Tours, and Martel had been killed. The results are astonding. According to the computer models, Al Andalus would have extended itself, and Europe would have avoided all of the wars, the cruelities of the Middle Ages, the Crusades, with all the attendant violence and visciousness, and humanity would have reached the stars by now. I am not saying these models were correct, but they certainly exist, and make a strong argument that the pro-western bias is not necessarily correct, and Charles Martel, while a national hero in Germany and France, did not do the world good when he ended the expansion of Al Andalus Stillstudying 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO Deletion![edit]

NO DELETION, but I have no trouble agreeing to renaming the article and putting it with the History of Europe. As to the claim that Hanson did not address Tours as a battle of macrohistorical importance, please read "Culture and Carnage: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power." On page 167:
"Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates."
This is pretty clearly an analysis that states flatly that this battle was absolutely vital in the development of Europe as we know it today. Whether that is a "good" or "bad" thing depends on your perspective. William Watson, one of America's better known historians in this generation, says of Tours:
"There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle on the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderick at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732."
Noted educator Dexter B. Wakefield writes, "A Muslim France? Historically, it nearly happened. But as a result of Martel’s fierce opposition, which ended Muslim advances and set the stage for centuries of war thereafter, Islam moved no farther into Europe. European schoolchildren learn about the Battle of Tours in much the same way that American students learn about Valley Forge and Gettysburg." So for those who claim that Tours is not a landmark event in western history, sorry, most historians, early, mid, and modern, disagree. old windy bear 01:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most historians? How many historians have talked about this battle? Hundreds? Thousands? How many can you list? Even you quoted Hanson with "Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance". On what grounds do you assume these "recent scholars" are actually a minority? Hanson himself is not supporting this view. Daizus 13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being rewritten, and heavily sourced, and should be judged then[edit]

I did not write the article, but am rewriting it, putting in opposing viewpoints, and sourcing it massively. But the sources have to be cited correctly. People who depend on Hanson -- and it is understandable, as he is one of our foremost military historians! -- need to go READ Hanson, who very carefully dismantles the theory that Tours/Poitiers was merely a raid, and shows how Martel and his men put an end to the Islamic wave that had swept aside empires on three continents, see Hanson summarizing the long term influence historically of this battle, Page 167:.
"What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuence of the successful western defense of Europe. Flush from his victory at Poitiers, Charles went on to clear southern France from Islamic invaders for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundation of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and avaiable troops from local estates."
Hanson gives an extremely detailed military analysis of why this battle was so vital to western history - citing many times the sources for this being a macrohistorical victory "saving" Europe, "the great land" as it was called by the Umayyads, as he explains why those holding the thesis that it was merely a raid are historically and militarily wrong. Hanson cites Gibbon, Ranke, Creasy, Oman, Fuller, and quoted the great german military historian Hans Delbruck, who said of this battle "there was no more important battle in the history of the world." (The Barbarian Invasions, page 441.) After Tours, Hanson said, quoting Oman, "for the future we hear of Frankish invasions of Spain, not Saracen INvasions of Gaul!" (The Dark Ages Pages 476-918, 299). He talks about Martel's remarkable ability to unify warring tribes to face the Islamic invasion, quoting Constantine, War in the Middle Ages. Hanson closed his article by assessing why Europeans adapted so easily to modern warfare by saying on page 169:
"they were not the products of a nomadic horse people, tribal society, or even theocratic autocracy, but drew their heritige from tough foot soldiers...the type of men who formed a veritable wall of ice at Poitiers and so beat Abd ar-Rahman back."
You need to read Hanson's works, which very clearly and very systematically explain why this battle is of such huge macrohistorical importance, and why Charles and his infantry were able to withstand the supposedly invincible Islamic cavalry, page 157:
"The legions had crumbled not because of organizational weaknesses, technological backwardness, or even problems of command and dsicipline, but because of the dearth of free citizens who were willing to fight for their own freedom and the values of their civilization. Such spirited warriors the barbarians had, and when they absorbed the blueprint of roman militarism, a number of effective local western armies arose - as the Muslims learned at Poitiers." old windy bear 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not a fan of Hanson, I've rather browsed Carnage & Culture, read some of his reviews and materials in press, watched some of his debates with Jared Diamond, and generally I wasn't impressed by his arguments and I've read better arguments from the other side.
On this topic, Hanson et al. have yet to persuade me that Islam and Western Europe Christianity are two monolithic entities to make their theories work for me. Hanson et al. have yet to persuade me their take on the alternative histories is the correct one (that the Islamic forces from Spain would indeed pursue to conquer Gaul, that if Martel would have lost a battle he'd have lose the entire Gaul to Arabs, that if Arabs eventually would have invaded the entire Gaul, the reconquest would be similar with Spanish Reconquista, etc., etc. - so many speculations and assertions and so little evidence for it).
Also when someone quotes rather obsolete historians really doesn't make a good impression (unless he tries to evoke a historiographical tradition). No offense, but historians relying on Gibbon are in my eyes like physicists relying on Newton. Relying on Creasy, von Ranke, Oman, Fuller looks also obsolete. I mean, they may have valueable ideas, but they can't be simply quoted as authorities for the historical studies of the 21st century! You can evoke them, but no more. Several decades it is a long time in this field, though I like their writing I have my inherent doubts even when I'm reading historians like Lucien Musset writing 4 decades ago. I know, I'm no position to reject secondary sources in being present in the Wiki articles (unless I bring scholars to support my position), but I can show you there's no way to persuade me in quoting massively rather outdated scholarship.
Oh, and on Hanson quoting Oman - I hope you know there were other Saracen invasions in Gaul after Tours. Like the plundering of Arles and the much of the Provence region in 734 or the later invasions in Burgundy. See also Martel's campaigns in southern Gaul in 736-7 which are documented even here on Wikipedia. Daizus 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote you on the talk page of the article, I am just beginning a rewrite of an article I did not write. If you want a great account of the invasions circa 734-737, see Fouracre or Antonio Santosuosso who maintains the defeat of the Muslim forces at the River Berre by Martel was far more important than Tours. I am just in the beginning stages - I honestly believe you will feel the article is fair when I am done. As to the accounts of Martel's campaigns in Gaul in 736-7, if you check the history, I wrote most of what is here. Please give me time - I have ordered Hitti's book, and other material I need to finish this rewrite. You know as well as I the major problem now is generalizations without sourcing. I am going to rewrite putting in all views, sourced heavily.
As to Hanson, I think his best work lies in his analysis of why heavy infantry was the key to Frankish domination, (the history of heavy infantry, what it was, et al) and his analysis of cavalry versus Knights, and mixed force armies. I think he is right on those issues - on Tours, frankly, despite the time gone by, Bury convinces me more than anyone except Watson, who is the best we have today. (just my opinion, and I do NOT put it in articles)old windy bear 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Old windy bear, you really ought to seriously consider arguments opposed to you by a number of users, in particular concerning WP:OR and Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Please also consider Achilleus' citation of the 1851 The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship:

Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research

Working on the article as it currently stands does not answer to the objections that a number of users have opposed to it, don't invest energy on that without taking into account these criticisms. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and when serious criticisms are done, it is best to hear them. Why don't you rather work on History of Europe which needs help, and where you can speak about the same subject if you want? Tazmaniacs 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tazmaniacs If I did not hear the criticisms, I would not have taken on the chore of correcting what was wrong with the article. I did not write it, but I felt you and several other people, whose work I respect, had raised some very legitimate critques that needed addressing if the article was to stay. Please realize I don't have a personal interest in what happens in this vote. I didn't write the article. Since the original editor had not begun correcting it, I decided to, and in fact, had asked another editor I respect greatly to help me. I agree with you in part on the naming conflict, I only entered this dispute because someone brought this entire issue to my attention, and I decided that the article was salvagable, but had to be completely rewritten and sourced. Remember, one tenet of our work on wikipedia is editors are encouraged to be bold, and try to correct errors in fact and form where they are found. I don't think my motives, especially considering I am not the original author - can be questioned for being anything other than a simple desire to make this a better article. I think as many people support it as want to delete it - but you have a very valid point that there is no point in working on an article which may be deleted. I will wait for the result of the vote before investing any further energy and time in it. The books I ordered will be useful for work on other military history Carolingian articles and medieval issues in any event. As to the issue of using older historians, Gibbon is still cited as the paramount historian on Rome, despite his work being over 200 years old! Creasy is cited by Paul Davis, Mike Grant, and Hanson, just to name three modern scholars. Bury is still regarded as the great authority by some of the foregoing on the later Roman Empire. I don't think just the age of the work renders it obsolete. In fact, this whole issue of what role the work of those historians should play is a very interesting ongoing academic conflict. old windy bear 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when is the vote over?[edit]

It is pretty obvious the vote is in favor of keeping the article at least long enough to see if we can source it and rewrite and retitle it. When is the vote formally over, so we can begin correting the things which need doing? I have done some, but a LOT of work needs doing, and the way the vote looks, we need to get to it. (This vote does not mean the article is out of the woods, it just means, if it stays this way, that people want to see if can be corrected, which I pesonally think it can. I have asked a couple of really first rate editors to help, and I think it can be put in fine fettle. SO, when is the vote over, so we can get to it?)old windy bear 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had originally stopped because Tazmaniacs strongly suggested - see above - that i wait until the vote was over. If you go look at the article, I have been steadily working on it, though not to the extent I intend to. I intend to rewrite it completely, once we - and I need input from other editors - agree on which battles to list, from which books to pull the list. On the battles presently in the article, look at the recent changes, and I think you will see a huge difference already. old windy bear 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heartland League. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 06:05Z

Mid-America League[edit]

Mid-America League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball league which operated for one season. Don't be fooled by the blue links for the teams - they just redirect back to the league page. Just 436 Ghits for any league named Mid-America League, which falls to 80 when the word baseball is added. League later became the Heartland League, so if anything, this information should go there. fuzzy510 00:22, 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 Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela 2001[edit]

Miss Venezuela 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft:winners name already in the main article (which is a train wreck in itself). User is creating them from 2006 backwards, so 2000 will probably appear by the time this AfD is complete. Edit: it has (here), and it's been CSD A7'd

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason

Miss_Venezuela_2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss_Venezuela_2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss_Venezuela_2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss_Venezuela_2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss_Venezuela_2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

EliminatorJR 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the following related pages to this AfD (for consistency), although I oppose deletion: -- Black Falcon 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss_Venezuela_1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss_Venezuela_2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davnel03 25th February

Grand Slam Championship[edit]

Grand Slam Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is almost completely unsourced, and the only source it lists is unofficial and known to use original research. I don't believe that any sources exist due to the fact that many sources were searched for during to course of recent disputes at Talk:Triple Crown Championship. The subject is notable, but not verifiable. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a pretty flawed logic. True, Shawn Michaels when he won the title was considered the Grand Slam Champion, since he was the only one to accomplish it. If he was the only one to win it, I would agree, merge it into Shawn Michaels article, but you can't since 6 or 7 (maybe 8 pending who's definition you would like to use) have accomplished this. Having a dispute on what definition it is (if we could agree on one definition) is no reason to delete the whole thing and say it never existed. — Moe 21:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can cite a reference from WWE themselves giving their current definition of what the "Grand Slam" is then I'll change my vote. Suriel1981 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DUH! That has been the situation there for over 4 months. No source doesn't equal deletion of article. We have definitions, but we can't agree on which ones. WWE hardly chimes in on things and fails to post things like that. Asking for a source by WWE doesn't work anyways since we don't usually like primary sources, we usually need secondary sources from a outside source. The issue is not if that it exists. The problem is that we can't agree on the correct definition. — Moe 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the references have to go? A simple addition to an article saying something along the lines of this title win meant that <insert name> had held every recognised title belt, an achievement referred to as the "Grand Slam". That's all it needs. Suriel1981 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I think in my comment I explained why all references would have to go, because there would be temptation to re-create the article to explain what a WWE Grand Slam is. Darrenhusted 14:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which case it could presumably receive speedy delete treatment. I understand your thinking but I don't personally agree. Suriel1981 15:07, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 06:05Z

Paavo Härkönen[edit]

Paavo Härkönen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Paavo harkonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Paavo Harkonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Paavo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

i'm not sure, but i have two concerns about this article. first is whether it's notable. paavo basically wrote the music for dransik, whose article was deleted. second is whether it currently can actually be expanded to anything more than a ministub. using a simple google search, i wasn't able to find anything more than is now in the article, even his birthdate, for example. Bob A 01:46, 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 ViridaeTalk 07:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Super Stunt"[edit]

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

The only source for this article appears to be a claim on the perpetrators website. Delete unless reliable sources are found.-- JeremyA 02:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both Cracker917 and the unsigned above (63.115.161.98) have repeatedly and abusively vandalized the article. Their input in this matter should be disregarded. Notmydesk 03:17, 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. Reliable, independent sources are key here. If someone feels a desire to improve it and add such sources to the article, please contact me and I will move it into your userspace. Grandmasterka 07:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamebiz 2[edit]

Gamebiz 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original prod: No notability claim, no reliable sources for the information here, deprodded with the comment The sources may be from a forum, but they're all referencing things said by the creator of the game, (who's name on the forum is ArndtDK). He posts information on there that's not on the website. Main concern: product not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry, failing proposed guideline for software. ReyBrujo 02:20, 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 No consensus to delete; default keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:31Z

Anti-globalization and antisemitism[edit]

Anti-globalization and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates "What Wikipedia Is NOT": Wikipedia is not a soapbox or platform for personal opinion or agenda, etc. J.R. Hercules 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm also not seeing too much NPOV there, but I'm still pretty iffy about keeping the article. As it is, it does seem like a soapbox article, and it reads a lot like a personal essay. If it's kept at all, I think it should be renamed Debate about anti-globalization and anti-semitism as suggested on the talk page -- and it needs a major rewrite, avoiding weasel words ("some writers have argued"...) If it violates policy, that's obviously merits deletion, but as is I'm leaning more towards renaming it and doing a major cleanup than deleting it outright. Eeblefish 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took the time to read over the article's references. Many of them say little or nothing about the anti-globalization movement; their focus is on "the left" in general. In the Naomi Klein article, the anti-Semitism angle is focused on the presence of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who showed up to at an anti-World Bank/IMF rally. But Le Pen is a far right-winger; he was there for the "free Palestine" rally, not the anti-globalization rally. The Toronto NOW article (http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2004-03-18/news_story6.php), talks about the possible link between anti-Semitism and some of those who are opposed to the American neo-cons. It says nothing about any link between anti-globalization and anti-Semitism, except that it mentions a prominent anti-WTO activist who condemned an allegedly anti-Semitic Adbusters article. Doesn't exactly support your thesis, does it? And the references from FrontPage and Mark Strauss are inherently biased sources: FrontPage and Strauss' "Foreign Policy" journal are furiously PRO-globalization. If anything, the references provided for the article weaken, not strengthen, any argument for retention. J.R. Hercules 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it didn't address any concerns raised here. Curious how you didn't address a single point I mentioned earlier. Instead, you simply made the generic, unexplained statement that the article was "significantly improved today". J.R. Hercules 13:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've tidied it a little and added some more material. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The primary issue isn't NPOV in of itself; the primary issue is that the article is a blatant violation of WP:SOAP. The article is NPOV by default. But even if some forced "balance" of opposing viewpoints were to be stringently applied in this case, it still wouldn't undo the overwhelming reality that the article itself exists as an utterly unencyclopediac point/counterpoint exchange of viewpoints. And that's classifying the article in the most charitable fashion I can think of; it's clear that there's a political, not scholarly, agenda underlying the article. J.R. Hercules 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm curious as to why you say the article's references are "well cited to established, reliable publications." Did you check the references out? If you did, you would have found that most of them don't even talk about any alleged link between anti-globalization and anti-semitism. A few of them do: 1) an archived 1999 opinion piece from an obscure Dutch group's website; 2) a hit-piece from the conservative frontpagemag.com site; and 3) Mark Strauss' article for Foreign Policy journal -- a journal whose very existence is based on the pro-globalization stance (which hardly qualifies it as an unbiased source for an encyclopedia article's information, especially for this particular encyclopedia article.) J.R. Hercules 04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually read those references? The Naomi Klein piece has her specifically saying the following: "The globalization movement isn’t anti-Semitic..." And yet, the Klein article was cited by a dishonest Wiki editor as an example of a link between anti-globalism and anti-Semitism? And the editor's rationale for making this connection? Why, Naomi Klein is "one of the leaders of the anti-globalization movement". Therefore, uh, there's a connection between anti-globalism and anti-Semitism (sarcasm). J.R. Hercules 05:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, my notice to that talk page is in keeping with Afd etiquette. Much more so than inclusion on a themed deletion source page (an allowed practice I disagree with). J.R. Hercules 06:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not: votes are automatically tallied at the end of the debate, and even the nominator needs to formally include his/her vote for it to be counted properly. J.R. Hercules 06:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An AFD discussion is not a vote. Keep/Delete/etc. comments are a convenience to clarify recommendations by editors. Tallying isn't done "formally", but is based on the consensus of discussion participants not the quantities.--LeflymanTalk 08:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now contrast SlimVirgin's current remarks with what she said two years ago during the first Afd challenge:

Well, it's nearly two full years later, and the "tidying up" from the first time around has turned into..."tidying up". If the article merely had to be "tidied up" two years ago, and yet its defenders are still saying that all that needs to be done is to apply some "tidying up", just how viable of an article could this be? J.R. Hercules 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she significantly improved it in April 2005, and improved it even more now. I can only surmise that you were making your comments to thank SlimVirgin for her tireless efforts to improve Wikipedia articles. It's becoming one of Wikipedia's best articles - no doubt that's why the discussion here is even more strongly in favour of keeping the article than in April 2005. If only the early commenters who almost unanimously voted "Delete" could have seen the article in its current condition, I'm sure the non-politically motivated among them would have voted quite differently - one can see how the trend has changed on this, concurrent with SlimVirgin's diligent work. Of course, Wikipedia articles are always a work in progress - no doubt someone will come along one day and improve it even more - odds are that person will again be SlimVirgin, she seems dedicated to actually helping Wikipedia, rather than just pushing a political agenda. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hercules, the reason my first attempt at tidying petered off was that I was confronted by editors who were trying to slant the article to imply there is no antisemitism in the movement, so I gave up and took the wretched thing off my watchlist. The only reason I returned was that I saw it was up for deletion again. This happens a lot around these articles — people try to fix them but get discouraged by the shenanigans. Aren't you glad your nomination led to its finally being improved and (it appears) kept? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Carson[edit]

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

Subject of article does ot meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. On one album that does not show that it has charted. Nv8200p talk 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A notable person will get over millions of hits. Most of the hits I see are MySpace, blogs and the like. -Nv8200p talk 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria at WP:MUSIC is two released albums on a major label. -Nv8200p talk 02:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find nothing at WP:BIO that this article meets. Can you plese be specific? This is not a good article. -Nv8200p talk 03:10, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 06:07Z

Icarus Project[edit]

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

The Wikipedia article for the Icarus Project appears to be little more than an advertisement for this group's website. Nearly all the edits have been done by one user, and nearly all the references point back to the group's website. NeantHumain 03:25, 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) 2007-02-25 06:07Z

Bikin dirty[edit]

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

Neologism Nv8200p talk 03:42, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:34Z

Novi Ligure Homicide[edit]

Novi Ligure Homicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Event described in article does not meet WP:NOT guidelines. Edited: I've changed my opinion: the revised article should be kept. However, since the majority of the sources about this incident are in Italian, I'm not sure how much more info can be added to the article. Cue the Strings 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the revised article, which goes into significantly more detail about why this particular homicide is a matter of abiding interest. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:12, 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) 2007-02-25 06:08Z

HappySlip[edit]

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

Does ot meet the guidelines for notability per WP:ORG. Nv8200p talk 03:53, 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 keep. This is Articles for deletion. It is not a means for solving content disputes between editors over an article, especially when both sides are saying that sources exist. Uncle G 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brake fade[edit]

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

When I first read the Brake fade article it was fairly concise although based on two items of folklore (that drums expand and that brake shoes produce gas, both effects separating brake shoe from drum). When I offered a rewrite, explaining the cause of brake fade, author "justanother" rejected it, replacing the original version. In successive exchanges "justanother" edited his article to spred it under several subheadings with no change to the cause of brake fade. This folklore is backed up by an article in an auto enthusiasts magazine that neither explains how it can occur or shows a scientific basis for the claimed effect. I explained the phenomenon, its cause and gave reference to a Michigan State University publication that corroberates my description. I also cite Wikipedia items that support my text.Jobst 04:51, 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 merge, nomination withdrawn, no delete votes cast. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic prophecy[edit]

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

this article is basically a duplicate of the article messiah. Bob A 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to withdraw a nomination? How does one go about doing that? Will it have to be removed from the AFD lists?--Domitius 20:52, 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. Grandmasterka 07:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pligg[edit]

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

This article has no external references. Unable to find a single news article or mention of the site in reputable source. Copycat website to original Digg.Mattarata 04:11, 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 admitted prank. - Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Vank[edit]

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

An elaborate hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. Venk is not mentioned in any of the articles listed as source. The phrase "Zack Venk" gets zero Google hits. Djrobgordon 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Double checked. And go with per nom. Citicat 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, some of the Wikipedia staff get suspicious and propose that the article be deleted because "subject appears to be non-existant." You think? This of course begs the question why this is STILL up on Wikipedia, even though it's been almost two months since the dogs at Wiki started suspiciously sniffing around. This is where we should really start tipping our hats to the creators of Zack Vank. Realizing that their fun was going to be short-lived if all they did was provide unsubstantiated information and start sexual orientation rumors, they created an external link to the high school Zack Vank supposedly went to, the Redwood High School previously mentioned at the end of my first post about him. Not only did they do that, they created a little profile for him there so that if anyone on Wikipedia got suspicious, they could click on the link and see: [made up quote] Dave6 talk 09:35, 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. Grandmasterka 07:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netconcepts[edit]

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

I believe this constitutes spam. SERSeanCrane 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should edit for microsoft... =) SERSeanCrane 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk/Contrib) 13:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I meant that there is nothing that passes WP:CORP, just small trivial media mentions.--155.144.251.120 20:56, 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 Merge to Permian High School. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 06:12Z

Permian High School Band[edit]

Permian High School Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

High school band. Need I say more? It has been in a movie, and won some HS band awards, but common sense says this should be a part of the Permian High School article, and be turned into a redirect to that page. Cornell Rockey 04:35, 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) 2007-02-25 06:12Z

Quad county optimist baseball league[edit]

Quad county optimist baseball league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's real, but completely non-notable. It's nothing more than an adult rec league. Check out their official website and decide for yourself. Djrobgordon 04:44, 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) 2007-02-26 08:34Z

MojoLand[edit]

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

website devoted to the sports teams of one high school. delete Cornell Rockey 04:43, 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 per WP:CSD#G1, WP:CSD#A7 and definite hoax. Nishkid64 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Republic of Columbianus[edit]

The People's Republic of Columbianus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable fantasy "micronation". WP:HOAX, WP:NFT. Prod and speedy requests removed without comment. Resolute 04:47, 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 Keep. Articles for deletion is not clean-up, and since the nominator suggests the material should be merged, the nomination is not seeking deletion. Relevant discussion on the nominator's talk page also leads me to believe speedy keep applies, [12], [13]. Also as there are no deletion arguments made beyond the nominator's, I am invoking ignore all rules. In this instance the encyclopedia is not best served by the deletion of the articles, but rather by the improving of them. Also note the specific passage at WP:NOT reads A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. I would suggest these ancilliary articles form part of a larger topic, and that this matter is better discussed at the article talk page for the time being. I would also suggest that where editors identify potential problems, they first look to fix the problems rather than seek deletion. Since the issue's which led to this nomination can be addressed by adding real world context, deletion is not the appropriate solution to the problem. Hiding Talk 10:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stone of Tears[edit]

This page violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven - the page contains nothing more than a plot summary, which is specifically prohibited. It fails to make any establishment of historical significance, any impact, real-world context or analysis. Furthermore, I fail to see any potential for development here that could not go into the Sword of Truth series page, or Terry Goodkind's personal page. I therefore nominate this page for deletion.

For the same reason, I am also nominating the following books from the same series:

Wizard's First Rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blood of the Fold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temple of the Winds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Soul of the Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Faith of the Fallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Pillars of Creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Naked Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chainfire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phantom (Sword of Truth) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Debt of Bones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MPoint 05:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#.22PROD.22. I think in this case, the point 

"should" is the magic word in the passage quoted from "What Wikipedia is not". "should" refers to something desirable rather than to a prerequisite. "should" is not synonymous 
with "must". I agree that an article on a novel should contain more than a plot summary. If it doesn't, it should be expanded rather than shortened, let alone deleted

applies in the case of all the novels. As a final note, I think brief plot summaries are appropriate to pages about books (I've also found them useful in the past), so it might be a question of what else, or how much needs to be added to dodge the WP:NOT criteria. I've brought this up at Village Pump and I'm waiting for a reply. WLU 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of other relevant policies which all articles must comport with are: verifiability; no original research; Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.[2] Where articles fail to encompass these policy considerations and others, they may be proposed for deletion or may be more formally listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Relevant portion bolded. WP:BK does not override policy, namely WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. This is a plot summary, in most of the cases nothing more than a summary. It therefore violates policy. I am highly insulted that you would accuse me of bad faith for following policy - as for WP:POINT, I am beginning to be irked that WP:NOT is being so widely ignored, and have started to do something about it. Are you saying that paying particular attention to certain portions of policy is WP:POINT?MPoint
What we need to remind ourselves is that simply because someone doesn't care for a thing, in no way validated the need for removal. According to MPoint's rational, then almost every Novel page would also need to be included, namely ASOIAF pages, Wheel of time, by Robert Jordan, etc. All of them would be considered AFD. I hope that simply put MPage is misguided in his/her desire to help Wikipedia a better

Place, rather than some kind of bad faith effort or some retaliatory strike. I for one would like to think the former Mystar 18:31, 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 Merge to AFI (band). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:35Z

Despair Faction[edit]

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

The band? Very notable. The fan club? Not so much. This article lacks any reliable sources to demonstrate the fan club meets WP:N. At the very most, this should be a (small) part of the band's article. janejellyroll 05:36, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Knepp[edit]

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

Bumped from speedy. Asserts notability, but not impressively so: appears to have gotten some local coverage for some student silliness. WP:BIO refers. Sandstein 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to WP:BIO itself, WP:BIO "is not wikipedia policy" so it should not be used as a sole basis for deletion.
  • Lack of presence on the internet doesn't necessarily reflect lack of notability.
  • Knepp does show up in the sources - both in the SETV video and this article[15] as the organizer of the the controversial event. Namikiw 15:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO was not my sole basis for deletion. I also stated that he had 13 unique google hits. 13 is very low. I also stated that he failed at being a DJ. These reasons with the fact that he miserably fails WP:BIO are reasons enough.
  • Lack of presence on th internet does not reflect lack of notability. However, a lack of presence, and a lack of multiple independent reliable sources to prove verifiability does reflect lack of notability.
  • I don't see Knepp's name on this link [16] or this link [17]. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read page 2 of this article?[18] How can you you make assertions if you're not reading the sources? Namikiw 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (from WP:BIO). In my opinion someone who doesn't appear anywhere on the first page of an article doesn't come even close to being considered the primary subject of said article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[19] Also, the discussion for the original article is reaching record lengths with 52 comments. [20] — Dmurtbergx (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 Merge to The Wotch. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:37Z

The Wotch: Cheer![edit]

The Wotch: Cheer! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable authorized but fanmade spinoff from webcomic, fails WP:WEB; The Wotch: Cheer! gets only 69 distinct Google hits[21], none of them indicating any notability. Adding the author name Tselsebar to the search, you drop to 21 distinct google hits[22]. Article was redirected to the main article as a courtesy, but redirect was contested and removed, so now it's up for AfD. Fram 06:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are WP:ILIKEIT arguments. What about notability? Any independent reliable sources indicating notability per WP:WEB or WP:NOTE? Fram 10:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your personal opinion Ambi Valent, please base your comments on Wikipedia inclusion and deletion policies. - Mgm|(talk) 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, not a valid argument: WP:GOOGLEHITS. And, incidentally, 600 is extremely low for a webcomic; even 6,000 is pretty low for web material. Part Deux 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being? That Cheer is actually less notable than it sounds? Wellmann 10:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps (and I am just playing Devil's Advocate here) it means that The Wotch is steadily becoming another Keenspot, and therefore association with it should be a point of noteability. Theturtlehermit 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's several orders of magnitude away from that. Anyway, to be anal, it's true enough that the forums in question seem to be a small hub. --Kizor 22:43, 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 Speedy Delete non-notable bio, nonsense. -- Gogo Dodo 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Nguyen[edit]

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

Although claims of notability are made, this is your basic nn bio with a dash of nonsense. janejellyroll 06:19, 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 Merge to The Wotch. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:38Z

The Wotch: My Sister, Myself[edit]

The Wotch: My Sister, Myself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreleased fanmade game for a webcomic, fails WP:NOTE. 16 distinct Google hits[25], all indicating that very little is known for this game in development (making it a WP:NOT for crystalballery candidate as well). Fram 06:27, 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 No consensus to delete; default keep. Possible merge. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:40Z

Prophetic gift of Ellen White[edit]

Prophetic gift of Ellen White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is pure religious cruft. It pretends to be NPOV by using words such as "believed" but even the article name is blatantly POV. Delete Nardman1 06:28, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in India[edit]

List of shopping malls in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure if this should or shouldn't be deleted, so I figured I'd let the community decide. Looks like an indescriminate list of shopping malls, and, from what I can tell, Wikipedia is not a directory. Rockstar915 06:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which precedent are you talking about? utcursch | talk 14:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Categories only work for persons/objects/events that already have WP articles.
  2. Whereas lists can be referenced, categories are more difficult to do (each article must be referenced).
  3. Not everyone finds categories easier-to-use than lists.
  4. Lists can provide additional information about individual entries (which categories cannot).
  5. Per WP:LIST, lists that aid in navigation, are informative, and/or are used for development purposes are allowed.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected. Proto ► 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Mooneyham[edit]

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

This character was only in a single film with no expected sequels as of yet. The article is not even linked to on the actor nor the film's page. This article is unlikely to be expanded too much further and to my knowledge there are no other characters in the film that have articles. As a member of WP:Films, I have seen some character articles for more notable films (Star Wars, The Matrix, Battle Royale) and this one does not appear notable enough to have an article. Good film, but it is not necessary to have an article for Zach. Nehrams2020 06:49, 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) 2007-02-25 06:14Z

Kevin Denzler[edit]

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

A Tekken player. While the article asserts notability up the wazoo what with all the boldface and the capitals, this guy is not notable. Daigo Umehara's article was recently deleted, which sets a pretty clear precedent. JuJube 07:05, 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 from mainspace. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hernandez[edit]

Martin Hernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michelle Hernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All Over Again (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article of the same name previously deleted for vandalism. The subject is a 15 year old mexican. Also bundled with article on the actress sister of the subject (aged 16), and a film ostensibly created by the young director which claims to have won a number of awards. No information available on the film. Likely hoax, but at best fails WP:V Ohconfucius 08:09, 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 speedily deleted by MacGyverMagic as a hoax. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Malt[edit]

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

Hoax. Book supposedly written by Zack Vank. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Vank Dave6 talk 09:43, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zamzar[edit]

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

User:MER-C placed a speedy tag on this article, but it definitely doesn't look speedy-able to me; seemed to have some references on google, as well as a high hit count. I am neutral Part Deux 09:56, 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 keep. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 11:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Freeman (musician)[edit]

Very few google hits about David in regards to music. Searching for his name turns up a lot of Flight of the Navigator hits. Shall we keep? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they should be in there. I will do that tomorrow if I don't forget, but my point is that a cursory check on Google could've prevented an AFD to begin with. If nominators check what they're nominating, they're busy adding sources more often than nominating things for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 23:33, 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, and also delete other album images uploaded by the same user (see below). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 06:16Z

TBA Nelly Furtado[edit]

TBA Nelly Furtado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Nelly 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Nominate for deletion along with

TBA Kelly Clarkson(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TBA Kelly Clarkson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Kelly clarkson.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
TBA Sugababes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Suga 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
TBA Shakira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:SHAKIRA.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
TBA Ashlee Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Ashlee.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
TBA Jennifer Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Jlop.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
TBA (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TBA Mariah Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:MAR.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
TBA Kylie Minogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Kylie 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Comment from closing admin: In addition to the above listed images used only on the respective articles, I am also summarily deleting the following orphaned images (plus a few that are only used on articles for other "to be released" albums), since the creator seems to have a history of uploading fake/photoshopped album cover images. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 06:26Z

File:Britters2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:4 in the morning.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Nat Nb.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Nicole.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:BECAUSE I LOVE IT.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Double the trouble 4.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Ms. kelly.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Me and my 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:ACE REJECT.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:ANYTHING.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Fired up 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Sweet sacrifice.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Back to black.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:LEONA 3.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:TEARS.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Ghosts.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Ghosts 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Back to black.png.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Nb2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Christinamilian.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Leav me alone.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Liberation 1.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Liberation 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:ORAL FIXATON TOUR.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:ORAL FIXATON TOUR2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:BRITTERS.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:BRITTERS2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:MADGE.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Mutya3.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:MUTYA2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Bday Deluxe Edition.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Copy of Double the trouble 3.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Trip 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Ittle remedy.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Beaut.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:FROMT THE ROOTS.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Pink2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Incredible.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:THE MUSICAL 2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:The musical.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

All of these articles are speculation about future albums of which the name isn't even known. No citations to verify speculation. (WP:CRYSTAL) Adambro 10:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, TBA (album). Adambro 10:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've let the user in question know about this AfD but they've created another article along the same lines, TBA Mariah Carey, which I've added to this debate. They have also uploaded more images without adding a license which I've also mentioned to them. Adambro 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TBA Nelly Furtado has been deleted, "WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio from http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/furtado%20records%20first%20spanish%20album_1017184)", but the others remain part of the AfD. Adambro 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought they need to be redirects. Adambro 13:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They seem like unusual search terms, which would tend to militate against a redirect. I'm also skeptical of the argument that "they're known to be coming out", given that it would be highly unusual if a popular recording act wasn't at some point in planning an album. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
when they simply delete, instead of redirect.. someone always just re-creates it, and we go through this all over again, or redirect tot he AFD age anyway.. so save some time and headaches and redirect to begin with either to the AFD discussion or the artist page itself. Alankc 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I never stand in the way of redirects. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:46, 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 07:53Z

Zumi zumi[edit]

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

Another WP:OR drinking game without any reliable sources - no indication of notability either by gsearch. Part Deux 10:42, 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. John254 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storrow Drive[edit]

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

Well, it's a parkway. There is no assertion of notability except for "The road is notorious for speeding and aggressive driving because police enforcement along the road is difficult without a breakdown lane." I left a note on the talk page, and prodded it 35 hours later. After two minutes, the prod was removed by NE2 with the edit summary "This is a clearly notable road." I think not. It's a parkway. Yes, it has many google hits, but that doesn't say squat. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, no secondary sources cited to establish notability, and I can't find any. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 11:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Change to keep due to several secondary sources provided. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7talk 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References
  1. ^ Cambridge Medieval History p.374.
  2. ^ Department of Conservation and Recreation, Charles River Reservation
  3. ^ SmarTraveler Boston Map (note "Charles River Roads")
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-BPD[edit]

Non-BPD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article deals with the group dynamics in a relationship with mentally ill people, especially borderlines and narcissists. While the topic this article tries to address is valid, this article is not maintainable. It would have to be rewritten and moved.
This is impossible due to editorial gridlock. An article 'owner' has been trying to get rid of the page for more than half a year (strangely enough he never listed it for deletion). Work on this article is impossible (constant deletions reverts and what not appearing on the horizon, most writers will be scared off just like me). There is no benefit in having this article. Whoever wants to write on this topic should recreate the article under a more appropriate title, probably a broader topic like Relationships with mentally ill people. The topic is more of a self-help-topic which is covered by popular press and psychology. The article owner thinks that only natural science topics should be allowed on Wikipedia and cites numerous policies. (None of the policies confirms that of course.) It is pretty much impossible to cover the topic from the point of view of natural science due to its nature being a self-help-topic. The authors of the books that this article is based on are all social scientists (psychologists) not psychiatrists (natural scientists).
A redirect to Borderline personality disorder would be misleading, because it covers the opposite of the article in question here and there is a whole group of people on this article who all oppose the inclusion of non-empirical research, popular culture material and self-help-literature. Which I agree with, the content of Non-BPD should not be merged into Borderline personality disorder. Keep popular culture topics separate from hard science. There is almost no psychiatric research about the group dynamics in a group with a mentally ill person which is what the sources for the Non-BPD article would be about. Group dynamics is not a subject psychiatry deals with.

comment:I was willing to improve the article a little but there is no way I will go through lenghty dispute resolution processes. And I believe others will think so too. --Grace E. Dougle 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment:I just listed it for RFC a couple of hours ago to try and sort it out. Unless there is some hard evidence in the form of citations and valid sources I am not convinced that this IS a "valid topic". It seems to be no more than the agenda of a self help book associated non-notable online support groups.--Zeraeph 12:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What agenda? You have evaded this topic before, please be specific.--Grace E. Dougle 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I haven't evaded anything as far as I can see. Without further valid evidence I have no choice but conclude that the term "Non-BPD" exists only as the topic of a self-help book called "Stop Walking on Eggshells" and it's non notable offshoots. As the book, in itself, seems little more than villification and marginalisation of anybody who can be percieved (not diagnosed, just percieved) to show show traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, a medical condition acknowledged to be caused largely by abuse in the first place. The main author of this book, Randy Kreger is a former (or maybe she still is) public relations consultant who's entire experience of Borderline Personality Disorder, at the time the book was written, consisted in attributing it to at least one family member. Now pardon me if I find all of that a little questionable in terms of validity, encyclopaedic value and NPOV. I make no secret of the fact that I would prefer the article be deleted, BUT I think it is only right and "Wikipaediac" (<is that a word?) to try and establish/see if anyone can establish other valid credentials for the term "Non-BPD". I even went so far as to persuade an editor with appropriate qualifications to re-write a neutral, informed section on "Non-BPD" for the redirect to the Borderline personality disorder article[30], and persuaded him to leave it [31] when he wanted to delete it as a result of a book deal to write a book on the topic. [32]. The section was recently deleted without any objection from me because it had been there for almost a year without attracting one, single citation - valid or otherwise. --Zeraeph 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the agenda of the book by Mason/Kreger, according to you, would be that the authors are trying to vilify and marginalize borderlines? You probably misunderstood this book. There is a process Mason describes that encourages the reader to distance themselves from the person emotionally and try to see the illness in their behaviour rather than the insults (borderlines tend to rage at their relatives/significant others and insult them with all kinds of things). It does not tell them to hate them, vilify them or marginalize them. The same holds true for the other books that talk about relationships with borderlines (Kreisman: I hate you, don't leave me; Lawson: Understanding the borderline mother; Judovsky). Lawson's book even has the term 'understanding' in the title. But we both agree that stressing the non-aspect is not the correct way to tackle this article.--Grace E. Dougle 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply No, I am quite certain that I haven't misunderstood anything at all. I am familiar with the book, et al. But this is not the place to debate (or promote) that. This AFD is about the article "Non-BPD". If the term only relates to one self help book and it's agenda without other academic references or citations it is not sufficiently noteable for an article, if however, you, or anyone can find citations from reliable sources that are peer-reviewed and supported by research, just like Racism and Bigotry, however unpleasant, it must stay. But in a neutral, balanced article that also cites the opposition and perhaps manages to get along without links to pdf rants, like "A survivor's tale" by fully identified men about their ex wives (who are identified by association).
Without that, the only valid text for the article is Non-BPD is a term some people use for people who do not have Borderline personality disorder, and once we have that, we had better have "Non-gardener", "Non-anaemic" and "Non-lefthanded" as well.
Have you seen my comment lower down? Did you realise I have requested an RFC when you requested this? If not you might like to consider requesting an early closure without prejudice pending the RFC. I would not oppose that. --Zeraeph 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment:I listed this for RFC just over an hour BEFORE this AFD was listed. Somebody just pointed out to me that people might not realise this, not least Grace E. Dougle? --Zeraeph 14:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And...now what? RFC means request for comment and I've certainly done enough commenting. I would like to see this deleted.--Grace E. Dougle 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Solution Just request an early closure here, on whatever you consider your grounds to be, without prejudice to the article's being relisted for deletion again. You might like to also like to repeat the request on WP:AN to hurry things up. I certainly won't oppose, although my personal preference is strongly for deletion I had no intention of listing it without giving you time to come up with valid sources and citations. When you listed it I assumed that you were not going to do so. Somebody pointed out that you were only new and might not have noticed or understood what an RFC might entail.
I will take this opportunity to give you fair notice that the only thing you can do to change my mind is to produce valid, neutral, peer reviewed sources for the notability of the term Non-BPD. Anything else is a waste of your time, and mine. It is probably a good idea to copy this discussion to "requests for comment" on the article's talk page? --Zeraeph 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could there be something you just don't get? I listed this article for deletion, so why should I want to change your mind (you also opted for delete) and produce material that supports an article I want deleted? And that is not a question, just a comment. --Grace E. Dougle 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you meant you wanted to delete the AFD for now and go with the RFC. --Zeraeph 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you will find that is because the Al-Anon article is confined to discussing the nature of the organisation itself, whereas the Non-BPD is confined entirely to pseudo psychology on the nature of relationships with people with BPD, such as As noted, the Reactive nonBP does, in fact, become drawn into the inertia of the Borderline disorder, and does this in two very distinct ways; transpersonally, and counterpersonally. which definately requires either academic citation or deletion. --Zeraeph 04:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I see that you have removed the offending text from the article. That's fine with me, in fact, that text always bothered me. Nor would I object to renaming the title from Non-BP to something that is less tied to a Kreger's coined name and commercial interests.
If the outcome of this discussion is to keep the article, then shouldn't there be a link in the BP article to this one? Otherwise, how would anyone ever find this?--gargoyle888 15:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regardless of whether it is a "real social issue," the article has no reliable sources, and therefore it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. PubliusFL 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I work in the field and have never heard the term. Agree with the non-x argument listed previously. However I would Keep if the term added anything to the understanding of the condition but I don't feel that it does. Cas Liber 05:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kory and the fireflies[edit]

Kory and the fireflies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am a strong inclusionist, but by everyone else's standards this band is non-notable (673 Google hits). That wouldn't be so bad in and of itself, but the article is so terribly formatted, nothing links to it and even the article's name doesn't adhere to the manual of style.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:39, 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 nomination withdrawn by nominator. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket trout[edit]

Was originally prodded as "non-notable flashlight". I don't know of any notability standards for flashlights, but ones in the shape of fish from a notable brand qualify in my opinion. Should I bother checking for more sources? - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I confused the editor below, let me say this is a procedural nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 13:53, 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) 2007-02-26 08:41Z

Speech communication society[edit]

Speech communication society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Spam – Qxz 12:13, 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 Deleted by Mackensen. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 07:53Z

Cocknubbing[edit]

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

Appears to be a neologism. No ghits for it, and no references or sources cited. This may be a possible hoax, as well. sunstar nettalk 12:11, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:42Z

Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch[edit]

Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User:David Spart created a new page called Chabad Messianism which was mostly content from the Yechi article and the controversy section of Chabad-Lubavitch. I believe that instead of having multiple articles on every aspect of the messianism and the controversy there should be one article on the controversy in chabad and perhaps a shorter article on the phrase of Yechi and if that gets too long than to further split as per WP:SIZE. Therefore I had moved his new article to Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch and merged in the rest of the controversy section of Chabad-Lubavitch. User:David Spart does not agree with this. I am therefore putting this article up for deletion, to see what the consensus would be. Should everything go back to the way it was before with all the controversies staying in the chabad-lubavitch article or should just the messianism page stay separate along with a separate Yechi page, or should the main article be controversies of chabad-lubavitch. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination I created the Chabad Mechanism page because that is the true nature of the issue. If you read the Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch article you will note that the first section is unencylopdic blather about Chabad in general, and all the rest is either about of stemming from Chabad Messianism. PinchasC refused to allow me to write the article and kept deleting my material WHILE he knew it was still being written, despite requests. Chabad Messianism is worthy of a topic in its own right, check Google to get a taste. Numerous 'scholarly BOOKS and ARTICLES have been written on the topic from many perspectives, many of them peer-reviewed.
  • When the Yechi article was nominated for deletion there was a strong consensus to keep. Note that all Yechi is is the mantra that Chabbad Messianists use. IF that deserves an article obviously Chabad Messianism does!
  • PinchasC did not grant my request to allow the article a week or two to stabilise before he nominated it for deletion, to perhaps merge in the Yechi stuff etc. He did not even nominate the article he wants to be deleted Chabad Messianism for deletion because he knows that it would stay. He instead has tried to confuse the issue further (a theme in his edits on Chabad topics) by nominating an article for deletion that no-one wants to be deleted, so that it will stay - since no consensus will be reached to delete - and he will then use that as a pretext for deleting the Chabad Messianism article WITHOUT consensus , based on this smokescreen.
  • If PinchasC wants Chabad Messianism deleted, then he should rescind this bad-faith nomination and nominate THAT article for deletion and stop merging articles without consensus.
  • PinchasC has long maintained the Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch article in the parlous state that it is now in. Notice that in all wikipedia there is only ONE PARAGRAPH of discussion about Chabad Messianism. One of the biggest controversies in Post-War Judaism has one measly paragraph that is then followed by a lengthy OFF THE POINT attacks on David Berger from some marginal sources! This is due to PinchasC's constant edit-warring to maintain the Chabad articles the way that he likes them. He is not a disinterested party, as anyone can see and should step back from editing Chabad articles for a while.
David Spart 13:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: David Spart, you seem to be well aware of the history in the articles on Chabad-Lubavitch and Yechi, as well as the fact that it's alway been a controversial subject among editors. Nevertheless, you chose to not discuss anything with other editors on the talk pages of this controversial subject.
You mention a number of complaints above on the articles and one of its many editors. Instead of singlehandedly creating these articles on a very controversial subject, I think it would have been a much better to discuss those matters on the talk pages first.
In other words: if you decided to "Be Bold", expect others to "Be bold" as well. Shlomke 18:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to keep it as Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch? Or only the Chabad Messianism section? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch as is and expand on it as well. IZAK 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to keep it as Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch? Or only the Chabad Messianism section? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, either is fine I guess, but I would prefer it as a separate article. Anyways, AfD is not the forum for this discussion. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. (Changing my vote to) Keep this article and delete Chabad Messianism as per Avi and IZAK. Shlomke 18:09, 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 Merge to Teirm. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:44Z

Dragon Wing (ship)[edit]

Dragon Wing (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deproded by the article's creator with no explanation. Article is about a fictional ship in a fantasy series. The ship is not the main focus of the story or a central element of the plot, it serves no notable pursose and it not a character itself. It is just a ship that happens to be in the book series. The article not only fails the fiction guidline but the general notability guidline as well. Cruft in the extreme made by what seems to be an over-eager fan of the series. NeoFreak 13:13, 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 07:54Z

Beer Index[edit]

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

hoax/nonsense Travelbird 13:32, 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 Group (Periodic table). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical series[edit]

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

I don't think the "term" 'chemical series' merits an article - it is not a proper scientific term, it is just a turn of phrase, a use figure of speech in chemistry. See the talk page of the article for more discussion.

My proposal is to turn this article in a redirect to Group (Periodic table) --Eleassar my talk 13:34, 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:46Z

A Million Points of Light[edit]

A Million Points of Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Digidestined.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Future_Digidestined_and_kids.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:DigidestinedsKids.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Kari03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Tai2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Matt_digimon.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Izzy03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Sora2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Mimi03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Joe04.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Tk03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Davis03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Ken03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Cody03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Yolei2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
Digimon 02: Series Finale Epilogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous discussion at WP:DIGI has lead us not to create Digimon episode articles. 90% of the info is fancruftily unencyclopedic, even for digimon (and especially in light of the current reorganization of articles Circeus 13:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit for deleting admin: Please also delete redirect Digimon 02: Series Finale Epilogue.Circeus 02:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to start pairing wars but the episode seemed pretty clear as to who married who, and who is left open ended (did I mess up that part?). I also created it because I thought it was important to show that each of the kids achieved their goals. (ChloeSong 19:55, 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 Merge to Objectivist movement. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:49Z

Randroid[edit]

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

Useless neologism, unencyclopedic Madhava 1947 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but all you have to do is look where any significant criticism ends up in those articles, take for instance the ari's pages... constant fight to remove all criticism, even those that are true and citable, eventually people just give up, and that's that. --Buridan 05:24, 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) 2007-02-26 08:50Z

Peter Stas[edit]

Peter Stas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Frederique Constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous AfD for Frederique Constant.

The creator, who happens to be Peter Stas himself, maintains that he and his company are notable, and this isn't just self-promotion (despite both articles being speedied under those reasons a few days ago). Bringing it here for review. -- Steel 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) To enter information on a revolutionary silicium_escapement_wheel that we have introduced in February. Meanwhile, we have established it is indeed noteworthy information but my claim that we created it is considered not correct because Patek Philippe made an announcement in 2005 introducing a similar system.

2) To enter Frederique Constant, a well established watch company with, as also mentioned below, over half a million page references.

3) To enter myself because I saw that most companies have information on the CEO and founders of their companies. Please delete the page on myself if you feel it is of no contribution. I made the link after looking at other pages and thought that it was supposed to be done like this.

Pcstas 12:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)— Pcstas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

1) You have yet to provide any evidence that your wheel is any way substantially different from the SEW introduced to the industry by Patek Philippe. You have claimed it has 'unique features' but have not provided any sources to back that claim up. The only source you provided was the article that proved your company is merely using someone elses design (regardless of any refinements you may have made. Refining the wheel and being the first to introduce the wheel to an industry are completely different things)
2)Google hits are not an establishment of Notability.Well-known and Notable are different things entirely. Pages with 15 Ghits have been proven notable in the past.
3)Other pages existing is generally not considered a valid arguement for the inclusion of an article. See also WP:COI. The Kinslayer 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re uniqueness: If you would have looked at the image of the Silicium Escapement Wheel that I uploaded, and it seems you have removed from the pages, you would have seen that the center of the wheel is made in the image of the Frederique Constant trademark logo. This is an unique design feature that every goodwilling person would have seen and confirmed. We further developped the shape and surface of our Silicium Escapement Wheel. It takes a whole technical discussion on the calculation of the teeth profiles which is most probably lost on you. As a start, place back the photo on the discussion pages so that everybody can see what I am talking about.Pcstas 15:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually laughed out loud at this! 'It's notably unique becuase your companies logo is on it'?! I have a wallet with my own design on it, but that doesn't entitle me to claim I have created a revolutionary new wallet! As I said earlier, redesigning/improving upon an exisiting design is nowhere near as notable as creating the design to begin with! Over the course of the last couple of days, you've gone from claiming your company created the SEW, to claiming they 'introduced' it to the market two years after it was actually introduced, and now your down to claiming it's unique merely becuase it has your company logo on it!Incredible! Does it make it unique? Perhaps. Does it make it notable? Never.The Kinslayer 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{Image removed because it's disrupting the discussion, please provide a link only) The Kinslayer 16:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Notability: I did not only provide Google hits as source on our company but other external sources as well: http://www.industrialnewsupdate.com/archives/2005/06/swiss_watch_com.php http://www.fhs.ch/en/news/news.php?id=484 http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002384538 Please see also the Financial Times, maybe you consider that more credible: http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=frederique+constant&x=13&y=2&aje=true&dse=&dsz= Pcstas 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those sources do prove you and your companies notability, but the picture your showing us is a computer generated image? What the heck is that supposed to prove? Your company can produce an image using a computer? Well done. Moving on, I suggest a compromise. I'll change my opinion to keeping both articles, but I must insist that the claims of creating the Silicium escapement wheel stop. There are multiple readily available sources of other companies who also make the same claim, and theirs goes back further than 21 days, such as this one. More are available on demand. Is this acceptable? The Kinslayer 18:51, 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 Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 02:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy multiplicity[edit]

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

This seems to be a soapbox article that cites various internet fora, blogs, and discussion groups as evidence for the truth or untruth of the underlying concept. Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources cited therein, and I can't find it discussed in sources other than blogs and the like. It doesn't seem to me that this meets our content standards, and therefore I'm nominating it for deletion. Nandesuka 14:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above users have noted some important considerations. However, I believe that this article concerns a very important subject and thus should be edited to ensure NPOV rather than delated. Mike1981 21:07, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 07:55Z

Mike Stevenson[edit]

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

I can't find any information that states that "Mike Stevenson" (or, for that matter, "Carl Stevenson") was ever a Chicago Cub. The nickname "Crazy Carl" appears to refer to Carl Everett who is a different player entirely. No sources are provided by the author, and the prod tag was removed without comment by an IP. Delete for lack of verification. ... discospinster talk 14:22, 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 08:17Z

Scroffice[edit]

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

Delete - Arbitarily invented neologism, no substantial Google hits. MakeRocketGoNow 14:22, 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 Merge to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:52Z

USS Farragut (Star Trek)[edit]

USS Farragut (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Yet another page on non-notable Star Trek starships. This article is about one starship that appeared in dialogue in a single television episode and never appeared on screen, another that appeared on film for about ten seconds without having any significant role in the film and another that appeared in a single television episode for about ten seconds without playing a significant role.} AlistairMcMillan 14:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Star Trek is notable. Every single piece of minutiae is not notable. AlistairMcMillan 21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why redirect? The "List of Starfleet starships..." doesn't actually tell us anything that isn't already covered in the articles that link to "USS Farragut (Star Trek)". What do we gain by keeping this around as a redirect? AlistairMcMillan 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap, why not redirect? It might also discourage people from re-making the article in the future. FrozenPurpleCube
Not as cheap as not having them (and the associated page history) in the first place. AlistairMcMillan 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too late for that, the only way you can permanently fix that problem is a time machine. But honestly, there's no great cost associated with keeping the history, storage space is cheap in the details, it's only in the aggregate that it gets costly. So as arguments go, I'm not convinced. You'd be better off working for more efficient methods of data storage or pruning of the whole of Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Wikipedia is great because we have articles on fictional starships that even to Star Trek fans or even the people that created the series are hardly notable. Fabulous. And hey it's not like Wikipedia has rules about notability or anything... AlistairMcMillan 00:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see a problem here. I don't know about you, but I see any rules on Wikipedia as methods to help improve the content of Wikipedia, and as such, saying "But this violates the rules" is not a persuasive argument. That just comes across too coercively for me. You need something more than that to persuade me, like explaining why it's a problem. And that's not even getting into the problems with notability anyway. It is a contentious subject on a lot of fronts. FrozenPurpleCube 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is real simple. These starships are only notable for the roles they play in the episodes/films, as such they should only be mentioned in the articles on those episodes/films. We aren't talking about ships like Enterprise or Voyager that appear throughout whole series, or even ships like Excelsior that make multiple appearances in more than one film/episode. We are talking about one ship that was mentioned in one episode, never appeared in that episode or any other, and was never mentioned again. Another ship that appeared for seconds at the end of Generations with no significance whatsoever and never appeared again. And one or more ships that were briefly mentioned in throwaway lines of dialogue in DS9. Only the Original Series Farragut even begins to approach something that is worth mentioning, and it is only interesting from the point of view the character Kirk or the episode Obsession. The ship is mentioned in both articles. There is nothing else that can be said about it here, so why do we have this article? What does Wikipedia gain from having this article? AlistairMcMillan 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that given the disagreement here, it's not as simple as you claim. I could say that it's simply obvious to me that this should be kept, but I doubt that would persuade you. You might even find it offensive. So I'll try to explain in a better way. The point about having other articles is that it provides information that may not be apparent on reading the episode's article. How would you know from reading any of those episode articles that the Farragut or the other ships you nominated also had ships of the same name in other episodes? Perhaps this information doesn't interest you, but it does interest many people (in fact, I'd say that the use of names like Farragut and Enterprise reflects an ongoing interest in historical names for ships that the Trek writers are presupposing as continuing into the future). So while I can understand the desire to condense information, there's also a desire to present it explicitly as that can be more helpful in terms of presentation. I find a page like List of Starfleet starships ordered by class to be an excellent way to present information about a reasonably interesting and notable subject that is far more helpful to me than just having the information spread across articles on dozens of different television episodes and movies. Thus I would support merging and redirecting this page to that. It'd serve the need of presenting the various ships separately from the episode pages, by collating them into one logical place. Any that get sufficiently long can be split elsewhere. I really don't see a need to delete. This isn't bad content, and as Wikpedia is not paper, it makes sense to take advantage of the ability to cover minor topics. FrozenPurpleCube 03:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm only going to respond to one thing here. You say you like List of Starfleet starships ordered by class, please go look at the edit history, specifically the first fifty or so edits. Then how about you look at the edit history on an article like Rick Sternbach. I'm not suggesting this article be deleted because I hate Star Trek, or because I'm not interested in the specific subject.
Wikipedia has policies. If you want information included here you have to follow the policies. This article fails WP:NOTE and more specifically WP:FICT. If you don't like the policies please devote your energies to changing the policies, not suggesting we ignore them. AlistairMcMillan 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again you refer to policies in a way that troubles me. The point of policies is use them to improve Wikipedia, not to have some set of rules that simply can't be violated. If those policies inevitably lead to the deletion of otherwise valuable information, then I would say those policies need to be changed, not information deleted. And I don't know why you want me to look at the history of those pages. Is it because you think you're going to show something about yourself? You're not going to show me anything other than you want to try to make your arguments matter more because of some past actions. That you weren't even direct about it makes me even more doubtful about doing so. I don't know about anyone else, but speaking for myself, you'd have been better off directly saying something more like "I am concerned about Star Trek articles and I do not oppose their existence" . It wouldn't be a particularly good argument, since it'd still be asserting you over the merits of your position, but it'd at least be forthright. Sorry, but what you've done before matters not to what I think you're saying here(and your chosen method makes it irritating to me), and I still think that you are mistaken in your insistence on deletion. Deletion is not the not the only solution, there are other methods available. Deletion is but one tool in the Wikipedia improvement shed, there are others. Mergers, redirects, clean-up tags. In this case, I would have used them. I doubt anybody would have protested, and this long AfD wouldn't have happened, or any of the numerous others possible. FrozenPurpleCube 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think Wikipedia is improved by having an article like this? AlistairMcMillan 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how Wikipedia is harmed by containing the information, this isn't patent nonsense or absolute trash. It's a reasonably well-written article on a distinct subject. As far as it goes, I find this kind of article several orders of magnitude more valuable than any number of articles on politicians, musicians or state highways, but I also think it might be better to present it in a combined page rather than many separate pages. FrozenPurpleCube 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are not rules they are policies and guidelines and there are other statements of wikipedia policy to tell you to throw these guidelines in the garbage if they are inapropiate. Lord Metroid 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three vessels about which we know... nothing. Kirk served on one, another bussed the Enterprise crew at the end of Generations and the other(s) were only mentioned briefly in throw-away lines of dialogue. AlistairMcMillan 19:22, 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) 2007-02-26 08:54Z

Aurora (programming language)[edit]

Aurora (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Aurora (Programming Language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable software for writing programs (and the programming language used to write them). Fails WP:SOFTWARE - Google for Aurora "Ionic Wind Software" shows a lack of multiple independent, reliable sources that have detailed mentions of the software. The majority of hits go to download sites and file directories. [41] Was nominated before; article has changed little since then and the software is no more notable now. Awyong J. M. Salleh 14:42, 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 and Redirect to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. Cbrown1023 talk 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Al-Batani (Star Trek)[edit]

USS Al-Batani (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete An article about a Star Trek starship that never once appeared on screen and never played a significant role in any episode. AlistairMcMillan 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the obsession with redirects? Two (count them, two) articles link to this page. The "List of Starfleet starhips..." doesn't actually say anything about the ship that isn't already covered in the Janeway and Paris articles, what the heck do we gain by keeping this as a redirect? AlistairMcMillan 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck do we gain by deleting? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles that link to this one, don't gain anything by linking to them. They already cover everything we know about the ship within themselves. The gain, is Wikipedia being tidier by not keeping useless redirects (and associated page history) around when there is no need. AlistairMcMillan 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might well ask what's the obsession with deleting the redirects. It's a simple solution and any concerns about clutter would be better addressed by improving Wikipedia's software and hardware. FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which episode told us the Al-Batani was an Excelsior class? The ship never appeared on screen. AlistairMcMillan 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No episode; secondary source (ST Encyclopedia) gives its class and registry #. --EEMeltonIV 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the encyclopaedia is a primary source in this case then. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Primary non-canon source. So basically we don't know what class the ship would have been if it had ever appeared on screen. Not the best idea to redirect to Excelsior class then. AlistairMcMillan 22:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All we know is that Janeway served on the Al-Batani and at some point Owen Paris was captain of the Al-Batani. That is all we know about the ship. That is not enough to warrant a whole article. Stubtastic articles like this do not make Wikipedia great. AlistairMcMillan 17:18, 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 Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Denisons[edit]

A.J._Denisons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not notable, no outside references. --Hojimachongtalkcon 23:09, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All India Poetry Society[edit]

All India Poetry Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not worthy of being noted & not referenced & advertisement & personal opinions Parker007 01:58, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonney Eberndu[edit]

Bonney_Eberndu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
No, we don't necessarily include every criminal, but according to WP:BIO we do include anyone who has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. This person has had four separate news reports, in the Times, Guardian and BBC, written about him. Therefore he automatically passes WP:BIO. If he had defecated in 22 trains and it hadn't appeared in the news, or had appeared only in the local newspaper, then he wouldn't be notable. Walton monarchist89 09:35, 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 keep. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 11:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Freeman (musician)[edit]

Very few google hits about David in regards to music. Searching for his name turns up a lot of Flight of the Navigator hits. Shall we keep? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they should be in there. I will do that tomorrow if I don't forget, but my point is that a cursory check on Google could've prevented an AFD to begin with. If nominators check what they're nominating, they're busy adding sources more often than nominating things for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 23:33, 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 Weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Graf[edit]

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

Notable? --Hojimachongtalkcon 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the page to make it more credible. Are there any specific suggestions that could avoid deletion of this page?CharlesLeGette 04:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to chime in--I'm a pianist, and Enrique Graf is a pretty notable name within the current world of piano teachers and performers. --AJ

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-25 08:19Z

Every sigh, the end[edit]

Every_sigh,_the_end (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Moved from prod to AFD due to pleas from article's authors. The article is non-notable, unverifiable and also needs to be wikified. The author's requests to keep it are due to it 'gaining popularity' and a possible re-release. Unfortunately wikipedia only covers subjects that already meet notability criteria.--The Spith 15:55, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 08:18Z

Final fantasy xii powerleveling[edit]

Final fantasy xii powerleveling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The content of this article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. kenobi.zero 07:41, 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 speedy kept; this man is an actor who played a major role throughout six of the fifteen seasons of Power Rangers. In addition, the nom's first edits are to this area. Any other "delete" !votes come from individuals who appear to have WP:IDONTLIKEIT in their minds. There is no doubt that this individual is notable, and it's not at all a speedy deletion candidate as he suggests.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason David Frank[edit]

Jason David Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Borderline CSD A7 vanity page on a non-notable TV actor. Home run derriby 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep does not apply to this nomination, unless you know something about the nominator that the rest of us don't. Otto4711 20:15, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Saunders[edit]

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

I'm doubting notability. --Hojimachongtalk 04:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. He has no released albums, like hundreds of other non-notable high school band articles that are deleted every day. Can you provide any reliable sources that he's been "in the news a lot"? eaolson 04:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with ealson. Neggie07...please read WP:MUSIC and explain which notability criteria are passed. He may be talented but this just doesn't look notable. Steve.Moulding 05:31, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxOnToshiba[edit]

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

to me, it's just a personal essay on linux experience, and not an encyclopaedic article at all
Barvinok 10:40, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local35[edit]

Local35 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Notable? Outside links? --Hojimachongtalkcon 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? Justinmachus 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This means that the article may not be notable, and that it does not cite its sources. --Hojimachongtalkcon 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hojimachong. Hopefully it is now "notable"? Justinmachus 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks alot better now. I'd better come "welcome" you to the Wiki :-). --Hojimachongtalkcon 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks for your help, I am a total noob. Justinmachus 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, blatant spam. Meets criteria (#11) for Speedy deletion: advertisements masquerading as articles Cacophony 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't really understand how this works. What was written was fact, not opinion, and was in a style emulating the wiki/kidrobot page which is a store very similar to Local35's. How is a store "not notable" if it is noted by an internationally respected organization (GQ) and was voted, by people who exercised their opinions, on citysearch as the BEST in their field? Seeking help, Justinmachus 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, what would need to be changed to make it fundamentally different? Nowhere does it say "go support this store" or "I think it's cool" or "people who visit the store and buy things are cool". I just don't understand, but I am willing to change it... Justinmachus 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria you pointed out apply to articles for Speedy Deletion, Justinmachus. This is an Articles for Deletion process. I'm going to abstain from the rest of this process, but feel free to notify me if you need help. --Hojimachongtalkcon 01:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New additions: Links to additional sources, Portland Mercury and coolhunting.com, added to insure 'notability'. Added pic and neatened up formatting to be more consistent with wiki standards. Added a couple of links to wiki entries of corporate, for-profit, notable designers. Local35 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Comments, please?[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Uprights[edit]

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

I doubt it's notable, and it does not cite sources. --Hojimachongtalkcon 23:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Uprights were very influential in San Diego. The Ska scene here is lackluster and there is not much hope for gigs or local prominence and The Uprights did much to change this. They are a source of continued inspiration for ska musicians in San Diego.


It's about time someone made a page about these guys. Cool beans!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Endeavour (Star Trek)[edit]

USS Endeavour (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Another article on Star Trek starships that play no significant role in any episodes/films. One that only appeared on a chart in a cut scene from one of the films and another that only features briefly in dialogue from the television series. The very definition of non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a disambiguation page where is the disambig tag? To be clear, I'm not nominating the other articles, just this page. AlistairMcMillan 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK it isn't marked as a disambiguation page, but its content consists solely of 2 links to 2 different Star Trek starships named USS Endeavour. So what's the point in deleting a page of 2 links, which is effectively a disambiguation (though not tagged as such), and not deleting the actual pages that it links to? I'm very confused. Please explain. Walton monarchist89 19:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you follow the two links? They don't link to articles about the two ships. They link to pages about the relevant classes, which then mention very briefly the two ships. [User:AlistairMcMillan|AlistairMcMillan]] 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, the format of the page confused me. I see what you mean now. My vote is therefore Delete (see below). Walton monarchist89 09:20, 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 speedy delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CMP Information[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation Feeeshboy 15:04, 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party 3 minigames[edit]

And also List of Mario Party 4 minigames, List of Mario Party 5 minigames, List of Mario Party 6 minigames, List of Mario Party 7 minigames, List of Mario Party 8 minigames
Previous nomination, which was withdrawn, can be found here.

Trivia. Not encyclopedic. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No actual improvement since previous AFD. >Radiant< 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The List of Mario Party minigames decision was entirely opinionated.Bowsy (review me!) 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or merge to main articles: Not trivia, I will source it very soon, this isn't an unencyclopedic list, passes WP:NOT as it isn't game guide material, the list just goes on .....Henchman 2000 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As these articles are linked to a major CvG sereis, a merge would also be appropriate. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject:Nintendo's aims, is to provide a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo, which is what this list does. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how are these lists not useful for people who don't know the minigames? Henchman 2000 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look, you will find that only the LMP3mgs is unsourced, so WP:ATT is no reason for deletion. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: In no way is this trivia. Mario Party is about minigames over anything else. Bowsy (review me!) 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis doesn't fail WP:NOT, also, you must show why you think it *can't* pass WP:NOT. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, one could interpret this as failing either WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#INFO. Note that there are no hard and fast definition of NOT given, just examples and a rough definition. The purpose then of the AfD debate is to establish consensus as to whether an article passes guidelines - if a user feels that it violates WP:NOT there is nothing in the guidelines or policy that says the user must show why the article cannot pass inclusion criteria. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a strong argument, then yes, you must. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how do they do that? Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cruft is no valid reason for deletion, and look carefully at almost every comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, there you will find that any delete vote of "cruft" of any description should be discounted and there is a consensus for this. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THis benefits those that are looking for precise information, and an encyclopedia is supposed to give precise information, isn't it? And this is not indiscriminate as it is linked to a notable sereis. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles cannot be kept, put them on my userspace Henchman 2000 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest you download them onto your hard drive if you want to keep them, we are not a web hosting service. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT an INDISCRIMINATE collection of info but this isn't indiscriminate as it is on a notable subject. f it was random crap I could understandbut it's not. Also, they are NOT GAME GUIDES because a game3 guide gives THROUGH instructions with hints and tips. Oh, and the articles ARE sourced. Have you seen the "References" section yet? Bowsy (review me!) 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, can you please simplify what you're saying about notability and why these articles don't qualify. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All The Mario Party series of games are indeed notable, but the individual games within Mario Party certainly are NOT. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Dismissed because AFDed too soon; no prejudice against renomination. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 08:21Z

Van Wert High School[edit]

Van Wert High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert the notability of the school Seinfreak37 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Article was nominated for deletion ONE MINUTE after creation. Article was flagged as a Stub and not given any chance to develop. Article has already since been updated a bit further. EagleFan 16:32, 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 by way of consensus, but please just merge this. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Union High School[edit]

North Union High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school, does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Seinfreak37 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Isn't it bad practice for someone to simply create stub after stub after stub, none of which asserting any sort of notability? If the article warrants creation, it doesn't take long to assert the notability, even of a stub. -Seinfreak37 14:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but isn't it bad practice for someone to simply spend most of their time on wikipedia nominating articles for deletion? EagleFan 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of people that patrol newly created pages. It's not personal, but you've proven to be someone to watch due to the frequency of your adding of non-notable articles. -Seinfreak37 21:51, 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 Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 02:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marysville High School (Ohio)[edit]

Marysville High School (Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school, does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Seinfreak37 15:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Stub in development. EagleFan 17:08, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Given that the article is but one sentence, I have redirected to the district page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenon High School (Springfield, Ohio)[edit]

Greenon High School (Springfield, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Seinfreak37 15:21, 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 keep - as far as I understand, high schools are ok. enochlau (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Wendelin High School[edit]

St. Wendelin High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Seinfreak37 15:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Stub is new and still in development. EagleFan 16:01, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McAuley High School (Cincinnati, Ohio)[edit]

McAuley High School (Cincinnati, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable Ohio school. Seinfreak37 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Ohio Articles in development. Updates made to this article. EagleFan 16:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: At what point does the burden of research and asserting notability fall on the article creator? The author, by creating article after article after article without demonstrating notability, is not being helpful. If the author was doing this with subjects other than Schools (such as people or businesses), all of these articles would be speedy deletes. But since there is not yet a policy on Schools, he can get away with it? That seems illogical. -Seinfreak37 15:56, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew shapter[edit]

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

Probable autobiography, no sources to substantiate claims of notability Feeeshboy 15:35, 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man flu[edit]

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

Second nomination, first vote was to delete, but recreated. Neologism. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well known phrase especially in the UK. If it could be expanded more which could easily be done then it would be a suitable article linked to the main flu article. --PrincessBrat 12:51, 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 - There is a consensus that this article should be deleted, although there are concerns raised as to WP:BIO. Although he has two articles about him, he also does not appear to meet two other points in WP:BIO - "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" - At this time he has generated a stir amongst the establishment, but there is no indication that this would pass the 10 year test, or anything else. Also, because the subject is a rabbi and religious figure, it is analogous to a religious academic - a look at WP:PROF version of the biography guideline shows that he is a long way from a religious equivalent of being a academically/theologically respected scholar in any sense.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Sokolovsky[edit]

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

NN "rabbi". Made a sensational blog, got covered by Haaretz as a freak. Precisely one newspaper article to his name. Fails the multiple non-trivial coverage test. If we honor this moronic individual with NOTABILITY, we will give him exactly what he wants - publicity. Delete. (But wait - there's more! - User:Ariel Sokolovsky) - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 2nd AfD. The previous one was almost two years ago and resulted in deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Sokolovsky. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This mentions him in passing so it wouldn't really count. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me?? This is the full text of that article: [50]. The only way you could have thought that the article contained only a passing mention is if you either did not read it, or completely had no WP:FAITH in the fact that I had read the full text. The subject of this Afd is a critical of the theme of that article, as the reporter could not have chosen anyone at random to fill his shoes. Three paragraphs are focused on the man with two non-trivial quotes. As a result, I dont think the mention can be called trivial, which is the way WP:N is framed. That said, the notion of non-trivial is IMO one of the most subjective part of the main notability criteria, so its hard to argue either way on borderline cases. But I dont see how this is a borderline case. John Vandenberg 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the focus of this 48 paragraph article is not about him, rather it quotes Sokolovsky over 3 paragraphs as saying that the rebbe is alive because he is a Tzadik... This quote from him, in my humble opinion does not qualify as a newspaper article about someone that makes them notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article was in isolation, I would agree it isnt enough. But there are other sources as well, and if use this article as an example, he is being used as a source along side a crowd of other notable people. Four people are quoted in the article (in order of the size of the quotes):
  • Rabbi David Berger (professor), a history professor at Brooklyn College
  • Rabbi Ariel Sokolovsky
  • Michael Rosenthal, a 24-year-old Lubavitcher who works for the emissary in Great Neck, in an interview outside.
  • one anti-messianist not named
In addition, three other people are mentioned by name:
The way I read it was that the author of the article included Sokolovsky because he considered it worth of note. John Vandenberg 09:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'* Keep. It is essential for students of Chabad and of religion and religious history in general to learn about Sokolovsky and his views. Mention of him should not simply be buried in the body of another article. Thank you. Shmarya Rosenberg 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Editor's third edit. JoshuaZ 19:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Carroll[edit]

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

Non-notable a cappella singer (WP:MUSIC). Claims to be "credited as the primary teacher of this art form" but, like the rest of the article, there are no sources to back this up. Was kept earlier in a confused, multi-article nomination which had a lot of anons and new accounts. Savidan 06:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times quote "Mr. Carroll’s astonishingly precise drumming imitation creates a rhythmic foundation once unheard of in a cappella" establishes claim of "pioneering practitioner"; a-cappella.com's claim "best-selling vocal percussion instructional videos" and harmony-sweepstakes article on "Wes Carroll Vocal Percussion award" for aspiring practitioners weakly supports "primary teacher" claim.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:33, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Earth Calendar[edit]

New Earth Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: proposed calendar reform with no sign of verifiable references from reliable sources --Pak21 16:36, 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 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deke Sharon[edit]

Non-notable a cappella singer (WP:MUSIC). Makes claims to be a "pioneer", etc., but like the rest of the article, there are no sources. Was kept earlier in a multi-article nom with a lot of anons and new accounts. Savidan 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 media sources added. User:Totalvocal 20:39, 16 February 2007
66.92.17.10 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these seem to constitute trivial mentions or college newspapers. Can you be more specific about what part of this mess you think meets a notability guideline? Savidan 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of notability has been discussed in the previous call for deletion (are those statements now invalid?), with these newly added sources (sorry for the mess - learning) to support (as you requested above). "US singer" isn't as appropriate as community leader when considering notabilityTotalvocal 06:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, community leader...can you show me what non-trivial source you think backs up the claim that he is a notable community leader. Most of these articles are about college a cappella groups winning an award and there is a quote from him in the article; that doesn't really establish notability. Savidan 18:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of his notability is for college a cappella institutions he founded. In this case, college newspapers are non-trivial sources and articles in them can contribute to notability.
Quotes added from additional non-trivial media sources (major newspapers), but links to those articles cannot be found online (that I was able to find) Totalvocal 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being quoted in a major newspaper is not enough for a non-trivial reference. Savidan 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following quotes are ABOUT him: The Boston Globe has called him "a one man a cappella revolution," the Oakland Tribune called him "the maven of the a cappella movement," the Ottowa Citizen referred to him as "The a cappella expert," and the Ithaca Times called him "a musical genius... an a cappella giant."
In addition, being quoted once in a paper is indeed no big deal. But being quoted frequently (likely more frequently than any other person on the topic of contemporary a cappella) is an indication as being a "non-trivial" person from the media's perspective, especially when those sources include the New York Times, CNN, etc. Totalvocal 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sharon is perhaps the most influential figure in United States a cappella--and certainly collegiate a cappella--in the last two decades. His radical modernizing of the traditional glee sound while at Tufts completely altered the college landscape. His founding of CASA, his creation of BOCA, his involvement with The House Jacks... If his article is delted, well, one can't really make an argument to include any single modern a cappella figure. We simply need to source the article more completely. --Patchyreynolds 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With no disrespect to Savidian, this seems to be a one man crusade to remove as much collegiate and professional a cappella as possible. Consider the previous discussion on The HouseJacks that Savidian referenced himself - the end result referenced his failed crusade. Despite this, I don't wish to make my argument based upon a vendetta, but rather upon merits. With a cappella becoming increasingly mainstream and more popular, it seems a shame to remove any article that is clearly justified (Deke Sharon does a cappella for a living! It's not a mere hobby of his.) A quick google search of Deke's name references over 77,000 hits. Given the unique nature of his name, I think it's fair to assume a large portion of those have something to do with him. I'll gladly grant you that the article isn't as sourced as well as it should be, but I don't believe that leads to a total deletion. Given the lack of contemporary a cappella information on wikipedia, I believe that removal of Deke's article, as well as similar ones, would weaken an already small section on contemporary a cappella. LCMike 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sharon clearly passes the bar for Notability under the WP:MUSIC guidelines. One guidline for notability suggests an artist has "become the most prominent representative of a notable style", which is pretty clear by the article's media references, such as the Boston Globe, the Oakland Tribune, and CNN. An argument can also be made that he meets the requirement of having "established a tradition or school in a particular genre" - the tradition of contemporary acappella music has been created and forged through his projects, such as the founding of the Contemporary Acappella Society, the BOCA and ICCA programs - his actions have established a unique tradition in this particular genre.Iangoldstein 05:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess. All three of the above new users have only contributed to this afd, related afds, and the articles associated with them. Savidan 19:58, 20 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 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. Mo0[talk] 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles McNulty[edit]

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

Person does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion in encyclopedia Charles (Kznf) 16:44, 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 Deleted by User:Pgk. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 08:23Z

The European Society of Oxford University (Since 1950s)[edit]

The European Society of Oxford University (Since 1950s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Long dead club, continuously reposted after previous deletions at The_European_Society_of_Oxford_University_(First_established_in_the_early_1950s) and The_European_Society_of_Oxford_University. Speedy deletion tag removed twice by anon. Previous afd here

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AlistairMcMillan 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ian Anthony Blackwell[edit]

Ian Anthony Blackwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A speedy was on this page a few times, and always gets removed by 2 users that seem to be friends and/or sockpuppets of the article creator. It's a nonsense, non-notable bio page. RobJ1981 17:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone in Indiana IS cool, though. Jerry lavoie 01:38, 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. — CharlotteWebb 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic biology[edit]

Dicdef. Extremely little context. Admin JoJan removed CSD and added "some context", but it's still not enough. Delete or wiktify. Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:08, 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) 2007-02-26 08:23Z

Famous Sams[edit]

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

Delete POV, editorial article about a small fast-food diner Mindmatrix 19:31, 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) 2007-02-26 08:24Z

Lists of given names[edit]

Note that this is not a renomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names was a successful batch nomination of several lists of given names, and this is a nomination of several more.
(View AfD)
List of Indian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Dayanand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
List of tabarian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of popular American given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Hebrew names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of hebrew names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
List of Polish given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Polish given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

WP:WINAD. These article are merely lists of names belonging to a language or culture (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. Recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted; these are, as far as I know, the last remaining ones, which have just been transwikied.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 19:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:22Z

Sano The Pup[edit]

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

A dog who was a regular in some dog food commercials. Doubtful notability even for a human. BanyanTree 20:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge IF verified into Iams article as suggested. Does not merit own article - non-notable, non-verified. Suriel1981 14:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update for some stupid reason I actually checked the Iams website AND google for this dog and I found nothing apart from mirror sites, even by doing a site search on Iams. Suriel1981 14:42, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosmith's outtakes[edit]

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

A list of unpublished outtakes is too specialist for a general enyclopedia (WP:NOT). kingboyk 16:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Beatles bootlegs is also too specialist then. List of Christina Aguilera B-sides and unreleased songs is also too specialist then. I think it's important to chronicle the unreleased recordings of an important band (many songs of which actually worked their way onto subsequent albums). I think having one article for unreleased recordings is OK, considering many bands on Wikipedia have separate articles for every song they've ever recorded. I think we can spare one article for Aerosmith's unreleased recordings. I'm sure it could be modified, so it's not an all-out list and possibly converted to paragraph form. However, that can be done over time. Deleting an article and having to redo it again is a much more difficult and time-consuming process. I also urge that Gonzaloc be notified of this AfD nomination, since he created the content anyway, and would be the one most likely to be able to verify/cite the data. I simply rescued the information as it was deleted from the Aerosmith article a while back and tried to make it more visually appealing. --Abog 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, actually, nominating all of those now would probably be perceived as a violation of WP:POINT. Regardless, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a reason to keep. GassyGuy 05:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that many of these Wiki rules contradict each other. Regardless, no real reason why this particular article (and not the others) should be deleted has been presented yet, other than the subject matter is "too specialist", which makes it no different from the other articles. I think it's just a case of someone hating and denying the notability of Aerosmith is really what it all comes down to. --Abog 05:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the other articles, more likely than not, need to go too. One thing to consider, however, is the presence of reliable sources. Sourcing this article would be a step in the right direction. Again, though, the fact that other articles exist which shouldn't exist doesn't mean we have to give up and let every article on an unencyclopaedic topic stay. GassyGuy 05:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pull the other one mate. If you checked my contribs you'd see that I've been working on articles one band at a time, and I've been adding and fixing details in Aerosmith articles. More recently, I've been doing Hawkwind. This is because I'm cataloguing my record collection. Hardly an Aerosmith hater then, eh? If that's the best counter argument you can make it really proves my point doesn't it? BTW, we have a rule on AFD - the existence of other bad articles isn't acceptable as an argument to keep. --kingboyk 13:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily saying that any of these articles (on B-sides, outtakes, bootlegs, etc.) should go, I'm just saying there shouldn't be double standards applied on Wikipedia. I think these articles on unreleased recordings of all major artists have value. Many of these sub-articles were created to make the main artist page or discography page not as long, as well as allow users to know the important musical history of many important, prominent musicians. I alsmost view the deletion of these articles as depriving users of historical research and music in general. When we have 100s of articles for all individual songs an artist has recorded, yet we can't even have just 1 article chronicling unreleased material? It just doesn't seem justified. --Abog 23:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every song an artist recorded also doesn't get an article, only the notable ones. Simply existing doesn't make a song (or anything else) notable. I know I probably seem like a broken record, but rather than make accusations of inconsistent standards or hatred of Aerosmith or other such things, could at least some time be put to reliably sourcing this article? GassyGuy 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you been? AC/DC has 104 songs that have their own articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, they have List of rare AC/DC songs. And personally, I have no problem with that. I don't view it as being other crap that exists. I view it as useful information that exists. I just wish Aerosmith could have the same, that's all. I just don't understand this sudden article deletion campaign. As far as souring the article, there are notations after many of the songs on where they came from or where they later resurfaced. And the ones that resurfaced need not a citation as one can just look at an album like Pandora's Box and see that it's there. Additionally, I didn't really come up with this list. If you look at the discussion page for the article, you'll see that I simply rescued the information as it was originally on the main article but deleted as it was out of place there, so I made this article and cleaned the info up a bit. But if you want citations, you're going to have to contact Gonzaloc as he came up with the information. --Abog 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should rephrase: Every song an artist recorded is not supposed to get an article. I don't have the time or energy right now, but quite a few of the songs in Category:AC/DC songs need to be merged and redirected to their parent album as non-notable for stand-alone articles. And since you don't like "other crap exists," you probably right like this one either, but, we have an essay about potentially useful stuff as well. Since I think I'm starting to steer this discussion off course, I'll back off and let other folks comment now. GassyGuy 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, if that's the case, why should I bother creating any more articles on Wikipedia? I thought Wikipedia is to expand knowledge and make the internet not suck, rather than be a generalist encyclopeida. I thought it was supposed to draw on a multitude of people with specified areas of interest and knowledge to create articles in their special areas. But if Wikipedia is all about being generalist and deleting articles rather than creating them now, I guess I'll be leaving. I mean why should I waste my time creating an article on an Aerosmith song if it's not wanted and will be deleted anyway? --Abog 18:02, 19 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, W.marsh 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been about a week now, and I think the result is "no consensus". I already compromised by letting the "Aerosmith in popular culture" article go, by merging the info into other articles. However, this is a notable list of unreleased recordings of a notable, long-lived highly important musical group. I believe Aerosmith is listed as a high-priority musician, and thus I think it's important that an article exists chronicling their unreleased recorded material. I know that most of this info is pretty reliable and indeed true. One needs to only read the band's autobiography Walk This Way, purchase Pandora's Box, buy a few singles, etc. to verify most of this information. Sure, it could be better sourced and cited, but that is no reason to delete it. Additionally, as already stated, almost all other artists of the same prominence and caliber of Aerosmith have similar articles chronicling unreleased material, B-sides, bootlegs, and the like. I believe it is important to have these articles, as they are chronicles of the artists' music, whether it has been recorded or not, and gives more insight into the artist, their music, and their albums. Remember, when in doubt, don't delete. Abog 07:28, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AB Row[edit]

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

NN road. Lack of non-trivial published sources about this road. Doesn't even meet WP:LOCAL IMO. See also prior discuss on article talk. Delete. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:20, 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Really Heavy Greatcoat (comics)[edit]

The Really Heavy Greatcoat (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was deleted on 31 Jan 07 via the PROD deletion process with the comment "NN-comic". That deletion was contested on 15 Feb at WP:DRV. The page was restored pending the conclusion of this discussion.
This is a procedural nomination. I abstain. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 15 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, W.marsh 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TRHG rocks! It's been around for 20 years and is well worth an entry in Wiki. It is well-known through it's distribution in Comics International and the downthetubes site, where the strip is usually found, is a prime refernce point for British comics creators. So I say keep it. RSheaf2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.184.2 (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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Bonilla[edit]

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

This person does not appear to be well known, at least without reputable sources. In regards to Daryl Bonilla's professional wrestling career, usually successful professional wrestlers will have "championships" or "titles" as a part of their resume, but that doesn't look to be the case here with the exception of a single "AZW Tag Team Champion" title. As an actor, there doesn't appear to be any really major roles this person has played although sources could certainly change that. Houstonroxets4 21:59, 15 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, W.marsh 20:28, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City of Portsmouth Boys' School[edit]

City of Portsmouth Boys' School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school - not referenced by independent sources Adam 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP I am the principle author of the page and though I have a vested interest in the article, I firmly believe it should not be deleted. The page links to the Portsmouth article, whereby articles exist for all the citys largest and most notable schools, all of which would fall under the same "non notable" reason given here (indeed I believe thousands of articles on schools would, the Hampshire schools category (of which this article is included) has hundreds of schools with no references).

I have recently edited the article, improved its layout and added some external links as well as two references. However If the question of this article is that it needs more referencing, then I suggest that a tag be added asking for more references and the deletion tag be removed. If after a time, no more references or independant sources can be added, then the page should be reconsidered for deletion then, and only then. LordHarris 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I would argue that this school is notable, firstly because it is one of the largest three schools in the City of Portsmouth. Secondly it meets one of the criteria for wikipedia:schools which states "A school may meet the criterion of being the principal subject of multiple reliable independent non-trivial published works in several ways". In this case number two: "The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction, or for its success at the national level in extracurricular activities such as art or athletics. For example, the school has been recognized with a notable national award, has won a science competition at the national level, or its athletic teams hold a nationwide record. Or, the school has gained recognition at the regional level in multiple such areas" In this case, the school recieved in 2003, the nationally recognised Investors in People award. LordHarris 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that this article deserves it existence. But I have to say that I actually agree with you arguments EliminatorJR. I just wish that the user who nominated the article for deletion had explained as well in his reasons. I would also like to add a few things in defence of principle. I think when it comes to wikipedia deletion policy on schools, its wrong for articles which contain more than just an address, to be deleted, even if it is by consensus of frankly, a small group. There are after all thousands, upon thousands of school articles that have even less than this one but I dont see a genuine effort by the deletionist community to get rid of them all! It just seems a shame to delete information, in whatever the context, even though in this case the sources are out of date. The information on the history of the school, although unreferenced is the only existing source accessible in an internet search, especially since most Portsmouth schools dont yet have web pages. I cant help but feel that deleting the odd school page here and there, is more about personal opinion, than it is about the pursuit of spreading knowledge around the world. Except for tidy up, legal reasons and for joke articles, deletion should be wrong. Thats my two cents anyway. LordHarris 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - I agree there needs to be a more coherent policy on schools. EliminatorJR 01:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the user who nominated the article for deletion, apologies for not making my reasoning more clear. I'm a little new at this AfD thing. Fortunately, others stated my reasons fairly well. I do agree that we need a more coherent policy on schools, but I don't think most primary and secondary schools are notable. Also, I'm not part of the "deletionist" community; I came upon this article on the list for WP:WIKIFY and I wasn't convinced that cleaning up the article would make it notable. Adam 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP I have no vested interest in this school but I feel that these articles in general are worthwhile. I feel Wikipedia's criteria for "notability" are being applied far too narrowly here. If this is done to schools, it should also be done to many other areas where not very notable things are being recorded. (For example, individual railway stations, or biographies of individual lower division footballers - which are also of interest to some!) Wikipedia is becoming (or has become) a major source of useful Internet information, often of material that is of historical value but not accessible elsewhere on the web. Schools publish written histories, so why should this material not be included on the web, and made readily accessible for all? Information about its history, founding date, previous schools etc is of value. I found the information on this particular school useful (and corrected some of it!). If it is felt that the article and other similar ones does not meet Wikipedia's current guidelines, then I strongly suggest such guidelines are now outdated and instead of deleting this article, I call for a debate first on the whole question of notability in wikipedia:schools. On several occasions over the last year people have tried to get school articles deleted en masse and this has been rejected. With over 1.6 million articles on Wikipedia, there is surely room for description of any school where the people involved are interested enough to contribute something. Hyperman 42 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ive seen articles for deletion for a lot of American High Schools which are just one liners. They are the ones that should be nominated for deletion. This is a nicely written article with a fine layout - as was said above I too have no interest in this school as I live 200 miles away from it but it should be kept! You cant just delete an article as it contains no reference by independent sources. The school does exist - usually you ask for independent sources where the article may be a hoax --PrincessBrat 12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability page is only a "guideline", it is not absolute. LordHarris 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, Ive just removed the phrase about "high" academic achievement. LordHarris 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a Google search for the school, and the first hit - a BBC report - appears to say that the school has a very low academic record.
I'm rather astonished that the "keep" advocates would spill so much ink on this page, but do so little to address the concerns raised here. Lord Harris's deletion is the only edit to the page since the discussion began. While the "notability" guideline is indeed not policy, it is an oft-cited principle that at least merits an attempt at compliance. I'd suggest starting off by linking the BBC report I found, or any other sources a Google search comes up with. My vote, though I would love to see a reason to change it, remains "weak delete." -Pete 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added the BBC link and mentioned the low academic achievement record. I have also added a link to the schools ofsted report in the external links section and also found the schools official website, now mentioned in external links (with the newsletter referenced to the main article). In a search I was also able to find mention of the school and its design of a new prominent local statue. Have incorporated that into the article with a reference. I also found a link to some of the schools building history, as well as a reference to the engineering department and a donation made by BAE. Both of these have been referenced in the article as well. I would like to add that I think this article has improved dramatically since it was nominated for deletion. LordHarris 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Lord Harris. That's a great improvent - vote changed. Keep. -Pete 08:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That information should go in the article about the area; each school doesn't require a separate article unless the school is notable on its own. I have actually used Wikipedia for a similar purpose (although I was looking for synagogues rather than schools). Adam 04:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-25 08:29Z

Ben Masters (NZ)[edit]

Ben Masters (NZ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Benskool.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
Kurt Bright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Nikki Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Victoria Boyce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Anna Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Mimi Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Jean Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

This might be a hoax and if not would appear anyway to be a vanity page. How can one person be cast as both a baby and an adult character in the Lord of the Rings films? I can't find anything to substantiate the claims that this person was in the LOTR trilogy or in Shortland Street or the musicals listed. I couldn't find a reference to his Shortland Street character on the official Shortland Street website.

Even if the claimed film and TV appearances are true, they hardly seem enough to make this guy notable. Jules1975 20:40, 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 MINI (BMW). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:18Z

Bini[edit]

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

Neologism, POV, unreferenced, already adequately covered in MINI (BMW), never likely to be more than the smallest possible stub. SteveBaker 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background: There is a classic car called the Mini which has an enormous number of fans and supporters (I am one of them). In 2001 BMW bought the company and the name from the previous owner - shut down production of the classic car and started making the MINI (BMW) as a 'retro' car with some of the look and attributes of the original. A small, but very vocal minority of classic Mini owners are utterly furious that this happened to their car and are throwing invective and general nastiness over the web. One thing they have tried is to pursuade people to call the new car the 'BINI' (a contraction of BMW and MINI). This small but notable fact is duly noted in the article MINI (BMW)#Criticism in a suitably NPOV fashion. So - then an entire article has appeared entitled BINI which basically says that ALL classic Mini owners dislike the new car...and nothing else. So - the term is a Neologism, it's been around for a few years. It's certainly not used by all classic Mini owners - I belong to a classic Mini club with about 200 members - approximately a third of whom actually own both a classic Mini and a BMW MINI - and in a recent email thread on the subject, not one person said they use the term BINI. This article will never have decent references - it'll never be more than one sentence and it's already adequately covered in the correct place: ie in MINI (BMW). SteveBaker 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, i thought it might be useful seeing as it didn't redirect anywhereI may not be the height of Deviance, but i'm trying 01:33, 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.

Sorry - I'f I've made a terrible Faux-pas with procedure. I was responsible for the previous AfD for an article of this name. A new article appeared under the same name - and since it was still on my watch list, I found it. I followed the AfD creation procedure and then realised that this page (which is totally unrelated othen than by the article name) already existed.

Anyway - the article that is called Bini right now is an obvious vanity article - and needs to be speedy-deleted. Ignore the preceeding debate - it's irrelevent this time around.

Thanks! SteveBaker 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-26 08:14Z

Walrusy Aunt Sally[edit]

Walrusy Aunt Sally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

According to the text, a one time appearing character on a 70s sitcom. At present two google hits. Delete as fancruft. TeaDrinker 21:00, 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 as attack page on non-notable person. Capitalistroadster 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce the Australian[edit]

Bruce the Australian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn, no real name provided, no relevant Google hits for "Bruce the Australian" Travelbird 21:11, 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) 2007-02-26 08:09Z

TSA Peru[edit]

TSA Peru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Tsa peru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:GamenightTSA.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

This student club at a high school in Peru simply isn't notable. It's as simple as that. Descendall 21:15, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair bell[edit]

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

some claim to fame by an obscure bowling title, but not verifiable, probably a hoax Travelbird 21:18, 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 by KillerChihuahua (db-repost). --- RockMFR 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Angry Video Game Nerd[edit]

Why does this guy keep getting deleted? Ive been a huge fan of his stuff for almost a year. Theres biographies for webcomic creators that are nowhere near as popular as the nerd, every time he puts up a video it gets a few hundred thousand hits, stuff like his article getting deleted is why people rightly stereotype wikipedia editors as pedantic jackasses


At the very least this guy is more than just an internet meme, or viral video. He's on a couple of fairly established videogame websites. The article needs some work, but I'd lean towards keeping it. BoosterBronze 18:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! This article has again been considered for deletion without any adequately explained reason. The AVGN is all over the internet. He is a great star that lots of people know about. There are many articles on wikipedia with a far smaller audience so I really don't see the problem with having a AVGN article. He has millions of views on http://www.youtube.com, http://www.screwattack.com and more recently http://www.gametrailers.com Ask on any public forum and you'll find plenty of fans begging for a wikipedia-article. Also the Nerd has appeared on TV a few times, is being discussed in plenty of online communities Again. I really don't see the problem with having an article. Unless whoever nominated this article for deletion (again) can come up with some really good reason for deletion, I suggest leaving this article alone and improving it instead. Also when people hear of a internet celebrity (or any famous person for that matter), where is the first place they go. Wikipedia! Seb2net 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before the "No new developments" phrase is senselessly dropped on this article, please note that MTV-owned GameTrailers has acquired ScrewAttack and now hosts exclusive rights to premiere the episodes of the Angry Video Game Nerd.216.37.86.10 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Rolfe himself has stated that he is very excited about making many new videos in the future (something similar is mentioned in the article, but I've read it in a discussion with him on the ScrewAttack forums as well), probably gaining an even greater fan base as time passes. Thereby making an article even more necessary Seb2net 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep! The Angry Video Game Nerd is an established internet phenomenon, much like webcomics (PvPOnline, Ctrl+Alt+Del, ...) and comedy websites (Ebaumsworld, Something Awful...). These all have their own Wikipedia entries so I can't see why The Nerd couldn't have one too.

For some reason, I cannot find the article. Has someone deleted the article despite the strong "keep-opinion"? I have a feeling this happened last time as well. The main opinion was keep but the article was deleted nevertheless. Could someone please explain what's going on here? I get the feeling wikipedia doesn't want a AVGN article come hell or high water. Seb2net 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does appear to be gone, despite the fact we only started discussing it two hours ago. Isn't that a little fast? BoosterBronze 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Currently listed on Youtube as JamesNintendoNerd, he is the #28 - Most Subscribed of All Time, and is the #52 - Most Viewed Directors of All Time with 4324926 views. He even has his own Fanart Gallery Gardenghoul 05:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone unfairly has it in for this page - the current page was very well-written (much better written then some of the pages that currently remain undeleted) and the subject matter is more than relevant and significant, as Rolfe is a well-known internet personality. Whoever continues to delete this page is, to quote the Nerd, "a shitload of fuck".

I'm not extremely good at all the wiki codes and functions, but someone should revert (or whatever it's called) the page if that is possible. There is no reason why it shouldn't be there. I know the discussion must last for 5 days but I believe we're getting an impression of what the end result will be. =D Seb2net 08:04, 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. The strength of argument tilts strongly in favor of deleting. The article doesn't meet notability requirements; no reliable sources are provided (what little there is in sources are neither reliable, nor provide any assertion of notability); and there seems little to write about the group that is encyclopedic or that is not better discussed in either YouTube or Rational Response Squad. One of the two references in the article doesn't even mention YouTube or this group. —Doug Bell talk 11:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube atheists[edit]

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

Procedural listing without prejudice following overturn of A7 speedy deletion. —Doug Bell talk 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it's the same group. We don't need two different articles. Dave6 talk 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right but it still hasn't got any non trivial third party sources.--John Lake 08:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you will find that your edits have been reverted (not me!) --Michael Johnson 04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything worth mentioning on it is already mentioned in the YouTube article. I think cluttering the YouTube article with every single group on YouTube would not be wise (not saying you are suggesting this at all).GravityExNihilo 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References 1 & 2 were about Blasphemy Challenge and RRS, which already have an article. Couldn't open 3. --Michael Johnson 08:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with GravityExNihilo & Michael Johnson. Would like to add that when this article was nominated, the vast majority of it (2/3rds) was about the YouTube Censorship Controversy. That's why you'll see a lot of merge votes here and comments about "POV". Those pieces have since been edited out. As such there is nothing of note in this article that's not at Blasphemy Challenge. For me it's a strong delete. YouTube Atheist should redirect there. Note that the YouTube page now has all it needs on this subject there under a "Censorship" section (YouTube) Coricus 09:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might be missing something: I don't see "YouTube Atheists" mentioned as a subject or group in those references. Those references all seem to deal with YouTube and the controversy around whether their actions were censorship. Is this not already covered in the YouTube article under the Censorship section and in the Blasphemy Challenge page -- the group that promoted the atheists into action? I don't see how YouTube Athiests/ Atheism a seperate subject... Coricus 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For a start, this has been pruned away from the YT article (it's not called the 'Censorship' section anymore either), and it now just says main article - here. More importantly, it quite definitely meets the standards for Wikipedia inclusion. And much of the page was not written by the people concerned - I know, because I recognise the wording of the total banning part - some of that was identical to wording I had used in the YouTube article, which was clearly cut and pasted onto this article. So the text was not written by those concerned (I'm quite definitely not NickG, and I am not a member of the RRS, although I agree with their aims etc.) PT 22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question You have stated that the article meets Wikipedia standards. Can you please explain how with reference to WP:A and WP:N? --Michael Johnson 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this could be helped by a single sentence addition to the Atheism page along the lines of: "The Internet is allowing Atheists to assert their views in new ways..." Coricus 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be fine, if (1) we have reliable sources to back that claim up, and (2) it's highly noteworthy and non-trivial information. -Silence 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it isn't specific to any one group, due to the fact that there are significantly many atheist groups and all of which do not need specific notability given to them.GravityExNihilo 07:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-26 08:00Z

Joe Jonas[edit]

Joe Jonas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Joejonas0.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Joejonas.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Does not assert the significance of the subject. Personal life section is just gossip, using myspace as a reference. Only external links are "official" websites and myspace. The image is a possible copyvio (taken from a fansite and not tagged). One article about another of this band's mambers is also up for AfD (here) and another was speedily deleted and protected form re-creation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as failing WP:RS and thus WP:V. Ohconfucius 02:34, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Winans

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

The result was Pages have been deleted (not by closing admin). Cbrown1023 talk 02:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quizap[edit]

Quizap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Quizap! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Quizap.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is not very notable - still under construction (the website, not article), and scarcely heard of. Tim.bounceback 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this articles possible deletion is a personal attack by Tim.Bounceback on the article's creator. That's right, a personal attack. 66.203.163.180 13:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC) — 66.203.163.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Metacomment: I previously closed this as "Deleted by TexasAndroid". There was some confusion because Quizap had been moved to Quizap!, then Quizap was deleted, but Quizap!, the article under discussion, was not. I'm not sure what happened after that but it looks like it's heading towards deletion anyway. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 23:06Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 02:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Deaths in Professional Wrestling[edit]

Early Deaths in Professional Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:LC. Completely inapproprtae considering the article List of deceased professional wrestlers was deleted. Just make a category of deceased pro wrestlers and it can serve the same purpose. This is also a considereable arguable title considering there's no clear definition on what an "Early Death" would be. — Moe 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add something about entertainers death's try Category:Entertainers by cause of death or something similar. Try to add as much as possible to existing categories. Creating categories for deceased/living people are deleted frequently. — Moe 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is we had past articles about this and it didn't fly with us before. — Moe 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, please sign your posts by adding four tildes ~~~~ after your comments. Second, there is a strong consensus against either listing or categorizing people on the basis of their being alive or dead (with the exception of Category:Living people which is maintained for legal reasons). Third, regardless of what age is selected it is an arbitary standard of inclusion. Finally, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (lists of Mario games or sexual positions) are not justification for this article. Otto4711 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm saying is sign your frickin' posts, first of all. It's four keystrokes, it's not that difficult. And I'm saying that listing people on the basis of whether they are alive or dead is not done here. Otto4711 01:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:*The problem I have with this article is that it (IMHO) gives the biased point of view impression that the Pro-wrestling business "causes early deaths". Its not balanced and rather unfair to the industry. It doesn't take much effort to selectively cherry pick a bunch of deceased wrestlers, put them in a list without any context whatsoever and call it "Early deaths in professional wrestling" - You might as well retitle this article "Pro wrestling causes early deaths", in which case it will be speedily deleted as a biased attack article. There is no context to this list, as I have stated in my comments above - a biased cherry picked list of dead people is simply not encyclopedic and does not warrant inclusion in Wikipeadia. I can selectively list early deaths in any number of professions (lawyers, doctors, policemen, insurance adjusters etc.) and give the false impression that n-profession causes short life-spans. --Eqdoktor 03:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a search for "People that committed suicide by gun" turns up no results. Otto4711 06:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep The poltergeist argument is pretty solid. What if this article gets renamed "The wrestling curse"? Will you guys/gals finally get off my nuts at that point?Wfresch 04:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arguing for the retention of one shitty article based on the existence of another shitty article, also known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, is not too terribly impressive. Otto4711 04:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Noteworthy, controversial. This subject comes up in the press every time there's an 'untimely' death in the sport. At those times, people curious about the subject would surely find a categorized list like this useful and informative. At other times, the article will serve to educate those who are unaware that there's a controversy about the subject. Gooshy 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Its exactly lists like these that gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. Its biased, unverified, does not cite any serious independent source links pro-wrestling to early deaths - its all self researched. Just how many basic Wikipedia encycopedic rules does this article break? People who are curious about about pro-wrestling and other subject matters can be better served than with a WP:POV biased and out-of-context list like this. Without context on each and every wrestler's death, this list is useless - just what can be inferred from bladder cancer deaths (John Tenta)? What of other pro-wrestlers that have retired and gone on (or will go on) to have higher than average median life expectancy lives? Even if the article originator is out to prove a connection between pro-wrestling and early deaths (nothing wrong with writing such an article - you just need to meet the Wikipedia guidelines of WP:NOR and WP:V), a list like this is laziest and the worst possible way to present such information.--Eqdoktor 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ha ha, right. It's lists like this that give wikipedia its shitty reputation. It couldn't be the anal photo rules, or the army of douche bags that nit-pick every new article. Eat a bowl of dicks, bro.

Comment.

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 08:36Z

Johann Christoph Wichmannshausen[edit]

Johann Christoph Wichmannshausen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This article was written by following the Mathematics Genealogy Project up to the point where mathematics ceases to be a separate subject, but a part of Natural Philosophy, a fraction of Moral Philosophy. This isn't a mathematician; his thesis title is Moral Disputation on Divorce according to the Law of Nature. The only evidence of notability is that he was the doctoral student of a notable advisor. We are not going to include every seventeenth-century doctorate from every university in Europe, are we? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I understand that I'm sort of saying that we should include almost every seventeenth-century professor from every major university in Europe. I think this isn't a universally held idea, but I think that being so generally means you satisfy the notability criterion I mentioned. Please, let me know how I'm wrong if you think I am. Thanks. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Dr. W. is not being written about on the basis of having a PhD, but of getting the degree, becoming a professor himself at another university, and training doctoral level students. Just getting the degree would not have been enough, and nobody is suggesting that all recipients of the doctorate would be included, any more than they would be today. (For one thing, most of them went on to law or medicine or the church.)
In dealing with contemporary academics, we currently generally include all full professors at research universities, either on the basis that they have been repeatedly been peer-reviewed for quality by qualified and knowledgeable senior faculty from several universities (at least 3 times in succession), or on the basis that they invariably have written a considerable number of well received works of scholarship. In the 17th century there were many fewer universities, and very few full professors in each, and so they can be assumed to have been at least as notable.
His coverage in the Mathematical Genealogy project is accidental, because of the difficulty of setting subject boundaries within the then very broad stretch of "philosophy" but I think this is a plus--the methods used in that project are applicable to what are now the other academic fields. The article should be edited to call him a philologist, not a philosopher, or a mathematician, on the authority of the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie--a truly wonderful resource-- and I have just done so. (He presumable presented a conventional thesis, and then went his own way.) I have also checked for further books he may have written. Now that I realize he was a philologist I recognize the name, because he was also the University librarian. DGG 06:22, 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 - unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 07:47Z

Atlantic International Airways[edit]

Atlantic International Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very few non-wiki g-hits, none of which establish notability; no references included in article to establish notability. Kathy A. 22:10, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PARANOiA[edit]

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

Already nom'd once, deleted. Fancruft, listcruft, non-notable, etc. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAX (Dance Dance Revolution). Moogy (talk) 22:39, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Dying Wish[edit]

My Dying Wish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obviously a lot of work has been spent on this page. However, I don't believe this band satisfies the notability requirements of WP:BAND. Although there is one non-trivial article (which appears to be copyvio by the way), there is no mention of the band at All Music Guide All Music Guide (really this time), and a quick Google search only turns up their official and myspace sites. It is possible this band may become notable in the future, but for now I don't think they're there. Flyguy649 22:50, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners[edit]

Association for Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I found this article in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_pushing; as a POV push of User:Patchouli which is banned indefinitely. It doesn't also give any sign of significance. --Pejman47 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of WP:notability this isn't an appropriate article for encyclopedia.--Sa.vakilian 04:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source for its one sentence doesn't even work. If this is ever a notable political organization the article can be remade in neutral manner. The Behnam 06:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Association for the Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners, or Committee for the Defence of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-26 07:40Z

Cupcake cafe[edit]

Cupcake cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Cupcake2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Flowercup.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

contested speedy. non-notable Nardman1 22:56, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idi Amin in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete - this is an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any mention of Amin, regardless of how trivial, along with anything that reminds an editor of Amin or his name, with no context provided for the reference either within the work of fiction it's drawn from or the real world. Also strongly oppose any merger of this trivia into Idi Amin. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture. Otto4711 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the information was garbage in the main article then it is garbage in its own article. Unless you can explain how, for example, knowing that Robin Williams said the name "Idi Amin" in a comedy routine 30 years ago tells us anything about either Robin Williams, Idi Amin or the world in general? Otto4711 13:22, 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) 2007-02-25 08:40Z

Why Christ?[edit]

Why Christ? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Why Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Cover23452623452346.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Contested prod. Novel does not appear to meet WP:BOOK. Fewer than 50 non-commercial/non-wiki Google hits for various author/title combinations. No entry in WorldCat. Appears to have WP:COI problems too. Addere 00:00, 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.
More