< February 26	February 28 >

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

The result was Delete. POV fork. Aksi_great (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani civilization[edit]

Hi all - I request opinions on this article, which I strongly suspect is largely a cut-paste job of portions of Indian mathematics. A clear effort is being made to separate ancient history between the present territorial boundaries of Pakistan and India and this violating WP:POINT, WP:NPOV and WP:OR - [1]. I believe that this article violates the following policies: WP:ATT, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NEO, WP:SYN, WP:RS, ATT/RS. While the development of content in relation to the history of Pakistan is undoubtedly important, this article is by-and-large original research. Rama's arrow 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a copy and paste job from Indian mathematics. The history of the modern nation of Pakistan overlaps with that of India, Afghanistan and Iran. The article speaks of an seperate "civilization" which has yet not happened. _{Freedom skies| talk} 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's part of Pakistani history.It's not original research as the sources are stated below on the external links section of the article.Mohenjo Daro is indeed in Pakistan.It requires some clean up as many articles do,but deleting it is ridiculous.It's not harming anybody.Like the Indian users,we are committed preserving our history as well.--Nadirali نادرالی

Oppose Delete The "copy and paste job" was simply used to get an outline of the article, most of the text was deleted shortly after. The articles shouldnt be deleted, but renamed to "Pakistani Mathematics", just like there is an "Indian Mathematics". Nobody is questioning the contents of Indian Mathematics, but a thread showing Pakistani contributions to South Asia Mathematics is needed. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its is totally WP:OR to retroactively describe contributions made to society millenia ago as "Pakistani civilization". Look at the hits once wikipedia is not there (low hundreds). Note that there is no page on Indian civilization either, but pages on Indus Valley Civilization, Mehrgarh, Gupta empire, etc.Baka man 23:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Retroactively claiming random historical people to be Pakistani, and talking of a neologism (not that there arent Pakistani mathematicians, just that Panini was not Pakistani, neither were people from, the Kerala school, etc.). Pakistani mathematics nets 122 ghits.Baka man 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that most of the hits are about "Pakistani Mathematics Question Paper", "Pakistani Mathematics curriculum", etc. deeptrivia (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fairly obvious POV fork. --Dhartung | Talk 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. C56C 04:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. It doesn't make sense to partition the historical mathematics of the region along modern political lines. Indian mathematics may be an unfortunate title, from the Pakistani perspective, but that's where this material belongs. —David Eppstein 08:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this POV-fork. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Maybe Indian mathematics needs a better title, but creating a parallel page is the wrong way to handle this issue. Gandalf61 15:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian mathematics does not need a better title. A (very) few people could have been confused had the title been "Mathematics of India", but "Indian mathematics" does not cause any confusion, and is the only term used to refer to this field. This was the reason "Cuisine of India" was changed to Indian cuisine (to explicitly generalize to the entire Indian subcontinent), although, it still didn't prevent people from creating Pakistani cuisine, which doesn't quite explain why most Pakistanis in Europe or America would call their restaurants "Indian restaurants" serving "Indian cuisine." Wikipedia should be the last place where academically unrecognized terms like these should be invented. deeptrivia (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the title Indian mathematics seems to cause offense to some and confusion to others, I simply meant that there would be benefits to giving the article a more precise title, such as Ancient Indian mathematics (a term used in MacTutor) or History of mathematics in the Indian sub-continent (for which we have a precedent here). Gandalf61 11:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — We shouldn't require a vote on this. deeptrivia (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete—POV fork. Projecting modern nationalism thousands of years into the past is not a good idea. Spacepotato 03:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for lack of nontrivial coverage in sources. Wikipedia is not a directory. None of the people saying "keep" gave a valid reason why these roads belong in an encyclopedia. Having heard of them means nothing. Friday (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roads near Markham, Ontario[edit]

All six of these roads are non-notable and lack non-trivial secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of every street in the world. --- RockMFR 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Woodbine Avenue is a high-volume road which has a racetrack named after it and considerably more history than many city streets. --Eastmain 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- High-volume is not an indicator of notability. --- RockMFR 01:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... but history is — if it can be shown, by Eastmain or anyone else citing sources, that that history has been recorded in depth in multiple published works. "There's history for us to record." is not an encyclopaedic argument, since it depends from original research. "There's history that has been recorded." is an encyclopaedic argument. Uncle G 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Woodbine with racetrack article (if race track does not exist, create) delete the 5 other non-notables, there is no loss of knowledge here, you can verify the existence of all these streets in a street directory. -- Librarianofages 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - merge proposal is faulty - as a basic map sources will demonstrate, Woodbine Avenue (east of Hwy 404 and Don Valley Parkway) has nothing to do with the Woodbine Racetrack which is well to the west in Rexdale, except in name only. Dl2000 02:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Woodbine per Librarianofages, but delete the rest. I love road articles, but there has to be some history to prove notability otherwise it is just roadcruft. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Woodbine, delete rest. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Are we running out of server space? The article creator is currently on a wikibreak except for weekends, and may not respond to this AfD nomination within the five days, because it was listed on a Tuesday; however, might appreciate the chance to improve the articles and then recreate them in the mainspace with citations as to notability. —Carolfrog 04:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least one of these articles has existed for nearly two years, and been expanded in that time. It seems likely that each has a story to tell. Note that they are linked from the (relatively new) ((Streets in Toronto)) - should they be:
1. removed from that template
2. unlinked from the template, but listed in it, and unlinked from other references
3. left as red links from there and any other links
4. nominate the template for deletion too
--Scott Davis ^Talk 04:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all are linked from ((Streets in Toronto)) - some are from ((Roads in Markham)). I support Delete for Rockingham Court, Wilmort Court, and the row of that template "Locals (Teritary Roads):" [sic], but Keep the others. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources can be found demonstrating that the streets themselves are notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Akhilleus. No sources evidencing notability. --Shirahadasha 07:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Al-Bargit 11:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known street. Skeezix1000 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Woodbine Avenue ~~as it's a concession road and definitely notable (Jane, Kipling, Kennedy, Bathurst, Dufferin, Yonge, Bayview, Leslie, and Victoria Park all have articles about them).~~ I don't know about the others, though. dcandeto 17:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, so it's not a concession road, but it's still well-known. dcandeto 17:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete allSYSS Mouse 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination as non-notable streets. Inkpaduta 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tag them as needing sources for a month and then come back here if none turn up. Look at the John Street article, if we could source the claim that "John Street is served to relieve traffic on Steeles Avenue, and Highway 7", that's a piece of history that could prove useful to someone. Hiding Talk 20:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Woodbine - it is definitely a notable, high-volume Toronto-area thoroughfare. The others might have a more dubious claim in this regard. Fishhead64 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Fishhead64 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into an article listing important local roads in the town. Maybe something like List of municipal roads of Markham, Ontario. If there is enough that can be said about the road other than its route description, some could be split into their own article. I am not familiar with the area to judge which ones are notable enough. --Polaron | Talk 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all. All streets are notable, especially Woodbine and John, are notable high-volumed roads in Markham. Woodbine is a truckers' favourite route, and John is the latter for York Regional Road 71, and Wilmort Court has the most valuable houses in Markham. Henderson is also medium-volumed, known for its residential and industrial mixed. Smcafirst | Chit-Chat posted at 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Smcafirst. Stephy100--A person who loves music! 02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I !voted above, but I wanted to clarify that I am supporting keeping all the articles under discussion, in part beause of the points raised by Smcafirst. --Eastmain 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Smcafirst, but concur with Hiding that the articles could be tagged with ((unreferenced)) or ((fact)) if needed. Unref tags should have been the first resort anyway, instead of just slapping on the AfDs - building up WP by adding sources, verifiability etc. is better policy than simply tearing things down. We should note that Arterial and Collector roads are the most notable designations of roads in urban areas - most roads listed are arterial or collector and should therefore be automatically notable. The only local-class roads in the list are 1) Rockingham Court which is admittedly iffy, but should be given a chance to demonstrate notability first; and 2) Wilmort Court which claims notability as having "the most expensive real estate in Markham". Dl2000 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse subjective importance with notability. A subject is not automatically notable, nor is it notable because of unsourced assertions within its article. I don't think these articles can ever be sourced enough to be in Wikipedia, so I did not bother with piling on the tags. --- RockMFR 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. And don't confuse the guidance on notability with the policy on attribution. Notability is just as subjective as importance. Hiding Talk 19:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia Notability" is not subjective a subject must have sufficient sources written to right an encyclopedic article. Most of these article probably cannot be sourced to this level, if in fact they do then they are notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, Wp:importance redirects to WP:N, hence my point that they are both subjective. And if you care to notice that we are arguing over notability, I would think that proves the point that it is subjective. Are you also suggesting that there will not be independent sources which discuss these roads? Like I say, play the game fairly. Tag the article and allow people to source. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia built from sources people can only find online. Furthermore, Wikipedia has no deadline, and it's only your opinion that "these article probably cannot be sourced to this level", or even that that level matters. Let's not present that opinion as an actuality. Let's all assume good faith and at least entertain the idea that articles could be written on this subject. A month in clean up kills nobody. Hiding Talk 10:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. Local newspapers would have covered the design and construction of these roads in the overall context of their coverage of urban development and municipal politics, and they would also have been discussed in the minutes of the council of the municipalities in which they are located. I think that the sources exist, but since they predate the Internet, retrieving the sources would require a visit to a newspaper's clipping library or to a municipality's archives. --Eastmain 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major arterial, 'nuff said. GoldDragon 00:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GoldDragon Mix Precipitation 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far most of the editors saying "keep" seem to be basing this on their own personal notions of the importance of these roads. This is unlikely to be seen as strong reasoning by the eventual closer of this discussion. My dog is important, to me, but this doesn't have anything to do with encyclopedias. What would make these valid topics for an encyclopedia is having sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Friday (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unless they are sources proving notability. Rockingham Court is an article about a 100yd rd that 20 people live down, which is reasonably maintained. That is not an encyclopedia article. Nuttah68 11:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No denying that Woodbine is a major arterial in both Toronto and York Region. GoldDragon 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woodbine starts in Toronto, passes through Markham and ends at Lake Simcoe near Keswick. It really can't be considered in the same AFD as two residential cul-de-sacs. I'm not convinced that it's sufficiently notable, because being a major local thoroughfare is not, in and of itself, a sufficient argument that a road deserves an encyclopedia entry — the bare minimum criterion for the notability of a road is whether it's at least reasonably plausible to expect that somebody who lives hundreds or thousands of miles away, and has never been to the city in question, might still have heard of the street. Streets like Yonge, Bay, Bloor, Spadina, Eglinton and Queen certainly pass that test; I'm not convinced that Woodbine does. But in a misguided batch nomination, I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt. So: keep Woodbine, and redirect Wilmort to Cachet, Ontario. Delete the others; being a local collector route is not a sufficient claim of notability. Bearcat 09:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Woodbine. Deet 12:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as least Woodbine) per as many said above.--JForget 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep the minor streets, group them in one article, as in Vaughan Road and Oakwood Avenue in the article Oakwood - Vaughan, although these two streets are minor collector streets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnny Au (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was these shouldn't each have their own articles. I'm going to redirect each one as seems appropriate to me, and anyone who wants to work on merges can do so, but I don't see any particular consensus here other than that we shouldn't have articles on these topics. Mango juice^talk 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Tomy Wind Ups[edit]

Catalog listing of various toy models. Several reasons for deleting: Fails the primary criterion for product notability: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both independent of the company... or of the product's manufacturer or vendor, and reliable. The only reliable references are either on websites selling these toys, or those related to the manufacturers. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory.

I am also nominating the following related catalogue listings for the same reasons:

Croxley 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The companies that made these toys are certainly notable - Tomy, Hornby Railways, Bachmann Industries, Lego, Duplo etc etc. However, how notable the actual products are is debatable. There's probably quite a bit of Merging that can go on here. Indeed, Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends ERTL Models is already under discussion for merging with Bachmann Thomas and Friends for example. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a big super-article. They seem in a gray area as to being notable enough to exist as separate articles, but together I'm pretty sure they meet notability requirements. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what info is notable enough to include in the main article into Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends itself. Delete the rest. —Carolfrog 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only thing I can see resulting from merging all nine individual lists together is one huge, long list of hundreds of non-notable models. Merging the notable stuff into Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends might be an option, if it was a brief general description of each company's line, rather than listing every single product. Croxley 06:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These toys are entirely separate. They are all fairly major toys in their own right. The catalog listings are perhaps not all that helpful, but the toys themselves are entirely distinct. Would all benefit from pictures to illustrate the toys in question. Nssdfdsfds 09:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I just point out that if this was minor anime, or other somewhat notable geek subject, then this debate would not even be had. Just because they are toys for the under 10s, doesn't mean they are less notable than more geeky subjects.Nssdfdsfds 10:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging could produce a table which shows what companies produced a certain character. I guess this could be extremly usefull for collectors, yet I do not know wether WP would be the right place for such a fan orientated information. Is there something like "WP is not a collection of information only usefull and of interest to fans of a specific subject"? I hope not because then we would have to delete lists of trees, building styles or rulers of a given country just to name a few. (I for myself am not much interested in sports so there would be a lot of list cluttered articles that I wouldn't even notice missing). I guess the phrase a product ... is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works... is difficult as most grownups would think collecting toys or showing interest in toy history or design is ... well ... trivial. Think of some other sets of questions.
- Who should read and use the WP? Everybody? Children included?
- What subjects would be of interest to a young person? What subjects would draw a child into the WP maybe encouraging it to follow links to related "grownup" information?
- If a young person decides to participate, in what subjects is it naturally an expert?

I was dissapointed when I first found the articles on Thomas the tank merchandising but the reason I came accross them was because I was searching for information on the subject and was hoping the WP would be more helpfull than my local library. Following the basic guidline of what WP wants to be though I guess it will never be more usefull as it is sort of said that "if it has never been printed it doesn't belong into th WP" I wonder if there should be some "easy entry" subjects with lowered rules because these subjects tend to draw people into entering information and maybe thus some of them may become writers on more "non trivial" subjects. Articles on sports, toys, tv-shows and my home town would be my suggestion for such areas of somewhat lowered rules. Although I dont think the list of products of certain manufactures that important I would very much want the basic information to be kept in some sort or other. --T.woelk 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - There seems to be enough articles here, ok, not from the same manufacturers certainly, but there is enough info to turn this into one large article by merging relevant information and discarding flotsam off the leftovers. After all, its all essentially the same type of toy and same character. Thor Malmjursson 11:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the same type of toy???? It's not at all, it would be helpful if you are going to make merge suggestions to at least have some knowledge of the toys in question. The Thomas and Friends Wooden Railway is a *wooden* railway set. It is designed to be pushed along. The Lego Duplo Thomas & Friends is a plastic push-along lego railway set using lego bricks and its own track. Thomas Tomica is a plastic battery-powered train system based on the company's larger range of railway & road products. Hornby Thomas And Friends and Bachmann Thomas and Friends are both HO/OO-gauge mains-powered classic metal model railway sets. Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends ERTL Models represent die-cast metal railway figures. Nssdfdsfds 11:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have some knowledge of the toys in question. Remember please that my first language is not english, and when I say all the same type of toy, I mean - They are all train sets, and they all refer to or include Thomas the Tank Engine. Please don't pick me apart, since I am trying to be helpful and I word things how I think they should be put. Thank you. Thor Malmjursson 12:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just yesterday when I had a look at the Thomas stuff shelves at my local TRU, wondering wether all these in some respects very different toys should go into one very very large article, I spotted a HO gauge version by Märklin I hadn't heard of before (on Märklin homepage). I think the Thomas merchandising phenomena is extremely important. The impact this has had on the toy train industrie is probably huge (anybody any numbers). In fact most of the wooden toy trains manufactors started or expanded after Learning Curve had revived the interest in wooden toy trains. I guess the model train producers and Train museums are also aware of the interest this character is building for their products and sites among the young ones. I can't really remember any other merchandised character that has so many parallel products in the same category. How many ways are there to build a track and run a thomas engine on it? I don't think there are as many different play figures so simillar in play technic for say Spiderman or Jack Sparrow. OK, some suggestions. I could imagine all lists could be put into one super list article. This one might look awfull, but it might be to the benefit of all the original articles. The Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise should include all merchandising products! Each with some information on what exactly the product is (a bag, a bed sheet, a toy train with this or that sort of tracks, a model train in gauge soandso). I guess without the lists a lot of the articles would become stubs that can be integrated into the "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise" article. The list will probably have to be protected from frequent deletion requests. It could be made more tabular, maybe the lists united to groups each with an own table like: Toy trains, Model trains, whatever. It would be great to have more info on the phenomena as such and the impact it is having on the toy industrie. This could lift the article from its appearance as something that rather fits to a fan site than an encyclopedia.

Ok after having a look at the ERTL Models list (we have two of them?) I don't really know how to organise the information in such a list better. Yet the list should be taken (not necessarly deleted) from the merchandise article and the article should rather give more info on every product line each than point to a category page. --T.woelk 11:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT – could I please ask everyone to involve the members of WikiProject Thomas before merging or deleting anything in this list??? The 'Thomas' pages in WP are certainly an entry point for the younger editors, as anyone in the project involved in vandal-patrolling could tell you at length! But we welcome constructive inoput, as it has the potential for developing the next generation of WP editors.

The article Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise was created in Jan 2007 to act as a top-level article and cover the subject properly from an encyclopedic viewpoint. It is still very much 'under development' (like an awful lot of other pages on WP!). Agreed, the current coverage is heavily list-based, and there are few sources so-far found to support the lists, but then I, for one, have not really looked. WP:THOMAS members have been discussing the problem, but the most active project members are mainly familiar with The Railway Series books, or the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends TV Series, and not the specific ranges of merchandise, per se.

It may be that the best course of action is to copy the pages to Train Spotting World, which is a Wiki created from WP but designed to be less strict in terms of article coverage. If they would be happy to have the younger Thomas fans there, that Wiki would be ideally suited to house the long lists. In the meantime, it would be helpful if the pages can remain in existence, since that will simplify the cut-and-paste process in the future!

As for the 'multiple published sources', I'm sure that there's an awful lot of articles in WP that fail to meet this criteria.

(BTW, I also largely support the comments made by T.woelk and Nssdfdsfds.)

EdJogg 13:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Train Spotting World will be delighted to provide a safe haven for Thomas The Tank Engine whether the pages are deleted from Wikipedia or not. I say this as its co-founder. Perhaps interested parties would contact me there (not on my talk page here, please, but there) providing a list of pages (by name) which should be ported. When we port pages we provide correct acknowledgement according to the Wikipedia processes, which includes a formal link back to the original pages.

It is rather important, if you wish this to take place, to give me the list before any deletion takes place, since we run a special extraction bot for live pages only, not deleted pages.

I do feel it to be a great shame that this AfD is running at all. I feel very much that a Keep is in order here for these significant, notable, verifiable items. Fiddle Faddle 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Can I just add that I don't necessarily object to merging some of these pages, but it should be done with a little more care, as there's not been much attention to what the individual toys actually are. As the AFD stands, I don't see what can be done if it passes. Nssdfdsfds 21:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I'm inclined to agree with the thoughts of EdJogg, and I'd also like to add that if these articles are deleted out right, chances are they'd be created again. If there is somewhere for them to be used by younger editors, all well and good. I agree entirely that they are not suitable really for inclusion in Wikipedia per se, but a overview article would be useful as per WP:THOMAS. Mdcollins1984 23:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Lego Duplo Thomas & Friends to Duplo. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 04:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete, as appropriate. I have 'been bold' and merged the (minimal) encyclopaedic content for almost all of the articles to Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise already. (As per original WP:THOMAS proposals.)

The one exception is Hornby Thomas And Friends which is already large enough to stand on its own (as a sub-article of 'merchandise') and has the potential for some very useful coverage. It needs a lot of work, but attempting a merge will swamp 'TtTE&F merchandise'. This page should therefore have a Keep rating.

Now that the original page content has been 'saved' at Train Spotting World, and the encyclopaedic content merged, these pages may be either deleted or converted to redirects, as appropriate (except 'Hornby...'). The problem of unverifiable long lists will then go away.

EdJogg 01:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the 'Hornby...' page does not yet cover the range of ('Thomas') buildings that the company have (recently) introduced. These buildings are specifically marketed "for the adult collector", a marketing move which must be something of a 'first' for a children's TV show spin-off! (Just mentioning this to strengthen the argument for keeping that page separate...)

EdJogg 02:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT-KEEP Hornby article as sub-page of completed merged merchandise page as per EdJogg. Merge/Redirect all the rest. MDCollins (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Viridae ^Talk 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Olmstead[edit]

Delete - article was nominated along with several other Millionaire million dollar winners here and closed with keep and an admonition not to mass nominate. I mass nominated them here but because I started with a different article I missed the first mass nom. The result was speedy close. All of the individual articles except this one have now been deleted in individual AFDs but I missed this one. This article should be deleted for all the same reasons as the others, that winning a stack of cash on a game show does not confer notability even if it leads to an appearance or two on other game shows. The contestant is already mentioned in the main article as are all the other deleted million dollar winners. Otto4711 00:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the reasons I gave in the mass nomination and the subsequent "separate" nominations. Agent 86 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm trying to be helpful here and consider all sides of the debate, but I don't have time to comb through your contributions to find your rationale. Could you restate it, please? Thanks. —Carolfrog 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from reading the article, it seems to meet notability guidlines and other Wikipedia policy requirements. Not every game show contestant deserves an article, but this guy is high above the rest. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple references provided to major news sources including a Washington Post article, thus passes WP:BIO. —siro χ o 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per siroχo--Nonpareility 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. - ElbridgeGerry t c block
Keep. Most game show contestants are not notable. However, this individual is notable based on the multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources he has received, largely because he set a record for the "highest total winnings on a game show" at the time. -- Black Falcon 07:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And though I agree with Black Falcon, the article could use some more expansion and addition of cited sources. Smee 10:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, per all above. Obiviously notable. Mkdw ^talk 10:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 11:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, winning a stack of cash does not confer notability, but multiple reliable references does. --Canley 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Austinsimcox 14:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of what may or may not be in the article on the game show, it appears that this person's article has multiple independently published articles specifically about them. Thus he meets at least the minimal notability requirements of WP:N. That alone would usually mean the article should be kept, but in addition it looks like he's also appeared on other shows besides just Millionaire, so merging makes even less sense given that not all the information in the article is about Millionaire. Dugwiki 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion by admin NoSeptember as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR--TBCΦtalk? 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme dunwoody[edit]

Delete. Vanity. Georgia guy 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-bio and tagged as such. --- RockMFR 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was RESULT is delete. Gnan garra 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Australian banknotes[edit]

Duplicates the content of Banknotes of the Australian dollar; there is also an article for each of the Australian banknotes. A gallery of fair use media is not an acceptable fair use, and galleries shouldn't be on wikipedia anyway per WP:NOT. Delete --Peta 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only delete, but Speedy Delete - on account htat I question the legality of reproducing these images online. It's currency, for crying out loud. --Dennisthe2 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per Dennisthe2, this can sureley be found at an Australian Government Website, Thus it is not needed here, and It it can be argued to be Illegal.Corporal Punishment 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't consider the arguments here appropriate for a user-level discussion, I think it should be sent to a lawyer to get a real legal opinion. FrozenPurpleCube 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this doesn't seem to be the appropriate place to talk about legality, and I'm bewildered at the speedy delete tag, so I'm planning to remove that. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be solicitor in Australia. -- Librarianofages 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since the problem of currency is a problem for more than just Australia(see the other discussion), I wouldn't suggest consulting an Australian attorney whether you call them a lawyer, solicitor or monkey in a suit. Better to hire a consultant who is a little closer, as an this is likely to be an extensive issue that covers most every country. FrozenPurpleCube 05:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is that each nation has different rules, and although Wikipedia is based on US servers images of currency are likely to be a problem if they contravene the laws of that country. Some countries allow images, some allow them only if they're specimens, some don't allow them at all. There really isn't a blanket answer. --Charlene 11:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is why you hire a lawyer who you can consult with closely in order to get answers for each country where it matters. FrozenPurpleCube 22:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Banknotes of the Australian dollar. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge They are legal as long as the resolution is not to big, its fair use so people can see what is and isn't real money. For example most people would not recognise old notes now at all.--Dacium 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is overly simplistic and misleading. The situation is more complex than that. I suggest reading what the Reserve Bank of Australia has to say on the subject. Uncle G 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dunno about you, Dacium, but I'd wager that most Australians between the ages of 20 and 80 would be able to recognise the old currency within a few milliseconds. J i m p 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. -- Librarianofages 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This gallery shows banknotes past and present that may or may not be featured on anyother wikipedia page. Same as all other galleries. Please see past AfD's, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of banknotes (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of banknotes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of banknotes (2nd nomination) Joe I 02:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read our Wikipedia:Copyright policy and Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. Bare galleries of fair use images (The images on Australian banknotes are not licenced under the GFDL or any other free-content copyright licence.) are not permitted. Uncle G 03:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Banknotes of the Australian dollar where readers can get the context.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, because as it stands, it is a fair-use gallery, which runs afoul of WP:FU. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for the same reason listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of banknotes 2. This AfD should really be discussed together with the other galleries. But when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of banknotes 2 is overwhelmingly keep, the same nominator nominated the Australian gallery separately, instead of adding it to the list. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am worried about the liability that Wikipedia can incur if a person can make forged Australian notes from this website. As someone mentioned earlier, there is not a copyright for these notes. Real96 04:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Counterfeit is not an issue. The current series, like Image:Australian 100note front.jpg, has a very visible "SPECIMEN" across. Even if there is no such word, the image is 448 pixel wide and the actual note is 158 mm wide, that means the print resolution would be 72 dot per inch. That is a very low resolution for printing photo, let alone forging money. 300 dpi is a minimum. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, merge. Real96 06:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Banknotes of the Australian dollar to provide context/content in accordance with fair use; the thumbnails are encyclopedically useful to illustrate the content. —Carolfrog 05:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Banknotes of the Australian dollar, it shouldn't be out there on it's own, but I don't think it merits deletion since the images will help illustrate the content of the article. Darth griz⁹⁸ 05:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Banknotes of the Australian dollar, per above. --Shirahadasha 07:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Comment you do all realise none of these notes have been legal tender for over 10 years? we use completely different looking plastic ones now. DanielT5 07:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I think you've confused legal tender and in circulation. These certainly appear to still be legal tender. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody oath there legal tender, I can spend any Aussie money from 1910 at face value. Enlil Ninlil 09:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Banknotes, like flags, are entirely appropriate for gallery style presentation; and if these images are fair use anywhere, they are fair use in a gallery. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing here that isnt on Banknotes of the Australian dollar (with reduced resolution), and this isnt worth paying lawyers for. Keeping them on the one page can be more easily defended due to context and more eyeballs on the article. John Vandenberg 01:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much of the early concern about showing pictures of banknotes is misplaced (I think). Nonetheless, Merge sounds right, but in this case there is nothing new to merge as per Jayvdb. --Greatwalk 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing to merge as has been noted by Peta, John Vandenberg, Greatwalk: everything already is at Banknotes of the Australian dollar. J i m p 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as above. The gallery certainly isn't encyclopaedic, but it's ridiculous to suggest this is a copyvio or anything like that. Lankiveil 11:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: As has been stated several times, the exact same images are already on the Banknotes of the Australian dollar article. No merge is needed. DCEdwards1966 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unhelpful duplicate.--cj | talk 04:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Doggart[edit]

Was tagged for speedy A7, but seems to assert notability. Possibly not notable anyway. N Shar 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Amendments made to confirm notability User:oxford2008[reply]

Keep Good case made that subject is notable. Tax Havens and their Uses a seminal book in its field, and Doggart's contributions to both the Montessori Institute and the World Bank renowned. Contribution seems to be well substantiated. User:IsaacNewton7
Comment. User's second edit. --N Shar 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Created and nominated for deletion all in one day? Please allow the original creator at least seven days to flesh out the article. Not all of us can sit down and manifest an entirely substantiated and referenced article in one sitting. --Ozgod 05:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well researched and referenced article on a notable character. References check out, and have been supplemented since it was nominated for deletion. User:Cameron2000--Cameron2000 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello N Shar. Not sure what you mean about my 'second edit.' Only one comment made so far, I believe. Meantime, I agree that contribution seems more fleshed out now. Do you still have specific reservations on this entry?--Isaacnewton7 21:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep plenty of refs. Needs reformating a bit but I can't see the problem at all. NBeale 23:00, 26 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, — CharlotteWebb 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this looks like a notable person, and the article seems to fit all the requirements for an article to exist. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is a lot better now. We can close the discussion. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No more dicussion is needed. Do we really have to wait another 5 days?--Dacium 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- Librarianofages 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SNOW - ElbridgeGerry t c block 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 04:40Z

Kapowwe (company)[edit]

Although I am an inclusionist I don't see any merit in advertising, this company does not satisfy criteria for inclusion under WP:CORP and such should be removed. If anyone could please expand article to fit in with WP:CORP I would be most relieved but otherwise I think it's pretty much au revoir! Librarianofages 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article itself makes the company sound quite non-notable! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A cursory google indicates there may be no acceptable sources in existence. —Carolfrog 05:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable company --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. No sources. --Shirahadasha 07:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be advertising. No assertion of notability. --Charlene 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advertisement and offers no assertion of notability. Darth griz⁹⁸ 20:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. C56C 04:13, 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 DELETE. OBVIOUSLY. 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Man In Black (talk • contribs)

List of software projects whose name is a term offensive to many people with disabilities[edit]

Lists can be very useful on Wikipedia, but I think this is taking it a bit too far. We don’t need a list of everything that can possibly be listed, and I think this would fall under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, though it doesn’t fall under any of the specific categories. No pages link there, and I doubt any would. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You're forgetting the first heading in WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, WP needs more lists, not less! -- Librarianofages 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that doesn't mean we should make a list for everything. Who would ever need this list? As WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE says, "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because you can't concieve of a use now doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone else, imagine if someone was doing research on the attitudes of hi-tech companies to disabled people, this article might prove highly useful, perhaps all it really needs is to be expanded beyond the scope of a mere list... -- Librarianofages 01:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps, but there's got to be some limit. A list of how tall the buildings on your street are might be useful also, but does that mean we should include that in Wikipedia? -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am Jack's sense of total and utter indifference, You're probably right anyway. -- Librarianofages 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just noticed that this was prodded on Jan 27 by Subwayguy but an anonymous IP removed it ([2]). -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unencyclopedic original research. Nardman1 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "lame" list. I think it was created as a joke. Croxley 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Djma12 02:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic content, even remotely. --Haemo 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. What's next, List of software projects whose name is not a term offensive to many people with disabilities? (please, nobody create that)? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "listcruft" a category? Because i think it probably should be. I bet there are quite a few articles that would qualify. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ROFL, go create it, it would a most ironic event! -- Librarianofages 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not doing my usual citation of policy, this is just silly. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and the list's title also indicates a blatant POV. No reliable sources referenced to indicate that people with disabilities find these program names to be offensive, much less "many", and probably no such sources exist. --Farix (Talk) 03:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant POV and possibly actionable by the companies cited. If these were names of people being listed instead of software, it would have been speedy deleted per WP:BLP. 23skidoo 04:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the idea has merit, it is not encyclopedic in nature and is really an opinion piece. --Xnuala 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criterion for inclusion in this list is too subjective; sources would be highly difficult to find. —Carolfrog 05:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. John Reaves (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant POV article, indiscriminate, unsourced and unprovable. Resolute 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOLYCRAPWHATWEREYOUON JuJube 06:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a keen defender of lists and AFD articles that might have a future, but there has to be a limit. POV & WP:NOT. AntiVan 06:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. No sources verifying the claims made, such as that these software products are offensive to people with disabilities. --Shirahadasha 07:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, if I may comment. I more or less have a point (or points) similar to those above, and feel that this wiki is unwarranted; besides, the title may be a tad too long, and with such "software projects", such as "The GIMP", what makes it "offensive to many people with disabilities"? Prior knowledge, yes, I suppose. Again, this is subjective, and 'unencyclopaedic'. -Qwerty (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy #*(& ... I mean, delete. Of the two sources provided in the article which I could access, both mentioned terms like "spastic" as being offensive, but did not specifically tie it to "software projects". It's not a big jump and not even original research (if A=B, and B=C, is it's not OR to say that A=C, where A, B, and C, are "offensive", "spastic", and "software project", as its simple deduction and not research). If there is a Political correctness in relation to disabilities article, then maybe merge it to that. ~~Otherwise, the scope of the article is just too narrow (WP:NOT).~~ -- Black Falcon 07:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify my comment above: A strict logical deduction of the nature presented above (A=B, B=C, ergo A=C) is not OR. However, it is OR to imply that because the word "gimp" is offensive when applied to disabled persons, the acronym "GIMP" applied to a software project is offensive as well. So, delete per OR. -- Black Falcon 07:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAFT, with emphasis on the "D". Grutness...wha? 10:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteAl-Bargit 11:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Every word can have an offensive meaning, given that there are 6000 languages on our planet[reply]
Delete Gimp the lame crips. --Golbez 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kill it now before we have a rash of similar lists about what's offensive to whom. List of wireless web-access standards whose name is a term offensive to many persons of Italian ancestry, anyone? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on delete - for obvious reasons. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. Just ... wow. Arkyan 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just cos I find it fkn hilarious, as a biffy!!! (oops, am I allowed to call myself a biffy or have I just offended myself?!) Jcuk 16:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (ps not an entirely serious comment, although I really am a biffy and it is fkn hilarious!)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT indiscriminate information. Not encyclopedic. A Train ^{take the} 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in order to avoid List of software projects whose name is a term offensive to a small number of people with disabilities. dcandeto 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and Rename to Waste pond per consensus. Sources added. Nomination withdrawn. Pea ceNT 12:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical pond[edit]

~~non-notable pond (unless sources like the EPA can be found) Nardman1 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw nomination article has been totally rewritten, is now sourced and NPOV. Nardman1 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only source says it all. Clearly OR. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is a real pond and real story i have several neighbors that agree keep also "#97108) NEW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffhanger25 (talk • contribs)
- Mr Cliffhanger, is the facility on Fleming Street the contaminator of this pond? Nardman1 02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC) referring to deleted discussion from this page Nardman1 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - no sorry it is dow i apologize this is the article http://www.bhopal.net/piscataway.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffhanger25 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep with massive cleanup hopefully in its future. This shouldn't be an article just about one chemical pond, chemical ponds in general are a known phenomenon and should have a (larger and better written) article about them. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Waste pond, leaving a redirect, and tag for cleanup. Possibly consider merging with Tailing pond. See addition of new 'waste pond' in article per my agreement with Mermaid from the Baltic Sea's suggestion that chemical/waste ponds are encyclopedic. —Carolfrog 06:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is actually on two specific ponds with no assertion of WP:Notability and no sources for either, but article title is on an inappropriately general topic. It would be a bit like an article entitled American Citizen which actually turns out to contain biographies of one Mr. Smith and one Mr. Jones. Delete without prejudice to someone either creating a more general article or creating articles on these specific ponds if notability can be verified. --Shirahadasha 07:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shirahadasha. This worldwide phenomenon is far too common and far too serious for an article to describe only two ponds in the United States. --Charlene 12:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys you need to keep this is part of piscataways history, its not necessarily good history but it is important — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffhanger25 (talk • contribs)

The article addresses two different chemical ponds in two entirely different locations. The relevant information should be moved to Piscataway Township, New Jersey and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, respectively. An article about chemical ponds should address them in general, explaining how they got there and what is done to clean up after them, but I'd be surprised if we don't already have an article about it somewhere in Category:Pollution. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VOC_contamination_of_groundwater#History might be a candidate site for merger. Carolfrog 05:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the Piscataway Township chemicals may not be volatile organic chemicals. The Oak Ridge chemicals were radioactive wastes, which aren't VOCs. (Still dangerous, though.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we should just change the name and split the article ( chemical pond, piscataway, chemical pond,oak ridge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffhanger25 (talk • contribs)
Delete/Move -per Elkman and Shirahadasha --Absurdist 02:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: If the consensus is delete, I would like to receive the article into my userspace. I think I might be able to write a sourced article about waste ponds in general, or perhaps about the two ponds in specific, as suggested by Elkman and Shirahadasha. Thank you. —Carolfrog 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Waste pond. Carolfrog you should just go ahead and rewrite the article now. No reason to wait. This is an article that needs to exist. Vegaswikian 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. this article absolutely needs inclusion in wikipedia. just because it s not well sourced or well written is not a basis of deletion. renaming to Waste pond is a possible solution, since that s a very common term for this type of pond. Anlace 01:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment to closing admin note new material and sources to generalize article. above comments of others now largely meaningless Anlace 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin Nom has been withdrawn. Anlace 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-04 04:40Z

Calvin Giles[edit]

Keep Holding a public office is a reason for notability, it is just unfortunate his article has not been filled in better. Research time! --Ozgod 19:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find no secondary sources available whatsoever, and none are cited. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:15, 26 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, Cbrown1023 talk 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references from the Illinois legislature itself. --Eastmain 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except for the Tribune (which is a name-drop), those are all primary sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominated by an anon user (as their first, and only, edit) with no deletion rationale provided. Resolute 06:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added. Primary sources are acceptable as long as they "only make descriptive claims". All of the information in the article is currenlty description. Also, is it just me or is no reason for deletion given? -- Black Falcon 07:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided more citations are added from other secondary sources. Smee 10:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Elected officials at the state/provincial level are notable. --Charlene 12:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Politicians are notable, all current Canadian federal MP's and many ex-MP's have articles. Although, this article would need some serious expansion--JForget 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Expansion would be nice, but Wikipedia is better off with this stub than with nothing, so keep it. JamesMLane t c 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Catamaran. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 04:39Z

Cataraft[edit]

I think this would probably be better off as a section in the Catamaran article, with this page redirecting there. --Hojimachong^talk _con 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:44, 21 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, Cbrown1023 talk 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Catamaran per nom. Next time, just be bold and merge/redirect it, possibly proposing it first. —Carolfrog 06:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, any cleanup tagging is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sacca[edit]

Delete Looking at the contribution history of those who originated the page and fleshed it out, it would appear to be a vanity page and more of a resume. --Ozgod 19:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:44, 21 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, Cbrown1023 talk 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 150+ Google News Archive results. Holds key technology position with one of world's largest tech companies. Individual is clearly notable, potential COI averted by relatively NPOV write-up. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely absurd nomination. Suggest speedy keep to avoid ridicule of WP for having him listed here. It is fairer to judge by the article than the history--this is a very sedate NPOV bio, as appropriate for someone of his distinction. A great deal more can probably be said, but Google is often rather reticent about such things. DGG 04:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no idea how this is a vanity page. How are User:Happilylost and User:Hopethisworks97 tied ot Chris Sacca. Moreover, who cares who wrote it as long as it's NPOV (which it mostly is). Also, no resume looks like this. Sure, education is emphasised, but education was a big part of this man's life (not to mention that the article is still stub-like). The Google news results suggest notability. Ergo, keep. -- Black Falcon 07:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the external links need to be converted/added as citations. Smee 10:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and send to cleanup per Smeelgova. This is a notable individual, the article is relatively NPOV, and there are sources. --Charlene 12:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag as work needed Alf^Photoman 15:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 04:39Z

Chris Wainhouse[edit]

Delete Due to lack of biographical information and resources I would have to say this article should be remove. If it can be revamped and fleshed out better and state his notability I would be more inclined to have it kept. --Ozgod 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: nominated for speedy, but notability claimed. DGG 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:44, 21 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, Cbrown1023 talk 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no apparent notability, ridiculous jokey BLP violation points to probable COI. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly no notability, and not likely to be any.DGG 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable comedian --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, no reliable secondary sources. --Charlene 12:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because I can make a judgment on notability, but because the article is completely unsourced and unreferenced and attributes a citation to the subject without showing a reference Alf^Photoman 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. dcandeto 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete spamvertisement. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year of a Million Dreams[edit]

Page seems like advertisement, with prices included. No mention of notability other than that it is a Disney promotion. Page should be shortened and merged or deleted. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean -- What if someone is going to Disneyworld/land sometime soon, and wants to know about the YOAMD? Will they come true? Real96 04:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here. —Carolfrog 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any information in this article that is other than advertisement. Not encyclopedic. Not sourced by anything other than the official Disney website. —Carolfrog 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to reliable secondary sources per WP:RS. --Charlene 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just an advertising / branding campaign. -- Whpq 16:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more than the advertising reason. This is plain stupid. So if it is latina celebration day at The New Jersey Centre, should it be advertised on wiki, or even documented on wiki. This article far pushes the limit.GobtaNIndia 07:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]
Keep and clean -- People are unaware enough of this promotion that they are actually turning down prizes they've won because they assume there's gotta be a catch. This article sounds like a total ad, but with editing it could serve a purpose... a better list of what one can win, the new decor for the campaign, relative success, etc User:Hobbesnblue 09:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.187.24 (talk • contribs)

And there does not appear to be a user Hobbesnblue. How odd.

KEEP: Don't delete this article. IMPROVE IT!--70.162.46.19 02:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any user can improve an article at any time. Please feel free.—Carolfrog 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean. I don't get the advert feeling from it, it just needs alot of cleaning to make it more like the 50th article WestJet 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising campaigns don't get an article unless they're world famous. szyslak (t, c) 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hanton[edit]

Prodded article, but I'd like some comments as to whether this page should stay. Axiomm 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was performing the cleanup while you AfD'd the article. I think the person is notable (see "External links") and deserves an article. I have deleted almost all of the content as "advertising" or unsourced. I think what little is left (I will add a little more) qualifies as a stub that can be expanded later. -- Black Falcon 22:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 21 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, Cbrown1023 talk 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' probably non-notable, but certainly with no independent 3rd party sources: e-consultancy is from a list of speakers, company information is her company; external links: her company, the same list of speakers, an interview in "Visit Britain" a government-produced tourist guide, an interview with startups.co, a commercial site with no editorial independence. If the awards are real, there should be at least trade-journal sources.DGG 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources necessary were quickly forthcoming, and they are clearly sufficient. I think it is still not very great notability, but it does meet the requirements.DGG 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, article reads like advertisement/resume. Smee 10:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as additional sources have been added. --Dhartung | Talk 10:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO with reliable secondary sources. --Charlene 12:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in the hope that a general clean-up follows as promptly as the sources Alf^Photoman 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some info from her company's website, but most from independent sources. JamesMLane t c 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was article kept, early closure after nomination withdrawn, all other proposals were speedy keep -- The Anome 13:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inc. (magazine)[edit]

I almost deleted this as an advertisement. It seems to do little but promote the magazine/website. This http://www.inc.com?partner=wikipedia also disturbs me (look in the article). Wikipedia is not their partner last time I checked... I'm thinking that link was designed to figure out how many page views the company was getting from wikipedia, though I could be wrong. I did not delete due to the fact that the article has been around a while. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, article may need cleanup but Inc. is the largest small business magazine in the US and is clearly notable. AFD is not cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note prior AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inc._Magazine. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reverted to a version before Vbelyavsky (talk · contribs) began replacing the article with promotional language (the editor also created two separate articles for the Inc 500 and Inc 5000, since speedied; see User talk). --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then make this a speedy keep, I was wondering if I was missing something here. Thanks! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep How did one of the very top business magazines get listed here? I don't know many business magazines, but even I know this one--and so will everyone--even the nom has realized.DGG 04:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close now that nomination's been retracted. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close under snowball, with a stated monthly paid circulation of over 700,000 copies a month, how can this not be notable? Ben W Bell talk 08:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rlevse 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrypt[edit]

See also Netcee (AfD discussion), Netceeing (AfD discussion), and textcee.

I've tried to find sources, and come to the conclusion that this entire article is original research. It's documenting a style of poetry that simply isn't documented anywhere. I've looked for sources that document "netcees", "textcees", "kistyling" (the original spelling in the original version of the article), "kick-backs", "Richard Corey", and (of course) "scrypt" and "scryptology", and come up entirely empty handed. There is nothing to support the content of this article, which is a novel analysis and history of things that happen on World Wide Web discussion fora, being written and first published directly in Wikipedia by a Wikipedia editor, contrary to our Wikipedia:No original research policy. That is not what Wikipedia is for. The proper place for this content is a journal article in one of the several peer-reviewed academic journals that cover literature and poetry, or even a book, so that this style of poetry becomes documented.

I found several sources on the history and structure of rap poetry. But they support none of the content of this article, that subject is in any case a different one (according to this article, at any rate), none of this content is useful for expanding our coverage of rap poetry (because it is original research), and rap poetry is already dealt with in our article on rapping. There's no documentation that supports the assertion that this is even an alternative name for rap poetry, thus no support even for a redirect. Uncle G 15:28, 21 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, Cbrown1023 talk 02:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quote: "Scrypt (also known as script but mostly referred to as text) is a style of contemporary hip hop poetry popular on several hip hop-oriented Internet message boards." This implies non-notability. The last source ([3]) quotes Wikipedia to answer "What is Scrypt?" This suggests a failure of WP:A (that's WP:OR and WP:V). --N Shar (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's, like, nothing else I can find to say. I tried to find something Uncle G hadn't covered, so I could feel like I'd given the article a chance, but I might as well have not bothered. He said it all. —Carolfrog 07:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. Good catch on the recursive reference. --Charlene 12:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G and Carolfrog. --Absurdist 02:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Thanks friend. But alas, your views are totally wayward and unfounded. Scrypt is merely an underground movement of urban based, hip hop influenced poetry and creative writing. I like to think of it like the Harlem of the 20s. Anyways, Scrpyt is real, it exists, and impacts a key area of creative writing. It's not purely rap poetry, it's moved on to become something totally different and entirely unique in its own right. However, deleting the Scrypt article won't actually change anything. It'll just push the movement further underground once more, where it will develop and grow further, until one day will become widely accepted as an above ground form of creative writing. Viva la revolution! Or should it be viva Las Vegas? Who knows. Yours in humbleness of pride,George Whitefield, the honorable pastor of Scrypt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.77.144 (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlevse 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Calendar[edit]

Delete: only verifiable mention of this in a reliable source is a very, very brief mention in a book, which is not being "addressed in depth in reliable, published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself" as required for notability. --Pak21 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many, many articles on WP that have but one mention in another source, often a newspaper. This calendar isn't discussed in every journal these days, but it is a very legitimate calendar proposal that got "press" in the 20th century (if "publicity" is a good measure of notability, which it is obviously not.) The nominator posted a warning that sources were required, and a source for this calendar was produced. The book that serves as a source is a legitimate one, printed by a major publishing house, not a self-published paper or even an obscure journal. It should suffice. Yet, it was immdiately put up for deletion after the actions of the nominator were challenged. I believe this is being deleted as part of a what seems to be a very aggressive deletion strategy of most calendar reform proposals, based in part upon what isn't even an accepted WP guideline, but instead, a proposal for a guideline, on Notability. One thing is certain, it is NOT currently a policy, and shouldn't be aggresively interpreted as such. When every cartoon character or minor video game character is afforded an article on Wikipedia, going after calendar reform proposals seems a bit absurd. - Nhprman ^List 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm really not sure where to start here, but let's try:
  1. Exactly what are you claiming is a "proposal for a guideline"? Verifiability is one of the five pillars. Notability and reliable sources are both accepted guidelines.
  2. The claimed source for this calendar (Steel, 2000) says nothing more than "In 1930, there was another leap-week calendar proposal put forward, this time by a Jesuit, James A. Colligan". That does not appear to fulfil the verifiability requirement that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source", as it does not give any details of the calendar beyond its inventor and the date of invention. Which sources are being referred to for the rest of the information in the article?
  3. The line of reasoning of "What about article x?" is well covered at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and the further linked essays; I see no need to rehash them further here. --Pak21 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: There is all sorts of lawyerly cleverness one could throw at this argument, and the previous post is a masterful example of this technique. Suffice it to say this *seems to be* a selective purge of certain pages, and despite the fact that a clever answer has been written by someone in the past that "crap" exists elsewhere, the implication that this is "crap" is not an argument, it's an attack.
    And let me elaborate, and clarify, my previous comments. First, Notability is a GUIDELINE, and carries with it far less weight than a policy, and even as a Guideline, its meaning and application here is hotly disputed, as the Notability article's history of reversions and extensive revisions can attest to. As for Reliable sources, they are being added at this point, so this process of deletion was a bit premature. - Nhprman ^List 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong in several ways. You are not assuming good faith by assuming that this is some kind of "selective purge". The application of notability here at AFD is the subject of widespread agreement. It has been in use at AFD for several years, now. The current dispute was caused by a few editors trying to change the long-standing definition to something else. And it was you that called articles crap, by employing the long-discredited Pokémon argument, not Pak21. Uncle G 08:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm hoping for the day when wanton deletionism is just as discredited as that argument, which was apparently written by deletionists, and is a straw many anyway, since clearly this calendar isn't as well known as the Pokemon characters, and no one is saying this. The "other crap exists" essay was similarly designed to build up the idea that all deletions are valid, and shouldn't be questioned. Sorry. I question all deletions, and wonder why deletionists don't simply improve articles, not run around deleting dozens of them. I'm assuming you're acting on your best judgement when you nominate the many articles for deletion you do, and not out of malice, even though you seem to be aggressively applying a guideline that clearly is still in hot dispute. Let me also note that two people commenting here is not sufficient for a consensus. It's good that you relisted this. Let's hope people find their way here on their own to comment on it further. - Nhprman ^List 05:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Latham (1998). Standard C Date/Time Library: programming the world's calendars and clocks. CMP Books. p. 471. ISBN 0879304960. — 6 paragraphs on Colligan's calendar and its drawbacks. Uncle G 00:29, 22 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, Cbrown1023 talk 02:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because something is obscure (to the Internet culture) doesn't mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Dusty old tomes may be the only sources we'll find on this. Thanks for finding another one, Uncle G. Do you live in a library? —Carolfrog 07:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are many notable items that just haven't made it online to a great extent. The intent behind WP:V isn't "Can I verify this in ten minutes without leaving my computer?" The intent is "Can I verify this?" A book is as good a resource as a website. Editing to add sig. --Charlene 12:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very obscure, quite notable.--Absurdist 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst, Merge to Leap week calendar. Pak21 has nominated many calandar reform topics as per this AfD Discussion Two articles have been successfully deleted thus far, and Pak21 has removed all mention of the topics from Calendar reform thereby removing valuable content from a good article, including all external links...In addition, the availability of sub-topics such as Lunisolar calendar, Leap week calendar, & Solar calendar for which these articles would provide strong supplementary material has been completely disregarded. The sources provided are based on simple calculations and are both non-trivial and respectable as per Wikis guidelines. In addition, the articles are well written. Removing these articles without regard to the value they add if merged to existing subheadings may adhere to the letter of guidelines for individual articles, but degrades wiki in the process. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 13:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 14:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craplet[edit]

Article was recreated after first Prod deletion, so now I'm brining it here. It's not a real term, only a slang term used in a few sources. Does not qualify as encyclopedic per WP:NEO. Probably not suitable for wikitionary either. Also remember to delete redirect page Craplets since the page was copied from there (should have been moved). Danski14 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to shovelware? Sounds like a related concept if not absolutely the same. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or maybey even better, merge into Software bloat. Danski14 19:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's already discussed there. Is there someway I can withdraw this AfD? Or I guess we can just leave it up and see if anyone else has any better ideas. Danski14 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw it and either close it yourself or have someone else do it, but who knows, maybe during the AfD someone will improve it. It can't hurt to let it go awhile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't know you could move a page. Anyways, I think you're right about the article not qualifying as encyclopedic, but I think that the practice of computer manufacturers loading up new computers with trial versions of applications (and receiving money from the application companies to do so) should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. The question is which article is most appropriate. I put my vote in for Software bloat. WatchAndObserve 01:17, 27 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, Cbrown1023 talk 02:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe I almost forgot about this. Well, I think we should redirect to Software bloat. That article already mentions the term and explains the phenomena. We can also use the references there. Danski14 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism per WP:NEO. --Charlene 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost of already deleted article. dcandeto 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, move to Wiktionary--Absurdist 02:30, 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 No consensus. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filter Factory[edit]

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Especially not for obsolete software. Article was prodded, but tag was removed. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creating filters in photoshop 5.5--the text in Filter Factory was copied from Creating filters in photoshop 5.5. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 21 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, Cbrown1023 talk 02:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 33 Google News Archive results suggest this is that rarity, a notable plug-in. Article should not be written as a how-to, though. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung's reasoning. I tagged it with ((howto)), which should eventually clear up the writing problem. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you remove the "how-to" part of the article, you are left with exactly ONE sentence: "Filter Factory is a plug-in in Photoshop which allows the user to create custom filters." Plugins for software applications are not inherently notable, and are unlikely to ever meet the primary notability criterion. A Train ^{take the} 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. It is a how-to article and most of the sources are how-to in nature as well. So, I think the content is better suited to Wikibooks.--Kubigula (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Kreator[edit]

Superfluous information - already in the album articles. Unencyclopaedic Spearhead 18:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I admit bias as I'm the creator of this page. There are many other lists of songs on Wikipedia and I felt like Kreator warrented their own list. Per WP:LISTV the list has to have some usefulness, which this list does. Someone might know the title of a song, but don't know what album it was from and thus would go to this list to determine that information. The list of songs was too long to be placed in the main article, which is one of the reasons cited that a list is listcruft and also a reason why many cite that there should be a seperate list. --Pinkkeith 18:35, 21 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, Cbrown1023 talk 02:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep out of precedent set by the rest of Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers, though a category would be preferable instead. Krimpet 04:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate keep per Pinkkeith and Krimpet. -- Black Falcon 08:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep it has a fairly good use. If it was a really disorganized list, I would have voted for its deletion, but it seems pretty good and very useful (with albums on the side). Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep anything to stop it being turned into a useless category! Jcuk 16:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game server control panel[edit]

Spam and la pagina es esutpido Raptor022 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~However, unless more information is added, a move to Wiktionary might be considered.~~ Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia. The phrase "game server control panel" is not an idiom, it being the simple combination of "game", "server", "control", and "panel". Wiktionary is not a dumping ground for stub encyclopaedia articles. Uncle G 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm still wondering what the problem with this article is and why it is up for deletion. Just because there is only a paragraph or two doesn't mean it should be deleted. Simple can be best. Netarus

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

Delete, it's intuitive that a "game server control panel" is "a control panel for a game server", there's absolutely no need for this article. Krimpet 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletio la estupido pagina, pronto Pete.Hurd 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article, likely spam. Recury 20:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as expressed eloquently by nom and others. John Vandenberg 04:06, 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 temporarily hold off on deletion Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vilicus Society[edit]

Another "secret society" of which nothing can be verified. ^{[Check Google hits]} Not one Google hit for the name. Even the article itself states that the information is speculative and based on rumours and legends (i.e. some people kinda think it might exist). Contested prod(s). Delete due to lack of evidence. ... discospinster _talk 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I understand your issue with the entry, especially in light of the fact that Google shows no hits. However, you have to understand a little more about the history of the society. The society was a legend among the students until this week. It finally manifested itself to the student body in the form of a note to the student body president. It explained in the note that the society had been dormant since the First World War. Do you really expect a society that has been dormant for almost 100 years to suddenly appear on the web two days later? The only sources which make reference to the society are those found in the library which I have listed. I think it's slightly ignorant to blackball an article simply because you can't find reference to it online. Theburgh 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [edit conflict]. No, I don't expect a dormant society to be a presence on the Internet after a week out of the closet, but I do expect there to be some reference to it, somewhere, even in the context of being a rumour, if members included individuals such as Arthur Conan Doyle and Lord Palmerston. ... discospinster _talk 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you suggest I do? I'm not making this up, if that's what you're implying. It is an established legend (at the very least), here, in Edinburgh. And I must say, I find it slightly offensive that someone, who I doubt very much is from the area, is correcting me on this. That said, I understand the lack of evidence. How should I go about proving the existence of a secret society? Especially one which may have never existed. The point is that it is a piece of history, of legend, at the very least. So... we should just delete this article? Seems silly to me. Oh, and I use both of these two accounts, by the way.Laxer076 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is blatantly false. Mangrove22 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you think it is blatantly false doesn't mean you need to go blanking the page when the banner expressly states NOT TO BLANK THE PAGE. You know, just a thought. JohnCub 01:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I live in Edinburgh. I would like to verify some of the printed sources. I have not heard of this society at all, although I am aware of other groups at Edinburgh University such as the Diagnostics which lead a shady existence.--MacRusgail 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please do. All three books may be found in the Special Collection at the University Library. I don't think this article should be deleted, however I don't have the time to continue to discuss this matter. I find it hard to believe that I am the only person who has heard of this society, but I understand the complaints raised by others. Taking the high ground, I suggest the article is deleted. I will wait until information becomes available online (as it must, inevitably) and then repost the article. I hope this is a consensus to which everyone can agree. Theburgh 13:43, 22 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, Cbrown1023 talk 02:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, even if sources can be found. Nardman1 03:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even with sources. Heck, even the note might have been a prank by a couple of students. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
possible Keep on the bases of sources 2 and 3, which meet the requirement. I dont think mention in a letter does. The article properly refers to it as a possible legend. But, Theburgh, have you actually read the section on the society in your sources--can you give us some quotes? DGG 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Organizations which exist at a single university are generally non-notable. This particular organization does not have enough sources to justify a Wikipedia article under WP:ORG; note that apparently nobody had been speculating on the Internet about whether the society exists before the article was created. Such speculation, if it existed, might or might not rise to the level of reliable sources, but at least it would show public interest in the group. --Metropolitan90 06:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice as to recreation of a well-sourced article (probably including direct quotes from the sources) about a legend of a secret society at Edinburgh, and what is notable about that society, or what is notable about the legend about the society. —Carolfrog 07:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIs there a certain centralized criteria for the inclusion of secret societies? If so, perhaps there should be. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When will this be deleted? Mangrove22 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Even with sources confiming its existance in reality or legend, it is still a university society like Birdwatching at Yale. Nuttah68 11:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted by User:Uncle G as advertising. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Resolute 06:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seoexpert[edit]

Blatant advertising for a Search Engine Optimization professional. No sources, no notability. Watchsmart 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been already speedied. Please close. Real96 04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series[edit]

Fails WP:V. Lacking multiple secondary sources. The topic itself is entirely unencyclopedic. If anyone wants to keep this material, it should be on a gaming wiki, not here. --- RockMFR 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --- RockMFR 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of this can be sourced through in-game dialogue and other in-game elements and strategy guides (quite possibly Brady's, in particular); the gangs can also be considered, albeit in a somewhat warped sense, major characters through WP:FICT: most of these gangs play major roles through all of the games starting from GTA III. You just can't add them into their respective articles, or any other article, of that matter, due to the large amount of information, which, I will say again, can be sufficiently sourced. I also feel a AfD nomination is way too extreme; I think a simple OR or "unreferenced" tag could have sufficed, in this matter. As for the title, I think we could simply discuss a simple solution for this matter, even though I do feel the title is sufficient: gangs have played a major part in all of the GTA games, from GTA 1 to VCS, so I don't see why a "list of gangs" page is so strange. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information (that can be sourced in other ways than by players hearing the information on the game audio or seeing it while playing) on each gang into their respective GTA pages, and delete. There doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic need (that I can think of, anyway) for a centralized list of all gangs in all verstions of the game. Perhaps an article on the importance of gangs in the GTA universe . . . no, that should probably be at a gaming wiki. Carolfrog 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:FICT specifies

Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.

As User:Klptyzm notes, the gangs are characters of the game and supplement the main articles on Grand Theft Auto. As for WP:V, the content is certainly verifiable, either through game guides (secondary sources) or the game itself (as a primary source--note, however, that primary sources should be utilized with the utmost caution and only to make descriptive claims that do not require specialist knowledge). -- Black Falcon 08:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd hope that someone who has the game guides would use them to source the article properly before this AfD ends. If that happened, I might be willing to change my vote. Carolfrog 09:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Black Falcon. hateless 09:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be lacking multiple non-trivial published sources. verification that relies on original research in unacceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the references section at the end of the article. -- Black Falcon 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are all self referential from the game. How about some published sources for this article? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT.96T 12:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it may need a lot of improvements, but in general, it is a well-written article with significance. I don't see any difference between this and a "more normal" character list like so many games have a seperate page for.DreamingLady 12:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure why people are citing WP:FICT, as the current version of the article completely goes against everything at WP:FICT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Is there any way at all this could ever be more than game guide/GameFAQs material? --- RockMFR 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not sure why simple tags weren't used, instead of jumping to the conclusion of an AfD. This page hasn't even been given a chance yet. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FICT specifies that minor characters in a fictional universe should be included in a "list of characters in ...". The gangs of GTA are such characters. This is not a game guide, which are defined as "instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games". Does this list make suggestions as to what players should do? Does it give hints or cheatcodes? -- Black Falcon 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT going on here. The Grand Theft Auto games have been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other", the gangs in Grand Theft Auto series have not. Wikipedia is not a game guide and Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries. More than a little OR going on here too. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hopeless quagmire of in-universe, speculative, and original research garbage for which no page would benefit from a merge. This has been an endless source of revert warring over whose original research interpretation is better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ALL of this information can be sourced. Plus, like I've said above, this can be protected by WP:FICT; these gangs can be considered characters. As for the warring, only one, possibly 2, users have been causing this warring. A large amount of discussion has gone on about the warred over issues and all have been resolved, yet this user still will not listen to reason. In the end, this page, if not this information itself, deserves to exist, one way or another. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if sources and OR are your only real arguments, why wouldn't a "OR" or "unreferenced" tag suffice? I don't think the nominator tried giving this page a chance. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If all of this information CAN be sourced, please provide the sources. —Carolfrog 05:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The references at the end of the article source the content (the game guides are also listed as references; however, it would be nice to have full references per Template:cite web or Template:cite book rather than just names)--to what degree is another question, but that is a technical editorial issue appropriate for the talk page. I myself had not noticed the references the first time I looked over the article (because it's so long). I hope this helps. Cheers, -- Black Falcon 06:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per IslaySolomon and A Man In Black. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid keep argument. Garrett^Talk 20:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me for saying so, but none of the "keep" proponents have suggested WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL as a reason. What they have done is refer to WP:FICT and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -- Black Falcon 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. Just because we're defending something you don't understand or know anything about doesn't mean we're doing it because we "like it." Not one person yet has said anything along the lines of "it's cool" or "I find it useful." We voted "Keep" because it should exist. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more info needed however. Davnel03 20:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to some of the keep rationales above, here are a pair of features/articles focusing in-depth on gangs from some of the most reliable sources in gaming: this on the gangs of GTA III from IGN, and this on the gangs of San Andreas from Gamespot (via Yahoo!; I also found the article on MSN and GameSpot itself). While I've done much searching and found few other articles concentrating on the gangs, what I've given above does satisfy the "multiple articles from reliable sources independent of the subject" criterion. Most of the info, as stated by Klptyzm, is easily verifiable. The article certainly is not great, but it is, in my opinion, worthy of existence. -- Kicking222 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Klptyzm. (A-Dust 23:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I agree this is sourceable given the popularity of the GTA series and the number of guides about it. — brighterorange (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a game guide. Using this logic, every element of any game with a game guide would be here. Popularity does not trump essential policies. If the only secondary sources for this article are game guides (which merely restate the information found in the primary source), it will never be notable. --- RockMFR 07:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a game guide, which is an "instruction book that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games". This list does not make suggestions as to what players should do. It does not give hints or cheatcodes. This is a "list of minor characters", which is allowed and even required under WP:FICT. -- Black Falcon 07:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? This is not a how-to, which is all that WP:NOT forbids. How could you think that? — brighterorange (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is very encyclopediac. And the comment about this is not a gaming wiki, is very stupid. Its almost as if the person read the name of the article, and didn't read the article, and maliciously tagged it for deletion. This person should have be penalized so he will discontinue this act. I suggest throwing some sources in there, to provide some back-up. But this should have been expressed to the article writer, instead of maliciously putting the article for deletion. GobtaNIndia 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]
Keep, as poor sourcing should be a reason to improve a page, not delete it. Tarc 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Does not fail WP:V as game content is inherently verifiable. Entirely appropriate as a list. It is a sub-article of the GTA series and as such, is entirely appropriate and not "unencyclopedic". Article itself is obviously long enough that it was split off from the main article. As for lacking secondary sources, that is only useful in a deletion discussion in establishing notability. Since that is obviously not the case here (as it is a sub-article of a very notable game series), lacking secondary sources only merits "sources needed" tags and not deletion. Shrumster 08:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it oasses WP:V where are the multiple published sources for the information? If yioy take it directly from the game its original research and prohibited. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The present focus is emphasizing only gangs that are significant in the development of the games' storyline, and not gameplay-specific content (which are obviously game cruft). I have also asserted that the article's content is supported to an extent under WP:FICT, under the pretext that the gangs constitute as characters, because the character lists are patchy in covering gangs that lack notable figureheads. I have no comment regarding citations. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Comment I was contacted on my talk page, in what seemed to me to be a solicitation or 'canvassing' for !votes. This is not allowed underWP:AFD. Please do not do this. As a result of this, I will not !vote on this AFD. Jerry lavoie 16:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Contact with other editors to notify them of AfDs is permitted per WP:CANVASSING if it's limited in scale, contains a neutral message, and is not targeted toward individuals who have expressed a particular opinion on their user page. This particular instance seems to be limited in scale (see the IP user's edit history) and is relatively neutral (does not call for a specific leaning). In any case, I generally do not see canvassing messages (even if done properly) as productive, as they are essentially unsolicited comments. If there are one or two editors who are deeply involved with an article, it's alright to notify them, but randomly contacting users seems ........ pointless. Just my 0.0151888 Euro cents. -- Black Falcon 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, but in my case I have no edit history on this article or its talk page. I was just an editor who happened to leave an unrelated comment on one of the article editors User talk:Craxy user talk pages, and it seemed to me that the user who was canvassing just used names randomly, as he or she found them (like all editors who left any message on another users talk page) I supposed the reasoning was 'this user talked with someone I agree with, so they might vote my way'. (or the opposite of this logic). I can see this was not very WP:AGF of me, but I honestly could not see why I would have been contacted about this article, as I have not taken any action to demonstrate that I would have any interest in it. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty obvious. The characters (gangs) clearly count as a major part of a fictional universe, so per WP:FICT I say keep. FYI, I greatly dislike this game series...--Hobit 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information is notable. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's all sourced from game dialogue. Superior1 07:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. Generally I dislike this sort of specialized article (i.e. List of X in Game Y), and this one relies very heavily on primary sources, so I don't want to endorse keeping it. That said, it the article itself isn't all that bad, and it seems to have avoided many of the "game-guide" pitfalls that plague other game-specific articles, so I don't think it really needs to be deleted either. I suppose maybe I'd be happier if the title of the article were more inclusive; "list of gangs" sounds very narrow.--Alan Au 18:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon. Mathmo ^Talk 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Too much WP:ILIKEIT in the arguments for Keep for my taste. Notable gangs can be merged into the main article and if they can't then they weren't significant to the plot to begin with. The GTA series specializes in sandbox games but it's not in WP's goals to list all the people/gangs you can interact with while you play. The major gangs can be merged and the minor ones can be deleted. Chevinki 09:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The "keep" advocate(s) didn't add anything to the discussion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 04:37Z

The Reunion Show[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Cannot verify the claims of any national tours. Nv8200p talk 03:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment on Action Action's AfD. This band is an earlier (less notable) incarnation of that band. Carolfrog 09:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep they are a group providing music, if they are not widely known, doesnt matter. To me this is the purpose of wikipedia, to not only reach the major groups, but to be document smaller groups/minorities for their work etc. I suggest some backup information, sources, atleast 2 to verify group exists, and any other major claim they claim. GobtaNIndia 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]
Strong Keep Victory Records is an important and up-and-coming label. At least a few of their bands (Taking Back Sunday and Bayside) have charted on the Billboard Top 100. For more info on this band's tour history, etc. see http://www.victoryrecords.com/thereunionshow

Divamanhughes 19:27, 28 February 2007

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

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

The result was Merge to Armanious family massacre. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 04:35Z

Hossam Armanious[edit]

Armanious is not a notable figure outside the murder. As nom my vote is to merge into Armanious family massacre AniMate 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the individual has no other notabuility other than nurder. -- Whpq 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per notability argument, and the articles being very repetitious of each other. - Mocko13 01:47, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 04:33Z

Action Action[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Not on a major label or major indie label. No national tours. No significant press Nv8200p talk 03:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The band has been mentioned in a video game. Real96 04:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is a "major indie label"? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Their label is an indie label that was apparently involved in buyout discussions at one point with MCA. And "being mentioned in a video game" is even worse than releasing their albums through an "indie" label. Anyway, failing music notability guidelines doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. What it fails is verifiability, as its "sources" are all merchandising sites, MySpace, and promotional sites. —Carolfrog 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The purpose of this encyclopedia is to provide free accounting of information in a formal and encyclopedic way. This group is a group and therefore deserves for their voice to be heard. To me, this article represents what wikipedia is about. Now, if they have completely made up this group, or this is a lil child group "power ranger" type thing, then that is another story. But just because they are not on a major lable or anything, does not merit their article for deletion.

GobtaNIndia 07:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]

Strong Keep Victory Records is an important and up-and-coming label. At least a few of their bands (Taking Back Sunday and Bayside) have charted on the Billboard Top 100. For more info on this band's record sales, and their national tours, see https://www.victoryrecords.com/actionaction. For significant press, go to http://www.altpress.com/ and enter "Action Action" in the search engine.

Divamanhughes 19:27, 28 February 2007

These 3 links to Alternative Press's website all document that Action Action is a national touring band: http://altpress.com/news/473.htm http://altpress.com/news/183.htm http://altpress.com/news/927.htm Divamanhughes 16:45, 2 March 2007

Delete unless links to non trivial and independent articles concerning this band are added before the end of this debate. A1octopus 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Solar variation#Solar variation theory which attributes ideas to reputable scientists and is properly sourced, and presents historical research and quantitative data. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-28 05:55Z

Solar system warming[edit]

A near-textbook case of synthesis as proscribed in Unpublished synthesis of published material. The small amount of factual material in the article is duplicated almost precisely from Climate of Mars. Article serves no purpose other than synthesis, original research, and POV fork. Raymond Arritt 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by nom: Google Scholar search for the phrase "solar system warming" returns zero (0) hits.

DO NOT DELETE - This article concerns an area of active interest for many readers and therefore deserves a place in Wikipedia. The group trying to delete this article have hijacked all the Global Warming related articles and have been deleting or censoring any article which is against their POV. ~ Rameses 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Raymond. Raul654 04:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:POVFORK. --Aude (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. Note that User:Rameses has a history of supporting such material and needs to read such things as WP:NOR. Michaelbusch 04:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User:Rameses claims a conspiracy of Wikipedia editors against his views (see User_talk:Rameses). This is not an ad hominem argument. I simply think this should be known to all who vote here. Michaelbusch 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: User:Michaelbusch says this on his talk page:
  - from User talk:Michaelbusch:=I think you'll enjoy this one
  - Solar system warming Someguy1221 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Pretty bad. Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline. :::Michaelbusch 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  - This is not an ad hominem argument. I simply think this should be known to all who vote here. ~ Rameses 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Though solar system warming (and cooling) may be a real thing, this article was created for the sole purpose of publishing OR to continue the global warming debate. --I already forgot 05:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So your point is that this encyclopedia should not publish real material about the debate surrounding global warming mainstream theories? --Childhood's End 16:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What material on mainstream theories? Theories created on message boards or by wikipedians? If this was a real scientific theory I would have no problem adding the article myself. --I already forgot 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have sources. As per always, "It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelize your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it." ~ UBeR 05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: sources in article are either non-reliable or do not support the conclusions the article draws. This is grounds for exclusion. See also the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience and 'Objection 0' on my user page. Michaelbusch 05:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE This theory has virtually no supporting evidence. The title itself is as informative as the entire article. There shouldn't be an article for every little idea someone comes up with. Someguy1221 05:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense forthwith. csloat 06:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP this is a very hot topic and there are many people who want to find out what the thinking and discussion on this topic is. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information on new theories not determine whether they are correct or not. Leave that to the scientific community - otherwise aren't you guilty of OR? -- Brittainia 07:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So we are supposed to let anybody suggest nonsense, but require peer-reviewed science to reject it? That's a convenient double standard...--Stephan Schulz 07:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially considering that the scientific community rejects this type of thing as bollocks on sight. Michaelbusch 08:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what parts of the scientific community? I've come across this sort of theory many times, including in my planetary physics classes, due to increased sun cycle activity. Ben W Bell talk 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just Martian global warming rehashed, only with a broader claim and hence even less sources. Even the National Post wrangling of Abdusamatov does not support this claim, and the reliable sources on that page deal either with solar activity or with local climate change on Mars only.--Stephan Schulz 07:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - right... MER-C 07:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to Solar variation, I'd like to say speedy redirect, but that just sounds silly. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirection is not appropriate: the solar variation article is valid, while this is not. Michaelbusch 08:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why I didn't say "merge", no (I've changed my vote to delete and redirect to be clearer about my feelings)? Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, there is no reason to redirect, as the entire article falls under WP:NOR - redirection would mean that we should have redirect pages for just about any subject that anyone could think of, real or not. --Kim D. Petersen 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOR. Mostlyharmless 08:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the sources reliably support the contentions, the relevant information could be merged into the articles at Pluto, Jupiter, and Triton. It's apparently already there at Mars. But there's not even an assertion of a source that "Solar system warming" is the name of the theory that climate change is happening on other planetary bodies in the solar system, and thus (I agree) no reason to redirect. —Carolfrog 08:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can source it better, the sources do not necessarily link to the theory, just piecemeal parts of it that could combine to a theory. Find an article on it (I'll check my planetary physics and solar texts) and I'll change my mind but the references, while reliable, don't support the article. Ben W Bell talk 08:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete do not redirect, do not merge: there is nothing here worth keeping. The section on "Mars" is simply a copy of material from climate of mars. The only other section is the intro, which is supported only by one reference, the thoroughly unreliable "prisonplanet" William M. Connolley 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep My first gut reaction was to keep (but mainly just to offset a few above who are saying delete on political grounds) However, doing that is not good for Wikipedia, so I did a search for "solar system warming" and I was surprised at the number of references. A few described "solar system warming" as a term for the idea that global warming is caused by an increase in output energy from the sun. Secondarily the article has only been edited for two days -it clearly has been jumped on by some people with a very political stick. As far as I can see, it satisfies the main test of being a real term, the second test of being notable I'm not sure about, the argument that "it's not true" - if that were a valid argument then bang would go reincarnation, christianity, etc. It will do no harm to Wikipedia to leave it a few months to allow the editors to develop the article at which point we will know better whether it is worth keeping. Mike 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Mike - if you do a google search for "solar system warming" - you do not find anything but blogs and occational political pages (at least on the 12 result pages on google) - so i really can't see that argument as valid. The article purports to be a scientific one - not a political talking point. --Kim D. Petersen 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Kim, not true. With a little effort you can find scientific works on the subject including the book I cite below. At this point, I do not know the level of scientific consensus on the subject but I do know that others have discussed the question. There is no reason why all of the evidence cannot be presented in this article, which is obviously interesting to many Wikipedia readers.RonCram 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article does need work, but it is far too early to delete. Many Wikipedia readers are interested in the subject of observed warming on other planets. The fact other planets are warming is not debated by anyone. The meaning of the warming can be debated, but Wikipedia readers cannot read about the debate if the article is deleted. RonCram 10:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "The fact other planets are warming is not debated by anyone" - not by anyone serious, I agree. There is no published evidence for a coordinated warming of the planets (of course they all warm for about half of their orbital period and then cool for the other half, as their distance to the sun changes). --Stephan Schulz 10:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: The book "Solar Activity and Earth's Climate" by Rasmus E. Benestad discusses solar activity and climate change on Earth and also looks at other planets in the solar system. The author writes: "We will glean some information from two other earth-like planets, Venus and Mars, as well as the Moon, and compare these to our own Earth. Both the planets have an atmosphere which exhibit similar features as well as different attributes to the Earth's atmosphere. If variations in the Sun produce changes in the Earth's climate, one may expect to see similar fluctuations in the brightness temperature on Venus and perhaps Mars." (page 4) [4] This is just one example of evidence showing that the Sun's role in warming on other planets is a subject of scientific interest. The effort to delete this page is purely an effort to censor information rather than deliver information to Wikipedia readers. Stephan, your theory is interesting and may even be factual. I have not seen any citation to back it up and if the article is deleted, you will not have a place to provide me with a citation. It is important the article be kept.RonCram 11:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ron, that book is a useful resource, and, from what I can tell, at a glance, a WP:RS. But it does not talk about Solar system warming, but only some effects of solar variations on Moon, Mars, and Venus. If you read a sentence beyond your quote, you will see that the author acknowledges the lack of data about temperatures on other planets. I don't know what you call "my theory", the fact that planets warm and cool as they follow their elliptical orbit is not a "theory" (in either the scientific or the common sense), but indeed a fact. And btw, the book seems to fully accept and support the IPCC positions...--Stephan Schulz 12:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Stephan, I did not mean to imply the book supported the article. I quoted it because it shows that this is a scientific question that has been raised and is worthy of discussion. Since the book is now five years old, the lacking time series for temperature may exist. At the very least, the temperature record is five years longer than it was then. Your "theory" has to do with planetary seasons. The fact seasons exist is a fact and not a theory. However, applying the fact to the observed warming is a theory. While the theory may be correct regarding some of the more distant planets and moons (which have very long orbits), it seems to be wholly unsatisfactory for Mars which orbits the Sun about every 2 years and has been undergoing warming for a decade or two. RonCram 13:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scientific theories are notable Al-Bargit 11:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup I've read in numerous books and seen in documentaries that planet climate change could be caused by stars' temperature fluctuations or the path the solar system takes through the galaxy. I've provided here a few links I found to what sound like reliable sources: [5][6] [7]. The article needs work as it talks little about these theories and concentrates on observed effects on Mars, whereas I think it should concentrate on the theories themselves. But admittedly, it's still a stub. On another note, why should we keep this article but delete this one, as both are proposed theories? Icemuon 12:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The content within this article is indisputable fact, the damn thing is coming towards us. This is not a valid comparison. 131.215.159.161 12:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It is not an indisputable fact, as was discussed in the AfD. This particular article was pointed to, for instance -- it may happen. Icemuon 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Telegraph is not a reliable source. The MPG press release deals with solar variance and the climate on Earth, not other planets. And Shaviv suggests an interaction of cosmic rays and, again Earth's atmosphere and cloud system as a source of climate changes. His theory just does not apply to the "solar system".--Stephan Schulz 12:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all the above. Vsmith 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --BozMo talk 12:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mishlai 12:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid subject. This does have things writen about it. The fact that it is currently a bad article, and needs more sources doesn't mean it should be deleted. I only created it the other day as a stub, and it has already grown to this size. Obviously it is going to need a lot of clean-up, refference additions, etc... however, I do not think that it should be deleted. Also, conserning the Global Warming articles, I testify to the above, it does seem they have been hijacked by a few administrators, specificly William M. Connolley. I happened upon this when looking up Global cooling, and noticed that (at least at the time) it was writen like an attack that made the topic almost not readable, and mostly consisted of an attack on it with Global warming... and yet it was deffended by him and others. I do not know if it is the same way still. However, I feel that a more neutral-to-the-subject administrator should look into it. I'm not advocating anyone's position... just pointing out that the problem does seem to be real. Anyway, I suggest this article be cleaned up. If you want to take all the unproven things to the talk page, or just remove them, I would have no problem with that. I would have no problem if this was reduced to very little for now. However, the researchable and salvageable information should maybe be taken to the talk page until something can be done with this. Just some ideas. Main point: Valid topic that needs research, resources, and rewriting; not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadanYagci (talk • contribs) 13:43, 27 February 2007 Sorry, forgot to sign. SadanYagci 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This is a valid subject, and an interesting one to many WP readers. This article will be improved over time and the deletion request has been made not even one day after the article was created by a known global warming believer, User:Raymond arritt. The POV fork accusation cannot hold since Mr. Arritt, along with some regular acquaintances who have voted for deletion on this page, have kept this subject out of any global warming related article. This alone should raise a big warning signal regarding this deletion attempt. --Childhood's End 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Mr. Arritt, myself, and the other editors advocating deletion have done so for one reason only: to maintain some level of scientific credibility on Wikipedia (that was why I noted Rameses claims above). Wikipedia is not a forum for pseudoscience. I know the levels of debate surrounding the global-warming articles, but this is not related to them. It is merely nonsense. Michaelbusch 16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Nice POV essay, although a bit short. I appreciate that you admitted your desire to "cleanse" Wikipedia of the stuff you disagree with. On the other hand, if Wikipedia is not a forum for pseudoscience, it is neither a forum for one-sided POVs. --Childhood's End 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: How is it nonsense? I can understand the page itself being a bit of a problem as it is, being only a day old; however, what makes the subject itself nonsense? It is certainly spoken of. It is certainly writen about. Not as much as Global Warming, and maybe not as much as Global cooling but it is still a theory that is out there that an encyclopedia should cover. SadanYagci 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Theories are like opinions and azzholes, everyone has one. Now the decision is which theory is notable enough to be encyclopedic content and which one is for the sole purpose of political debate on "message boards"? Do we include every message board theory created to discredit global warming or just the ones that are being actively debated in the scientific community? If it is an active scientific debate or theory, lets see the refs stating its an actual theory? --I already forgot 17:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meta-Comment: My statements above are not POV pushing. They are a statement of the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience, which says that Wikipedia must be consistent with present scientific consensus. This particular article is nonsense for the reasons given for deletion by other editors here. Note also: everyone has been mis-using 'theory'. This implies consistency with existing data, which this article does not have (no, we will not have a forty-post argument about that, because that is not the purpose of this discussion). So 'theory' doesn't work. I need a word for such things, but 'nonsense' works well. Michaelbusch 17:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Very misleading article. Although referenced, the credible references like NASA, astronomy.com and the journal Nature, never talk about a "theory of solar system warming". Absolutely unacceptable. As the nom points out, this is textbook WP:SYNT. A Train ^{take the} 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. dcandeto 18:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant keep. It's not that the article is good, and it's not that the subject is well established, but nevertherless it is a notable subject, it was in the papers and so forth. Due to that, I think we should keep it and simply add the 10-20 references that would completely demolish it. It seems to me that most of the above arguments are based on a disagreement with the POV the article is currently largely slanted towards, but that just says that the article need more POV/information the other way to show how dumb it is. It's worse to not have an article on this topic than to have one, if it's well researched and referenced.WolfKeeper 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My main objection is that they do not present a reliable source presenting the theory. I see here original research in the form of synthesis of weak sources while ignoring better evidence which refutes it. See Solar variation and Solar constant which are better articles addressing the output of the sun. Astronomical observation of the sun is a far more legitimate index of solar output than ice on the Martian pole melting. The article appears to be a POV argument lacking adequate sources based on an indirect index. It is like claiming low water pressure in the house based on a teenager taking too long in the shower, while ignoring a water pressure meter. Inkpaduta 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Major rewrite Without either endorsing or questioning the accuracy of the topic, it still may be notable. However, as written this article is original research and soapboxing per several other commenters. I encourage editors who wish to keep this article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, as I reserve the right to change my mind on this matter. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is all either original research or misrepresented sources.--Jespley 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.Notable subject; especially as it pertains to the macro issue that surrounds our very well known subject of "globalwarming." I suspect that much like the case for the original ideas pertaining to global warming, we may find that even if we delete this article, someone will be forced to write it again, someday. Lee Nysted 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once we have published secondary sources, they can do so. Now, there are none. The cited sources do not support the article, and no sources on this subject can be found. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, a textbook case (novel synthesis from publsihed sources), plus POV fork. Hard to find anything on this title on the web other than blogs, abovetopsecret.com and that kind of thing. A big fat zero on google scholar, ditto Google News, ditto Factiva. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OR, POV fork, etc. Dragomiloff 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no google books results and news search gives only a single result... Addhoc 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. - ElbridgeGerry t c block
Delete per WP:NOR (and presumably WP:SOAP). When, or if, this becomes notable, then we can have an article, but not before. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - text book original research. Savidan 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. With scientific theories, first you get it published in a refereed journal, then Wikipedia can do an article about it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Articles on scientific theories should always have reliable, authoritative sources. --Polaron | Talk 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking at the recent history of this page, the supporters seem to be engaging in even more blatant OR, turning the page merely a list of heavenly bodies who's temperatures are increasing, without any significant source claiming varying solar output as a cause. Someguy1221 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-Comment: I have fixed this, going to the cited sources, and finding that only in the case of Mars had any of the cited sources endorsed changes in the solar constant. All others were mis-representation and have been removed. Michaelbusch 05:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Uses a variety of unrelated sources to push an unknown, original theory. --Philosophus ^T 05:10, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 04:30Z

Locked in Lace[edit]

Article claims notability, but nothing is sourced and doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB criteria, at least not that I can discern. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A decent number of hits on Google, but they seem largely self-referential or a part of a list of links. Certainly nothing that can be used as a reliable source regarding notability or importance. Arkyan 16:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gender bending fun and games article lacks reliable and independent sources. Promotes a website. Inkpaduta 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unless this has outside media or academic coverage, its not notable in an encyclopaedia. John Vandenberg 03:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strange and apparently directed towards promotion of a website and discussion group, rather than of a recordable and objective phenomenon or event. Also appears to lack objectively independent sourcing. -- Simon Cursitor 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --pIrish 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 04:27Z

Daniel Donche[edit]

Not enough third party ghits to be considered notable. I suspect WP:OR and WP:COI especially since the only contribution of the author is this page.Peter Rehse 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author does not seem to be widely published nor have they established enough third party notability. I also suspect WP:COI like the nom. Darth griz⁹⁸ 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - novels published through vanity persses. -- Whpq 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. Shimeru 09:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adjar language[edit]

Blatant original research. Not a single source provided. There is not such a language. The title itself is in contradiction with the lead sentence: "Adjar language... is a dialect of Georgian language." The rest of the article is virtually unreadable.--Kober^Talk 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There doesn't seem to be any English evidence of the language's existence, although this may be one of those cases where we'll have to rely on sources in Turkish or Georgian or something along those lines. The Turks certainly seem to think the language exists (at their Wikipedia), but I don't have enough Turkish to figure out where they're getting their information from. If it is a dialect, then calling it a "language" is perhaps not the best idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm a native speaker of Georgian and quite familiar with the Adjara region. Adjaran is a dialect of the Georgian language. It formerly contained many Turkish loanwords since Adjara and some other Georgian lands had been part of the Ottoman Empire until 1878. Linguists don't consider Adjaran to be a separate language though. --Kober^Talk 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that. I should've checked your userpage straight off the mark. If it's a legitimate dialect, should we perhaps rename it as "Adjar dialect" (or something along those lines, I'm not sure quite what the best adjective is) and write up an article on the distinguishing features of this dialect vis a vis regular Georgian? I'd expect that as well as the former loanwords (are they all gone now?), there could well be grammatical differences as well. I don't have much access to anything on Georgian grammar, so I'll have to rely on your work here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm far from being an expert on linguistics, but I'll try to prod people that have more info on the subject. Also, I think there is very little to write about the Adjarian dialect in a separate article. I would rather suggest creating the Dialects of Georgian language article and merging Adjarian dialect with it. --Kober^Talk 07:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As my hero famously said, "Also good". It's probably showing my ignorance of your country, but I'm genuinely surprised that there can be multiple dialects in such a small area (still, there are mountains, so maybe that's the reason). If you end up with any rough translations or other examples of slightly odd English, I'd be happy to help out with polishing the results. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete as a nom.--Kober^Talk 06:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - as the nominator, you're assumed to be advocating the deletion of the article. There's no need to add a "strong" (or any other kind, for that matter) delete to the discussion as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but it should be mentioned as a dialect in Georgian language. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources on the subject. Khoi khoi 06:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Georgian language (though sources are a must) Suriel1981 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAl-Bargit 12:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC) It's simply Georgian as spoken by Muslims[reply]
Merge to Georgian language#Dialects for the moment. Might be notable but I'm not really qualified to find sources. Don't see any papers in English specifically discussing this dialect. (The Turkish article cites two books; looks like neither is in Turkish; given the year and location of publication, I doubt either is easily available on short notice). Wasn't very hard to verify, though; 2 minutes on Google books gave a citation, for example. Anyway, dispute over whether something is a language or a dialect isn't really a reason to delete or call something WP:OR. cab 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the Turkish version of the article. The two books cited are actually Georgian books published in Batumi. One of them is called Kartuli Zgaprebi, i.e. Georgian Fairy Tales (I’ve read this one many years ago :)) and the other’s title is Adjaruli Dialecti, i.e., Adjarian Dialect. Neither of them contains a reference to the Adjar as a separate language.--Kober^Talk 14:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a heads-up to WP:Caucasia who apparently include languages within their scope to ask them to look at the article and see if anything can/should be done. Suriel1981 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since its a off shoot of another language it should stay 100% it just needs to be expanded. Artaxiad 13:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible to be expanded then I will change my vote to keep. Unfortunately it's not my area of expertise. Suriel1981 14:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge LGM ᚂ 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kober is correct. This is simply a dialect of Georgian, not a language in its own right. --Folantin 09:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wanted show you two articles from Turkish Wikipedia (Adjar language and South Kipchakya). In the bottom of these articles are some references. But, these references have not one word about these articles. For example, the name of South Kipchakya isn’t existence in these books. I have these books. That references say noting also about Adjarian, is a language or not. The reference books are here only as their names, that’s all. Of course Adjarian is not a separate language, only a dialect of Georgian. But Turkish Wikipedia keeps like that articles. See please, in Turkish are two articles about Georgian language (Kartça and Gürcüce). Georgian is called Gürcüce in Turkish, not Kartça. That user, who wrote Kartça, is changing all articles about Georgia, it’s very clear. And Turkish Wikipedia doesn’t want to see this. Sure, delete Adjar language. --Ali Akbar Tabrizi 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand you (I think). I guess you have started these two articles to show that their Turkish equivalents are based on pseudohistory. Unfortunately, we cannot change anything in Turkish Wikipedia, but we will try our best to ensure the accuracy of Georgia-related articles in en.wiki.--Kober^Talk 05:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge given the current article size. There are further references available if anyone has access [8] is one. The trouble, as usual with names that do not use the Latin alphabet, is in the transliteration. Just on Wikipedia this dialect/language is called Ajar, Ajarian, Adjar, Adjarian in various articles. Nuttah68 12:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. We're still a little short of time, but not by much. I don't see this debate suddenly changing course. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of real people appearing in fictional context[edit]

A list we cannot possibly hope to write well. This has got to be the longest Wikipedia list I have ever seen, and it's probably, at best, 5% complete. There is an entire genre of writing called Historical fiction which exists to portray real people in fictional contexts. Even keeping the list down to figures prominently featured in the works, this would still imply that every Historical novel written should be listed on the page at least a half-dozen or so times. And of course, the list does not stick to the limits set in the introduction, but has grown beyond all reason. There were 28 listings, for instance, of Family Guy, which I guarantee does not really feature any real person prominently, with the possible exception of Adam West (which by the way is not listed). What this article is, really, is about a hundred trivia articles rolled into one. The page has been listed on AfD previously: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Litefantastic Files and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of real people appearing in fictional context. It was kept in both cases, but the problems with the article have only gotten worse. I'd mark it with a cleanup tag, but I honestly can't think what would make this a reasonable article. Forking out sections based on what kind of real people appear doesn't seem much better. Perhaps an article featuring only older works? But that seems arbitrary, and is a heck of a lot of work to distil from this article. We could restrict to only books, or only movies, but this wouldn't cut down the list much... and we could try to restrict to only particuarly important works, but systemic bias will kill us there. I see deletion as the only way to fix the situation. Mango juice^talk 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impossible to maintain. Just listing the works that Julius Caesar appears in is close to impossible. (If there's useful information for individual people in this list, it might be beneficial to split some of those off.) --Akhilleus (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' couldn't we just split this off into articles for the most notable/frequent appearing ones? JuJube 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the list ever being usefull, and it would never be even close to complete. For example, look at shows that have had frequest guest stars like The Simpsons and The Love Boat (Love Boat had one like every week). TJ Spyke 06:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia magnet at best. --Calton | Talk 08:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Al-Bargit talk • 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: unmaintainable; but I like the suggestion that individual smaller lists should be split off for historical figures who are also notable for having been particularly frequently portrayed in fiction. -- The Anome 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and strongly oppose splitting up the list into smaller lists for individual people. Such "...in popular culture" articles almost invariably turn into crap magnets and many of them end up right back here and deleted. Otto4711 14:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split article. I disagree with the statement made by Otto4711. I have no problem with "...in popular culture" articles; while some have been AFD's they have not always been deleted. Such a list is viable and encyclopedic. What it needs is structure. 23skidoo 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely saying to "split" without explaining how isn't that helpful. How? Mangojuice^talk 15:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would think that would be self-evident from looking at the article. 23skidoo 05:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. Now I know what you mean, anyway, but I don't think it would be good. Mango juice^talk 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There does seem to be an animus in certain circles against separate articles about the representations of historical figure in fiction or popular culture. How, then, is this information going to be preserved? A catch-all list for those figures who don't warrant separate articles serves the indexing, cross-referencing, and browsing functions. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it going to be preserved? By someone putting it somewhere else perhaps. "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Otto4711 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly unmaintainable. Concur with Otto4711 in opposing the split as well. Arkyan 16:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to probably violate WP:NOT#DIR as a "List of loosely associated topics". (WP:NOT#IINFO doesn't seem to apply here.) Dugwiki 17:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to contain enough information to become exhaustive, too easy to become bloated with non-notable occurences. Without being exhaustive this list can hardly be of use to someone searching for a specific instance. This concept practically needs it's own Wiki to be doable!--Xnuala 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:Xnuala -- this needs its own Wiki, or else it's a snowball. -- Simon Cursitor 07:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Barbershop Harmony Society. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:46Z

Dixie District[edit]

Contested prod. This appears to be one of many area organisations of the Barbershop Harmony Society which organises activities much along the lines of the parent organisation and acts as a regional feeder to the BHS competitions. It does not appears to pass WP:ORG in that "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article...". Ohconfucius 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- BPMullins | Talk 20:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 14:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Daker 2[edit]

Not a single reliable source Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Prior Nomination. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:11, 22 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, Quarl ^(talk) 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wikipedia is not America's Funniest Home Videos. NN qua NN. Pete.Hurd 06:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet the notability guidelines for web content. Luke! 00:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Moorcock reference: Daker is the "original" manifestation of the Champion, and is seminally notable within the Eternal Champion mileu (which is almost all of Moorcock's oeuvre, albeit sometimes via retcon). No vote as to the amateur operatic. -- Simon Cursitor 07:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being on a few websites and twice on TV is not enough to establish notability.--Carabinieri 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS, so not notable... - Denny 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salted Agathoclea 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Michaels and John Cena[edit]

Non Notable throwtogether tag team. Similar to Austin and Michaels or Triple H and Steve Austin, among many others. No reason to believe the team is going to last. BuyAMountain 06:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4, recreation of deleted material. Tagged as such. It has been deleted three times now as John Cena and Shawn Michaels. Resolute 06:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It should be deleted and protected, so people stop recreating it. RobJ1981 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 02:44Z

List of band names that rhyme[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. This article doesn't seem to meet the guidelines in WP:LIST and seems arbitrary in subject. In short: listcruft. Crystallina 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random list of an unencyclopaedic nature. Jules1975 09:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a great example of list of X with unassociated unencyclopedic value Y. MLA 09:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The list was created just for the sake of having such a list. The list is of interest to a very limited number of people. The underlying concept is non-notable. The list is unencyclopaedic. The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In other words... it's listcruft. Suriel1981 11:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list made of coincidences is not encyclopaedic. Sam Blacketer 11:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Al-Bargit 12:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Good for a humour page, not for encyclopaedia[reply]
Delete rhymes with defeat. JuJube 13:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It certainly doesn't fall under the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" mentioned above. It is no different than List of band names with date references or List of songs whose title includes a phone number Tyoda 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also no different from List of bands beginning with the word "lemon" (AfD discussion) and List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics (AfD discussion). Please discuss this article, and reasons for keeping and deleting it based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The existence of other articles is irrelevant when it comes to whether this article conforms to our policies and guidelines. Uncle G 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no point in this that I can see at all, from an encyclopaedic standpoint. 23skidoo 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list that serves no purpose here. Arkyan 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to violate WP:NOT#DIR as a list of loosely associated topics. (WP:NOT#IINFO does not apply, however. That's the wrong section of policy to cite here.) Dugwiki 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of band names that do not rhyme. dcandeto 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one has made a convincing argument how this differs from List of band names with date references or List of songs whose title includes a phone number. Tyoda 19:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which simply means that maybe the ones you mentioned should also be discussed at afd too. Dugwiki 19:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tyoda, this is known as the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS form of argument. You might want to follow that link to see why few users give much credit to it, though of course your view is still worth considering when the debate is closed. Sam Blacketer 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number (second nomination). Uncle G 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - To reply to Uncle G above, "List of songs whose title includes a phone number" received no consensus to delete, and it appears that "List of songs whose title includes a phone number" probably should have received the same result but was labeled "keep". Either way, neither of those afd presents compelling evidence that this article should be kept. Dugwiki 16:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list follows all three of the criteria on WP:LIST:

1. Information: While this isn't a structured list, it could be useful for helping English language learners or young people understand the concept of "rhyme".
2. Navigation: If a Wikipedian is trying to find the name of a band, and the only thing they can remember is that it rhymes, this could be an extremely useful list.
3. Development: Red links on this page could help alert editors to articles that need to be added to Wikipedia.

I realize that some of these justifications are highly conditional and might not occur with great regularity. But that's the whole point of Wikipedia: It's VAST! There's room for stuff like this, to fill in the gaps where a conventional encyclopedia might not be able to help. So I vote "keep". Applejuicefool 16:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I think those points are stretching things a bit. I sincerely doubt anybody would use this article to "learn about the concept of rhyming" or "find missing band articles" or "remember that a band name rhymes but not the name and use this list to find the band". I mean, maybe I'm overly skeptical, but that's just my opinion. Dugwiki 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (as I mentioned in my original post) that these things might not happen often. But if they happen ONCE, then this list has served a useful purpose. I found nothing under WP:LIST or WP:NOT that says a page needs to be likely to attract a high (or any) amount of traffic. This list is potentially useful to a Wikipedian in the right situation, therefore I vote "keep". Applejuicefool 17:54, 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 Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Gil[edit]

Not notable losing contestant on American Idol 1. Default keep from previous nomination in May 2005, which appears to rely heavily on a "he was seen on TV and therefore must be notable" and "wait and see" arguments. We've waited, and so far have not seen anything. Clearly has not done anything of note in the intervening period. The subject's own website only has an active homepage saying "AJ has current taken on many new exciting projects, please come back soon." It's time to call "time". Ohconfucius 07:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because 1) deletionism is ruining wikipedia and 2) with the American Idol rewind show on, these first season people are being reexmanined by a larger audience now with new interviews and such. Regards, --164.107.223.217 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 02:42Z

Christopher Fagan[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Both are academy players who have never played for the first team and are not considered first team squad players. Previous AFD on Fagan approx 8 months ago was closed as "no consensus" after only two people !voted ChrisTheDude 08:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per WP:BIO for not being first-team professional players, and per precedents set e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Hoyte. Qwghlm 08:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both yes. Punkmorten 11:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete not even a Reserve player. Matthew_hk t c 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and WP:BIO. --Angelo 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP BOTH-- notable reserve players who will make it to the first team in a couple of years —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.7.48.114 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, they need to meet the notability guidelines now, which they blatantly don't ChrisTheDude 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Idol (season 1). --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Helton[edit]

Losing contestant on American Idol 1, and album. The subject appears not to have had notable achievements since his appearance on the show. One "top 20 hit" (out of 4 singles) was scored on a small subset of the national Billboard charts, and I feel he does not pass WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol (season 1). A Train ^{take the} 17:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, Delete and redirect to American Idol (season 1). A Train ^{take the} 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirect to American Idol (season 1). Sorry, I don't see the point in deleting it if you could just make it redirect. Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was in the top five on a very notable show, he has a single on a national chart (albeit a minor one, as Ohconfucius notes), and there are multiple nontrivial independent sources (the People magazine story cited in the article plus [9] [10] [11]). I could live without the article, but it does seem to meet the guidelines.--Kubigula (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because 1) deletionism is ruining wikipedia and 2) with the American Idol rewind show on, these first season people are being reexmanined by a larger audience now with new interviews and such. --164.107.223.217 06:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "Deletionism ruining Wikipedia" is not a reason to keep an article - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Core desat 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey Smith[edit]

Non-notable losing contestant on American Idol 2. Appears to have sunk without a trace since the show. The subject's article remains a pathetic stub since its creation in June 2005. Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete per not a directory of people who have appeared on American Idol. Ohconfucius 08:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and redirect to Mickey Smith#Ricky Smith as a reasonable spelling someone may use while looking for the article on the TV character. (At least until such time a more notable "Rickey Smith" has an article written about him). 23skidoo 14:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to American Idol (season 2), as failing WP:MUSIC. A Train ^{take the} 17:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced Whether or not her won or lost the show is irrelevant to this afd. What is relevant is that the article is unsourced and thus does not provide the multiple, independently published articles/interviews to demonstrate the subjects notability as described in WP:BIO. Delete unless such non-trivial references can be provided. Dugwiki 17:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because 1) deletionism is ruining Wikipedia and 2) American Idol has such a large fan base, people are likely to be interested in all of the contestants. Let's not turn away readers of the site, just because select individuals don't care about some information. If anyone out there is interested and the article is factual, keep it. If you don't like it, read something else, but don't ruin things for the rest of us. Best, --164.107.223.217 06:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leah LaBelle[edit]

Eliminated Idol 3 contestant who has gone back to school. Fails WP:MUSIC. I won't expect to be hearing from her for at least 3 years. Ohconfucius 08:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to American Idol (season 3). Fails WP:MUSIC. A Train ^{take the} 17:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because 1) deletionism is ruining Wikipedia and 2) American Idol has such a large fan base, people are likely to be interested in all of the contestants. Let's not turn away readers of the site, just because select individuals don't care about some information. If anyone out there is interested and the article is factual, keep it. If you don't like it, read something else, but don't ruin things for the rest of us. Best, --164.107.223.217 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any finalist on the Idol series is notable enough to have their own article, regardless of what they are doing now. --Christomir 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Durham District School Board. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:39Z

Donald A. Wilson Secondary School[edit]

According to the criteria on WP:SCHOOL, this article lacks any sources.

It is also purely trivial coverage: basically just a directory entry, mainly it's floor layout, sports teams, etc. Directory information and nothing encyclopediac.

It also is a promotional article, with unsourced lines like "In Whitby the school is known as one of the better schools for high achieving students." thrown in excessively. SakotGrimshine 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN school. TJ Spyke 08:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced quotes like Wilson is bound to be a football powerhouse in the future make it sound self-promotional. Doesn't have any supporting evidence to claim notability. Suriel1981 11:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. WMMartin 14:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 02:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Adams (singer)[edit]

Early eliminated Idol 3 contestant and currently a narrator in a theatrical production. Some may argue that an appearance on Leno would make her notable by default. However, I would maintain that she just had her 5 minutes of spotlight. Delete per wikipedia is not a directory of former Idol contestants. Ohconfucius 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering how quickly she was eliminated from Idol, here career is equal to an actor with a guest spot on a popular show and a role in a touring musical. That's not enough for me, although maybe I could be convinced on this one. --Djrobgordon 10:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is hardly a singer of repute, and Amy Adams (musical narrator) just doesn't read right. I mean it isn't a unique name so the confusion factor simply isn't worth the bother. Yasth 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced As always, whether or not she won or lost isn't relevant to whether we should keep her article. The reason I'm recommending delete is that the article doesn't provide multiple, independently published non-trivial articles/interviews about the person as described in WP:BIO. Dugwiki 17:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:V as unreferenced Alf^Photoman 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The musical she's narrating is Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, in which the Narrator is a singing role and one of the larger roles in the show. It's not like she's been relegated to narrating due to an inability to find singing jobs. That said, I would need more sources to support keeping an article about her under WP:BIO. No vote at this time. --Metropolitan90 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to American Idol season 3, since that's where any notibility she may have would stem from.--Wizardman 14:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is not much information available on Amy Adams anymore, to my disappointment. This is one of the only articles here, and I was rather upset when I first looked up her name and some new actress came up instead. But I finally found this article. Amy Adams was a very popular contestant, and surely there are many other people who would like to know what has happened to her and why she isn't currently continuing singing, which makes this article very useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.149.241.159 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Crazy Strong Keep American Idol is a prominent TV show and she also appears elsewhere on the internet. I'll add some relevant links to show some references as well. Deleting this article would be moronic. Best, --164.107.223.217 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Montco 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good reason. She appeared on American Idol, The Tonight Show, and Family Feud and has a prominent role in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. These are rather significant programs and a play, respectively, and so I have added some references to the article and information to the text. Do not destroy the work of others who are trying to contribute to what should be a great effort to catalog human knowledge. Plus, since Idol has such a huge fan base, let's not turn off potential readers of wikipedia by being deletionist goofs. Best, --164.107.223.217 06:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Alf - Aagtbdfoua 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaults to keep. No Guru 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stevens (singer)[edit]

Eliminated contestant on Idol 3. Dropped by Madonna's record label (Maverick) when his recorded was greeted by appalling sales (but apparently a top 10 hit on the Jazz chart, he has since gone back to school, so I wouldn't expect to hear from him again for a few years. Delete per wikipedia is not a directory of ex-Idol contestants. Ohconfucius 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMaverick Records releases are distributed through Warner Bros. Records, which is a major label. I'd say that a major label release in addition to, yes, his advancing deep into the competition on a wildly popular television show, makes him notable. --Djrobgordon 09:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was dropped after one poor selling record, whilst WP:MUSIC requires "two or more albums on a major label". He does not appear to pass any other such notability criteria. Ohconfucius 01:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:MUSIC also includes "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.", which (if verified) has been met. Neier 05:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: regardless or not whether the "Jazz chart" falls within the commomly accepted definition of "national charting" per WP:MUSIC, the information remains unsourced and unsubstantiated. Ohconfucius 09:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the decision is to delete, this could be used as a redirect to Jon Stevens. Grutness...wha? 10:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending references The problem I have with the article is it doesn't provide the multiple, independently published non-trivial articles/interviews described in WP:BIO to establish proper notability of the subject. I'll reconsider my delete recommendation if those are provided. Dugwiki 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless verifiable second party sources are added by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 19:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are just trying delete american idol references.

Not really, just references to unreferenced AI articles Alf^Photoman 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aldine above. I've voted to keep a few of the Idol related articles, namely ones that had sufficient references to meet notability. This article, unfortunately, doesn't meet that minimal standard at the moment. Dugwiki 16:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wikipedia is big enough for this now, a true encyclopedia. And as per Djrobgordon above cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because 1) deletionism is ruining Wikipedia and 2) American Idol has such a large fan base, people are likely to be interested in all of the contestants. Let's not turn away readers of the site, just because select individuals don't care about some information. If anyone out there is interested and the article is factual, keep it. If you don't like it, read something else, but don't ruin things for the rest of us. Best, --164.107.223.217 06:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Alf (needs verifiable second party sources for a keep) - Aagtbdfoua 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because I haven't read any good reasons not to as this is an incredibly highly rated show and anyone who makes it to the final group has widespread name recognition. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 02:38Z

Cop Movie[edit]

A student-made film that is of no significant importance to an encyclopedia. Edit: (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to edit my own description) May I note that a major contributor to the article has removed the afd tag and added this threat: "If this wiki is requested for deletion again, we will list every possible article we can find that does not have a historical interest." RazorICE^talk 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contributor rebuttal -

"Leet Films is upset about the deletion controversy. We personally feel that there is no harm in having a wiki article about our little movie that alot of people seem to like. If you don't like it, I'm very sorry."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.222.235 (talk • contribs)

Delete No sources and no assertion of notability. Google search for "leet films" "cop movie" brings up 6 hits, 3 from Myspace and 3 from Google Video. Evidence indicates non notable student film. Dave6 ^talk 09:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dave6. Zero independent sources, so fails WP:V.

~Matticus ^T_C 09:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable student endeavour no different to the countless others that come through AfD on their way to deletion. MLA 11:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

First things first. I was notified to not delete comments. No comments were ever deleted.

I will respond to both arguments.

Argument 2

(Zero independent sources, so fails WP:V. - Matticus)

If you want independent sources, we'll gladly include a section of viewer responses with opinions.

Argument 1

(Non notable student film, no use to an encyclopedia, etc. etc.) I feel unnecessarily targeted in the sense that there are a countless number of wikipedia articles that aren't "notable" or of "encyclopedic value", yet simply because our movie isn't known nationally means that it has to be deleted. What is notable? What is encyclopedic value?

Encyclopedia's don't include intense publication information about the comic book "Bones" for one thing *sneeeeematticuszeessss*. Nor do encyclopedias include articles about Star Wars, television shows, magazines, or popular websites like Myspace. With this in mind, and also with the fact that articles, like the ones I mentioned, DO exist on Wikipedia; I think that your argument that Cop Movie is not of "Encyclopedic Value" is irrelevant due to the fact that Wikipedia does not work that way (despite how much you guys wish it did).

As to the notable part of the argument, the definition of notable is "worthy of note or notice".

As a teenager, I know how hard it is to concentrate on getting something done. Whether it be schoolwork or a short story for some geek fantasy forum that you guys go to. I cannot begin to tell you how difficult it was for me to convince a group of teenagers to help me do a 25 minute movie. After convincing them, we took time out of our schedules after school, everyday, for about a week straight. We came to the school on the weekends. We didn't eat lunch with our friends. We did whatever we could to meet our goal and personal deadline, which we did. And although it isn't the best movie in the would, we put a hell of an effort in it and got it done when everyone told us we couldn't.

Now...is that not notable?

~ Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcopmovieguy (talk • contribs)

I think you're missing a few points there. Yes, you are right that Wikipedia covers many topics in far greater detail than you would find in a conventional encyclopedia. Wikipedia itself states "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia", and that there is "no practical limit to the number of topics". However, that same paragraph continues with the caveat "other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page". The issue here is not that the movie is short, or made by teenagers or amateurs (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, by the way), or that anyone here wants to belittle the effort put into making it, but that none of the information is verifiable by multiple reliable sources independent of the creators. Wikipedia editors of good faith want this encyclopedia to be both comprehensive and verifiable. If the film had been shown at a festival, for example, and its programme gave details and review, then you would have a reliable independent source. If its creators had been interviewed for a local newspaper, then you would have another. Comments on blogs, MySpace, YouTube and the like cannot be counted as reliable sources, simply because anyone can make them and there is no accountability for accuracy. As the article stands at present there is no evidence of those all-important third-party reliable sources, but the AfD debate runs for a week (barring early closure) giving editors time to add them. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comment This article should be deleted. Sorry Leet Films but it's well established that your film needs to be notable to be included to justify it having an article in Wikipedia. I appreciate that you have put a lot of work into your film, but it does not appear to qualify as notable. Just working hard at it isn't enough. A few points occur to me:-

- (a) Has your film been signed up by a distributor and screened anywhere for the general public?
- (b) Has your film been released anywhere commercially on DVD or for internet download?
- (c) Are any of the actors, director, producer, writer etc notable?
- (d) Has your film been reviewed anywhere?

If you can say "yes" to any of these, then your film may well be considered notable, if you can verify the claims.

You mention viewer responses you might provide, who are the viewers? Comments from friends you have shown the film to won't make the film notable. Jules1975 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable unverifiable Google Video clip. It's great that students make films, but please understand that not everything you do is encyclopedically significant. Thanks! Weregerbil 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V -- Whpq 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because other things have entries that shouldn't, it doesn't mean that you can include yours. And I just can't see how the amount of effort put into it makes it notable. This is not a comment on the quality of the film itself, but rather its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing personal, and I for one applaud your efforts, but high school and college students and even professional filmmakers, authors, artists, athletes and musicians have put that much effort into lots of other non-notable projects too, and most of them aren't notable enough even for this bloated online encyclopedia. Enter it in film festivals, win awards, come back. Spielberg started with youthful efforts too. Inkpaduta 19:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, except I'd be less charitable towards the people desperately trying to keep this article. --Aim Here 01:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not be generous? Just some kids who think they've done something cool. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources (reviews, etc.). I made student films as well, but they're not notable. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:24, 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 speedy delete - article created by an apparent sock of a banned user (Mykungfu). Creating this article, more than once, was a favorite pastime of MKF. This speedy closure is not meant to preclude re-creation of this article by a user in good standing. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Nu (3rd nomination)[edit]

Claimed to be the first African-American Greek letter fraternity. A prior article was deleted twice based on reason which had little to do with notability (see 1st Afd, 2nd AfD). The decision was upheld on review, but the article was userfied on request and in this new form reintroduced into article space. This AfD is to decide whether the prior problems have been resolved with this version and, if remediable, fix remaining problems, and also, if the sources are sufficient to write a neutral article and support the claims. I am currently neutral, but I might form an opinion later. ~ trialsanderrors 09:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I've read the previous AfD several times, and I do not understand the claim on that AfD that the existence of this article can somehow be construed as an attack page against the Alpha Phi Alpha page. This article is well referenced, and makes no extrapolation of its sources to make or extend any of the claims attributed to scholars on black history. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I forgot to include the 2nd AfD, which has a bit more on the lack of sources. Done now. ~ trialsanderrors 09:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, changing from keep to strong keep based on the comments on the 2nd AfD. The historical significance of this article does not rest on whether the claim to be the first black fraternity is accurate or not. The article discusses a topic which is notable simply for the fact that the subject is part of a notable controversy, discussed in reliable sources, regarding whether it was the first black fraternity. It's place in history as part of the controversy seals its notability. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am unfamiliar with the previously-deleted article, so I have no opinion on how closely it resembles that. But I can't see any problem with the article we have except references formatting and one or two wording tweaks. A stub, a bit of a mystery, but important. --Dhartung | Talk 10:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Dhartung above in failing to see any problem with the topic of this article. I have started to put the first few references into footnotes, but the article needs some copy editing and I think the references need some consolidating by someone more willing than me to actually read up on the subject. Pharamond 15:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The underlying thread behind the first two AfD's (which by themselves were massively riddled with SPA and bad faith problems on both sides) is that the evidentiary basis for the claim that AKN was the first black fraternity is very thin. In particular the secondary sources seem to draw on the same primary sources, which since they are affiliated with Kappa Alpha Psi, might not be independent. Kappa Alpha Psi used to be Kappa Alpha Nu, the follow-up black fraternity of Alpha Kappa Nu at Indiana University. I proposed to FrozenApe to include a section on AKN in the KAP article, but he considered it a stand-alone topic. In any case, my primary goal is to get an AfD that focuses on the merit of the article and not on interpersonal issues that bogged down the first two (and the first DRV). ~ trialsanderrors 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment and Keep There are numerous sources that aren't secondary that state that Alpha Kappa Nu is the first black fraternity [12], [13] . The sources are documented and luckily available online thru a scanning of books by google.com. The problem is that it did not last very long and there is very little recorded history on them. You won't find any sources that will state that there is a black fraternity prior to the formation of Alpha Kappa Nu. You will find sources that state that they are the first black fraternity outside of Sigma Pi Phi which was founded in 1905 [14] (Ebony magazine 2004). I disagreed with Trialsanderrors because Alpha Kappa Nu and Kappa Alpha Psi were founded in the same school but were unrelated. I won't comment much because I'd like other outside opinions. thanks though. FrozenApe 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 02:36Z

Shane Greer[edit]

Fails to establish notability. Being a 23-year old young Tory who has written for a Tory blog and appeared a Tory online TV station is not sufficient notability. Nssdfdsfds 09:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a 23 year old young Tory who as written for a Tory blog and appeared on a Tory online TV station. And for being nonnotable too, of course --Aim Here 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the Shane Greers in the articles in Google News Archives, none seem to be him. Sources in article not sufficient to establish notability. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:31, 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 keep.--Wizardman 03:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Division I schools that have never sponsored football[edit]

I created this article over a year ago, mainly to get this list off College football. If I had then the knowledge of Wikipedia policy I do now, I would have simply deleted the material as indiscriminate information. The intro provides no context, and makes no assertion that this information is important or useful. If you check the history, you'll see that almost all of the activity since I created the article has been housekeeping. In short, I don't think a list of schools that haven't done something notable is notable. Djrobgordon 09:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article meets WP:LC in the following ways: The list was created just for the sake of having such a list, The list is of interest to a very limited number of people, The list is a violation of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", The underlying concept is non-notable, The list is unencyclopaedic. Suriel1981 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no use in an encyclopedia; of interest to very few people --Austinsimcox 14:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List is finite, and it helps to keep related lists mutually exclusive and exhaustive. --Arcadian 16:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LC is an essay, so meeting it is useless. It has a clear and finite definition, for which the criteria is claimed in the title even, and "only" housekeeping tasks mean the list is static and well balanced. I do think it could use some references, perhaps at least one for each school listed (or one source for all these) to support such claims. --MECU≈talk 17:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mecu — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concept is very much notable and encyclopedic. List is feasibly maintainable. A Train ^{take the} 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, encyclopedic, etc. *Mishatx*-In\Out 19:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well defined list of which of the 300 Div 1 schools never had a varsity football program is not an indiscriminate list. It is not a matter of some editor's taste, opinion or judgement. Nothing the least bit "crufty" about it. It can be easily maintained. I guess my main question is why they give up the revenue of that cash cow sport? And are they more institutions of higher education than they would be if they had a varsity football team? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inkpaduta (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Suriel1981's comments. RobJ1981 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it'd be nice if there were some references. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a useful and encyclopedic compilation of otherwise hard to find material. DGG 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's review the meaning of an indiscriminate list. To me, it means something like "list of movies that drag on and should have ended sooner". That type of list is subject to personal opinion; there is no set criteria for inclusion. In contrast, the criteria for inclusion in this list is crystal clear. Is it NPOV. It is so clear that the title really says it all - no introduction is even needed. It is a finite list, and maintaining the list is not even a big problem since not many Division I schools rush out and add football. This inforamation is useful and interesting. It is necesary information if we are to become the worlds foremost authority on college football. This is exactly the type of information we need on Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 07:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, this is entirely to misunderstand how lists work here. We have a specific tool for handling this kind of information: the category. As it stands this article is simply a collection of information that could be handled more efficiently as a category. List articles only have value if they add some additional information, typically to enhance comprehension or ease comparison ( e.g. a list of people ordered by birth date, or a list of books sorted by genre ); this doesn't happen here. WMMartin 14:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...I feel this info is valid...but...maybe it should be someplace else. Maybe as a category. Maybe the information can be shunted somewhere into here or here. I do think the info is valid, I'm just not sure this article is the right place for it. Oh, and source it. --UsaSatsui 11:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Create Category. Articles should not be simply lists of otherwise unorganised information. Haven't you people heard of categories ? WMMartin 14:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've heard of categories. For this particular grouping of colleges and universities, either method of presenting the information would work, and I can't see any reason to prefer one over the other. It's here now as a list, so keep it. JamesMLane t c 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let me help your vision out then, Commissar Lane ;-) This is far preferable to a category. This list is of some interest as a collection. However, it's not a defining characteristic of these colleges. Categories take up real estate on the page. Too many minor categories clutter and obscure the major ones. There's no need to have that footprint for a very minor attribute. Derex 06:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, that point occurred even to my aged eyes. As against that, the category tag does serve the purpose of alerting the reader of the Fairleigh Dickinson University article that s/he can readily see which other schools are in this select group. The list wouldn't do that unless it were to be given real estate in each school's "See also" section. Nevertheless, because I agree with you that this isn't a defining characteristic, the category's gain in facilitating its pursuit isn't of great value. So, on further review, the original call stands. JamesMLane t c 06:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a category for this would almost certainly be deleted at WP:CFD; "not" categories, of which this would be one, are not done. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 even if there were evidence that this was used widely, it would probably be merged to Mathematical induction. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:31Z

Inductive symbol[edit]

This article appears to be non-notable and useless. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Inductive symbol. JRSpriggs 09:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but should be expanded by someone with more technical knowledge, as well as more citations given. Smee 10:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't verify it, because no sources are mentioned, and the article does not make sense making me think that it is not verifiable at all. For example, it says that the symbol is used to save time at examinations. However, the use of mysterious symbols in exams will cost students marks. Besides, the symbol seems to stand for "we have proven the statement for k = 1 and we have proven that if it holds for k = n, it also holds for k = n + 1, so it holds for all positive integers k". Such a sentence is usually not included in proofs, so you can save even more time by not putting the symbol in at all. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, this is some kind of trick to help people remember how to do proofs by induction (and a poor one at that). Even this would not justify the existence of this article unless it can be shown that such a symbol is used in a widely-available math textbook. (If such a reference can be produced, I would change my vote, but this article would still need a lot of improvement.) This is not a salvagable article because, as far as I can tell, it is not a notable concept. VectorPosse 11:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this notation is verifiable, let alone widespread. Highly unlikely fo rthe reasons Jitse points out. JPD (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was created by new user User:Pboulus (talk) whose three edits are the IS article, its image, and a link in the mathematical induction article to the IS article. This user has been contacted on his/her talk page. The AfD should be left open until its natural end to give this user a chance to comment if they only check WP sporadically. The user may be able to provide sources, if this is actually notable in Australia. CMummert · talk 12:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've never seen that notation before, but if it's used in a standard math textbook, it may be allowable, with severe cleanup. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 0 Google hits, and no evidence that this is in use anywhere in the world. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's probably a spoof, or a hoax. The only thing missing is the "fact" that in the Northern Hemisphere the spokes point to the left. DavidCBryant 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable memory aid. No sources -- Whpq 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added to the list of Australia-related deletion debates. Spacepotato 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Likely a notation invented by some non-notable teacher that never left his classroom. Without citations, this should be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide a respectable reference. -- Fropuff 04:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim that the symbol is designed to minimise the time spent notating the proof is not demonstrated in this article since no proof is demonstrated using the symbol. Regardless, the use of a symbol would not remove the need to demonstrate a proof mathematically, so v. little time would be minimised, even under exam conditions. I suspect this is either a hoax or one teacher's approach to a concept that students traditionally have difficulty grasping (mathematical induction). Kind regards, --Greatwalk 06:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations are added. -- Dominus 14:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a tutor in Maths in Australia who did two years of it at uni and have marked the odd exam, I've never seen it before, and it appears to fail WP:ATT Orderinchaos78 14:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Australian perspective. WP:ATT isn't a deletion criteria; if the topic was actually notable then the fact that the current article lacks sources would not justify deletion. CMummert · talk 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic (not "non-notable"; that's a non-sequitur here). --Trovatore 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-04 02:29Z

Komšiluk[edit]

Dicdef with a bit of WP:OR. While I personally agree with the sentiment of the text, it reads like a personal essay... in fact, it is a personal essay. Sorry, not encyclopedic. Duja► 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. Duja► 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needes a clean up by someone in the know. However, Komšiluk appears to be a cultural effect and way of life, much more than a simple dic def. For starter English language references see [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19]. Nuttah68 12:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, living there, I consider myself in the know in a way. However, despite the nice references you provided, all of those are 1-paragraph mentions; my point is, it could be an anthropological study in theory, but I can't foresee how it can be a Wikipedia article without an existing thorough anthropological study. I mean, I could expand the article reasonably well, but I don't see how to do it without an original research of my own; and I'm not an anthropologist. To be clear, I'm not eager to delete this article, just questioning its encyclopedic value without a solid pre-existing ground. Duja► 14:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is an academic reference. Whilst the coverage is not massive, it gives an academic definition of the term - 'The point may be made more clear by looking at pre-war Bosnia. The institution of komšiluk (from Turkish) established clear obligations of reciprocity between people of different “nations” living in close proximity but also prohibited intermarriage between members of these religiously defined groups (Bringa 1995:66–84). Xavier Bougarel (1996:81–88) has argued that this relationship based on proximity was antithetical to one based on intimacy: marriage. While the idea of “citizen” is abstract,he says, “neighbor” (komšija) was always concrete. Essentially, then, the practices of komšiluk regulated re-lations between individuals as representatives of groupsthat chanced to live in close proximity while the groupsthemselves remained in structural opposition, un-mixable.' - It also gives further references that have discussed the theory of Komšiluk. As I said, I believe that there is more than enough academic coverage out there to create a properly referenced article. What it needs is someone knowledgable in anthropology to pull it together. Nuttah68 14:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, on a more thorough research, the concept was recognized by several anthropological/historical studies. here, some more, book search. It might be worth expansion indeed. I'm withdrawing the nomination. Duja► 14:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Melanotan. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:28Z

Melanotan 1[edit]

Unecessary and unhelpful disambiguation that complicates access to information about this hormone. The parent article Melanotan is quite stubbish itself already and there's no need to have breakout articles about the two versions of Melanotan particularly as there is already the Bremelanotide article which essentially covers virtually alll of the same material as Melanotan II. (→Netscott) 10:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since there seems to be no doubt that the various substances are notable, I would see this rather as a question of how the material should be organized. This could be adressed via a discussion about possible merges and redirects without recurring to an AfD. --Tikiwont 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and verifiable. Quote from the melanotan article: "Note: this article describes both melanotan and melanotan II: although their names are similar, they have different chemical and biological properties." --Arcadian 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article. (And are they really called "1" and "2"?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Merge While I understand that this information may be slight, we can add to the article and word it better. I would suggest this be merged as this drug has a high degree of notability both verifiable and pertinent to other related drugs, treatments and uses. Mystar 16:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To address the "1" and "2" issue - click on the Medical Subject Headings and PubChem links I added to each article, and you will see that they are indeed called "1" and "2" (although they both have other names which would be preferable.) --Arcadian 16:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and merge - this reads more like a content dispute that should not have been brought to AFD. Arkyan 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since it seems like this may be snowballed soon, I want to ask to anyone who chooses to close this, to be very careful when merging. Right now, the parent Melanotan article is very ambiguous in using the term "Melanotan" both to describe the general class of compounds, and as a synonym for "Melanotan I". Merging them back together into one article is going to make that harder to sort out, but if that's how the AfD will play out, please address the ambiguity when merging. --Arcadian 16:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This seems mostly to be an issue of where the information should be located. As both this and the parent article are stubs, I recommend merging to Melanotan. -- Black Falcon 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Melanotan. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:28Z

Melanotan II[edit]

Unecessary and unhelpful disambiguation that complicates access to information about this hormone. The parent article Melanotan is quite stubbish itself already and there's no need to have breakout articles about the two versions of Melanotan particularly as there is already the Bremelanotide article which essentially covers virtually alll of the same material as Melanotan II. (→Netscott) 11:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since there seems to be no doubt that the various substances are notable, I would see this rather as a question of how the material should be organized. This could be adressed via a discussion about possible merges and redirects without recurring to an AfD. --Tikiwont 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and verifiable. Quote from the melanotan article: "Note: this article describes both melanotan and melanotan II: although their names are similar, they have different chemical and biological properties." --Arcadian 13:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article. Perhaps if the full article gets over 32 KiB, we can consider splitting it along those lines. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Merge While I understand that this information may be slight, we can add to the article and word it better. I would suggest this be merged with #1 as this drug has a high degree of notability both verifiable and pertinent to other related drugs, treatments and uses. Mystar 16:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and merge - this reads more like a content dispute that should not have been brought to AFD. Arkyan 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This seems mostly to be an issue of where the information should be located. As both this and the parent article are stubs, I recommend merging to Melanotan (as a separate section perhaps). -- Black Falcon 18:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Steel 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waffenfarbe[edit]

unencyclopedic: I consider this a candidate for the translation of a non existing chapter of a potential German (!) book for military experts. (forgotten to translate the title?) Habibie 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I wanted to point to the difference between chapters of books and Encycledia-Articles. Editing an encyclopedia is deciding upon the extent/complexity/circumfence of the language in which it is written, isn't it? Was that poor, before we knew about this new item? This is what I mean by unencyclopedic: There's so much, that might be interesting - we decide whether it's worth creating a new word for it (borrowed from ... see Loanword) Habibie 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Agathoclea 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? — Consider merging into German Army (or other potentially more appropriate article on uniforms, etc.). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article certainly needs clarification. It talks about World War II units, but links to the Bundeswehr article. Does the Bundeswehr have branch colors like this? — Conscientious objector Kusma (討論), who transcluded this debate to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 27 shortly before 11:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes it does. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (lemon yellow)[reply]
Keep "Too much military information on the pages." -Habibie..... 8thstar 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps we can get a comment from someone on the Military history and engineering task force, which has a Category:Military uniforms. I'll post a notice there. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (which doesn't preclude merging it somewhere more appropriate). Topic is encyclopedic, title might have to be translated if there is common English word for it, but that's an issue for WP:RM. ~ trialsanderrors 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google book search is pretty unambiguous about this. ~ trialsanderrors 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being "for military experts" is not a reason for deletion. While this might be merged into a hypothetical article on branch colors in general (if anyone feels like writing one), it's a perfectly legitimate topic to be covered in an encyclopedia. Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just the fact of being a specialized topic (itself partially a subjective determination) is never a valid reason to delete. The Google book search by trialsanderrors is quite conclusive as to the notability of the subject. A merge to a Military branch colors article or to German military may be appropriate, but that is an editorial issue separate from AfD. -- Black Falcon 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepand improve. It doesn't use the correct terms or translations for the colors. Wandalstouring 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Steel 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N64 Kid[edit]

Non notable internet phenomenon relating to a living person. Mainly concerns a U-tube video. Unreferenced. No need to have articles poking fun at people of borderline notability. WjBscribe 11:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ This article passes the de facto standard for inclusion, which is "will anyone come here for information on it?" Policy may differ, but ultimately, policy is not always the prevailing wind at AfD, something recognized by WP:IAR. I would not a vote to delete if the nomination cited credible factors other than general sympathy :x. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-27 11:37Z
- I think Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers establishes a precedent here. These kind of articles are of little encyclopedic value. The closest policy is WP:BLP. This article is going to be limited to negative information about the subject, with little room to counterbalance it. And if WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY isn't policy yet, it should be. WjBscribe 11:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The _overall_ precedent doesn't apply until Jimmy Wales shows up and decides it by fiat ;)

I still maintain the argument I made a year ago in re. BP -- Wikipedia opens itself to potential liability by deleting articles on some requests and not others.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-27 12:01Z

Delete -- actionable as unencyclopedic, but if evaluated only on issues of privacy or sympathy would be a keep. Editorial review will provide little or no equitable remedy to this guy's WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY :) —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-03-02 13:00Z

Delete No non-trivial media coverage. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem with this article is that video 'meme' was made by the article subject himself and posted to the internet without his permission so his entire notability claim is based on a copyright violation. You can't discuss the video if you can't link to it and WP:EL states we can't link to material we know to be a copyright violation. On top of that, it is a violation of his privacy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm afraid I seriously messed up here. I got him confused with the Star Wars Kid. Please ignore my vote.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; would not oppose a two-sentence mention in another article. The sourceable information from mainstream media is: 1) a brief description of the video; and 2) a brief description of its status as phenomenon, e.g. having been shown on Leno. Therefore a two-sentence description of the phenomenon could fit in another article somewhere, but there really isn't enough information in reliable sources for a standalone article---certainly his real name and so on do not appear in any mainstream media sources I've come across, so should not appear in Wikipedia. --Delirium 12:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources to establish notability would be trivial (if they were actually used in the article). A clip on Jay Leno and appearing in a BMW commercial doesn't surpass the threshold required by WP:BIO. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hipocrite. At best this would be a quick mention in the "trivia" section of the Nintendo 64 article, not an article all its own. WP needs to get serious about cleaning out its Youtube/"internet phenomena" articles, as a lot of them are both blisteringly non-notable and make fun of non-public figures in an unencyclopedic (if not potentially libellous) way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were you by any chance a Sliders fan? —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-27 21:04Z

Delete He is already mention on the List of internet memes page (although I think that page should go since it's a matter of opinion on what's considered a meme). TJ Spyke 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources provided. John Vandenberg 03:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Nintendo 64 or the list of internet memes. Being shown on Jay Leno's talk show and in a BMW commercial confers a minor but verifiable amount of notability. Not enough for a separate article, but certainly enough for a mention in a larger entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --pIrish 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, as well. 65.6.50.112 16:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregorB 19:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Daron Malakian. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:26Z

Scars on Broadway[edit]

Little information is known about the band with no new information in months, with no sign of an album or a performance. I think it should be deleted, and it can be recreated if/when something is actually happening with the band. Joltman 12:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The "official website" and "official myspace" have not been updated in months, as well. I do not see any new developments anywhere from and/or about this band. It should be deleted and re-created if/when the band actually releases some news about it recording, touring, etc. Bsroiaadn 12:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 01:58Z

And the like[edit]

not notable - probable self-promotion Deb 12:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/She Needs Us More Than Ever
Delete both the article on the band as well as She Needs Us More Than Ever their album. The two together get no ghits besides their respective wikipedia articles and the Musician only comes up in relation to his solo project on ghits on wikipedia and the band's myspce page. They are Not Notable. Shimaspawn 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Shimaspawn. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent coverage of the subject. Darkspots 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. Delete She Needs Us More Than Ever as well. Appears to be another example of a new band writing themselves a wiki page for self-promotion purposes and without/before notablity being established. A1octopus 10:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, borderline G11 speedy deletion candidate. --Core desat 14:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Ina Colony[edit]

Delete: Article about a school with no evidence for notability – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, we need to see an assertion of notability - why is this school different from any other ? - and evidence to support this assertion. Neither is provided here. WMMartin 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 02:24Z

Akiva Israel[edit]

Non-notable bio. Suspected auto bio. Verging on spam. -- RHaworth 13:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, User clearly does not yet know about proper Wikipedia formatting style. Allow time for sourced citations to appear, and if not, re-submit. Smee 13:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for now, the article has been edited on a continuous basis since creation, and in this special case I would have been more in favor of an unsourced tag then an AfD. Helping new editors along can be just as valuable as keeping wiki clean Alf^Photoman 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Edited on a continuous basis. Are you looking at the right article? There has been just one tiny edit: "Warsaw" -> "Warsaw Fire". -- RHaworth 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, must have had the wrong glasses on, nut you'll take my point that, especially with a new editor, requiring sources before deleting is a better way. It does not hurt to have a article a week longer. Alf^Photoman 17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly Nn. Wrote one book published by a vanity publisher. The only book review is an oral one from a teacher, saying he couldnt get past the introduction. This is nonsense. It harms WP to have it up even for a week. The nom was being appropriately gentle to an admittedly clever newbie in not using a speedy. He would be helped most by being quickly redirected away from this sort of contribution. DGG 02:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for someone so contemporary, not a single Google entry confirming that this violates WP:NN and probably even WP:COI because evidently "Akiva Israel" is also "Akiva Avikaida" and it was Avikaida (talk · contribs) who created this article, making this seem so amateurish and self-promoting. The book does get a few repetative commercial hits for sale at Amazon where he is not called "Akiva Israel" but "Akiva Avikaida" which gets about five hits for the book. This just confuses things. Sorry, maybe next year he can get an article, but not now as things stand. IZAK 12:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Kolindigo 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable per WP:BIO. Google search [20] on author and title gets 28 hits, none from reliable sources. Nuttah68 12:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not a crystal ball, etc. Avi 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied G5 --Golbez 13:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watson Park[edit]

This page does not meet notability requirements, and there are several watson parks all over the US Google · AO ^Talk 13:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 02:23Z

Hu ching mei[edit]

This Wikipedia article is the only Google hit for its own title, external link is broken, no other verifiable reference given, and article is the only contribution of its creator, User:Mrbob60. Possible hoax? The Anome 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a hoax. Ext link is broken, and the only thing I can find on Google for "Hu Ching Mei" is as a person's name. Possible stealth attack page? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and unreferenced, therefore failing WP:V Alf^Photoman 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 02:23Z

Podbradníkovec[edit]

A "not-english" tag was added in April 2006 and nearly a year later it still is untranslated Chesdovi 13:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper tag, which puts the page into the correct category, was added only in February 2007. The article has been listed at the proper place (WP:PNT) only a week ago; Introvert claims it is Slovenian and probably a hoax. Kusma (討論) 14:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This link seems to indicate it was added in April 2006? Am I missing something?! Chesdovi 10:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At that time, ((nonenglish)) was not yet a redirect to ((notenglish)). I did most of the cleanup work at WP:PNT last April, and wasn't aware of ((nonenglish)). The advantage of ((notenglish)) over ((nonenglish)) is that it asks the person who tagged the article to list it at WP:PNT, and even if they forget it, we usually check the category CAT:PNT every month or so to make potential translators aware of the article. If the article is only tagged with a template, but not listed anywhere, it won't be found. Kusma (討論) 10:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it's about, it's actually Czech or Slovak. My guess is Slovak. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've got in touch with a native Czech-speaking user and a native Slovak-speaking user and asked them to have a look at the article. With any luck, one or both of them will be able to give us an opinion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a comment from -js- (a native-language Czech speaker with good Slovak) who's kindly translated the article for me. If anyone's curious, it's Slovak and not Czech that we're dealing with here. His translation is on his Talk page, but the salient points read Podbradníkovce are unicellural organisms. Its body consists of only one cell two metres in diameter (it is the biggest known cell, is visible to the human eye). Podbradníkovec lives in very contaminated schools, swimming pools, swamps, dining rooms, attics ... It has to eat 500-800 kg of food every day, otherwise it will die etc etc. IMHO it's a rather poor joke describing a fictional organism not worth translating. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per -js-. Those lines say it all. Phatom87 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 02:22Z

James Bassam[edit]

I'm not certain this individual meets the criteria for WP:BIO. The article lacks sources and is possibly an advertisement. sunstar net^talk 13:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable; fails criteria for WP:BIO --Austinsimcox 14:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it does not fail WP:BIO it surely fails WP:V ... therefore no choice Alf^Photoman 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced non-notable person. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better Badges[edit]

Page deleted by a prior AFD. Sources produced at deletion review are of debatable quality. Relisted for debate on whether the sources listed in the deletion review are sufficient to have an article. Please read both discussions before opining. I have no opinion, this is a technical nomination. GRBerry 13:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my findings at the DRV. There are quite a few sources, some of which are trivial, but the one in The Face is a multi-page article all about Better Badges. Also persuasive is the fact that Better Badges had their "Top Ten" published in the magazine NME as an indicator of underground buzz and popularity. I think there's a decent encyclopedia article to be had here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs work. I'll try and improve it this week. I did manage to contact the photographer for The Face article, who has given permission for his photos to be used.Wwwhatsup 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The text is rough, but the article is still somewhat new. The Face article secures notability in my mind. - grubber 23:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Echeverry[edit]

Nom - fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. The article lacks WP:V and WP:RS. While future projects look hopeful, his career so far doesn't look all that interesting so far. I Prod'ed this one, but the original author removed the tag without making any improvements. Rklawton 14:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article is deleted, please also remove Image:JCminipic.jpg which was uploaded solely to illustrate it. Rklawton 14:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Note: I was not informed of the AfD. I was watching the article and noticed the removal of the ((prod)), and was going to nominate it myself.) Not quite a speedy ((db-bio)), as it asserts improbable notability which is not sourced in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep , notability asserted by articles in El Espectador and El Tiempo, both non-trival and in fact very good critiques, what makes me go for week is that both articles have not been directly referenced but through a tertiary source on a website Alf^Photoman 15:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I read these articles after they were posted, but how do they satisfy WP:MUSIC? Rklawton 16:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - neither of these articles are critiques at all. They are summaries of his career progression from Bogota to Europe and his first job in Paris. Now, if all performers who have signed a contract with the Paris opera (which one?) are notable, then this guy should have an article. If not, then there is nothing in these sources to indicate this singer is notable. Rklawton 00:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The short of it is, this guy is just starting his career, and I see nothing extraordinary. The article, makes it clear that he exists and that he's had two articles written about him in the Colombian press. He has made no records, taken no leading roles in major productions, and he has received no critical reviews from the opera press. Rklawton 16:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary of popular musicians, classic musicians just don't disappear into oblivion after starting their career with positive critiques, and there is more than one notable classical musician who has not yet made a record... and I can't remember any classical music being in the top 100 of any chart since Miguel Rios' adaptation of the final chorus of Beethoven's 9th. And opera press, who are they? Alf^Photoman 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, who writes the positive critique? Has the subject generated any buzz within the opera community? It boils down to whether or not reliable sources say this guy is any good. Just as there are well respected book, movie, and theatre critics, there are also well respected opera critics. They are the ones who should determine whether or not this guy is notable, and we haven't heard word one from them. Rklawton 18:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you are the expert, I need urgently a name of a respected Colombian opera critic Alf^Photoman 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Without a respected opera critic (with opera, I don't think nationality is significant), this article will have a great deal of difficulty demonstrating its subject's notability. Rklawton 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Article meets more then only ,,one criteria,, , listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MUSIC. Very hard to me to understand where is a lack of information and/or opera critic's articles. We have at least two from the very respected critics from el El Espectador and El Tiempo. I am afraid you don't like latino opera singers at all :))) Is it? Anyway, according to the rules article can be kept, nevertheless it can be added or improved. Honestly, I will never comment any article about any ptotographer, because my knowladge in these issues are so limited.User:White Sombrero 22:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trying to disqualify me too? Alf^Photoman 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are you stating that both articles reproduced here [21] were authored by respected opera critics? Rklawton 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - I don't try to disqualify anybody here, but it is really interesting, that only two professional photographers are criticizing an article about opera singer. Nevertheless, I asked two agencies in Paris and Geneva two send me additional press kit about him. I a going to improve the article with significant information. Back to the rules, there are clearly stated all conditions to post the article. He already meets more then only ONE condition. Thank you / Evheristo para poly. . User:White Sombrero
Reply - I see. So first you claim the two authors were reputable critics, and now you make no such claim? Next, would you mind telling us which criteria this person has satisfied so far? Finally, anyone who reads Wikipedia's rules can check to see if an article satisfies those rules. At present, I see nothing to indicate this biography satisfies those rules. I will be happy for the singer if indeed he is worthy of an article. I will be just as happy to see his article removed if he is not. Rklawton 00:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that "press kits" are not a WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But mostly mention reliable sources if available, so I guess we should leave User:White Sombrero the chance to improve the article Alf^Photoman 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding / Evheristo. Xronikos polys.

Question - what roles has this subject actually sung in concert with the Paris opera? The second source indicates he hasn't sung anything in concert at all. Rklawton 01:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The roles are listed in the third paragraph under "education and profession" It would have been preferable to add the reviews in the first place--apparently it is not yet generally understood that a WP article needs sources. DGG
Comment vague claims for roles (performed where, when, and for whom?) may be enough to prevent a speedy delete, but this is an AfD and those statements aren't supported by the sources. While it may not be commonly understood by novice editors that articles need sources (or biographical subjects should be notable), the article was first tagged for sources. It was later prodded with both the sources and notability problems clearly highlighted. Both these tags were ignored and deleted by the creating editor. In short, he/she was well advised prior to this AfD, and the article still lacks reliable, verifiable sources. Remember, the one "source" provided lists two improperly cited articles (it's not even a secondary source). The other source is the OIA and does nothing to verify most of the claims made in the article. Rklawton 04:32,

28 February 2007 (UTC)

Roles are indicated in the web page of the agency. I checked other articles about other tenors. Most of are written in same way. Why we are not going to overwrite those articles? Maybe we should revise whole contributions about opera? Article should remain, even to give the chance to improve it. User:veritaRTs
Comment - this is a WP:SPA. The point I'm making above, is that while the OIA lists the performer's repertoire, it says nothing about if or where these roles were actually performed. The remaining articles are only partially credited reprints of (possibly) real articles – but none of them list any of his performances, either. Rklawton 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and rename to Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:18Z

List of adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray[edit]

Article substantially edited during an AFD at a prior title. That AFD closed as delete, but at deletion review the closing admin agreed that it should be relisted to have a discussion solely of the new article. Technical nomination from me, I have no opinion. GRBerry 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, I'd even say speedily. no reason has been offered for deletion of this article apart from overstrict adherence to the rules. -R. fiend 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually move to Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray. The "list of" is unecessary. -R. fiend 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well formated, focused and not an indiscriminate list of trivia. -- Stbalbach 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I assume this was originally a spinoff article from The Picture of Dorian Gray, as such it's no different from the film/stage/other media sections of most literature articles. -Markeer 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Adaptation/Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray" (singular or plural; I suppose each has minor pros and cons) and hope that this can be delistified and turned into a proper article. -- Hoary 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested above. Arkyan 16:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a decent start on the sort of article that this sort of article ought to be. Needs sourcing of course. No opinion on the move sugestion. Otto4711 16:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711. Also, I support a page-move to Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray. -- Black Falcon 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no idea what the earlier version looked like, but this is perfectly encyclopedic. Given the anti-list bias around here (I won't be a hypocrite - I regularly vote to delete such articles, too), I agree with moving the article per Black Falcon to remove the list stigma. 23skidoo 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move though with caution that not every adaptation is necessarily notable. I raised the original AfD and this is now a different looking article and I'm happy to be guided on its suitability. MLA 15:03, 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 Redirect to Hilton family. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:16Z

Francesca Hilton[edit]

NN. Simply being a member of the Hilton family does not entitle someone to an article. Article makes no other claim of notabilty. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not establish notability. The Hilton family does not warrant the same notability as is afforded to royal families. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the newly created Hilton family, which has enough notability to stand on its own. Insightful option, Dhartung. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Leebo86 and nom. Sr13 (T|C) 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's apparently an actress, but her roles aren't in "well-known films". Her name is known, but only for it being "Hilton". She seems to be best known for the lawsuit following her father's death and when she was sued by her mother. These fail to establish notability per WP:BIO. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to most famous relative? —siro χ o 19:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hilton family (which I just created, to hold information about the less notable members). (Her "most famous relative", Paris, is her half-brother's granddaughter.) Information about her inheritance lawsuit would be awkwardly placed in her mother's article. --Dhartung | Talk 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dhartung. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 13:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Dhartung. --Evening Breeze 02:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Francesca Hilton is the only daughter of Zsa Zsa Gabor, and the last remaining member of that lineage, which in itself is significant. Cumulus Clouds 00:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's doesn't establish notability according to the guidelines though. Look over the guidelines. Leebo⁸⁶ 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Molaro[edit]

A bio about a host of an online interview program. No non-trivial sources given, Google news and books search gave 0 hits. Doesn't seem that notable for an encyclopedia. feydey 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rothko65 18:29, 27 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, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BLP and WP:BIO; clearly unnotable. Sr13 (T|C) 04:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't fullfil WP:BLP or WP:ATT. Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:ATT --Miskwito 04:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom rightly drew attention to lack of verification. This has been addressed sufficiently to merit retention of the article, but I note and agree with observations that sourcing could still be improved and would benefit from translations into English and sources in English. Tyrenius 05:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Fasching[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Tyrenius 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Notability in question; multiple, non trivial sources needed to establish notability Bus stop 14:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep , the problems with WP:V are more pressing than those with WP:N. Fasching is indeed a known Austrian sculptor and if the article survives this AfD it should be tagged as lacking sources. The Diva Award on the other hand is a little iffy, it is presented by a consulting firm, and from what I gather from their own rules it is more a publicity gimmick than a serious sign of notability Alf^Photoman 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I've added a couple more sources (in German), including a pic and brief description of his Vienna Mirror in what seems to be a serious art magazine. I'm still unsure of his "100-year"/permanent notability though. More sources would be good, and a bit of translation would be very handy! --Mereda 09:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, just needs more sources --J2thawiki 09:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added an English speaking source reffering to several of his works, including a lot of pictures and a link to a long list of secondary literature and TV appearances of his projects--Moerd 10:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepOn the basis partly of Moerd's link I think Johnbod 20:10, 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 Rouge the Bat. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:14Z

Rouge the Bat (Archie character)[edit]

First off, the title is a bit fancrufty. The Sonic the Hedgehog comic series should never be referred to as the "Archie Comics". Also, Rouge is very much a minor character in both the game and comic universes. All the data from both storylines could be easily combined into one article as it was. I understand that this was done because of the creator's concerns of page length, but a good editing of the main article itself could sort that out easily. (It's filled with fancruft) In fact, the main Rouge article could also go up for deletion, but that'll be considered another time.

I would say that the only characters in need of separate articles between the storylines are Sonic and Knuckles. The latter having has a 32 issue series of his own. GrandMasterGalvatron 15:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with Rouge the Bat would seem to be the clear choice here. Failing that, a very weak keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do be bold and do the merge. FYI, you don't need to go through AFD to merge, as the history remains. —siro χ o 19:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amy Rose. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:14Z

Amy Rose (Archie character)[edit]

As if the Rouge article wasn't crufty enough, Amy is even more so! Amy is a minor character in the games, and an extremely minor character in the comics. She definitely does not warrant two articles. In addition to that, Amy's comic self is a direct clone of her game self...there's hardly any difference between the versions at all. I'm a devoted reader, and I can't think of any..of course, she's mostly background filler anyway.

Actually, the Sonic Character articles could use a good trimming in numbers. As for this one, everything that could be said here can just as well be said in Amy's game article. GrandMasterGalvatron 15:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Amy Rose or very weak keep, same as the Rouge AfD above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do be bold and do the merge. FYI, you don't need to go through AFD to merge, as the history stays. —siro χ o 19:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shadow the Hedgehog. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:15Z

Shadow the Hedgehog (Archie character)[edit]

These just get worse and worse. Rouge and Amy were bad enough, but Shadow??? There is no difference at all between his game and comic incarnations. In fact, there was a recent issue involving him which was basically his game in a nutshell. Also, the article itself is little more than a plot synopsis. You could add about two lines to Shadow's game character article and say everything about his comic self with said lines...or even LESS!

Yeah, I seem to be on a roll today but it needs to be done. The Sonic series of articles is plagued with fancruft, and someone's gotta be bold about it! XD GrandMasterGalvatron 15:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do be bold and do the merge. FYI, you don't need to go through AFD to merge, as the history stays. —siro χ o 19:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talkgold[edit]

Originally tagged for speedy A7, but asserts notability. Bringing it here for review. – Steel 15:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources to assert that it is notable among Internet forums. Many forums are big, and have a lot of members, but that's not a good enough reason to keep the article. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the right place to respond but anyway.
Well Talkgold is a big forum which in my opinion is reason enough to add it to wiki.
But that's not all.
Talkgold became a part of the internet history during the time 12dailypro was around, maybe the biggest ponzi scheme ever. 500.000.000$ where invested there altogether.
Because the 12 daily pro forum was closed for new members and censored as well, Talkgold offered thousands of investors a place where they were able to share information, warn others not to join that scam and all the things they were not allowed to do in the original 12dp forum.
The same story applies to other big scam programs like PIPs, "DXinone" etc.
Additionally, Talkgold is, as said in the article, the biggest HYIP discussion forum. Just search for "HYIP forum" and similar terms.
That's why I am against deleting the wiki article.
I don't know which sources you guys mean. You can check google if you want, I guess you know what a number one ranking for such heavily competited terms like "HYIP forum" means.
Additionally, you can ask alexa.com if the website really is in the top 5000, and I can assure you: it is.
It would be great to get some hints from you what else would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.55.120 (talk • contribs)

Has the forum been written about by reliable sources with no affiliation to the forum? (ie: major newspaper articles, journals or magazine submissions dealing with High Yield Investment Programs, chapters in published books... basically anything that has gone through a fact-ckecking or editorial process and then been published) Can these sources be provided? If not, the information in the article is unverifiable and may be considered original research (see the Wikipedia:Attribution guideline for more detail), and as such should be deleted. -- saberwyn 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails at least WP:V and WP:N. John Vandenberg 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talkgold has in fact been on several local and national news shows especially during the collpase of the infamous 12daily.com back in February of 2006 which was one of the largest scams in recent internet history. Brian of Talkgold was responsible for providing the authorities as well as various news organizations a copy of Charis Johnsons (12dialypros administrator)license. For a source you may be able to contact Salt Lake Cities channel 6 action news team.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.110.173 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 March 2007

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:12Z

Moshpit (band)[edit]

This band doesn't seem to be notable; there are no citations or external links in the article and a Google search only brings up the Wikipedia page. --aguasde13013 kickin' it just for you 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - article asserts notability (by claiming that they've achieved "wide success" in Bangladesh"), but no independent sources are provided to establish notability per WP:BAND. Delete unless third-party sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Two acclaimed singles mentioned but no reliable sources to back this up. Band name means someone not familiar with the band finding any sources through a search engine is next to impossible. Nuttah68 13:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC at present. A1octopus 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently non-notable -MrFizyx 23:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Renesis (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Wells[edit]

Nonnotable businessman; fails WP:BIO. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 16:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a 'dotcom survivor' and shouldn't be deleted. He is a great business man in the Pittsburgh area. This article will be tying in with one about his company ITI Solutions. JWatters 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for no assertion of significance. Blatantly promotional piece about a local businessman, with nothing to distinguish him from a million other local people in business. I don't see that a speedy tag improperly removed by the article creator makes this a "contested speedy". Friday (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such. He may be a great businessman in the Pittsburgh area, but that's not large enough to achieve notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:SNOW.--Hús ö nd 17:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:09Z

Lutheran High School North (Texas)[edit]

Not notable WP:SCHOOLS3 Jemather 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Senior car-wash was canceled this weekend due to an hour of rain." Seriously? That's "notable news?" Freshacconci 16:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are inherently notable, as I argue here, the "News" section can be deleted easily enough without destroying the whole article. Noroton 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 19:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The supposed rule that all HS are notable does not have consensus. This is one of the many that are nn.DGG 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Normally I'm all for keeping most H.S. articles, but this one is perhaps a little too small and undistinguished. Their record of sending 97% of their students on to college is pretty impressive, however. Is there somewhere this page could be merged or summarized? — RJH (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The school itself is non-notable, and what little content there is reads like a joke. (Read carefully: it claims The Shocker is their sign for school pride.) Krimpet 03:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been cleaned-up, but still could be expanded by a more experienced editor. --Masterpedia 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. WMMartin 14:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Changed vote. Article lacks greatly and has continuous vandalism. --Masterpedia 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks any useful content. There is nothing to indicate the school's notability. None of the statements are supported by verifiable independent references. The 'article' seems to be nothing more than an attempt at self-publicity by the school.Dahliarose 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Simon (Georgia)[edit]

Simply being the editor of an on-line publication does not make one notable. There's far from enough criteria here to pass muster. Capnpen 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - no sources cited, so no evidence of multiple coverage in independent sources to show notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless appropriate sources are added. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, if adequate sources and references are added by end of this AfD change to Keep Alf^Photoman 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Atlanta Journal seems to be non-trivial enough for me, probably other sources can be found Alf^Photoman 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Found one good ref.--but, being a blogger, he is mainly referred to in other blogs.DGG 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After searching for sources on this subject, I am certain of one thing: Bill Simon is a popular name. That being said, I failed to find multiple, independent sources of which this Bill Simon is the subject. He is quoted in a few stories and the source linked to by the article discusses him as one among several bloggers. This does not meet the notability requirements, however. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One quote and a brief paragraph in one newspaper is not notability. If it is, we'll have to expand Wikipedia considerably. Puppetress 18:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 14:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Isenberg[edit]

Article does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria. It may violate conflict of interest policy as the subject appears to be the author of the page. Previously proposed for deletion, and no reason was given for reversion of proposed deletion tag.

Weak Delete - may be notable, but no evidence of multiple coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless third-party sources are added by the end of this AfD. Also a possible case of WP:AUTO. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, notable or not .... without sources and references it fails WP:V Alf^Photoman 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how he's notable. Kolindigo 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 02:05Z

List of United States Vice Presidents by first name[edit]

Trivial and redundant. "List of United States Presidents by first name" (AFD) and "List of United States Presidents by middle name" (AFD) were deleted for the same reason. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedents and per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Unnecessary list. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, corollary to the deletion of the other lists. Krimpet 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent - this list is redundant. Arkyan 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the reasoning in the related afds above Dugwiki 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow. Per nom. dcandeto 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and arguments at the AfD for "Presidents by first name". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete junk. Precedent supports a speedy closing of this. JuJube 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First-degree listcruft. Why anyone would think this contained useful information that the article Vice President of the United States did not is simply beyond me. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolindigo 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ezratrumpet 04:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources were added. Pea ceNT 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotypical[edit]

A pretty solid example of what WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms deems inappropriate. A dicdef on a neologism "coined by members of an early, private e-mail list", and a bunch of unreferenced OR describing its spread through the internet "autism rights community". No effort to find sources has been made since the article was tagged as unreferenced over half a year ago. Krimpet 17:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn, as people have now found many reliable sources of this term being used as a concept in scientific circles I guess it's worth keeping, as long as the OR is cleaned up big time and the article's focus is shifted to actual scientific use of the term rather than its use as a wacky neologism by autistic folks. Krimpet 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:NEO, as there are currently no sources to demonstrate that the term is in widespread use. Delete unless sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Neurotypical -Wikipedia" returns 59300 Google hits. The term seems to be in actual and relatively widespread use. --Kizor 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a ref to a scientific journal use of the term. Seems to be widely used per the Google hits cited. Inkpaduta 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess if scientific circles have started to adopt the term it is arguably notable. However this article still has no potential for expansion past a WP:DICDEF, as it's basically just a synonym for "non-autistic". It may be suitable for a Wiktionary entry. Krimpet 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. WP:NEO and WP:RS. Term does not appear in wide use. Dragomiloff 00:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Found 8 more refs, added a few. Probably more. The present article discusses the meaning of the concept and the use of appropriate nomenclature, so it is encyclopedic.DGG 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People will encounter this concept and want more information about it, and for many people the first choice for reference is Wikipedia. Effort needs to be made to ensure that this article is balanced and not promoting a particular point of view, but it is topical and relevant to inclusion in a modern encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xnuala (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC). Thanks HagermanBot!! I completely forgot to sign![reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:04Z

Star Wars bounty hunters[edit]

A redundant and incomplete article on List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters. Sr13 (T|C) 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect I would just redirect this page to the list of minor bounty hunters. No reason to delete it. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect as a plausible search term. -- Black Falcon 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above as duplicate article and plausible search term. -- saberwyn 00:06, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer 8. Lee[edit]

Regular journalist - (not senior staffer, editor), not notable under Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) Rothko65 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, while simply being a journalist doesn't make her notable, the referenced New York Times/Washington Post articles written about her seem to indicate she has some degree of notability, even though the current article is kind of a mess. Krimpet 17:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The articles about her are a New York Sun article (not NYT) and a property damage report within a Washington Post article (i.e. not an article about her). Hardly encyclopaedia material.Rothko65 18:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dcandeto 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a notable journalist for authoring hundreds of stories in the New York Times [22]. In addition, the article includes the two articles about her parties, one 370 words and the other 1900 words. The one in the Washington Post is most certainly about her partying habits and their effects on the premisis. She gets over 98000 Google hits. The claimed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is NOT a guideline, and may never become one. It is just a proposal created a couple of days ago, and it is misleading to refer to it as if it is policy or an established guideline. The implication that it requires deleting this article is a nail in the coffin for its ever becoming a consensus guideline. Maybe at the Muncie Shoppers Guide one would neet to be a "senior staffer" or editor, but not at a world class paper such as the New York Times. It is also a poor idea to nominate an article then add a Delete comment as if the nominator were a different editor. Inkpaduta 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she meets the general notability criteria, that being non-trivial mention in multiple sources. The Washington Post article in fact is about her; to put it another way, if it was just an article about some random woman being sued by her landlady for throwing a party, would it have made the WP in the first place? Also it's entitled Reliable Source, so you know it must meet wikipedia guidelines =) Personally I don't see why we need a separate list of notability criteria for journalists either; just clarify that a byline or a staff profile by your own employer does not qualify as a "non-trivial mention" cab 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources establish notability Alf^Photoman 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All three independent sources (Leiby, Nugent, and Mayerson-Schneider) are about her (the Washington Post article is hardly a "property damage" report--it's about her behavior and actions). She easily passes WP:BIO, whereas Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is still a proposed guideline. -- Black Falcon 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she does, in fact, meet the criteria for inclusion. Not to mention I just read about her in yet another source (why she's so popular, I don't know) and had to resort to Googling--my questions were then answered via Wikipedia. DMCer 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ms. Lee is one of the most well-known journalists in the United States. That she is "not senior staffer, editor" is irrelevant. Neither was Jessica Savitch. Or is she on the hit list next? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ErieLover (talk • contribs) 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure she's "one of the most well-known journalists in the United States", but writing numerous stories for a major newspaper that's read nationally makes her well-known enough for an article. JamesMLane t c 06:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 02:03Z

Groronodor[edit]

Unsigned local band, all links are dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baligant (talk • contribs)

Delete - No evidence of coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:BAND. If they're unsigned, they're probably non-notable anyway. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above Rothko65 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought it was a hoax to begin with, but a GSearch revealed 44 unique Ghits many of which failing WP:RS, but some of which linked to mp3 library. Conclusion: highly improbable this would pass WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 08:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete So according to this article, the band was formed, did virtually nothing, and then split up. There isn't even a claim for notablity. A1octopus 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorcycle clubs[edit]

Delete for WP:NOT and for being a link farm. AFDing intead of Speedy since it's been around for some time and someone may be able to salvage/justify salvaging. The list of actually notable MCs seems to consist of these, as the only ones with articles. So, WP:NOT a collection of information or link farm. The article has been edited 20 times total since May 2006 and it's been nothing but a link/spam farm the whole way. Not needed, deleteable. Thanks... - Denny 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary list per WP:LIST; WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:LIST makes few recommendations one way or another about when to delete lists. Almost the entire guideline seems to be about how to properly format and edit lists, not when they should be removed. The only possible criteria mentioned for deletion in that guideline that I saw was that the information on the list should be verifiable per WP:V. So whether or not a list is "necessary" isn't talked about in that guideline. Dugwiki 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to correspond to Category:Motorcycle clubs This appears to be a list that provides some additional information related to Category:Motorcycle clubs. Note that the Motorcycle Clubs category appears to be a legitimate subcategory of Category:Motorcyclists organizations, and this list is a way to give additional side information about the articles (since categories only provide the name of the article and nothing else). As a rule of thumb, if something makes for an acceptable category it also makes for an acceptable list. Dugwiki 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that only apply to lists of articles? This is just a list of external links, and thats all it's ever been. - Denny 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like all articles a list should be verifiable per WP:V. So all the entries should have proper sourcing. If the list as a whole is unverifiable, it should eventually be deleted. However, in this case, there appear to be a fair number of motorcycle clubs with Wikipedia articles under Category:Motorcycle clubs. Those clubs, at a minimum, could be included in this list assuming that the corresponding articles meet normal Wiki standards. So basically since this list should include as a subset the articles in the category, it is in part a list of articles as well as a list of clubs that might not have Wiki articles but that are otherwise verifiable and somehow worth mentioning (ie don't quite meet the standards for their own article, but are notably referenced somewhere). Dugwiki 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the redid version of the article just now. Thoughts? - Denny 18:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/article redone just now: I just retooled the entire article to this version. Please judge the AfD based on that for concensus. - Denny 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, Denny. Looks like you replaced a lot of the external links with links to the corresponding Wikipedia articles. Now, assuming that most of those articles are legit, it looks clearer that the list can be kept as a way to compliment the category. Dugwiki 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks. I nuked actually every external link, seemed the right way. I'll check all those articles. Might be a few AfDs coming... - Denny 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rightly, this should not be a list of external links, and as a list of internal links this completely duplicates Category:Motorcycle clubs. Why not just stick with that? Mango juice^talk 20:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, it is perfectly acceptable to have a list that duplicates a category. The reason is that a list can potentially provide additional information the category can't. For example, in this particular case, the list could provide verifiable almanac style information alongside each entry on the actual city and state of the organization's headquarters, relative sizes, date of founding, and so forth. In addition, the list can include some organizations which do not have full Wikipedia articles and thus would not appear in the category. Simultaneously, the category is useful because it acts as a good subcategory for indexing of articles within its parent, so that if a reader is browsing the parent looking for groups related to hobbies they're interested in the corresponding articles are easy to find.

Thus the existence of a category doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of a list, and vice versa. They serve slightly different purposes and offer slightly different advantages to readers. Dugwiki 15:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fair cop guvnor, the page as it was before was absolutely appalling. It real reason for existence is that an editor of Motorcycle club has been very efficient in enforcing notability on mentioning in the article any motorcycle club. Thus there are article on Wikipedia not linked to from the article motorcycle club, so this was an attempt to stop / redress the numerous edits made to "Motorcycle club" where editors keep adding links. If you study the very long talk page over at "Motorcycle club" you note there has been a lot of debate around this subject trying to ascertain what is and what isn't a motorcycle club, with different editors taking very different views. A lack of time and a distinct inability on my part to conjure up the correct forms of words to satisfy all editors has prevented me from undertaking a rewrite as per the results of that very long talk page. Some help in conjuring up some words to keep everyone happy would enable the page is be divided as per the talk.... Thus this page up for AFD is severing two purposes, holding some seemingly useful information (to someone somewhere) and trying to stem the tide of repetitive edits/vandalisms/whatever to "Motorcycle club". Hope that makes sense, do ask questions of me if i wasn't clear. Pickle 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biocultures[edit]

The only sites I can find on this look like patent nonsense, or are on yogurt. [23] [24]. Probably patent nonsense, at best simply non-notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's actually a pretty big area in social sciences and humanities [25]. I'm surprised this article is so meagre. It would need a great deal of expanding,a nd it's outside of my own areas of knowledge, but there must be someone out there who could expand this. It's worth keeping in the long run. Freshacconci 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using only the social science and humanities parts of Web of Science, no hits for the plural, 5 for the singular "bioculture". --a convenient trick to remove yogurt if you have access to the database. (added 3 with the word in the title. Have edited article to reflect the form in use; will move the page after the AfD.) DGG 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following the references added by DGG. I will rewrite the text shortly so that it is not a copyvio of [26]. -- Black Falcon 02:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. I'll not attempt to rewrite the article given that "bioculture" seems to refer to two different things (unless they are one and the same and I've just gathered the wrong impression): (1) the interaction of the biological and the technological as provided here, and (2) the interaction of the biological and the cultural--also referred to as the biocultural paradigm--as described here. I will see if I can find some academic sources to clarify the issue. Nonetheless, despite this potential confusion (which, again, may only be the result of a misunderstanding on my part), I still think the article ought to be kept in lieu of the added references and the actuality of the subject. -- Black Falcon 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the second interaction which I've referenced above is the more notable one. How about adopting one of the following two statements as an introductory sentence:

Bioculture is an emerging field of study that seeks to synthesize biological and cultural anthropological paradigms and theories.

Source: Leatherman, Thomas L., and Alan H. Goodman. 1997. Expanding the biocultural synthesis toward a biology of poverty. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102(1): 1-3.

Bioculture is a field of study that synthesizes biological and cultural perspectives in the fields of anthropology and human biology.

Source: Dufour, Darna L. 2006. Biocultural approaches in human biology. American Journal of Human Biology, 18(1): 1-9.

The difference seems not to be one of separate definitions, but rather one of separate focus: Leatherman and Goodman focus specifically on anthropology and Dufour focuses on human biology, but their definition of the concept is essentially the same. The topic is most definitely notable: by doing a search for appearances of the word "bioculture" or "biocultural" in article titles, I receive 18 article results for the AJPA alone. -- Black Falcon 03:40, 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 Keep per WP:MUSIC. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sethian (band)[edit]

Strong Keep as the band having members from numerous notable bands, passing WP:MUSIC guidelines. Stubbiness is not a reason for deletion, fyi-K@ngie^meep! 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, here is the band's pedigree, it mentions Finntroll and Nightwish a number of times :) [27]-K@ngi e ^meep! 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to prove notability per the fundemental attribution policy. NeoFreak 15:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply because it has band members that are noatable, is not reason enough to have its own page. It does not meet criteria for WP:bandAn article that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable can be speedily deleted under criterion A7, as well as A mere claim of notability, even if contested, may avoid deletion under A7 and require a full Article for Deletion process to determine if the subject of the article is notable. Which is what we are doing here. Perhaps this information is better suited as a foot note on another page? Mystar 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The band has members from a number of notable bands. Thus it passes WP:MUSIC. You could always use the band's official bio as a source for that. Also, this, or this as a reliable source. I mean really, why don't people try to find things?-K@ngie^meep! 07:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why does somebody else have to fix it? You are, after all, the one that wants it kept. If you want this article to not be deleted then prove notablity through attribution and I'll change my vote. NeoFreak 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't have the time to spend 23 hours a day in front of the computer like your average wikipedian. I don't have much time at all really nowadays, so naturally I am not capable of sourcing, expanding and researching an article at this point in time-K@ngi e ^meep! 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. I've expanded the article to demonstrate that the band contains 5 such members. Óðinn 19:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, Pokécruft. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trainer Card (Pokémon)[edit]

A description of a very minor aspect of a series of video games. It's essentially a description of a single minor status screen. There's no possibility for references to establish notability; bear in mind, this is one single status screen.

This was prodded, but deprodded without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge non OR to an appropriate location, as much of this is verifiable, if not independently notable. To where? Ask a Pokemon expert. —siro χ o 19:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking AS a Pokémon expert, no article benefits from a merge of anything in this article. It's just self-evident claims about a status screen, plus game guide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pokémon Video Games —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiddenhearts (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge per above. Kyriakos 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From WP:N - "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" (emphasis mine). Although references are provided, I don't believe that the game manuals or the references from Serebii.net count. The notability of this single menu screen with two options (front and back) has not been demonstrated. Material is mostly taken from pages at the serebii.net website, and is best dealt with there (or at another game guide location). Do Not Merge, as the significance of this menu option in the game franchise is fractional, no more. -- saberwyn 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not just a game minor screen. It's an item that lets you check how well you are progressing and records your information. Also, the main objective of Pokémon games is to complete tasks to get all the stars. So a trainer card IS a very important thing in the games. Slyth1 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the aim of the game was to collect all the badges and the Pokemon? If there was a generic article on progress screens in games in general, I'd be all for a redirect and slight merge. Progress and stats screens in games are pretty important. But a specific example for a single game series, in my personal opinion is not. Also, the "stars" information is much better suited to a walkthrough or game guide (per [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE 4 (not an instruction manual or "how-to", and until it is the subject of multiple scholarly works or newspaper items, should be restricted to that area. -- saberwyn 02:58, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:02Z

Elsewhere (novel)[edit]

non notable work under Wikipedia:Notability (books) Rothko65 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, book has several reviews from reliable sources [28]. —siro χ o 19:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, book has also won many awards in both the US and UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Picturessandwords (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There are indeed good book reviews, and I added two; Furthermore, the book has been translated into many languages. If Picturesandwords knows of awards, please add them to the article instead of just telling us here. There is also a WP article for the author, Gabrielle Zevin, and it is one of her only 3 works. Since one of them is an award-winning screenplay , Conversations_with_Other_Women with a substantial article, a separate article for the book is probably justified. Otherwise I would have suggested a merge. DGG 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the notability tests. Incidentally this AFD appears to have been improperly formatted as there is no AFD announcement banner on the article (unless someone has removed it). 23skidoo 05:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, the author of the article seems to have removed the AFD announcment. Reverting until issue resolved. Rothko65 15:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. Could be marked as a stub for further work. Ezratrumpet 04:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 02:01Z

She Needs Us More Than Ever[edit]

This album fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. It is a non-notable album by a non-notable artist. Shimaspawn 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And the like

Delete Not consistent with WP:NOTABILITY.--Orthologist 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no independent coverage of this album, no non-wiki ghits for the name of the album and the band. Darkspots 01:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete band's page as well as per nom and above. A1octopus 10:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article used Image:Amanset thefunofwatchingfireworks.jpg as the album cover, but this is in fact the cover of an unrelated album. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:01Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wassim Almawi[edit]

Non notable person, 600 google hits [29] Ozzykhan 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has 75 papers listed under Google Scholar [30], one cited 45 times. Google hits are not absolute proof of non-notability. Having said that, his article could do with some cleanup. Hut 8.5 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Though he is only an associate professor, not a full professor, and at Gulf University in Bahrain, not yet internationally known as a major research university, his publication record is certainly enough. The article needs some wikifying, including some outside refs, which is no reason to delete it. Will someone please add them by the end of the AfD to justify inclusion--I have added enough references to articles on AfD for one day. DGG 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. I dont have time to clean it up today, but will come back to it. John Vandenberg 21:51, 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 delete. Bucketsofg 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JJB message board[edit]

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

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

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

The article makes a claim of notability, that this message board is "The largest ezboard message board on the internet", but the source it cites does not seem to clearly support that claim, and the article otherwise lacks the multiple independent sources that would help it pass WP:WEB. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have since supported the claim. That should make you happy.

Delete - vanity article about the goings-on of a bulletin board, lacks reliable sources needed for verification of claim (aside form a reference of coming in 19th out of 2000-some arbitrarily chosen boards) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they haven't "supported the claim". There still aren't multiple independent references in the article - the external links are to a hitcounter, a blog, a board archive and some "controversy" on the board. The article also needs fixing badly. The major section is all about "Member Controversies" which is patently unencyclopedic trivia and needs to go. To summarise, it needs referencing and a serious cleaning up, or Delete. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any legitimate references here.. SubSeven 01:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on it! Don't be meenies :(

Sorry, the AfD procedure is often cold and impersonal. We're trying to be fair, but unless you provide several reliable sources to back up claims made in the article, it will probably be deleted. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We just added video evidence of JJB on Extra.

don't delete they seem to be giving sources.
Delete At present, there are no reliable sources. But, dont WP:STEAM this one; let it run and if no reliable sources are added, it will help against recreation. John Vandenberg 03:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran across this page when I reverted some vandalism done to it while patrolling recent changes. My sense is that this site is not notable enough to rate an encyclopedia entry. It may have been mentioned on an MTV reality show or a Hollywood gossip television tabloid, but I don't consider these to be particularly reliable sources. The evidentiary links seem to point to other non-notable message boards. I find that these lack credibility, as well. Also, I find the claims of "JJB Crazes" to be rather dubious. Liberal Classic 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The link that claims to reference that they're the largest board shows that they have the 22nd most page views; kinda shoots your argument in the foot there. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't claim largest message board, we claimed largest EzBoard message board.

- Comment You know what I meant. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only does this site fail WP:WEB, but it's also becoming a haven for spa vandals and blp problems. I just removed half of the page's content because it was unencyclopedic, vandalism, unattributable, non-neutral, or WP:BLP violations. 168.122.80.215 19:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable message board, even among message boards. --- RockMFR 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And are you even qualified to make that statement?

Delete per all the reasons already stated (non-notable, vanity, not sourced, etc). --pIrish 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism[edit]

Most books do not merit separate articles devoted to them. An individual essay being more slight than a monograph, it would, a fortiori, be the rare essay that is sufficiently influential or widely commented-upon or in some other way exceptionally noteworthy to merit a separate article. This essay falls below that threshold, and moreover fails WP:N --Rrburke^(talk) 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's acceptable to clarify my reasons for nominating this article, as many of the straw-poll responses suggest I haven't made those reasons clear. I should also probably declare that my Wikipedian orientation lies somewhere between deletionism and mergism

Some of the comments refer to the importance of the subject, but by subject these comments appear to mean the new antisemitism and not the essay entitled Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism. However, the subject of the article is the essay, not the new antisemitism: an essay on a given topic cannot borrow the notability of its subject-matter for purposes of determining whether the essay qua essay is notable and worthy of a separate article. That the topic of an article is notable is irrelevant to whether the essay itself is notable. Were that not the case, any first-year essay on A Midsummer Night's Dream might qualify to have a Wikipedia article devoted to it because A Midsummer Night's Dream is notable.

Moreover, some of the claims of notability seem to rest on a confusion between what is notable and what is newsworthy. I agree the essay is newsworthy; I disagree that it's notable, because notability refers, as the guideline states, to a quality that is relatively permanent. This distinction divides what belongs in an encyclopedia from what belongs in a newspaper. Confusing the two is an example of a defect some Wikipedians have dubbed recentism. As a rejoinder to WP:NOT#PAPER I offer WP:NOTNEWS. For myself, a rough guide to whether an essay merits a separate article would be the answer to the question Is it an exceptional example of the genre that will continue to be read when the events or conditions it refers to are no longer current? If the answer is yes, perhaps it deserves its own article; if the answer is no, it probably doesn't: for example, Burma is no longer a province of British-controlled India; however, people still read Orwell's Shooting an Elephant as an exceptional example of the essay genre. Shooting an Elephant, then, merits an article. If I apply that question to Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism, I'm almost certain the answer is no.

As the Wikipedia:Recentism makes clear, "recentism" is not an argument for article deletion. In fact, if you read it, the essay makes a good case for keeping articles on newsworthy topics. —Ashley Y 20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the term in this sense: "The tendency by Wikipedians... to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of an issue that has received recent media attention." --Rrburke^(talk) 20:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the commentary in support of keeping the article refer to the accomplished quality of its writing and its other excellent qualities compared with many Wikipedia articles. These qualities are not in doubt, but they're moot. Citing them as a reason for keeping an article puts the cart before the horse: no well-written, well-conceived article merits retention if it treats a subject that falls below the threshold of notability, an issue which ought be treated as prior.

Finally, I want to point out again that this essay is not even cited in the article New Antisemitism, save in further reading. If it is indeed sufficiently notable to merit its own article, wouldn't one expect the essay to occupy a prominent place in the article devoted to the subject of the essay -- as, for example, an article on the Dreyfus Affair would have to include a section on Zola's J'accuse? If it doesn't occupy any place in an article on the topic, how can it be considered notable?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very significant discussion in the American Jewish community e.g. Suddenly, little-noticed essay is focus of debate on Israel criticism with crossover into many mainstream secular newspapers and magazines. --HistoryBuff1983 19:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOT#PAPER. This day-old article looks more scholarly than many other articles a few years-old. It talks about a recent publication whose notability can be seen from the refs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well written and referenced, which is better than most wiki articles, about a notable subject Alf^Photoman 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is notable, but in my opinion the article is an over-detailed summary of the 22 page long book. As it stands, it does appear questionable, and the nomination was very reasonable. I hope it will be edited by the end of the AfD. Shorter quotes would make the points just as well--or better. DGG 01:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following the precedent set by The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy —Ashley Y 04:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notwithstanding any disputes concerning content, this is clearly an article worth keeping. CJCurrie 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it meets WP:FACT and it's an important document. IZAK 12:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: It is a historical document. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urthogie (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Nomination withdrawn. Pea ceNT 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ila Loetcher[edit]

Seems to be a cut and paste biography that doesn't appear to establish notability Neonblak 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete article is completely unacceptable and is probably a copyright violation. However a quick google search shows that this person could most likely have an article if an effort is made to get real information. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sea Turtles and cleanup as there are many sources (e.g. [31] and a biography [32] of this "turtle lady". --Tikiwont 16:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

putting the sources into the article could convince people easier Alf^Photoman 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and this is what I actually try in easier cases. This one, however, needs a complete overhaul which could also be done from scratch. --Tikiwont 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, sources are available, so lets hope that someone cleans this thing up Alf^Photoman 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tikiwont, as there seem to be sources to satisfy BIO. Some info as to the source of the text in the article can be found here. Hard to say if it's a copyright violation or not, but the article clearly needs stubbing/a radical overhaul. I will commit to cleaning it up if there is a consensus to keep.--Kubigula (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It looks like the community would like to keep the article, so if Kubigula or anyone else wants to overhaul it, I will withdraw my nomination early, no need to keep debate open. Neonblak 22:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I did some brief initial research to see what's on the 'net, and I can definitely mold this into a decent short article. At the outset, one clear problem with our article is that it's in the wrong name - the lady's name was "Ila Loetscher". So, step one is a move.--Kubigula (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Follow-up - I went ahead and rewrote the article (which is now at the correct spelling). It still needs work, but it's a start.--Kubigula (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - defaults to keep (all). I encourage those editors who expressed a desire to expand these stubs to do so now. No Guru 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alkatrazz (wrestler)[edit]

Also Tony Drake, Steven Lyndon, Joey Munoz, Markus Riot, Gilbert Aguilera, Tony Ramos and Lil' Cholo. Contested prods. All eight articles are sub-stubs with no references, assertions of notability or substantial information. All eight articles have gone over three weeks since their creation with no improvements. There are currently several hundred stub articles relating to professional wrestling, 483 of them biographical articles - Category:Professional wrestling biography stubs. McPhail 19:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. McPhail 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable wrestlers with no assertion of notability. An article should also be more than 1 sentence. TJ Spyke 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and they should be expanded -- Alkatrazz, Munoz, Drake, and (barely) Riot, at least -- all have appeared on WSX on MTV. There are only three wrestling companies on national TV right now, and WSX is one of 'em, so I think that appearing for them is definitely notable. Karlos the Jackal 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the wrestlers are all notable, why don't you expand the articles instead of deleting them? TheNewMinistry 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: no assertion of notability has been made in any of the articles. Many of those voting to keep the article have based this claim on the appearance of some (by no means all) of the individuals in question in a television series that aired for only three weeks and is now on hiatus. The use of a simple Google test reveals that the wrestlers in question are by no means well known - Steven Lyndon has just 458 hits. It should also be noted that TheNewMinistry created all eight articles (within the space of two hours) and thus has a vested interest in preserving them. McPhail 21:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - all have room for improvement--72.225.255.18 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per Karlos and TheNewMinistry. Vladamire Steelwolf 07:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply appearing on TV (especially with that joke of a fed WSX) doesn't make someone notable (especially with the reports that MTV is about to cancel it). TJ Spyke 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's been confirmed that WSX has not been cancelled and was simply removed from its Tuesday timeslot. It will resume elsewhere on MTV/MTV2 in the future. TheNewMinistry 17:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tony Drake, Delete the others Babi Slymm can be developed as he has a history on the West Coast wrestling scene, particularly PWG. Suriel1981 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Li'l Cholo has also been around the West Coast scene for a while. He's worked for All Pro Wrestling up and down California, and some other feds too, I believe. — Gwalla | Talk 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WSX is just a small blip of the American wrestling scene, the show was on for like 4 weeks, even OVW/DSW guys are more notable than this. We can't have articles on every wrestler ever born. And there is no way that WSX was the 3rd biggest promotion in wrestling, it was short-lived, and the show wasn't even all that much about wrestling than the bands it featured. Booshakla 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You apprently never watched WSX - the bands were only featured for 30 seconds of each episode. TheNewMinistry 21:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it stands is virtually useless, but if people don't expand on articles of history, no matter how small they are, Wikipedia will never expand to its full potential. Even I've heard of Alkatrazz. Can some people spend their time expanding articles instead of deleting them...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IBHMC (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Agreed. I could expand Babi Slymm fairly easily. But I'm not going to bother if everyone's attitude is just "WSX is crap, lets delete it all". Suriel1981 12:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nomination. Manager Of Champions 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One sentence does not make it an article. Add more info or delete it. User:Killswitch Engage
- If this article remains I'll personally expand Tony Drake. It's a shame nobody has tried to make a go of those articles before just slapping a delete nomination down. Suriel1981 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: the articles remained unimproved for several weeks before being nominated for deletion. Since being nominated, they have yet to be improved further. McPhail 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it stays I said I'll do it. Otherwise why waste my time? Suriel1981 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All The Time In The World (Alias episode)[edit]

This Alias episode along with all other Alias eps already have their own plot summaries on the season pages. The page for this episode is locate at Alias episodes (season 5). The plot summary there is far more concise. Shimaspawn 20:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but Merge Important facts about this episode into Season 5 summary.

Magistrand Sign Here! My Talk 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT and the plot summary at the episode list is probably too long already, no need to merge any of this material. Otto4711 02:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful per above. As an episode of a notable TV series, it passes all the bars necessary to justify having its own article, however since it seems to be the only episode with its own article, for consistency sake we might as well delete this one until an effort is made to make a complete set, if that occurs. 23skidoo 05:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all important details are in the Season 5 plot summary. --Canley 08:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EPISODE, there is a consensus to improve articles like this and not delete them. - Peregrine Fisher 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we should improve this, not delete it, there is consensus these articles are encyclopaedic, has it been considered splitting of all the summaries to there own individual pages? I imagine it would allow for better more organised pages. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very important, some people may want to read full summary.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per WP:EPISODE. There are several episode articles of other series (Star Trek, Stargate, House, etc), so, there is no reason why Alias should receive a different treatment. --Carioca 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per WP:EPISODE. FlyingSpaceMonkey 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Steel 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Benchmarking for Host Utilities for Windows/Linux/VMware[edit]

Fairly unencyclopaedic, no particular use as an article, and I believe user has blanked several times across two simiarily names accounts and one single-purpose account. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 20:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - how-to/pure original research. MER-C 11:18, 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 Speedy keep, the article is not nominated for deletion but for merging. Hiding Talk 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disablism[edit]

Redundant with ableism. Merge and redirect. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 03:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Wrestling Champions[edit]

Repeated information that is listed on other, more appropriate pages. Wikipedia is not a website that blantly creates pages with lists on them. I don't know whether this is true, but would it fall under speedy-deletion?? Davnel03 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I want you to not delete this because I created it. Tj84
Delete ye I agree with ya, all the information is on the belt pages anyway. Govvy 21:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- oakster TALK 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this to be very usefull information, it is much easier then looking up each federation seperatly. Kris Classic 00:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:USEFUL is not a persuasive argument. Otto4711 02:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --EazieCheeze 06:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important article to have for fans of wrestling who wish to learn about current champions across all major brands. It would be a waste of time to go to 20+ pages for individual titles to see who current champions are. The article could/should be expanded with more information about current titles and their holders. --Hookedonlsd 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or people could look at any of thousands of other sites that track pro wrestling titles. Otto4711 21:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could look at any one of the thousands of sites for a variety of topics covered by this site.--Hookedonlsd 21:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Normy132 07:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total junk, we need articles to be as static as possible, and this never will be. Booshakla 10:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fan cruft. Manager Of Champions 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 01:55Z

Evan Williams (comic book artist)[edit]

I'm am nominating this for afd on the basis that it reads like blatent nonsense and vandalism and is likely a hoax. Shimaspawn 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO likely hoax. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either a hoax or someone who draws unpublished comics; neither needs an article. —Cel ithemis 01:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably speedy (I almost spiked it right now, but this doesn't seem to be the week for that sort of thing). The subject artist would be 9 years old, and the article is the creator's only contribution, which is never a good sign in these situations. Newyorkbrad 04:19, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 01:53Z

Three Tins Pails[edit]

I cannot find any evidence that this novel exists by googling. I am including the related article Patrick C. Easley in this AfD. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a hoax, or some sort of advance-marketing technique. Either way, delete. Freshacconci 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably hoax. Zero google hits for a 2007 book says it all. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's fake. I watched my friend at school make it myself. (Sorry Patrick, it was doomed anyway :P) Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment " WHo cares its just a page just beacuase its fake doesnt mean it isnt funny! Go Patrick it rocks!" E —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.57.201.227 (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete both. If the fact that unpublished doctoral theses from 70 years ago are listed on Amazon.com and this book isn't didn't make it abundantly clear that this is a hoax, the previous comment certainly did. Natalie 03:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now First write the book, then make a page about it. That's the usual order. Guthrie 13:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both until you've written the book and got it published. As Guthrie says, that's the usual order. It sounds like a good story, though: you write it and get it published, and I'll buy it. ( Heck, if Eragon can get published, this should have a chance ! ) WMMartin 14:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both Yes, it's definitely a hoax...and if it isn't why would the author/publisher have been stupid enough not to copyright it. Avisitor2 13:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 01:52Z

"demo to demo development"[edit]

No sources given. Google search turns up 0 hits. Jvhertum 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, unverifiable. Does not even seem to be a new buzzword. Huon 21:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 01:52Z

Human cruise missile[edit]

Term used once, in one book, to refer to 9/11 terrorists. Doesn't seem worthy of its own article. NawlinWiki 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If, as the nominator states, the term is only used once in one book, then it does not meet the notability minimum: "...the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works..." ◄Zahakiel ► 22:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Descendall 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were notable, it's still a dicdef. —David Eppstein 07:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 01:51Z

Adam Caskey[edit]

Page is about two very non-notable people. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete First of all, it is a combination article about two different unrelated people whose only connection is being broadcast announcer--for different stations. One is a substitute meteorologist. The other has left the profession to return to school and get his bachelor's degree. I have sometimes disagreed with a few over-zealous speedies for nn, but I would have speedied this one. DGG 02:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced and unreferenced article about a living person Alf^Photoman 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Steel 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert's Alpha Squad Seven[edit]

This article is on a few comedic cartoon shorts on The Colbert Report that satirize superhero cartoons. It is hardly notable enough for its own article. dposse 22:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated on the talk page, the article has many issues. The biggest issue is that there has been absolutely no media coverage about this cartoon. Out of all the articles about the Colbert Report, I have found none that even mention Alpha Squad Seven. In short, this fails WP:N. Gdo01 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the following arguments:

Based on the Google Test (not a concrete test of notability, but it should be considered), there are 112 results for "Stephen Colbert's Alpha Squad Seven."
Given Colbert's extreme notability, and the existing book deal, I'd say that the series has some definite, tangible notability. If George Lucas made a five-minute craptastic cartoon, you'd bet that it would have notability, because it was made by someone extremely notable.
Cleanup: I will admit that the article is in dire need of cleanup, but AFD is not the cleanup department.
Metaphor argument: Don't all of the other cartoons on Comedy Central have articles? Do all of the series played on Adult Swim have articles? Don't even get me started on Pokemon.

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Check out how many unique G-hits it gets [33]. Looks like only 16 to me, 2 of which are Wikipedia, 4 are lonelygirl15's forum, 3 are blogs, 2 are other forums, and 2 are myspace.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If there even is going to be a published book, there shouldn't be an article on it until it is published. Then the series will be truly "multimedia."
If the article wants to strive to look like anything, it should try to imitate The Ambiguously Gay Duo, a notable Colbert cartoon.
The cartoons on Comedy Central have articles because they are stand alone shows. This cartoon is part of the Colbert Report and should be on that article until it becomes important enough for its own article.

Gdo01 01:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And even 100 unique Google hits would suggest non-notability. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, those are valid points. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of independent, reliable sources. Yet more Colbertcruft. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slash away the episode synopsizes, take away the theme song, and you're left with enough to Merge into The Colbert Report pretty easily. --UsaSatsui 12:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Notable) and re-direct to the main article re: Stephen Colbert.Lee Nysted 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how this works, but it's probably worth noting that Oni Press recently began publishing a comic book about this character. For some reason, I can't find the original press release, but here's an appearance at the NY comicon[34] and here's a solicitation for the second issue [35]. Also, regarding Google hits, a search for "Tek Jansen" turns up over 100k [36]. Maybe a Tek Jansen page that incorporated this one as well as the comic would be appropriate? Chunky Rice 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually its only 498 unique g-hits [37]. It is quite a few but not nearly as overwhelming as 100k. Gdo01 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment My apologies. I'm not that familiar with this process/techniques. Chunky Rice 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, that link to the solicitation is dead now, since that site moved from Feb to March solicitations and few people archive them, but the first issue is scheduled to be on shelves in April.Chunky Rice 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Colbert Report, it's just one segment of the show, not notable in itself. Krimpet 03:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Disavian. Xuanwu 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though there isn't quite enough "Colbertcruft" to start using that term. - ElbridgeGerry t c block
Keep, because this page gives us "detaled" recaps of episodes in the serises. How he gets his information, maybe closed captioning, but half of the people i know do not know how to spell half of those names. Ample Know 07:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are plenty of other wikis that can function as your personal Alpha Squad guide but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Gdo01 07:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total Colbertcruft, he should not have as many articles as he does. Booshakla 10:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party reliable sources. The cartoons are merely one of many recurring segments on The Colbert Report, which do not all need individual articles. Part of the claim made by the article to establish the subject's notability is incorrect -- Tek Jansen did not start out as a book which was then made into a cartoon for the Colbert Report; No Tek Jansen media of any kind was published before the series was introduced on The Report. There's no reason to treat the cartoon as a distinct series from the Colbert Report, and no obvious way to fill out an entire article on this subject without violating WP:NOT and WP:RS. -- Bailey ^(talk) 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Educational TV Tower[edit]

Non-noteable TV tower that doesn't even exist anymore. Wikipedia is not an FCC directory of every broadcasting tower to have ever existed in the United States (one exists already on fcc.gov anyway) Descendall 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one that got away. Ohconfucius 07:56, 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 Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D.A. Waite, Jr.[edit]

Adding orphaned AfD nomination without prejudice. --Descendall 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Editor of one ed. of the King James Bible-the Defined King James Bible --whose WP article says just the same as this article, and adds the revealing note that it was privately published. This article should go, as NN, and the other perhaps merged into King James Only. DGG 02:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG.--John Foxe 19:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG Alf^Photoman 20:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the salient facts are on the Defined KJV page - the article is unnecessary and did not pan out - but I would keep the DKJV page as-is - I am considering developing a category - modern KJV editions with reader helps - which would include it, the King James Study Bible, The Subject Bible, etc. It is important to know that the DKJV is self-published. I would say the editions of the KJV are notable, for anyone doing research into the modern fundamentalist movement. Scott1329m 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Burden of proof is on those advocating Keep, and they haven't even attempted to address the concerns being raised. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Meils[edit]

Reason Richhoncho 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been prodded twice, each time removed by a comet18 and comet20 (which I can only assume is the same contributor being the only ones who have contributed to the article. Both have added to other articles, which has been removed as vandalism (example Yeti, added the words “The Yeti just straight beats off all the time”) I cannot find a single reference for Jacob Engelman Meils save for a student achievement for 2006 at The College of Wooster. Pegged as a hoax by me irrespective of the reference now given. Firm delete--Richhoncho 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to suggest deleting the page without even checking out the reference? It's not a hoax, do your homework. And can you prove to me that the Yeti doesn't straight beat off all the time? The burden of proof is on you. Show me ONE picture, just one, where the Yeti isn't beating off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comet20 (talk • contribs)

Apparently Chris Sabo also beats off all the time. Improbable coincidence of name suggests to me it is possible that one same student by that name from Wooster College spun this yarn. Also there is no 2006 edition of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy that I could find. Curious lack of Ghits. Even from the article itself, it appears that little is known about the subject, therefore fails WP:V in a pretty big way. Delete per nom. Ohconfucius 07:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're checking the online edition of Routledge which is different than their actual published encyclopedias. A reference was left and I suggest you check it before you get all up in arms about this. It would be against what we're working toward here at Wikipedia to delete an article with a reputable reference. And Chris Sabo would be the first to admit to you that he beats off all the time, and if you want I can provide a reference for that too. --140.103.193.66 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well, what do you know? IP address 140.103.193.66 traces back to Wooster College Ohconfucius 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't we be better served focusing on the facts instead of this partisan bickering? Nobody has addressed the reference seriously. --Comet20 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --JimWae 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Time's almost up. Even if there is an article on this guy in that encyclopedia, I am certain such an article is not the source of material that is here. This appears to be just a pot party wasting our time--JimWae 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- and the only edition found by search is 1998 http://toby.library.ubc.ca/resources/infopage.cfm?id=376 --JimWae 18:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete as hoax. Not only is the article itself self-indicting, but the so-called reference fails to check out. There is no reference to Jakob Meils in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy printed or online. There is no 2006 printed edition of that work. The last printed edition with that exact title was 1998 and it was ten volumes. The 2000 edition was entitled Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy at 1030 p. The 2005 printed version was entitled The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy at 1077 p. The lack of an ISBN in the Wikipedia article is suggestive of the fact that the publication is non-existent, and that is confirmed by both Routledge and Baker & Taylor. The online version currently only contains the text of the Concise version. The full online and updated version is scheduled for release later in 2007. --Bejnar 03:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can prove that the Yeti doesn't beat off all the time.--Comet20 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Big League Challenge Materials[edit]

Just a list of details of a non-notable set of cards, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, prod removed, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. That's precisely what this is. --Core desat 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of informations. Daniel5127 | Talk 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I shall make this short, because my reasons should be self explanitory. This is not a random baseball card set posted on Wikipedia. This set, is in fact, the first of its kind. It was the first set where in every pack of cards the owner would recieve a limited edition graded card. This was a major moment in card collecting history. Not only that, it was nearly impossible for anyone to find out what the complete set contained. I spent years researching this, and I finally learned of the entire set's contents. Therefore, since I was already writing a Wikipedia page about the set, I figured I would release the entire sets contents to the world, bringing a meaning to my research. Before deciding to delete any Wikipage that does not interest you, I suggest that you at least READ THE ARTICLE to find out why it is here in the first place. Although not long, it has provided information that I have recieved some emails that thanked me for finally releasing the article. This is, in essence, no different that the pointless deletion of the Donruss page awhile back. Please, look at it now, its a completely stripped down page from what It used to be. Wikipedia isn't just about getting medals for clearing up wasted space, its actually an encyclopedia and should be treated as such. Thank you. IBHMC 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes wikipedia is a encyclopedia, but this isn't the type of info that is needed in this site. We aren't beckett, people looking for a list of cards from that set will look at the beckett or the baseball reference wiki first rather than here. I'm a long time collector of thousands of sports cards and I could name 20 sets that are more important than this, 1952 Topps, and 2003-04 Exquite collection comes to mind. The set was just some bonus cards that a fan could get in the all-star game, I got several of the cards in my collection, nothing special. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, because I am the person who researched this for Beckett, along with Rich Klein (I'm sure you've heard of him if you read Beckett). There is no question that there are more important sets than this, but it is notable nonetheless. How about I combine this article into another baseball article, or create one devoted only to notable sets? That way the encyclopedia can be expanded with other sets included, not just 1 - there's no Wikipedia rule that says articles can't be long. Look, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I just wanted to contribute something useful that I could expand on further as time went on. I will also remove the checklist (if thats the only way I can save my article). I only request to mave my page preserved long ebough for me to make the changes (another day or two) because I am quite busy with work now. I appreciate your consideration of my offer.IBHMC 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as an FYI, there were 2 versions of the set, one given away at the All star game, another sold in a gold package.* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IBHMC (talk • contribs) 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 01:49Z

Choukroun[edit]

Some non-notable writing an article on himself. – Steel 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. Learning programming on a TI-99/4A is pretty cool (I did ^_^), but that doesn't make you notable. JuJube 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected. DS 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC Res. 242[edit]

This article is a direct copy/paste of the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Shimaspawn 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I redirected. --Descendall 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party 2 minigames[edit]

Proposed for deletion via WP:PROD, somewhat pointy and almos certain to be contested, but unquestionably a valid rationale: unsourced fancruft. We really could do without these endless directories compiled form primary sources for the sole benefit of people who already know it anyway, because nobody else will ever care. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft, listcruft: whichever you want to call it: it doesn't need a place on Wikipedia. It's pretty pathetic how the other list pages turned up no consensus. Hopefully the second nomination (in the future) for them will lead to better results. RobJ1981 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Guy, please do not unnecessarily introduce POV into what may be a valid nomination. There is no need to make presumptions about the interests of millions of individuals that are sure to be false (e.g., "for the sole benefit of people who already know it anyway", "nobody else will ever care"). Sure, millions of people will not read this article, but millions of people do use Wikipedia, and for thousands of different reasons. And moreover, at least one person--the creator of the article--cares. That said, I am withholding a suggestion until I have a chance to review and consider the article. -- Black Falcon 01:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT a game guide. -- Black Falcon 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am withdrawing my comment based on the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames. I suggest withdrawing all nominations regarding the Mario Party minigames lists and, if necessary, renominating them all together after 1 or 2 months or so. -- Black Falcon 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It is not a game guide. a game guide would give you hints, tips and cheats and walk you through every aspect of a game, which this article does not. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (author of article)[reply]
(SPEEDY)STRONG KEEP (Notable) and re-direct to the AFD on Mario 3-7, in progress. Also see closed AFD on Mario 8, within the last 48 hours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Nysted (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC).Lee Nysted 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire topic (GAMES) should be expanded and backed up with strong and reliable sources. This is the 21st century, ladies and gentlemen. It is about "time."

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.

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
3. The ability of vandals to change the truth, at will. (This is the worst one in my opinion.)

I prefer that my children come here for knowledge and an understanding of the world than many other places they are likely to go on the web.

Finally, 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.)

Please forgive me for using nearly the exact text I used in the last AFD (Mario 8) debate about lists of games. If I have done something wrong, please teach me. Lee Nysted 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Mario 3-7 was withdrawn as of today.Lee Nysted 21:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Speedy based on withdrawal of Mario 3-7 earlier today.Lee Nysted 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as 3-7 were kept. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis the nominator fails to have provided a strong basis for deletion. Their entire argument for deletion seems to hinge around it being fancruft, which is simply not a good enough rationale. So on the basis of the assumption that you are assumed innocent until proven guilty I'm supporting keeping this article. Mathmo ^Talk 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I will have you know that others DO want to know about the minigames, the minigames are what made me choose to buy Mario Party Advance over a different game I really wanted. Henchman 2000 09:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fancruft. A list of minigames is unnecessary. If they are notable or ground-breaking they should be merged into the main Mario Party 2 article. Going by the precedent in WP:Fiction, Wikipedia's goal is to summarize and be reasonably short, not give detailed descriptions. So far the arguments in keeping just amount to wanting it for the sake of the children, someone using it as a substitute for Gamefaqs for minigame info, and that being poorly written, unreferenced list of unnotable minigames isn't enough to delete when it very well is. Chevinki 09:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Fancruft argument against lists has been tried in the Mario 3-7; it failed to be persuasive. The 3-7 nomination was withdrawn. The same argument was used in the Mario 8 and the result was "no consensus." The list stayed. Lee Nysted 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NawlinWiki . —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 01:48Z

K.K. Rampage[edit]

Prod removed so brought for AfD. Unreferenced, self-issued records , no claim of notability through independent citations. use of WP as advertising space, fails COI, probably copy. Delete from me, Richhoncho 23:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11. --Descendall 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per CSD G4 since page appears to have been put back again. Have tagged page accordingly and warned creator. A1octopus 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 01:47Z

Fruitloopian[edit]

Dictionary definition for an obscure term Alex Bakharev 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT Nardman1 23:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neoligism and unverified. The article itself states that the only "source" for this term is from wikipedia talk pages. Wikipedia is not it's own source. -Markeer 14:36, 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 Delete. The article should probably have been tagged for Speedy Deletion, rather than being fixed in this manner, but it gets the job done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Rogers[edit]

Article exists only to disparage its subject, BLP concerns, we don't have articles on any other Newsnight researchers. Catchpole 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attack article. I've deleted it as a gross BLP violation - admins questioning this, please look at the article and you'll see what I mean. The references don't check out either, by the way. Editors 'Finderss' and 'Gman889' are the same person, who created the accounts just to write and edit this attack piece; I've blocked both. - David Gerard 17:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The article has had substantial rewrites to remove defamatory content, but it is still basically a chronology of someone's love life as seen by the Daily Mail. Being a TV producer is not immediately notable. Being someone's girlfriend is not immediately notable. The only notable component is her boyfriend's alleged misuse of Ministerial entitlements (the car trip), which if notable should be merged with the page on the Minister concerned. Jeendan 00:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure exactly what David Gerard has done, but I would delete the result that he left. --Bejnar 04:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion by admin Irishguy as the article consisted mostly of nonsense. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR--TBCΦtalk? 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ape jazz[edit]

I ((prod))'d this article earlier. It deals with some protologisms, a subject generally more suited to Urban Dictionary than to Wiktionary or Wikipedia. Appears not to be verifiable. The author was a bit put out by my prod'ing the article. I won't offer an opinion as that might appear vindictive. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. Nardman1 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-04 01:46Z

Kelisha Osborne[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Tyrenius 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Ms. Osborne meets the biographical criteria for inclusion. The "external links" list are lists of names, with little or no reference to the importance of the subject. User:Jerzy has removed a pretty significant list of things that appear to be more along the lines of promotion rather than information: those are listed on the article's talk page. Joyous! | Talk 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del as n-n. I was indeed concerned by what seemed to me a promotional tone, tho that of course is irrelevant to this discussion of whether an encyclopedic article on her can be written (quite distinct from the current quality of the article). I might change my vote if we are provided an explanation of her G-Test

84 of about 147 for "Kelisha Osborne"

other than that she's wonderful and needs WP to get the word out on her; perhaps this AfD will bring that forth.
--Jerzy•t 04:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What's the harm in including her as long as the inclusion follows Wikipedia's policy. Ms. Osborne certainly meets notable as far as Wikipedia's standards are concerned WP:BIO, not everything in wiki is or should be related to Politics, Science, Geography or Playboy Playmate. Why be so finicky about what stays or what should be considered for deletion.
This is a prime example of having Wikipedia. Alt212 11:19, 28 February 2007
— Alt212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep- I disagree Joyous: WP states "Articles that can be improved should be edited OR tagged, NOT nominated for deletion". I didn't constitute subject matter as being promotional. Links are clear as to her writings and painting exhibits. Ms. Osborne doesn't fall into "Rubbish" content pages. I vote to leave her on plus she appears to have some wits abour her. I agree Jerzy, she is wonderful. flyty -27, February 2007
— Flyty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Alf^Photoman 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - artist, model, whatever! Not yet notable as an artist, or model, or writer. Johnbod 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little notability asserted in the article. Her work looks good. But Wikipedia requires "non-trivial" sources. I don't think that includes personal web sites. Notability can be established by critical reviews, or a more than just passing mention in serious publications unrelated to the artist, as well as by other means. When that can be supplied, I think the work would support inclusion. I like the paintings. Bus stop 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD A7 - NYC JD (make a motion) 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Salim Waheed[edit]

Notability not established, probably an autobiography Alex Bakharev 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Miller (artist)[edit]

his paintings are for sale in one gallery, his work was reviewed in a free weekly paper. and he was quoted for his opinion in one article in the Weekly Standard. I don't believe he passes WP:Notability delete Cornell Rockey 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Peta 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article has links to two newspaper articles and states he has had several solo exhibitions, isn't that sufficient? --J2thawiki 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment one is a review of his work, in the other he was quoted in an article about some one else. Cornell Rockey 04:20, 26 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, - NYC JD (make a motion) 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC) - NYC JD (make a motion) 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Alf^Photoman 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly very local stuff; notability not shown. Johnbod 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, From what I have seen from the pictures on both the website and articles this seems to be somebody who indeed copies Goya/Velazquez with modern images. Does anybody have any references not available on the web? Alf^Photoman 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An accomplished professional artist no doubt, but we are not here to evaluate quality, and I can't see from his CV[38] what marks notability from many accomplished professional artists. Tyrenius 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, but I hope to see him back on these pages Alf^Photoman 12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess I'm alone in the quality assessment (t'ain't my cup of tea), but as noted above, it's not a question of quality. Local artist for the moment with notability not indicated beyond that. Maybe someday, but not now. (Hey, he's young. He's got time). Freshacconci 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't help but wonder how 11 (eleven!) graffiti artists of Melbourne, escaped deletion, and an obviously serious artist such as Max Miller can get deleted. All thirteen of the Melbourne street graffiti artists have articles of their own. Is it that this artist (Max Miller) is merely toiling away in traditional art, and the street artists are agitating for world change? Is political point of view a criterion for inclusion/deletion? Bus stop 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of that was down to the fact that the AfD was a mass nom instead of just putting up the least notable and taking it one at a time. Tyrenius 03:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and there was a bit of a street art vote. There were various options supported, & as I recall most votes were for some deletions, but a no consensus conclusion was reasonable Johnbod 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod -- What's a "street art" vote? Are there distinctions vis-a-vis the deletion process concerning articles in the visual arts realm depending on categories of art? I am not aware of that. I thought similar if not identical criteria are applied to all visual art in the articles for deletion process. Bus stop 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what editors are interested in commenting on, there is. Johnbod 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod -- There is no such thing as a street art vote any more that there is an abstract expressionism vote or a postmodernism vote. Not in the articles for deletion process, that is. The reason why there are no distinctions, based on category of art being considered, is because the same criteria are applied to all. Unless you can show me that different criteria are applied, or should be applied, based on the type of art being considered, then votes are all the same. You or someone else may wish to voice an opinion that different categories of art should have different criteria applied to them, as concerns their validity for inclusion. I would be open to entertaining that thought. But that would have to be articulated by someone advocating for that. As it now stands, all visual art articles are subject to the same standards for inclusion. Bus stop 17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to speak for Johnbod, I however took his comment to mean a vote on a group of articles, rather than a single article. For example, if several abstract expressionists were under AfD together, it would be informally the "abstract expressionist vote" or at least that's what I had thought he meant. The reason they weren't deleted was precisely because they were grouped together and consensus was difficult to reach. Individually, most of them would most likely have been deleted. Freshacconci 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freshacconci -- You are more closely paraphrasing Tyrenius' response to my Comment (above) than Johnbod's. Bus stop 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, not in published works, not widely shown --Bejnar 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Sorensen[edit]

This autobiography does not meet the Wikipedia policy on attribution, and does not have verifiable sources demonstrating the notability of the subject. TheMindsEye 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article does have verifiable Sources demonstrating the notability of the subject. See the following links for some of the publication information. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]
1) Walt Sorensen is one of only 6 photographers to ever be part of a cultural exchange in connection with West Valley City, Nantou city, and the Utah Cultural Celebration Center and was selected out of the 6 photographers to be the lecturing and lead photographer. 2) Walt Sorensen was recently accepted into the Who's who publication. (see references above)
In addition to this Walt has also been published several times and has been in extensive gallery shows both individual shows and group shows photodude 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the "verifiable Sources": First link: website belonging to the subject of the article. Second link: article (asserting significance by Community College but hardly by encyclopedic standards) apparently written by the subject of the article. Third link: presents no information. Fourth link: website belonging to the subject of the article. Fifth link: presents no information ("This feature requires member log in please log in below"). -- Hoary 02:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hi TheMindsEye, I don't think we've met before, nice to meet you ^_^. Well anyways I don't see the Who's Who thing much, because I'm in there and you don't see me writing an article on myself, do you? The Photographers thing is interesting and I don't think Wikipedia has an article on this event and since it seems to be a major thing that many editors don't know about, I am currently putting these facts into my decision and I will be with you shortly. ^_^.Sam ov the blue sand 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep After looking through other articles I've found no other information on that Photography thing and this info is information needed to add information about unknown things to the general readers, something an encyclopedia is commonly used for. With out that information I could care less about the article.Sam ov the blue sand 02:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the assertions of N are not convincing: took part as one of a group of exchange journalists between two very small sister cities; first place in 2 Nevada state fairs; this is simply not a notable career as a photographer. No 3rd party sources besides the student newspaper of his community college--admittedly, a very well done student newspaper.DGG 02:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment:there are more 3rd party sources. but you'll have to find the books and magazines not listed here which are not available online, the links supplied include photos of one of those books. there are others Such as the national deans list for 2005 and 2006. As for DGG's comment "Not a notable career as a photographer" define your standards for such a career. If your putting a three year old career against say Ansel Adams, bruce dale, robbert cappa, or Charles O'Rear then of course it is not notable. if you keep it in context that walt sorensen is a local photographer in the second largest city in Utah, and with a 2 year old career was selected for an artist exchange then yes it is notable.photodude 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reason as given in the nomination. Incidentally, this appears to be self promotion. The history shows that it's largely the product of work by User:Photodude, whose user page (at least in this version) presents waltsorensen.com as his own, and whose contributions have concentrated on Walt Sorensen and Business Resource Center SLC. We read in this version of the latter that in 2007 its "COO" [?] is Walt Sorensen, and that he was Selected for the 2007-08 International Biographical Centre, Cambridge Who's Who's publication. -- Hoary 02:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The subject/editor has also begun a campaign to request votes on this AfD on his MySpace Blog. Text is replicated below to preserve it and because the blacklist filter prevents posting of the link. TheMindsEye 03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you who don't know since last November I have had a wikipedia page. Today I discovered several things. 1 the page was vandalized. and 2) shortly after I fixed the vandalism, it was nominated for deletion. I'm sad about this because I don't think I have a chance in this white bitter cold world of saving the page. so I'm totally depressed and will soon drowned my sorrows in bubbely. If you have a Wikipedia account I ask for your vote to save my page if you don't have an account get one and add your vote. This is what I ask. There is only a 5 day window for this so please hurry.
- Comment: The call for meatpuppets (or what appears to be such a call) is depressingly familiar in these affairs, and so is the allegation of vandalism. But when I look in the page history I see no vandalism. Incidentally, here is the "Cambridge Who's Who" thing. This particular "Who's Who" is not held by the library that I use. -- Hoary 03:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:Yes there was vandalism, re-read the history I corrected spelling walther reverted back to walt, these changes were made by user 67.171.124.246 who claimed walt sorensen (photographer) was Walther Mathius Sorensen. I fixed it I just didn't flag it a vandalism. as for the meatpuppets thing/vote campaign on the myspace page... there is a total of 47 people connected to that page with 27 of those being bands and a total of 5 people who comment to the myspace page. out of those 5 people on a good day 1 maybe 2 of those fans may venture here and 1 may comment (1 person is not a campaign) kudos for spending time researching Walt Sorensen. photodude 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Speaking of the "Cambridge Who's Who," is it a reliable determiner of notability? Wiki has an interesting article on the Who's Who scam, and a Google search for "Cambridge Who's Who" +scam yields a fair number of hits (many more than you get for a search of "Walt Sorensen" +photo), but no real definitive answer. TheMindsEye 04:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - R U Joe King, Mr Eye? Or, as an answer to your question, hmm, what's the negative equivalent of "Does a pope shit in the woods?" I get the strong impression that being listed by the "Cambridge Who's Who" depends less on the kind of merit that gets you listed by a "Who's Who" of one of the varieties that libraries bother with, and a lot more on your willingness to donate a couple of sawbucks or whatever is the going rate. -- Hoary 06:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: the answer to the question on who's who Merit vs money is money.photodude 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons listed by DGG. I don't see any real notability here, at all, just some fairly blatant self-promotion. Pitamakan 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: as for the question of self promotion. all articles on wikipedia are created from one of three sources 1) the person or company the article is about 2) a PR firm or 3) a fan. it is still possible for any one of these sources to write a objective and Neutral point of view on the subject. it is content not the author that determines whether an article is self-promotion or informative.photodude 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Actually Walt/(photodude/166.70.88.70), you are wrong about this. A basic tenant of Wikipedia is the achievement of NPOV - Neutral Point of View. This cannot be achieved in an autobiography. May I suggest that you review several Wiki policies? Wikipedia:Conflict of interest explains how important NPOV is to writing an objective encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Autobiography is a guideline that explains the problem with autobiographies and how difficult it is to achieve NPOV when writing about yourself. Its a good thing to believe in yourself and to think that your accomplishments deserve widespread recognition. But if you really think this, then its only a matter of time until others acknowledge your achievements, and write an encyclopedia entry about you. I suggest that you wait for that to happen. TheMindsEye 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Difficult, yes, but not impossible. This is one of the many articles that show how difficult it is. There are, unfortunately, also many articles in WP begun as autobios and never checked independently, or with no third-party sources--all well worth deletion--or, possibly, upgrading That they can be upgraded is shown by the many respected WP articles begun as autobios--and were then carefully checked and references added if necessary by independent editors. We need to go article by article, just as we are doing now. DGG 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment before I wrote the article I made sure to read all the guidelines about creating such an article. I understood the difficulty of the issue, the downside is many editors believe it can't be done. but as DGG beautifully put many well respected articles started as autobios; thank you DGG. I hope for the article to stay and for other editors to contribute as they feel they should. The downside for this article is most of the information about it is in hard copy, limited circulation or has limited reliance. This makes obtaining and citing 3rd party sources difficult, I also limited much of the information and references to only the details available online or that I made available. photodude 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete sorry, they're right and after looking up the phtotgraphhy thing I've found it to be nonimportant.Sam ov the blue sand 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I fail to see how this would be construed as "blatant self promotion." I agree it's impossible to ever write a completely non-biased account of anything. Regardless of the topic, the author's individual preferences are bound to come through to some degree or other. If the article requirements constitute a third party as a ghost writer for any article to achieve true neutrality then the rules themselves are contradictory. I don't see it as whether or not this is "blatant self promotion" but what the overall intent behind the article is. In its own right the article displays very little persuasive structure one way or the other and instead focuses on listing a "travel log" of sorts in the subject's progressive history with verifiable sources. As for the insinuation that the subject could buy his way into the Cambridge Who's Who book, I'd like to see the college photography student with funds capable of making a noted donation. If you can prove that this article was written with the intent of feeding the subject's ego, market familiarity, and/or pocket book and not simply as being a documentary and something that others may be referred to for informational purposes, then I will vote for deletion as well.--RedJaron 08:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Response: Sorensen/photodude himself has said above the answer to the question on who's who Merit vs money is money. This particular "Who's Who" is merely a business: you give them the money (probably not much), they stick you in their book, they hope that you will then shell out a couple of hundred bucks (really) for a copy of this book. When not taking photos, Sorensen is working in some Utah company that photodude suggests is doing pretty well; I'd guess that it pays enough to finance expenses such as this. -- Hoary 09:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment All who's who, including Mariquis, the answer to merit vs money is money before merit. Some will not include nominees without someone shelling out for it; and others include the nominee then try to get them to pay, to get their own copy of the book, certificate and lapel pin and other knickknacks. As for Sorensen working for a Utah company, he is an on staff photographer at the company with a title that sounds like he does more. Pay is competitive for such a position. The who's who only has relivence so much as nominations are third party which identifies merit. Cambridge who's who does not have a self nomination which some who's who do.photodude 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (i) It is not true that all editions of books that carry the title Who's Who do this. And even if it were true, that would not make the case for keeping an article on Sorensen (aka yourself) more persuasive. (ii) The company for which Sorensen works (you work) is small, so it's hardly surprising that he is (you are) a (the) staff photographer there. -- Hoary 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you name a who's who that doesn't do it? In my searching I haven't found one.photodude 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local artist, not notable, Cambridge who's who is not even Marquis, and is not related to the prestigious Cambridge Univ. Press. --Bejnar 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Many people only notable in a local or regonal area have articles on them; such as mayors, city council members, artists, teachers, business owners, etc.photodude 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you name some people whose notability is comparable to Sorensen's (your own) and who have articles? -- Hoary 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point of my comment was notable local interests are still qualified for articles. The issue of local notability vs larger notability has brought up several times in this discussion. The issue can be resolved by categorization. All notability on a subject falls into at least into one of the following areas: local, regional, national, trivial, popular and historical etc. “Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".” Fame or importaince is something many wiki editors confuse notability with. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other.”

as for the notability of Walt Sorensen as an artist, I shall quote from Wikipedia:Notability (artists) “notability as an artist is defined by the notability of his/her art. Notable art is: b) A piece acquired by government (national, state or major city) and put on public display.” Under this guide line Walt Sorensen has 6 notible art pieces. The 5 pieces that were displayed durring the Nantou are part of a permanent collection on public display in the Nantou city hall. The Last piece was a photograph of West Valley City including the E-center in West Valley City, this piece was commisioned by West Valley and 2 Prints were made of it. One is on public display in the Nantou Taiwan city hall, the other is on Public Display in West Valley City’s City Hall. Thanks for getting me to look this information up, this should be added to the Walt Sorensen article photodude 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The I Can Eat Glass Project[edit]

Old website that does not make any claims to notability. Original website doesn't even exist anymore. ― El Cid ∴∵ 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate meeting any WP:WEB requirements. SubSeven 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can delete article; it doesn't hurt me because there are no reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reliable sources? Did you see my reason for removing the PROD? 1ne 04:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I believe you're mistaken. I'm nearly certain that the page itself was a reference to the the sample text that Windows uses to show typefaces in Latvian. ― El Cid ∴∵ 05:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would they think of that text themselves? 1ne 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't begin to guess. Perhaps the web-master was Latvian. But when it comes to assuming whether the most widely used OS in the world referenced a random website, or a random website referenced the most widely used OS in the world, I'd feel safer assuming the latter. ― El Cid ∴∵ 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel safer figuring out who said it first. "Perhaps the web-master was Latvian." Perhaps we don't need guesswork. 1ne 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking around I really couldn't find anything about the origin of the phrase. Most mentions of the site were blogs that provided a link and a little summary. I'm unsure on how we might go about finding out when it was first used in Windows. I'm not sure whether we would err on the side of inclusion or exclution if we can't find evidence of which proceeded which.

Even so, such an "easter-egg" appearance in even such a popular piece of software doesn't fall under the specific criteria set by WP:WEB. I suppose we'd have to determine if such was still grounds for keeping the article. ― El Cid ∴∵ 08:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No establishment of notability, and even worse, no reliable sources. The information provided in the article appear to be drawn from a geocities page and a blog, neither of which qualify as reliable sources. The passing (possible) mention in an OS font does not make it "the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published work" per the notability guidelines, certainly not unambiguously so. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only not notable, but just college silliness. --Bejnar 04:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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