< February 6	February 8 >

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

The result was Speedy keep, bad faith nomination by now-blocked user. NawlinWiki 13:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Rooney[edit]

Not notable. Jason Gastrich 13:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination was made by User:Kolmscott who vandalized Wikipedia by adding and deleting admin messages on various talk pages, creating nonsense and attack pages. User has now been blocked indefinitely. -- TexMurphy 13:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3NRG[edit]

No notability, no verification. All I get out of this is that there is a radio station named 3NRG that gives local news and community info to the public. Fails WP:LOCAL. Diez2 16:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Australian call-signs begin with 3? At the very least, this article should be moved to its actual call sing, not its brand-name.~~ But as it stands right now, delete per nom. Argyriou (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, they do. Each state has a different number, IIRC. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - so they all technically start with VL, so the real call sign would be VL3NRG, but nobody in Australia uses the VL. Thus I withdraw my remark about the call sign. But it's still not enough to keep. Argyriou (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may mean something, or not. Xiner (talk, email) 01:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no news articles, almost no related google hits and nothing in the article that asserts notability. Just another local radio station with a small group of sponsors, minimal equipment and no significant impact on the world - Peripitus (Talk) 01:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references.-MsHyde 03:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant, as-well as per Here.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to speak of this topic (not notable)- and anyone who actually researches the topic will not be able to get the information they need in the few sentences this topic gives.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of three community radio stations in the Sunbury area of Melbourne's north-western suburbs, but I can kind of understand those who see it's notability as questionable. Certainly not unverifiable: I'll try and rework the article from the following references: the station website, a speech by the area's MP, the Australian Broadcasting Authority announcement and a Hansard from the Australian Parliament. --Canley 02:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomOo7565 04:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once the resources identified by Canley have all been added, notability should be established. --Eastmain 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the sources through though. The hansard entry is the text of the local MP's speach about the 2004 positive changes at the radio station, the ABA's release is just an announcement of awarding them a broadcast licence and the speech reported is just a duplicate, on the speaking MP's website, of the same speech given in parliment - exactly what is expected of a local MP to promote local issues. Apart from this 3NRG seems to have made no impact and have generated no news or other significant interest. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Community radio is small enough in Australia that any community radio station which has independant reliably sourced coverage is notable. It is a very recent article which needs some time for development - rushing in with a deletion at this stage is unwarranted. Sources exist but need to be researched for incorporation into text.Ga rr ie 10:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: That's like saying in a small enough town, every person is notable Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than the unhelpful "fails WP:LOCAL", is there a notability guideline for radio stations? I know there was a Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations) which is now inactive, and was very US-specific. I'm not sure that I agree that "notability = newsworthy", but the station obviously has received coverage in The Sunbury Leader and The Sunbury Telegraph[1]. --Canley 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: A)I'm replying from the editing view - so this is just speculation - but those newspapers may not be notable themselves, B) If only one of the newspapers is notable then the article still fails notability since notability is "multiple" notable sources.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, notability is being the subject of multiple reliable sources, not multiple notable sources. The Sunbury newspapers have a circulation of about 47,000 each, but even if that's not considered notable (and once again, we don't have a guideline on this), they're published by News Limited and John Fairfax Holdings respectively - so as reliable as the Herald Sun and The Age for sources. --Canley 04:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete the rules just don't work well in dealing with very different sized places: the two LI newspapers that were (probably correctly) deleted have a larger circulation than any small town paper, and I would certainly vote to keep an article on the only paper in even a very small town. But in any case the requirements for N as a source are less than N as an article, and here the two papers are actually independent, for that is not always the case.. But we are discussing the radio station, and the problem is that most radio station stubs basically give only directory information, and never develop further. So if its really a stub, and you do intend to add more & think you can find it & source it, come back when you have. DGG 05:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, public broadcaster - seems notable enough for me. Lankiveil 04:13, 11 February 2007

(UTC).

Delete - I see nothing to establish notability. --JerryOrr 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 13:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kriyas, Knowledge and the teacher[edit]

collection of links, possibly independant research. Nekohakase 16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean original research? The article is slightly more than a collection of links. It is a collection of books and authors, who all, apparently, discuss the redlinked subject at the top of the article. Uncle G 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, some of the terms don't even appear in the text of the pages being linked to. Xiner (talk, email) 01:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Edeans 02:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, confusing. Realkyhick 08:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia is not a place for links.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is mostly a bulleted list and original research. Also, as mentioned above, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 02:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinos Makrides[edit]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page deletions. KRBN 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable player, since he does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO since he has never played in a fully professional league, however playing in a semi-professional league and very weak like the Cypriot. He is only known in Cyprus. KRBN 02:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is an international. ArtVandelay13 00:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep College sports players in the United States, for example, are considered notable under WP:N. And this is an internation; in football, that says a lot. Xiner (talk, email) 01:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep To counter every one of KRBN's arguments:

He currently plays for the Cyprus national football team. He has played against teams such as France (for WC 2006), Ireland, Wales, Germany (for UEFA 2008) etc etc. Hence he attracts attention well beyond the shores of Cyprus (the Irish seem to remember him quite well following the infamous 5-2 [2]): see his profile on L'Equipe [3], the BBC [4], Eurosport [5] etc etc etc. His name clocks several hundred Google hits [6] including Sky Sports [7], ESPN, Fox sports and so on.
He plays top division football for APOEL FC in Cyprus. As such he meets the criteria noted here:[8] ...sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing... May I draw the attention to the equivalent standing as Cyprus has a semi-professional league. He also complies with '...footballers who have been capped for any national team...
He has also played in UEFA competitions at club level for APOEL FC.

In fact it's beyond me that this player is even considered for deletion. StephP 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as does not meet WP:BIO. Edeans 02:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having 24 appearances with the national team constitutes "the highest possible level". Caknuck 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the intent of WP:N and Meta: Wiki is not paper, this article should not be deleted; verifiable information is available about this person and there is reason to believe that more than a few people might be interested in this person. The list of groups on WP:BIO is not exclusionary, so not meeting that particular definition of notable athletes alone should not be grounds for deletion.Techieman 06:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has international caps, seems notable enough. -- Mattythewhite 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 24 caps is definitely notable enough. Realkyhick 08:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no way that a player who has represented his country 24 times could not be considered notable ChrisTheDude 08:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BIO states"...as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level..." How does one get higher than representing their country (several times) on the ineternational scene?

If he is worthy of having a profile on UEFA's official site [9] how can he be dismissed from wikipedia? Georgeg 08:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly notable 24 international caps is very notable. Jules1975 11:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for playing international football. Meets at least the spirit of WP:BIO - fchd 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator seems to be correct, it does fail WP:BIO and the article has some anti NPOV text.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tellyaddict, may I kindly ask, can you clarify that you believe that 24 international caps (as stated above) would still mean he fails WP:BIO (for sportspeople) "...as performing at the highest level..."? Georgeg 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a high number of goals and seems to be a good player it's just I don't personally think it meets WP:BIO - thanks for your understanding!Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY TO BELOW QUESTION Well after searching on google (UK) for it it did not return many relevant results except for the wikipedia article which we are discussing, therefore making it less likely to be notable, yes this player has good contributions to footabll but I'm generally going to stick with oppose because of it's google results and general notability and level of importance. The highest level what WP:BIO refers to in my opinion is an article about someone who is not worldwidely known, for example - a community worker who is recognised in the local community for good work but has had no international and worldwide fame, but this is jusy my opinion, I hope you understand.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are aiming to become an administrator, so I would appreciate some guidance. What in your opinion represents this highest level that WP:BIO refers to? Plus, you claim it fails WP:BIO but you give no reason. Would you please elaborate? I have made it clear in my entry why I think it passes WP:BIO. Georgeg 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I’m afraid I don’t understand. I get the feeling you are either avoiding or not understanding the arguments and the issue at hand. Let me rephrase things to make it crystal clear:

WP:Bio states that a sportsman should be considered as notable if he or she ...performs at the highest level.... I, and many others here argue that being picked to play for one's country on an international level (such as FIFA world cup or UEFA competition qualifiers) and especially against the likes of Germany, France, Ireland and so on, constitutes that highest level.

Now you obviously disagree with that. And fair enough, that might be your opinion. However, still in your opinion, and especially as a self confessed potential future administrator, what constitutes that highest level of achievement in a football player? In other words what should a football player need to have achieved in order for you to consider him or her as notable? Not in a community worker as you refer to above, (or in any other profession at hand) but in a football player. I expect you to have an opinion if you’ve taken the trouble to vote in this discussion. (Also would you be kind enough to paste your reply in chronological order. ie below this paragraph and not above it)Georgeg 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meet WP:BIO as a national squad member. -- Whpq 16:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this would be a delete if he weren't a national team player. Punkmorten 17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An established international for a country with an equal ranking to that of Wales. Oldelpaso 19:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there are some rules we all have to respect. WP:BIO says exactly for players who have played for fully proffessional league. Cyprus is not a fully professional league and not only that, we are talking for a very weak championship, by which having just a participation in that league can not at all be considered notable. The level in Cyprus is generally low and not only the championship but the national team as well is very weak, one of the weakest in Europe. Getting the pride to play for such national team, can not be considered notability since, playing for such a national team cannot considered notability. This is not my POV, but however the rules in WP:BIO do not refer about national team participation, since if there was a notability by playing for national team, it would have been refered in WP:BIO. By saying highest level it does not mean playing with national team. Because national team have even, Cyprus, Faroe, Bagladesh, Somalia. It is natural that media in a report for a match will refer about player's name since he played in that match but however to be international can not be considered notability.

Highest level means by playing in Champions League or UEFA Cup groups, in a semi final or final of those competitions or playing in World Cup or European Championship. If he does that, even if he played for APOEL, then yes means that player is notable. I think if you want international appearances to be included, then change WP:BIO. But rules will be violated if that too non-notable player will be included.

I also recommend you to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs#Current_squad, for which players must be wikilink to have their own article. It says, (Current squad of the club. Players should only be wikilinked if notable enough to merit their own article. "Generally speaking, professional clubs should have wikilinked players, but semi-professional clubs should not". User:KRBN 23:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, a semi-pro club would often have a few players whose earlier careers fit WP:BIO, so there would have some players wikified (e.g. St Albans City F.C.). APOEL fit this definition and Makrides deserves to be wikified (and have an article). ArtVandelay13 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for KRBN KRBN, I would suggest you read the whole (and not just stick to the beginning) of WP:BIO paragraph for sports people. At the very end of the paragraph it clearly states that apart from playing in a fully professional league a player can be considered notable if he performs at the highest level. Now I have not noticed anyone in this discussion claim that every APOEL player deserves a wiki article, because as it stands they might not. You seem to repeatedly overlook that the argument here rests on Makrides’ achievements on the international stage and not with his career in APOEL.

So would you be kind enough to clarify this for me: are you suggesting that 24 caps for the Cyprus national football team is not a notable achievement? (ie does not constitute performing at the highest level - above, you have defined that the highest level = playing in a Champions League or UEFA Cup group but where did you pluck that definition from? Is it perhaps your personal opinion?) If that’s so I urge you to quickly glance at the latest FIFA rankings where Cyprus is on par with Wales[10]; then please nominate some Welsh national football team players for deletion (because every single one of them has an article, even Ryan Valentine who has 0 caps and plays for Wrexham!). StephP 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further addition for KRBN's review:

And btw KRBN, I’ve come up with something else. Do you think we should delete the article on Sotiris Kaiafas? (for the others following this discussion this is a Cypriot player who was awarded the European Golden Boot award in 1975/76) I personally think Kaiafas is one of the most notable players ever to come out of Cyprus, however he:

did not compete at the highest level (as you try to define it),
he has less caps for Cyprus than this player and
the Cyprus league in his time was not even semi-pro, it was a purely amateur competition!

StephP 11:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep full international with 24 caps, Cyprus are not one of the Weakest teams in Europe as claimed above, they are much better than the likes of San Marino and Andorra. Any team to have recently beaten the Repulblic of Ireland 5-2 cannot possibly be considered one of the worst.

Also notability is not defined by the number of hits in a google search, this method of defining notability has an obvious bias towards modermn popular culture. Im sure a google search for Raven Riley (pornstar) gets more google hits than say Karl Landsteiner (Nobel Prize winner in 1930). Does this mean that she is more worthy of a wikipedia article?Regards King of the North East 13:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment StephP, what is the achievement? To play for a national team such as Cyprus??????????????? Cyprus may have got few good results in the last 2 of three matches, suprizes can happen howeverdon't forget how was this national team doing the last years (beating only san marino, malta and andorra). By saying that Cyprus is one of the weakest in Europe, I don't mean it is same level with Andorra. Highest level I don't mean only champ.League and Uefa Cup but also final rounds of World Cup, Euro etc.. Highest level sure are the world cup and euro final rounds and sure are much lower level (that's right cannot be defined as highest level) their qualification rounds by having teams such as Burkina Faso or Cyprus. However, I am asking you the same question, who told that highest level is just to play with national team, eventhought if this national team is Andorra or Cyprus. As about Ryan Valentine, he is not having an article just because he plays for Wales NT rather that he plays for a fully professional league such as the English. Because of this, I have no right to purpose him for deletion since he satisfy the rules of WP:BIO. Of course you will tell me, Wrexham sure is weaker than APOEL, however, it is fact that plays in a fully professional league. If you are aksing my POV, WP:BIO should have strengthen the rules of inclusion of footballers and such players, even if they are Ryan Valentine, shouldn't be even there and I would like to purpose him for deletion, however the rules are rules, anad we all must respect them in both cases about Makrides and Ryan Valentine. As for Kaiafas, despite I believe that you understand why he is considered notable, I refresh your mind that he is notable, since he won the European Golden Boot, which means top goal scorer of Europe. Becoming a European winner, there is no doubt about the notability of any player.

For Mr King's comments wikipedia's rules about notability and google search are specific and the fact that you want articles to be included up to your own ideas are obvious.

User:KRBN 02:22, 10 February 2007

i am sorry KRBN, but to me you seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand you claim that Makrides does not meet WP:BIO criteria. On the other hand Kaiafas who (as illustrated in my previous entry) meets less of the same criteria by your definition, apparently deserves an exception due to the golden boot award. Unless I am missing something somewhere there is absolutely no reference in WP:BIO of golden boots (or any other award as a matter of fact) being a notability criterion. Don’t get me wrong, I think that Kaiafas was a great player and should never be considered for deletion, however you have to admit that by your own definitions so far, he does not meet your or WP:BIO’s notability criteria.

And yes, I agree with you. Cyprus is not the strongest football side in the world, but it is in the top 40% (73rd out of 206) of this planet. You’ve made it obvious that this is no achievement in your books but like it or not, Cyprus certainly competes at the highest level by most other editors’ opinion. So to answer your question with the thousand question marks, yes, I think 24 caps at international level is an admirable achievement. Unfortunately the meaning of highest level is not clearly defined in WP:BIO so we could go on and on and on as to what you or I think it represents. I guess we will just have to wait and see what the administrators think.StephP 03:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't contradict myself at all. Kaiafas winning the golden boot, he became top scorer of Whole Europe!!! This is too strong reason to be called notable. Also if you want to compare those players, Kaiafas awarded in Uefa Jubille Awards as the best Cypriot footballer ever! And yes, becoming in the top of Europe is a great reason to be considered highest level Having capacity of 24 appearance with a weak nationalt team in friendlies and qualification rounds can not be compared for what Kaiafas had achieved. I will not have problem if you put that article also for deletion because it will be sure not deleted. Another last point, Imagine if any player who is international is considered notable; Andorra may have hundred footballers, same for Malta even if they play in the worst level of football and even may be someone has just one appearance. Can you Imagine?????? KRBN 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate repeating myself, but did you just skip this bit of my last paragraph? Don’t get me wrong, I think that Kaiafas was a great player and should never be considered for deletion I DON’T THINK KAIAFAS should be deleted. It is only the third time I am saying it! How clear can I make myself?
I’m getting tired of this conversation with you. I think your arguments are weak and do not stand, and it comes as no surprise to me that most of your past nominations have been rejected. [11], [12],[13],[14] I guess you won’t be surprised if this one fails too.StephP 17:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the commenters above, meets WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Sawed-off shotgun. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:29Z

Boomstick[edit]

Love the movie, absolutely, but this is a tad crufty — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Sawed-off shotgun. hateless 00:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per hateless. Seems like a pretty good solution. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - possible search term for fans of the movie/game but as a standalone article it is a neologism of no note. Only other use I can find is as a brand of paintball gun - Peripitus (Talk) 01:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Definitely do not keep as an article. Xiner (talk, email) 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is an excellent idea. Natalie 04:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, definitely. Realkyhick 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Hateless, it's a nice little piece, but there's not enough there for a full-blown article, the info can be secured and searchers can still get all the info they need (and detailed info on the sawn-off shotgun to boot!). Bloody marvellous :D QuagmireDog 11:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Notability, not relevant enough.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems like the article is insufficiently referenced to demonstrate notability for its own article. While I think there might be a hypothetical case for the slang term maybe being notable enough for an article, maybe, as is I don't see the references to verify it's notable enough for its own article. For notability purposes, compare to D'oh!. I'd reconsider the Boomstick article if it is brought a little closer to D'oh! in terms of scope and references. Dugwiki 22:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:27Z

Nadín Ospina[edit]

Colombian artist. Self-promotion. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC) NB. My "vote" changed - see below.[reply]

Mixed. A quick review shows a lot of ghits for an artist from a non-english-speaking, not-internet-saturated country, so I'd guess that he is notable. Looking through his website (which I ended up having to find here due to malformed HTML), he seems to have been included in some significant shows and books. ~~However, the article does not demonstrate that notability, and may be some sort of copyvio.~~ I'm going to notify the creator/subject on his talk page and see if he's willing to clean it up to approach wikipedia standards. Argyriou (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Keep after rewrite. Argyriou (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed Article has many statements that are probably OR or CV. It can probably be recreated with proper info. Keep I had no doubt that the person was notable, and it has been proven so. Xiner (talk, email) 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the rewritten article does a much better job explaining why this artist can be considered notable, and does so without violating WP:COI or WP:COPYVIO. --Kyoko 11:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Mixed This artist's works seem to have been widely exhibited around the world, but I'm not certain if that satisfies WP:BIO. I don't want to simply vote delete because the artist may be significant within a certain area that I'm not familiar with. The article itself needs at the very least considerable improvement to address the concerns raised above. --Kyoko 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've left a long note on User talk:Nadinospina to give him a chance to clean the article up. Argyriou (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm.... What exactly is "Mixed"? I've never seen this used before in afd... Bwithh 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify/keep The subject seems to be an encyclopedically notable artist, but this article appears to have WP:COI and WP:COPYVIO problems. Not only that, it represents Mr. Ospina in an unbalanced way (perhaps due to the lifting of text from the Holly Crawford book (which is entirely about Mickey Mouse)... the fact that a link about her book is placed above the link to Mr. Ospina's site seems to be bit of a warning flag...). Ospina's notable works are not limited to neo-colonized remixes of Mickey Mouse... there are other icons of cultural imperialism to be challenged. Bwithh 05:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note' I'm going to rewrite the article as a stub. I'm removing the article image which is linked from Wikicommons[15], as it does not seem to me that this is actually licensed/tagged/authenticated properly. I don't have a wikicommons account and never really used it much - if someone else does and thinks this image needs to be tagged as dubious copyright status, please do so. Bwithh 05:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain This opinion is pretty much worthless, but it seemed like a nice term to follow Mixed, Mixed, Mixed, Comment, Umm, Stubify, Note. GassyGuy 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REVAMP completed I've revamped the article as a new stub Bwithh 06:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep. My main objection was to the fact that the article was written by user: Nadinospina who has edited nothing else. A re-write by an established editor makes the article OK by me. -- RHaworth 06:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rewritten page looks fine. --Zeborah 08:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand. Rewrite helped. Realkyhick 08:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Denny 14:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, neutral references, solo expositions and so on... what else does one need to establish notability? Alf photoman 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as a stub). Existance of reliable sources almost guarantees notability. /Blaxthos 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. —dima/s-ko/ 04:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:26Z

Even Bread Has a Home[edit]

Not notable book. Ran a google search on the author, came up with two relevant results, from two libraries. Amazon doesn't sell it. Publisher is not notable, apparently. Neither is the author. Should be deleted. Wehwalt 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Xiner (talk, email) 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google of the publisher shows up zero non-Wikipedia hits, suggesting this is self published. Natalie 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. There is a template of this publishing company, which I would also propose should be deleted. Is it totally against policy to add it to this discussion? Otherwise I'll bop on over to TfD. Natalie 04:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article and template. If it's not good enough for Amazon, it's not good enough for us. :-) Realkyhick 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete book with no assertion or verification of notability.-- danntm ^T _C 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:21Z

William Bradford (professor)[edit]

Based on comments on the first AfD discussion (closed due to sockpuppetry) and the talk page (author supports deletion), I am renominating this article for deletion. It seems NN per WP:BIO and a tad on the attack side. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless further indication of notability outside of the IU-Law-Indy community or the hard-right media should appear. Edeans 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I opposed deletion the first time around, and still do. As far as it being an attack page, unfortunately he made his own mess, that's not the fault of editors. There are some things I could add to the article, guess I'd better get to it. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully we can have a clear, clean, sockpuppet-free consensus this time around :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable, and the references are good. I think the article is somewhat biased, however. Negative things are overemphasized.-MsHyde 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure why this is encyclopedic; isolated faculty incident, recentism applies. --Vsion 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable due to well-publicized controversy. Realkyhick 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Per Realkyhick. --Wehwalt 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per author and salt if necessary. This is completely unencyclopaedic, doesn't garner much notability, and smacks of agenda pushing. Not to mention the author requested deletion. /Blaxthos 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up - I've cleaned up the article, including removing all the dead references. To all those who vote keep, I ask you to try and verify any of the claims in the article. I have no prior knowledge of this professor or the scandal surrounding him, but based on what the article contains now I can't find any verification. Noteable or not, we have to be able to make sure it's true. /Blaxthos 20:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & source after John's addition of a few sources, this appears both notable and verifiable. More sources are needed, but I think that's just a matter of effort. /Blaxthos 17:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since I have commented on several recent AfDs of academics, and this may be a confusing issue: I have no connection to the "David Epstein" who wrote the "web of lies" article referenced by this article. Certainly Bradford seems non-notable from an academic point of view but the part of the article that leaves me undecided about his notability as a whole is the "frequent commentator in local and national media" paragraph. A shorter article that emphasises that part and mentions but does not go on at such length about his academic career would seem an improvement. —David Eppstein 23:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep probably notable as a professor, since I did succeed in documenting the PhD thesis and at least 13 law review articles-- this is a respectable N publication record in law, being more than one per year, regardless of anything else. But certainly seems notable as a fraud. We need someway of mentioning that this has become the subject in many conservative blogs or the sort we do not use for sources, because the use they are making of this case is part of the notability DGG 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThough I'd like to see better references for the text, the notability is established with the current sources. --Kevin Murray 03:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(general comment) I see everyone addressing WP:N... what about the problem with WP:V? /Blaxthos 05:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more citations for the controversy, but I think we also need to verify his expertise, as the journal articles I found were not well cited. John Vandenberg 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't perceive the giant problems with WP:V that you do. It's unfortunate that the Indystar link you removed has gone dead, but it's still available from archive.org, and even if it wasn't, the key information is still confirmed in the "Web of Lies" article. On the most damaging point, the alleged embellishing of his military record, the WP:V sourcing is solid. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources have been added since I raised that concern (enough so that I changed my vote from delete to keep). However, keep in mind that this is an overwhelmingly negative article (though I think it's appropriate), and there are some serious WP:V considerations when posting negative or damaging information in a WP:BLP. I just want to make sure that every claim that is made is solid -- this guy is a lawyer, if nothing else). /Blaxthos 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article has seen some significant improvement. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Controversial but notable. Biophys 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Biophys. Aye-Aye 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 08:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Colchester Junior High[edit]

Not-notable school Wehwalt 01:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, schoolcruft. Edeans 03:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly non notable. --RaiderAspect 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Kolindigo 04:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever.--Hús ö nd 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless having a sewing room is notable. I wish we'd had a sewing room. Sigh. ConDem^Talk 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most schools of this kind have a sewing room, so this is not per se notable. Sorry you didn't have one at your school, though. WMMartin 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gimme a D, gimme an E, gimme an L-E-T-E -- schoolcruft, schoolcruft, rah rah rah! Realkyhick 08:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant data to the Colchester County, Nova Scotia article. RFerreira 08:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Schoolcruft, there's a new one on me. Anyway, this school fails notability criterion. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable — MrDolomite | Talk 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence that this school is notable, and no claim is made that it in any way stands out from its peers. In addition, there are no references. WMMartin 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge + redirect to Chignecto-Central Regional School Board per WP:SCHOOL. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:25Z

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:26Z

Pepper Lim[edit]

Not notable. May be notable some day if he invents a web-based AI that doubles as a doctor, but that would be crystal balling, which wikipedia is not. Deltopia 02:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with non-notable for both the person and the alleged invention; also, the article contains a single link, no references, and the link is to a commercial service thus it feels borderline WP:CORP. Roadmr (t|c) 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Edeans 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Weird - I know this guy. Orderinchaos78 08:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD G1. A Train ^{take the} 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Menkes Syndrome[edit]

"Jack Menkes Syndrome" gets 0 Google hits. The one source provided in the article does not seem to fit Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria (even if it does, it still would not be enough). Scob e ll302 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The source discusses Menkes disease. --N Shar 02:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely hoax... No ghits for the condition and its main researcher happens to play for the New Orleans Saints. Authored by a single use account. Caknuck 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never heard of it, although must admit there is alot I'never heard.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 04:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoaxalicious. Natalie 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Smells like an attack page. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, looks very very hoax-y. Realkyhick 08:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax or vandalism. Note the "discoverer" of this supposed syndrome is in fact an NFL footballer whose own page is currently protected, presumably following vandalism. Jules1975 11:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Street Fighter II V episodes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:27Z

Plot of Street Fighter II V[edit]

Per WP:NOT. Overly bloated plot summary of a series that provides no real world context of the show. It's too bloated to be merged with Street Fighter II V. Jonny2x4 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 02:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Street Fighter II V episodes. The episode list itself will provide the real-world context once it is fully filled out. --Farix (Talk) 02:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 03:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Farix. MalikCarr 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, though it feels like a bit of a waste not to pare this down and merge it. Unfortunately, I've only seen the first four episodes years ago and felt no desire to continue watching after. Snarfies 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:24Z

Japanese Internment camps-positive connotations[edit]

NPOV violation without any previous good versions. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems a little incoherant. Artw 02:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does this need explanation?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleteall of the euphemisms for Japanese American internment are already covered in the Japanese American Internment article. "Positive connotations" doesn't even describe euphemism accurately. This is redundant, and makes no sense.-MsHyde 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant POV rant. Edeans 04:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've never appreciated line breaks and capitalization as much as I do now.Natalie 04:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork and doesnt seem to be a serious attempt at article.. Bwithh 04:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nonsensical and incoherent rant. Orderinchaos78 09:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a OR, unsourced rant. Cornell Rockey 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a patent nonsense rant. In the alternative, delete as an POV original research rant.-- danntm ^T _C 18:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per danntm GabrielF 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 06:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per patent nonsense, and WP:SNOW - Neier 06:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and also a probable CSD-G10 attack page. Dekimasu が... 06:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. MightyAtom 06:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jowharah Jones[edit]

Contested ((prod)). It was contested with a ((hangon)) and I happened to see it while nosing around Canidates for speedy deletion neutral. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely didn't warrant a prod. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this person is clearly notable. Natalie 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per nom Robert Moore 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just about. ConDem^Talk 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely. Notable. Realkyhick 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, it did warrent a PROD... even as the article stand right now she still does not meet WP:BIO from anything I see. Remember, WP:ILIKEIT != notable.--Isotope23 12:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep , it is not helpfull to have articles, no matter how notable the subject, that lack sources and neutral references because we get in conflict with WP:V Alf photoman 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say she meets WP:BIO #6: Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions.. Jones has a visible recurring role on Ugly Betty, a very popular and critically-acclaimed series. Zagalejo 16:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as an actor with a recurring role in a TV series. -- Whpq 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat: Devastation[edit]

Article has had some big problems with crystal balling and verifiability in the past (look through the history). Removing everything that was conjecture and unsourced info leaves one with an extremely meager article, that doesn't even include an official confirmation of it being in production from the studio or games company. Per suggestion of User:Erikster it might be possible to merge some content back to Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. Codemonkey 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- absolute lack of solid production news. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR 03:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently a script is being written, and one person has been cast. That's like writing an article about an upcoming building because someone was buying drafting pens. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I'll have to remember that analogy for future AfDs. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete *sigh* I've worked my ass off to get this article to a decent level (trust me, it was utter shit before), but I have to agree, there's almost nothing going on with this particular project. Damn. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources for any of teh information. -- Whpq 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with either Mortal Kombat (film) or Mortal Kombat: Annihilation until further information is available. While I wish there were reliable sources apart from these [16][17] this movie seems to be stuck in development hell and therefore everything in the article is just pure speculation. ~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion I'd be okay with it being moved into my userspace so that it can continue to be updated if anything actually happens on the project. User:EVula/MK: Devastation would work just fine for me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I had thought of that too. I've copied the entire page here along with some older versions so that we can keep working on it after it's been deleted. ~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While I can only wish a new (and good) film was in the works, we've just had nothing concrete on the matter. Potentially the biggest MK-related rumour since Ermac in MK1. --L T Dangerous 22:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to preserve history instead of deleting. Copying and deleting violates the GFDL because of technical limitations in Mediawiki. — brighterorange (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:23Z

Swindon Parkour Revolution[edit]

Non-notable local group of kids, no encyc. value, no 3rd party coverage, generally nn; prod removed by author w/out explanation. SkierRMH 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like an advertising page or a vanity page. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as the page is about a group and makes no assertion of the group's notability. Natalie 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete.' Non-notable, vanity, self-promo. Realkyhick 08:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete.' Non-notable. - Denny 14:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine McCarthy[edit]

Article does not identify why this person is notable RJFJR 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's nothing to indicate notablity. --RaiderAspect 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possible merge. I think she is a real life character, one of the girls upon whom the 2003 film about the Magdalene laundries was based.-MsHyde 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She was just one of several women from the Magdalene laundry(ies) who told her story. Same applies to Mary Norris and Mary-Jo McDonagh articles. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magdalene laundry in that case. If her notability is solely from another article, her entire entry is support for that article and should be in that article. Alba 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, person on whom a film was partly based does not need her own article.-- danntm ^T _C 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:23Z

List of flops in television[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate, unsourced, unreferenced, requires POV. Otto4711 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unverifiable, POV, crufty. JPG-GR 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Several of the listed shows were commercial or critical failures (or both), but the article is still OR. Edeans 04:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, and thus, unverifiable. Natalie 04:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Bwithh 04:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no inclusion criteria, it's totally POV- I could say that any short-run show I didn't personally like was a flop. SkierRMH 06:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As anything that doesn't make it anywhere in the world could possibly be judged a "flop" (which isn't exactly an encyclopaedic term) this list risks becoming an indiscriminate collection of information as well as all of the other concerns raised above. A show which fails can do so for any number of reasons beyond its worth or content, anyway - Family Guy was technically a flop in its third season, for example. Orderinchaos78 07:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Clean-up It's a good idea if done right (see List of U.S. box office bombs), and I would like somebody to improve it by doing things like sourcing it and coming up with some criteria. TJ Spyke 07:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV, unsourced, arguably incomplete. Realkyhick
Delete. It's a POV call to refer to any of these shows as "flops" since that's a relative term. For example, Wonderfalls was cancelled after 4 episodes but subsequently became a best-selling DVD and was syndicated around the world. Firefly was cancelled quickly and went on to become a movie. This sort of list cannot escape the POV stigma. There is already a list of series cancelled after one episode which basically services the same purpose and does so in a less POV manner. 23skidoo 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, arbitrary, OR list.-- danntm ^T _C 16:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inherenly POV with no clear defined criteria for inclusion -- Whpq 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not salvageable.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too subjective. AdorableRuffian 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G1)--Hús ö nd 04:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Poo[edit]

Fiction and/or not a dictionary AntiVan 03:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- Patent NonsenseJPG-GR
Speedy Delete per JPG-GR. Edeans 04:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article reads too much like an advertisement, and if a new article is to be written, it's probably better to do it from scratch. --Core desat 02:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Family[edit]

This is basically an ad. I can see an article on "home theater" and one on Bose itself, but why cover a particular company's home theater products? A previous AFD tried to delete a bunch of Bose-related articles and got "no consensus" after a very lengthy discussion. Brianyoumans 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose Headphone Family. --Brianyoumans 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or complete rewrite -- subject is notable, but current version reads like a commercial. JPG-GR 03:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Edeans 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article passes WP:CORP so the deletion nomination is to be removed. Proof of this is listed below. here are the requirements as of WP:CORP

A product or service is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
1) The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
- Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary.
- Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
There are many references, here is a very list...
- google "bose lifestyle review" Google Books "Bose Lifestyle" cnet australia Lifestyle 48 cnet australia Lifestyle 38 pcmag Lifestyle 38 zdnet 48 consumerguide lifestyle 12

2) The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization.

I have found no evidence of this.

If the issue is because it has price listed well that doesn't seem to be that unusual inside of wikipedia. Here is an example, I'm going to quickly list Apple Computer articles that have prices included (and some even have Multiple different prices listed) IPod IPod mini IPod photo IPod shuffle IPod nano IPod Hi-Fi Apple Mighty Mouse Xserve RAID ISight Power Mac G5 Xserve MacBook Pro IMac Mac mini IBook MacBook. Hell if you go to Xbox_360#Retail_configurations & PlayStation 3#Release data and pricing they have an entire table dedicated to listing the prices by individual country. If you think that it needs editing then help wikipedia by editing the page -- UKPhoenix79 05:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Are you arguing that every product which is reviewed by places like CNET should get an article? They review thousands of products. I think it is arguable that a particular product should be covered only if it is particularly iconic and unique - the iPod, for instance - and certain Bose products might qualify. This, on the other hand, is just a line of home theater setups, of which there are many. Is this stuff so unique and different that it needs an article? And yes, you are right, there is lots of "Applecruft", and some of it should be removed - not all Apple products are notable. --Brianyoumans 05:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well no, if that was the only place you might have a point, but if you were to check out google "bose lifestyle review" you will see that there are 740,000 pages on the net that meet this criteria. I just gave a small snippet of them. There is also pcmag.com howstuffworks.com audioreview.com reviewcentre.com vanns.com pocket-lint.co.uk (weird name but an actual review cite) consumerguide.com reviewcentre.com etc... etc... There are many more but it is better to use the google link to see for yourself. -- UKPhoenix79 08:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can find 78,000 reviews of the Hoover FloorMate vacuum cleaner. Does that need an article? This is a commercial product, there are going to be reviews out there. Why makes this particularly unique that one can't simply cover it in a line or two in the Bose article? Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a product catalog. --Brianyoumans 09:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are almost 10 times as many reviews out there for these systems... I think that does say something in itself! -- UKPhoenix79 10:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a PR department to generate product reviews does not make a product notable. Where is the press stating that this product had a cultural impact such as Ipod?-MsHyde 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So only the iPod and the walkman should be listed, since it had a "cultural impact"? That is not the official stance from wikipedia where it states that, if it is "the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works whose source is independent of the organization itself, and fulfills the verifiability guidelines, then it is considered notable." -- UKPhoenix79 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability guidelines are guidelines, not rules, and the "multiple non-trivial, reliable published works" part in particular should, I feel, frequently be ignored. It works best as a minimal requirement. I'm sure I can find multiple independent and reliable reviews of quite literally thousands of products. We have to use our common sense here. I think the rough criteria should involve the number of people this product impacts, the uniqueness of the product, the cultural impact, and such. I would be far more impressed with a news article about how these Bose products have changed people's lives. --Brianyoumans 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think that you can even say that an iPod did that. Going with your criteria I believe that only medical or human assisting technology's could qualify. Its not like a iPod could cause someone to breath like an Iron lung, or an entertainment system allowed someone to walk again! Notability is why we have HP LaserJet 2400, Dell n Series, Dell Inspiron, HP series 80, Macromedia JRun, Sony HDR-FX7, Adobe Creative Suite etc, etc... and this was only after a quick search! None of which could pass your high standards but none that should be removed. -- UKPhoenix79 08:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I completely agree with you that most of those should not have Wikipedia articles. The Dell n Series might be notable due to not shipping with Windows. I feel quite certain that the iPod could pass the test I suggested; there have been any number of articles on its social, cultural, and business impact. I also think certain products could pass just due to the ubiquity of their advertising; the Bose "Wave" for instance - what human being in the US has NOT seen one of their magazine ads? OK, some haven't, but a minority, I'm sure... --Brianyoumans 09:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well my point was that they shouldn't be deleted, but thats besides the case. I also think that the Wave systems should have an article but how can they pass with your criteria of life changing products? Now the main reason for this article is to make sure that the official Bose company page is not too large. Because if this was removed they would have to be placed in the main page and just clutter it up. To alleviate this an article was made. This is not an uncommon practice and due to the several 100's of thousands of reviews available on the net I don't think this is too uncalled for. -- UKPhoenix79 09:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't say that a product needed to be life-changing to have an article, I said I would be more impressed with that sort of thing than with reviews. I also disagree that this would add too much content to the Bose article, primarily because I don't see any actual useful content. What should be kept? The pricing? The information about what module does what? I can boil this down to one sentence: Bose also sells home theatre systems which use their ADAPTiQ audio calibration system. That's it, you're done. That's all the encyclopedaic content I see here. --Brianyoumans 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an ad: they even mention "free shipping". This is the kind of stuff that makes people think we're not a real encyclopedia; the information belongs on the company website. WMMartin 06:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a 6 word line that looks like an after thought. So it doesn't really need to be there. But it is NOT talking about the systems but Bose stores and refurbished units in general. -- UKPhoenix79 08:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete because it is after all just an individual group of products and can be adequately covered in the article for the company, etc. Of the references used above to show independent notability, the Google Books one was a list of books that discussed audio systems in general.DGG 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is now. It's like an ad. Should we have article on every Kenmore fridge model? - grubber 19:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is noticeable it should be kept but edited to remove content thought to be ads.--64.240.163.221 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bound Together[edit]

Non-notable fan album, with no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Unlike the articles under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relics of the Chozo, this is not an official project of OverClocked ReMix (hence the separate listing). In addition, the vast majority of this article consists of unverifiable gossip column-type material about the contributors. WarpstarRider 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --RaiderAspect 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 04:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to satisfy the notability guidelines for music. No reliable sources, just primary information and download stats. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A fascinating story about a community endeavour, but if it is incapable of verification or appropriate referencing through being something of an "inside story", it belongs on a web page, not an encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos78 07:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability requirements by WP:MUSIC; most of the article's information is unverifiable. - Chardish 13:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I applaud the communal effort, the problem remains of WP:V and 3rd party coverage. Under WP:MUSIC this wouldn't fly. SkierRMH 21:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is interesting - but interesting does not equal notable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:22Z

Leonard Funeral Home and Crematory[edit]

It's a funeral home. Other than having a crematorium, I can't see any claim to notability, but it survived a previous AFD by being lumped in with a notable cemetery. Brianyoumans 06:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I doubt having a crematorium would make it notable by itself. Orderinchaos78 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "first crematorium in Dubuque" is hardly a claim of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Dweller 15:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. There must be thousands of such funeral homes in North America alone. Alba 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable funeral home. This is what we get for not holding the line at schools, malls, streets and churches. WMMartin 06:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:35Z

Rigorous error analysis[edit]

The article is wrong in that the error analysis presented is not rigorous. It says that the error in f(x) is the derivative f' times the error in x raised to the second power. This is a decent error estimate except that you shouldn't raise the error in x to the second power. However, it is not rigorous; a rigorous error analysis would yield a bound on the error, not an estimate.

I know that an article being wrong is not a reason for deletion according to WP:DP. However, there is nothing left after removing the wrong parts. I don't know what an article "rigorous error analysis" could be about and I don't think that I should write the article just to get some wrong information removed from Wikipedia. Surely, the phrase is used, but in my experience it means just "a error analysis that is rigorous".

Historical note: Article was proposed for deletion by User:Jyotirmoyb but the PROD tag was removed by an IP editor. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to recreation. I can't say I found the text particularly clear. I have no competence to detect or correct any errors in it. I will say that this article seems almost completely free from context, and its wording suggests it may also be a how-to article. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Error analysis and get a member of Wikiproject Mathematics to rewrite the article so that it is correct. Delete. Error analysis has been created. --N Shar 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is already an article at Error analysis so one can't simply move it; it would need to be a merge. But the rigorous error analysis article is completely unsourced, and quite possibly wrong, so the material isn't even suitable for a merge. Note the the current error analysis article that is being cited as a target for the move does provide references. -- Whpq 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That article was created during the discussion. I've changed my vote accordingly. --N Shar 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move, second above suggestion. --Kelsch 13:26 7 February 2007
Delete, there is no evidence that there is anything specific called 'Rigorous error analysis' and this article has no content that might be usable for an article on a more appropriate topic. -Jyotirmoyb 07:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete wrong --Mathemaduenn 11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be orginal research -- Whpq 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I wouldnt like to delete articles because they are not clearly presented, but we do delete articles because they do not provide a meaningful amount of information, as is the case with this one. DGG 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, and there is no evidence (from googling at least) that there is a topic named 'Rigorous error analysis'. CloudNine 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable topic. Errors and residuals in statistics and numerical analysis address this topic adequately. DavidCBryant 21:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Richard Shaw Brown. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:38Z

Queen Sirikit Navaratna[edit]

An article about a necklace. I'm sure it's pretty and all, but the author of the article (also the maker of the necklace), Richard Shaw Brown is basically spamming for his jewelry business here. Herostratus 04:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is some indication that this necklace is part of the Thai royal regalia. Edeans 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author did an admirable job meeting the requirements of WP:V, but completely missed WP:N. janejellyroll 05:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Does not meet notability guidelines. Non-encyclopedic by itself. -- Emana 07:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richard Shaw Brown. The photo is probably worth having there, and this one-sentence article can be boiled down to a caption. —Cel ithemis

A merge may not be a choice at all, because that page has been under fire repeatedly. Mentioning anything related to his current commercial endevours is what got the other page tagged for AfD before. -- Emana 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a notable minor rock star had become a painter and gotten some attention for that, an image of one of his paintings would be relevant, even though he made money from his art. I see no fundamental difference here. The caption should be brief and neutral, of course.

One of the issues in the no-consensus AFD for Richard Shaw Brown was people's inability to find the profile of him in the International Herald Tribune -- unsurprisingly, considering that it had both the wrong title and the wrong date. I did find it in ProQuest Newsstand and corrected the citation. It's all about the gemology, mentioning the band only briefly. There were several other articles mentioning his work as a jeweller/gemologist as well; I have no problem believing there'd be more if I had better access to Thai publications. The section certainly needs cleanup, but it's notable within the context of his life. —Cel ithemis 01:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Richard Shaw Brown. Emana said in another talk that my notability STOPPED with the band. Actually this is the opposite of the recorded facts. To the Richard Shaw Brown page we have 15 references given on post band notability, for example:

He is currently working as a gemologist and designer in Bangkok, Thailand^[1]^[2] ^[3]^[4]^[5] ^[6] ^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13], etc. Brown has 11 published books. He has appeared on television in Thailand 30 times^[14]. Over 200 articles about and also by Brown have been published in various magazines and newspapers in Bangkok, Asia and abroad^[15]

References[edit]

^ Ranard, Andrew (October 31, 1994). "Gemologist Focuses On the Spiritual". International Herald Tribune. p. 20.
^ "The 9 Royal Gems". Bangkok Post Newspaper. December 1, 2006.
^ "Thai Dealers Designs are Out of This World". Jewellery News Asia (Hong Kong). September 1990.
^ Asia Magazine (1992). Cosmic Gemstones. Hong Kong.
^ FOCUS (1991). Astral Fashion with Gemstone Talismans. The Nation Newspaper (Thailand).
^ Sushil Soni (June 1991). The Astral Appeal of gems. Living in Thailand (English) Magazine.
^ Bangkok Gems & Jewellery Magazine (1993). A New Addition to the Crown Jewels of Thailand. BGJ Bangkok.
^ "Profile: Richard S. Brown - "Gem Expert Charts Path to the Stars"". Bangkok Post (Business News). May 19, 1997.
^ "Executive Life Style-The Accidental Gemologist". Singapore Business Times. October 30, 1993.
^ National Jeweler Magazine (1990). Gems Jewelry Looks to the Stars. National Jeweler USA.
^ Colored Stone Magazine (1996). Gemstone Guru. Colored Stone USA.
^ Hong Kong Standard (1988). Exploding Rock Mythology. Hong Kong Standard.
^ Jewelrers’ Circular-Keystone (1991). What's New In Jewelry. JCK USA.
^ "Thai and English TV appearences". Retrieved 2007-01-30.
^ "Magazine and Newspaper Articles about and also by Brown". Retrieved 2007-01-30.

I have a list of many MORE references but it's already overkill. Over 300 articles have been published about Richard Shaw Brown and his work, AFTER the band. So by any standard I am more well known for my work after the band. Best wishes--Rsbj66 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Richard, we appreciate your desire to advertise your work, but Wikipedia is not a business directory... Herostratus 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I hereby change my vote from "delete" to "merge". *Sigh*. I thought Brown's notability stopped with his career as a rock artist, but that is because at first he presented himself to be the draft dodgin' psychedelic with a story to tell. The main problem was a lot of his sources were self-published and those that were not, as Celithemis mentions above, were poorly cited; therefore difficult to verify. After communicating with Brown and re-researching the sources presented by him, it is now my opinion that Brown is more interested in promoting his current career as a gemologist. When he dies, he'll probably be remembered as an gemologist and friend to Hinduism rather than a musician. ONLY TIME WILL TELL - but for the time being, Brown seems to have a lot of insight into India, Hinduism, and Gemology; and he could be of great asset to the Wikipedia community, if he follows Wikipedia guidelines. A merge can save this entry if the destination article stays neutral and free of promotional speech. -- Emana 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MergeDear Emana, can you merge the picture with Richard Shaw Brown and put a caption as you prefer!? Much appreciated. I'm afraid if I put, it will get called original research. Or any other kind hearted soul. If you prefer me to merge it then just tell me how it's done, and how the caption should read. You're my Wikipedia guru--Rsbj66 23:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Shag[edit]

no references in article or on Google MsHyde 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn, spam. Edeans 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Natalie 04:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN spam. janejellyroll 06:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the article is a bit advertisish, but can be fixed with some editting. What is missing appears to be reliable sources, but there are (were) article in major local papers

[18]
[19]
[20] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: those are not articles, they are trivial mentions in local press from press releases.-MsHyde 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam with no secondary sources, their own 'sightings page' lists the three links Whpq supplied along with another one, two of which are from an online publishing... thing which requires readers to actually purchase the rights to read them, the others are just passing mentions. If that's the best secondary sources the company itself can come up with then I'm pretty sure I'll fair no better. I'm sure a WP contributor can build a less promotional article should Green Shag ever reach a wider audience. QuagmireDog 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (no redirect). Bucketsofg 21:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel 25:17[edit]

This article is about a single phrase from the Bible, and the only content which exists here is because of a minor piece of film trivia, which probably wouldn't be kept at Pulp Fiction. We don't need articles about every single Bible verse, and especially when the article has nothing to do with the Bible at all. Haemo 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also occurs to be that we could just redirect to Book of Ezekiel, but I don't really see why, since not every Bible verse needs a redirect. --Haemo 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's actually already in Pulp Fiction. —Cel ithemis 04:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect either to Book of Ezekiel or to Pulp Fiction, if only to discourage its recreation. Failing that, delete. Natalie 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's unencyclopedic to redirect a Bible verse to a movie, but redirecting to Book of Ezekiel could be OK. —Cel ithemis 06:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per redundancy with Pulp Fiction, which is the first place the curious would inspect for such information. Orderinchaos78 07:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy, with Pulp Fiction... also per the fact that we don't need an article about every single Bible verse. --Candy-Panda 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pulp_Fiction#Jules.27_Bible_passage. Anyone looking for the real Ezekiel 25:17 is unlikely to be using Wikipedia. And as our article there gives useful links onwards for any stray biblical scholars, they should be OK. --Dweller 15:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a pretty strong indictment of wikipedia. You may be right, but it certainly supports the conclusion that many people may have about the overall value of this project or that it cannot be taken seriously. I would redirect to the actual bible chapter, not a movie. Agent 86 20:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Dweller. As others have noted, the article has nothing to do with Ezekiel as such. YechielMan 16:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. - grubber 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:21Z

Shake rag music[edit]

Non-notable music group, fails WP:Music, 60 google hits, nothing at allmusic.com Montco 04:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no assertion of notability, and no real information. Natalie 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Natalie. Edeans 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context, no assertion of notability, only sources are on Geocities. ShadowHalo 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Disambiguate. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:17Z

Opposite sex[edit]

This isn't really an article about anything. There's nothing that could be included here which isn't already in other articles on gender, discrimination, etc. ConDem^Talk 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A dictionary definition fleshed out with material better treated elsewhere. That table may be the funniest thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. —Cel ithemis 05:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the table was great. That almost saved it. ConDem^Talk 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Gender. And send table to BJAODN.--Hús ö nd 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Disambiguate per Mister Manticore.--Hús ö nd 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Sorry, I reverted the table. It can still go to BJAODN, though. --N Shar 05:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The table has been BJAODN'd. --N Shar 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gender per above. Table is worthy addition to BJAODN :) Orderinchaos78 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As Orderinchaos78 said, Table is worthy addition to BJAODN :)! lol I totally agree. Mathmo ^Talk 10:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. But I should point out there were no sources cited for that table. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ per WP:OR, because the table is original research (as Sjakkalle rightly said, it isn't sourced). If someone can perhaps source the table, I would say speedy keep. (the table is a great addition to BJAODN) Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate per Mister Manticore Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 07:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per aboce, and my goodness that table is a hoot. -- Whpq 17:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig per FrozenPurpleCube. The presence of the other articles means we should provide a disambig page. -- Whpq 22:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate While a redirect to Gender isn't a problem, I do think given the Opposite Sex (TV series), The Opposite Sex, even The Opposite of Sex, it would be appropriate to make this a disambig page instead of redirecting. I would include an entry to Gender though. FrozenPurpleCube 18:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per above. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per above reasoning. This is a reasonable search term, just not a reasonable article. -- nae'blis 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for crying out now, can't you deletionist just do some bold edit of redirect and get on with it?! 154.5.47.4 09:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're waiting for a consensus on this (i.e, we're waiting for this to be closed) before we disambiguate this. Let's keep civil now shall we? Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong}
Disambiguate great candidate for dab page. - grubber 19:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per FrozenPurpleCube. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:39Z

Jason Baffa[edit]

I've got to hand it to User:Beonwikipedio for creating one of the dumbest usernames in the history of this project, and making it a "dead giveaway" that there might be a problem with this article. Basically, Mr. Baffa fails WP:BIO because all he did was produce one lousy film that never became famous. I am also nominating that film:

Delete - Unless the asserted "international acclaim" is sourced. Tikiwont 10:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:16Z

Lowndes High School[edit]

No assertion of notability. ConDem^Talk 05:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally high schools are not all that bad subjects for articles provided we find something to write about them. But apart from external links, the content here is "Lowndes High School is a public high school in Lowndes County, Georgia." That does not qualify as an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sjakalle knows what he's talking about. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly useless schoolcruft. Edeans 00:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable school. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but because there is no other content besides what is currently there, all schools are notable. --Mjrmtg 16:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've advocated keeping other school articles, but it seems to me that this one doesn't clear the notability bar. Sorry. WMMartin 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:41Z

Jason McCracken[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. He was prodded, but the prod tag was removed because the fellow did exist and was not a hoax. However, his notability is not asserted. YechielMan 05:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the man is certainly real and has won some award[21], though the low Google hits: "Jason McCracken" Umpire make me wonder if there is are any sources for WP:V that would make this article go beyond a stub size. I'm remaining neutral. —Mitaphane _?|! 06:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now, there should be additional neutral sources conforming WP:V Alf photoman 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability indicated. Edeans 00:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many, if not most, people have won some award. I don't believe this article alleges notability or meets BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Blatant hoax = vandalism ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monosploidal Fractal Theory[edit]

Suspected Hoax Joe Decker 05:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. Nominator's analysis on the talk page is very clear and correct. This is a hoax. (Oh, how I wish we could speedy hoaxes.) --N Shar 06:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Afterlife for this article. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atheist fictional characters[edit]

Most of this is original research and unsourced. List items are based on subjective judgment by editors as to the supposed atheistic nature of movies, books, etc. List criteria are vague, poorly defined, and overbroad, making the list an indiscriminate collection of information. In any case, a list of atheists in fiction ought to begin as a subsection of the main List of atheists. Nick Graves 05:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Subheaders like "Books that generally are atheist in nature, although the main characters are not outwardly atheist," etc, are absurd and contrary to guidelines for lists. If it is kept, all OR should be eliminated. janejellyroll 05:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List needs more sources, but that's not criteria for deletion. Mark cleanup or wikify, possibly. Citicat 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Lack of sources is but one problem with this list. The main problem is that the list is original research, which is a criterion for deletion. Nick Graves 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft - why exactly is this stuff needed or interesting? Also subjective and potentially endless - is any book or other fiction where the characters don't express their religious views eligible? --Brianyoumans 06:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR magnet, and indiscriminate collection of information - if the characters have no other thing in common and even that can't be verified, it's unlikely to be useful to readers. Orderinchaos78 07:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced OR. Also inaccurate in that a number of the examples I spotted during just a quick glance at the list were of shows and/or characters said to be critical or skeptical of God. As theologians will tell you, that's not the same as being a true athiest. A (sourced) list of characters whose athiesm is a primary motivator -- as in that's what their character is all about -- might work, but I see too many POV judgement calls in this one. 23skidoo 13:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced original research, and a completely arbitrary and indiscriminate list.-- danntm ^T _C 15:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename to List of fictional atheists to be in line with List of fictional Catholics and List of fictitious Jews. Problem with that is that you'd need to rewrite the whole thing after that. The current version seems full of debatable statements about what TV shows are atheist or not.--T. Anthony 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination & Danntm Cornell Rockey 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I started the page, and I'd like to point out that Wikipedia already had a Category:Fictional atheists before I made my page. Why didn't that get deleted? I incorporated all names in that Category list. It's a good page, but I admit that I list some works in the first few sections that can be removed. Still, if you have 'List of fictional jews' and 'list of fictional catholics', you can have a fucking list of fictional atheists. And no, to address the question above, you can't just list a character if he/she never expressed belief in god- you have to cite an example of the char. saying something atheist or the like.

If you guys delete this page while allowing 'list of fictional catholics' or 'list of fictional jews', it'll seem like Wikipedia is biased against atheism. Why allow those two pages if you aren't going to allow mine? Because fictional atheists aren't relevant enough?

Fucking religiously-biased fuckers. I thought Wikipedia was above that shit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewdt85 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Comment: Please note that nominator is an atheist, and anti-atheist bias was not a motivation for nomination, but rather concern over the original research content of the list, which is counter to Wikipedia's policy. A list of fictional atheists might be appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but the list as currently written violates WP:NOR. Deletion or a drastic rewrite with proper sourcing is needed. Nick Graves 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if properly sourced. This is the kind of thing that during CfD we tend to say "delete category and listify". If every name on the list is properly referenced with an external source identifying the character as an atheist, then it can stay. Don't just pick sources that interpret the characters as atheist. We need to know that the original source of the characters clearly identify them as such. Otherwise, you'll also get into an atheist-or-agnostic debate about each. Doczilla 20:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even a cursory glance demonstrates that this article is entirely unsourced OR and based only on one or more authors' impressions of what might or might not be "atheistic in nature." -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that for something to be verifiable, it means that a person can go look in a book or other media and see that the info is true. On the page, I claim that certain characters say certain things in episodes of certain shows- a person reading it could go check for themselves if they wished. So why do I need to link to the proof for it to be verifiable? It's not like every fact in every article of Wikipedia has a cite to go along with it- some info is just stated, because the author knows people can go find the support for the info in a book or other media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewdt85 (talk • contribs)

Andrewdt85, the problem is not that the things you cite aren't true. No one doubts that in X episode of Family Guy, Y character said Z. However, what you have done in this article is synthesized a lot of statements, events, and sources into an interpretation that is not, in and of itself, verifiable in third party sources.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost entirely OR, unsourced. Needs a major re-write, which, given the attitude display here by those concerned with editing it, will never happen. --Haemo 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of atheists for notable atheist characters. IMHO, a single page would be better maintained and be more clearly focused. Requiring sources or cleanup is not a criteria for deletion, only for improvement of the article. --h2g2bob 05:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:NOR was the primary concern here, and is a criterion for deletion of an article. Lack of sources is not a criterion for deletion of an article, but it is grounds for deletion of any material within an article that remains unsourced. If the article were merged, the vast majority of it would be deleted from List of atheists for being unsourced. I agree that potential content on fictional atheists would be better maintained on the main list, at least until size concerns justify splitting the list. Nick Graves 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Even if the OR were removed (essentially removing the content of the article), a list stemming from this topic is stupid and unmanageable. The existence of similar stupid and unmanageable lists elsewhere on wikipedia is an argument for deletion of those, not for retention of this.--OinkOink 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep If there can be a List of fictional Catholics and List of fictitious Jews, why not atheists? Seems pretty biased to me. I say that if you don't keep, then you must delete this, and List of fictional Catholics, List of fictitious Jews and any similar articles. Obviously this article needs significant cleanup, but that isn't ground for deletion. A merge with List of atheists is also a possibility, but then you'd have to merge fictional catholics to list of catholics, etc. Arnesh 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I reiterate that the primary grounds for deletion is the original research content of the article, which is a criterion for deletion in Wikipedia policy. I don't think anyone here has objected to creation of a List of fictional atheists that is not original research and which is well-sourced. There is no double standard. If List of fictional Catholics and List of fictitious Jews were primarily composed of original research, they would be appropriate candidates for deletion too. Merging of the small amount of properly sourced content of the List of Atheist fictional characters with the main List of atheists is in no a way binding precedent for merger of other lists of fictional religious adherents with lists of real-life religious adherents. If kept, significant cleanup of this list would involve deletion of most of the material. Nick Graves 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no really reason to delete.Biophys 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, there are reasons to delete, given above. I take it you disagree with all of them. Can you elaborate on why you think the given reasons are invalid? Nick Graves 00:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. CSD A7 -- Gogo Dodo 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lils[edit]

Nonsense article. Speedy tag was removed by an IP editor without explanation. janejellyroll 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G1 Citicat 06:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1. Obvious case of nonsense. YechielMan 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1/A7 Orderinchaos78 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:43Z

JEFF[edit]

Apparently fails WP:BAND. Trying to read articles like this one makes me feel inadequate, because I really don't understand what it's talking about. What I do understand is that there's not much to understand. YechielMan 05:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't worry about the colourful prose, what I normally do if I can't find seemingly independent references on Google is check Amazon and/or leading record stores in country of origin if not US, if ever in doubt. I did so and all I found was a seller-created page with no sales rank. Clearly fails WP:BAND. Orderinchaos78 06:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found one news article which interviewed the band. The itnerview documents they have been on an east coast tour (of the US), so it appears there has been no national tour. I'm not able to finsd any other articles from reliable sources and none are given in the article, so it fails WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. -- Whpq 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two things in this article made me laugh: "underage punk scene" (is there now an age of consent for being in a punk band?!) and "airplay from college radio to BBC 1" (BBC One is a British television channel, they aren't in the habit of playing albums!) AdorableRuffian 23:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:44Z

Kumbra Chonk[edit]

This article was listed as a sub-listing of another article for deletion (original discussion here), it has maintained the up for deletion tag for some time. The article states no claim for notability, or a clear explanation of what the subject actually is. Google finds nothing other than Wikipedia. Citicat 06:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. I suspect WP:HOAX. Even if it does exist, clearly no sources exist about it. Mitaphane _?|! 06:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no notability here. A geo stub for Kumbra as a village in Punjab state would be OK. Mereda 14:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 14:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Crash and burn. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of skateboarders[edit]

I'm nominating this list because it's a magnet for nonnotable wannabes to add their names (or their friends' names etc.). More than two-thirds of the names on the list are unverified redlinks. We already have Category:Skateboarders (sorry, I don't know how to do the link), and that should suffice. YechielMan 06:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and nom. Perhaps a list of just Pro Skateboaders would be good, however adding "notable" skateboarders to the list turns it into a unmanageable mess. Mitaphane _?|! 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and populate Category:Skateboarders if necessary. Orderinchaos78 06:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and redundant with Category:Skateboarders. Most of those unsourced redlinks have been there since the original version. Dave6 07:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I monitor the list very precisely and remove any non-notables. Since a list has red entries it is a good place to start a new article.--KoRnholio8 08:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if all the redlinks are removed Cats and lists can co-exist and are synergistic. A cat can only display in alpha order, a list can be grouped say by country, dates, championships, etc. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this version. Way too broad a subject for a list. Steve, above, brings up a good point, but I think that pretty much demands more specific list topics, rather than a blanket "list of skateboarders" which in theory could invite any kid with a board to add their name. (Resulting in ongoing maintenance required). Perhaps a "List of PROFESSIONAL skateboarders" or something like hat could be created. 23skidoo 13:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I feel a 'List of professional skateboarders' could prove unstable, as there'd be kids putting themselves in because they feel they are pros, and then there'd be others removing their rivals or somesuch... just a loose thought. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wouldn't be any less stable than other lists about popular subjects. So long as the list is monitored by interested editors, unreferenced and inappropriate entries would presumably be removed in a timely fashion. Dugwiki 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are millions of skateboard users. An open list of people who do anything commonly thought of as "cool", would attract the whole wannabeehive and all sorts of junk. Anthony Appleyard 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's with the attitude? The explanation on the list cleary states that there are only professional and amateur skateboarders. You can remove notable if you wish. The list survived vandalism long enough before anyone decided it was a candidate for deletion. Please, if anyone wishes to contribue to skateboarding coverage on Wikipedia, please skateboard at least 5 years before you do so and get educated about the subject.--KoRnholio8 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided it is restricted properly There may be millions of skateboard users, but only a handful of people will have skateboarding verifiably and notably mentioned in their article (eg professional and amateur competitive skateboarders like Tony Hawk). Provided the list is properly restricted to only articles which have referenced, notable comments about the person skateboarding, there's nothing wrong with this list. Also, note that it is quite acceptable to have both a list AND a category, since lists and categories serve slightly different purposes and reader audiences. Thus Category:Skateboarders does not negate the potential usefulness of a corresponding list. (For example, a list of skateboarders can provide auxilliary information like where the skateboarder resides, and in what context they are associated with skateboarding, such as a competitive boarder, or a person who designs skateboards, etc.) Dugwiki 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. And one awash in red ink at that. Edeans 00:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and populate categories of existing articles as proposed. If this list provided any kind of context I would cast my vote differently, but alas it does not. (jarbarf) 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the list provides nothing more then a cat. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One could start a wikiproject on skateboarding (or X-sports) and move the list there. --Vsion 05:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This project is in the making for some time now. Don't know when it's going to be done.--KoRnholio8 07:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:45Z

Augusta High School (Kentucky)[edit]

User:209.209.140.19 has nominated this page and Augusta Independent Schools for deletion by adding the template to those pages, without actually specifying the reason on this page. The discussion on the Talk page indicates that the AfD is because the school board does not like the content in them, and would like to see the pages disappear. Vees 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a valid reason to delete a good article. Vees 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The school does not want it on a public website. This should be put onto the school's website. (Aaronl23 19:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete-If both the school and the author (Aaronl23) do not want it on here, then it should be deleted. (Chickendog456 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment Chickendog456 has a total of one edit, and it's on this AfD page. Vees 14:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School is notable, school and/or writer do not own the article. Changes made yesterday to the article should address the school's concerns anyway - it previously included an unencyclopaedic list of current school officials down to the level of PE teachers and subject aides. Orderinchaos78 06:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been presented. Content submitted to Wikipedia is licensed under the GDFL and need not be removed merely at the request of interested parties. Official policy states: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --N Shar 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well then delete it. Because from this point on any edits I plan on doing to this article, will be posted on another site. If I had known what I know now I would never have put this on this website. (Aaronl23 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete This article should be deleted. There is no reason why Wikipedia should not reserve the author's rights and the school's. (209.209.140.19 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment What if this was copy written content then? (Aaronl23 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  - - - Comment I believe that this may be in violation of copy right? And so what if that was my first edit? I rarely, if ever decide to edit and I also think this may be in violation of copy right. (Chickendog456 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. If rewrites are needed, then rewrite, but deletion is not necessary for addressing editing concerns. Is there an accusation of copyright violation? I didn't see any of this content on the school's web page, but would be happy to see sources- any copyrighted material should of course be removed or rewritten, but that still doesn't require the deletion of the whole article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not on the school's website. It is a book called "History of Educational Institutions in Augusta, KY" written by W.H. Hanson. The book contains all of the article along with the superintendents and principals prior to 1977. The only thing that is not in violation is the facts section that shows the present athletics and other various things. (Chickendog456 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Reply to comment All copyrighted material should be deleted or rewritten and cited to that book, I agree- thanks for providing the source. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It might as well be deleted then because it is a bit of controversy. You are welcome, it took some digging to get to the bottom of this (Chickendog456 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per User:Silensor/Schools reasonOo7565 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is quite interesting that this book ("History of Educational Institutions in Augusta, KY" written by W.H. Hanson" - searches by name or title), is not in any of the State of Kentucky's public libraries, [22], it is not in the Univ of KY database [23] it is not in the US Library of Congress Database [24], nor available at any of the major retailers. I believe it would be beneficial to see proof that this book actually exists before anything is removed from the article.SkierRMH 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a local book. It is very clear that it would not be in print. Why would anyone want to read "History of Education Institutions in Augusta, KY" that would live in Hawaii? (209.209.140.19 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, OR, possible copyright vio, nn. Nice pics, tho. Edeans 00:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Such a book would be a small-press, local publication, so I remain neutral on the question of whether the book exists. Any user is welcome to edit the page, and copyright violations should certainly be rewritten and cited. But none of that has anything to do with deletion- they're reasons to improve the article, not to delete it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all material claimed to be a copyright violation from the (actually) existing publication A history of educational institutions in Augusta, Kentucky, which appears to be a doctoral dissertation, written in 1952 at the University of Cincinnati.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because nobody's made an argument that I can buy for a reason to delete. Philippe Beaudette 04:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we are going to have articles on high schools, and I guess we are, then this is as good as any. I see no reason why we should heed the school board. We're not under their jurisdiction, and they have no right to control how they are viewed through outside sources. What's next, Microsoft demanding we delete or edit their article?--Wehwalt 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable — MrDolomite | Talk 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when we press that save button, we license our contributions to wikipedia. if the book is on google books, or someone will mail copies of the book to many libraries, we may be able to judge it as copyvio, but just because someone dislikes history, that doesn't mean it should disappear.DUBJAY04 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of good history Fotografico 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is lots of good information and pictures on these articles and it is one of the "better" school articles on Wikipedia. Hdt83 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
merge and stubbify but merge the two articles as 90% of the material repeats. The book is a MA Thesis from the University of Cinncinati, as listed in Dissertation Abstracts. it exists only at that University, and only in typescript; -- the record in the University of Cincinnati Library is http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/37660424?page=frame&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuclid.uc.edu%2Fsearch%2Fo37660424&title=University+of+Cincinnati&linktype=opac&detail=CIN%3AUniversity+of+Cincinnati%3AAcademicd. I suggest going instead to http://uclid.uc.edu/ and searching for it. There is a discussion of whether to use manuscript sources on the WP:RS discussion page; for this, I do not consider it an RS, but more important it has been guessed that nobody will go to Cincinnati to check the manuscript copy against the aticle. It will be a nice example of how gullible we are at WP, because the style is very unlikely. Since the history does look interesting , a stub would be justified.

I understand why the author wants to remove it; he has presumably thought better of his copyvvio, and he should just admit it and let us get rid of the articles on that basis or merge and stubbify. I congratulate him on his ingenuity. DGG 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a copyvio, delete without prejudice. In general, I would also suggest a delete, as much of the information appears to be vanity, indicating a run-of-the-mill institution with nothing that really stands out. This is not, of course, to endorse the board's request. Chris cheese whine 07:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation. I think Chris's reasoning is pretty much right, and it matches my own thoughts. Although the article is full of content, it seems to me that notability is neither asserted nor evident: though the school has a history, it is in practical terms no different from any of its peers. There is no reason for me, as an outsider, to regard this school as worth knowing about, and that's what notability is all about. WMMartin 19:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All schools are notable - even ones in Kentucky. Yuut 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as any "vanity" issues can be worked out through the collaborative editing process. Yamaguchi先生 07:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yamaguchi, etc. --Myles Long 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:45Z

Augusta Independent Schools[edit]

User:209.209.140.19 has nominated this page and Augusta High School (Kentucky) for deletion by adding the template to those pages, without actually specifying the reason on this page. The discussion on the Talk page indicates that the AfD is because the school board does not like the content in them, and would like to see the pages disappear. Vees 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a valid reason to delete a good article. Vees 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, school board and/or author of content do not own the page. Orderinchaos78 06:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion has been presented, and the nominator has abandoned the nomination. --N Shar 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nomination was lodged by an anonymous editor who did not complete the process - Vees and myself repaired the nomination and listed it here for debate. Orderinchaos78 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I completed their nomination because I would like to see the complaint resolved by consensus as quickly as possible. Vees 14:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the better school articles, does show notablity/historicity, but does need to be cleaned up a bit. Also, if the School Board has issues, let them deal with it elsewhere, Orderinchaos78 is correct on the WP:OWN issue! (and suspect some animosity/COI with User:Aaronl23, given the edit history) SkierRMH 23:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the school does not want it on there, it is about their school system so they have a right to make a fuss about it. SkierRMH you need to do a little brushing up on your politics with school systems (209.209.140.19 00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment To this anon commenter - local politics in school systems is totally irrelevant! WTF does a local school board have to say about internet content that's not theirs (under their definite/specific jurisdiction). Do they think that they can limit free speech about their schools, especially on a world-wide basis? As long as there's nothing libelous, copyvio, etc., contrary to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, it's free game. (And, remember in the US, there's a thing called the U.S. Constitution (See the First amendment), that might just apply). FURTHERMORE, as a reminder - content submitted to Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and need not be removed merely at the request of interested parties. Official policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles states: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." You might want to brush up on reading the bottom of every edit page before making irrelevant and basically incorrect statements like that. SkierRMH 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP is not under the jurisdiction of the school board, who has no right to control outside sources. Let them edit in the fray of Wikipedia like everyone else, and see what evolves. WP should not be censored.--Wehwalt 15:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not notable school — MrDolomite | Talk 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and stubbify Ive explained the source in the discussion of the other article--it is either a copyvio or a rewrite from a University of Cincinnati unpublished typescript Masters Thesis. DGG 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --Im personally disappointed by the actions of User:DGG as an admin. It seems s/he has suggested that this is a copyvio of the previously mentioned book to the author of the article. Im not an expert, but it seems to me that if this is an a University of Cincinnati unpublished typescript Masters Thesis as stated by DGG, then Wikipedia would have full copyrights under GFDL because User:Aaronl23 chose to use Wikipedia this as his forum to publish verifiable information (versus OR which a Master's candidate wouldn't risk). And a few great pictures to boot. I think this entry should be nominated for a featured article, to quash any AfD debate and to show what a notable school entry should be.DUBJAY04 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's assuming that User:Aaronl23 is the author of the thesis, though. If not, it's still (potentially) a copyvio. It is entirely possible that the user is in fact the author -- I know of 75-year-olds who are conversant with the Internet -- but the writing style does seem rather different from the earliest version by the same user. I can't consider DGG's suspicions unfounded or his actions (as an admin or otherwise) disappointing -- we absolutely should be using caution when it comes to potential copyright infringements. Shimeru 06:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is neither claimed nor evident. WMMartin 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an excellent article and the school does appear to be notable, in my opinion. Yamaguchi先生 07:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Birchall[edit]

Completely fails WP:BIO. The speedy tag was moved by another user on their very first edit so I'm bringing it here. janejellyroll 06:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:BIO, CSD A1 and A7. Orderinchaos78 06:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 (WP:BIO)Dave6 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no real assertion of notability. -- Whpq 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Sometimes WP:SNOW is red. We already deleted this and reviewed it, if this is not an end-run around process then it's a re-creation out of process of material deleted by consensus. The community has spoken, and with pretty much one voice it has said "no". Guy (Help!) 20:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JewsDidWTC.com[edit]

Neutral I'm not sure if this would qualify to be speedy deleted or not, so I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and bring it up for discussion here. --Адам12901 ^Talk 06:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The creator of the AFD hasn't even provided a reason for deletion, and notability has been established. --HideandLeek 06:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HideandLeek is the creator of this article, and — HideandLeek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (56 edits) SkierRMH 07:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I am. How is this relevant? --HideandLeek 07:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:COI. JuJube 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G1, A1 and A7 (WP:WEB). Orderinchaos78 06:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy a single apperance on CNN, along with other websites, is not notability. For that matter, we should give an article to that video of a cat in the pet washer -- feb^talk 07:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean there isn't one already?! Man, I got some work to do! --Адам12901 ^Talk 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, repost of speedy deleted article JewsDidWTC, whose deletion review request was withdrawn. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone puts up a parody/trolling site on the web. Then CNN does a report on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but the reporters don't do their homework and they end up referencing a site run by the GNAA instead of a genuine anti-semitic group. Does this make the trolling site notable? Probably not. Also, I'm not seeing any evidence that what's on Youtube is something that CNN actually aired, as opposed to something that someone else spliced together. Dave6 07:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis brings up an interesting point, the video on youtube is VERY choppy and poor quality -- feb^talk 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article is anti-semetic and related to the GNAA. --HideandLeek 07:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' First of all, those aren't reasons to remove an article. Secondly, you've already voiced your opinion above. Thirdly, why are you voting against your own decision? WP:POINT? -- feb^talk 07:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (-ish) per HdeandLeek (reason in first vote not second! Crazy that I should have to say that...). Though I shall say I do wonder about HideandLeek's motives here.... Hmmm... Mathmo ^Talk 10:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial website --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 11:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:WEB Alex Bakharev 12:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few sentences about a blink-and-you'll-miss-it website, mentioned on one news channel once. says nothing about why the site is notable. Totnesmartin 14:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one mention on CNN satisfy the does not multiple coverage requirement of WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 14:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. Argyriou (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the strongest possible terms. The appearance on CNN is not sufficient to establish notability or credibility. There are so many conspiracy theory websites about 9/11, such as Reopen911.com and Whatreallyhappened.com, and you can see from the redlinks that they don't have articles. Also, it's POV in a blatantly disgusting way. YechielMan 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http:// www. jewsdidwtc. com/ and http:// jewsdidwtc. com/ (which are both on Wikipedia's spam blacklist) both exist and have identical contents. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 18:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the recent endorsements of deletion of Gay Nigger Association of America and Jewsdidwtc, both discussing the CNN story and rejecting it as a basis for reposting the article(s). NawlinWiki 19:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per YechielMan. JuJube 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Trolling site with no real evidence of notability given, and was just recently up on WP:DRV. WarpstarRider 22:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where's the notability? _SUBWAYguy 05:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost Very recent DRV request of equivalent article was withdrawn Bwithh 00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to assert notability. --- RockMFR 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:46Z

The Nellie Olesons[edit]

Vanity article about a non-notable sketch comedy group. Their only real claims to fame are winning the Audience Award for Best Short Video at Outfest in 1997 and headlining a Gay & Lesbian Comedy Festival called Outlaugh!. Complete lack of citations aside, neither of which appear to be major claims. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've just added several sources found by Googling, which are mostly show announcements and thus not really much per se, but in accumulation they seem to suffice. Duja► 12:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple independent reviews -- Whpq 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - marginal notability is still notability. Wikipedia is not impoverished by this article. Aye-Aye 23:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyvio. Viridae ^Talk 10:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Tiefenbacher[edit]

Delete - Who says this makes him notable? Avi 07:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. riana_dzasta 08:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly? The author did not. Speedy delete. MER-C 08:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability asserted with this: "In 2002 he founded the High Potentials Society to bring together people with high intelligence to an international platform", however I can't find any reason why he is actually notable. Viridae ^Talk 10:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete becaus of WP:C. Alternatively, delete because of NN sicne also the High Potentials Society has been deleted, so it cannot establish notability. Tikiwont 10:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The other article was deleted by prod. The NN reason is invalid - however it was a copyvio, so I have deleted it as such. Viridae ^Talk 10:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:47Z

List of cryonicists[edit]

This has been prodded, deprodded, and speedied. It's also been blanked by an IP address that doesn't seem to know about the deletion templates. In all cases someone removed the tag or reverted the blanking. Taking it to AFD to find a consensus. Dave6 07:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the "See also" section of the Cryonics article. A list with only two items doesn't need to have its own page. --Kyoko 11:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term is not well-defined, and the small number of entries are already covered by Category:Cryonics Cryobiologist 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cryobiologist. Edeans 00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:49Z

Nicholas Rockefeller[edit]

This person is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. In any case, nothing verifiable in the article so far suggests that he is. Thomas Basboll 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about this fellow other than his illustrious surname as the article stands.--KenWalker | Talk 09:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT delete It seems Nicholas Rockefeller is one of the people the director Aaron Russo says had foreknowledge of 9/11 events. Russo explicitly mentions this in a documentary Aaron Russo: The Architecture of the Prison Planet available from http://www.ac911t.org. An extract of the docu with the reference to Rockefeller can be quickly reviewed at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&hl=en 13:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Do NOT DeleteNicholas Rockefeller is at the center of organizations seeking to require national ID cards, loss of personal data privacy, monitoring and surveillance via special cell phone technologies, and loss of cash as a vehicle of currency exchange among other Big Brother agendas. To refer to him or his activities as "nothing notable" is ludicrous. Of even greater curiosity is the fact that the name of Nicholas Rockefeller is NOT listed among the family tree members of The Rockefeller Family (decendants of John D. Rockefeller) shown at Wikipedia, although Nicholas Rockefeller is a prominent member of many organizations owned or controlled by the Rockefeller family. Who are the parents of Nicholas Rockefeller? When and where was he born? [removed, per WP:BLP] Nicholas Rockefeller told Aaron Russo 11 months BEFORE 9-11 that an "event' was soon to occur that would cause the US to invade Afghanistan, then Iraq. [removed, per WP:BLP]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.205.51 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(A passage of evidence for NR's notability posted here has been moved to the talk page. removed from vote page.)

Note: if there were a reliable source behind these claims then all would be in order. NR could be added to Rockefeller family article, and his parents could be identified in this article. (Just being a member of that family would, to my mind, constitute notability.) We simply don't have a reliable source to support any of these claims. That is, we don't know that they are true.--Thomas Basboll 20:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absent unsupported conspiracy cruft, not notable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 00:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have absolutely zero documentation that Nicholas Rockefeller is a seventh or eighth cousin - or even related to any of the famous Rockefellers in the most distant way. - Nunh-huh 14:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There actually exists documentation where David Rockefeller names Nicholas Rockefeller as a seventh or eight cousin. The source is: The Wall Street Journal. 28 September 2005 --Rubyscube 11:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The WSJ says, "Nicholas Rockefeller declined to say where in the Rockefeller family he fits. But the family's patriarch, David Rockefeller, said through an associate that he doesn't recall ever meeting Nicholas. The relationship 'is probably quite distant, seventh or eighth cousins,' according to the associate, Peter Johnson." Not quite "absolute zero" but also not quite "documentation", IMHO.--Thomas Basboll 11:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ey, misread that a bit. --Rubyscube 11:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not documentation, at all. No documents whatsoever are involved. An offhand comment about a "probable" relationship would be discarded as "evidence" by even the most amateur genealogist. - Nunh-huh 15:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Nicholas Rockefeller, J.D. - Chairman of Rockefeller Pacific, former Managing Partner at RockVest, a Rockefeller family investment vehicle, permanent member of the U.S. Council of Foreign Relations, Advisory Board member of RAND, head of Perkins Coie's Asia Pacific Practice Group. J.D. from Yale University. (source: http://www.webinaction.com/tcg/team.html)

Still not up to the "notable" terms? --Rubyscube 12:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article mentions nothing that suggests being "notable" to me. - grubber 19:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moderator Thomas Basboll said earlier on this page that "Just being a member of that family would, to my mind, constitute notability." + the page I just mentioned (http://www.webinaction.com/tcg/team.html) asserts that he was the "Managing Partner at RockVest, a Rockefeller family investment vehicle" So.. Rockefeller as surname, and former highranking partner in a Rockefeller family investment vehicle. But no links however to the Rockefeller family? Seems logical. --Rubyscube 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Having a certain last name is not enough to establish notability to me. - grubber 17:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:50Z

IndianaHighSchoolGameday[edit]

High school website. Article contains little assertion of notability, and doesn't meet the guidelines set out by WP:WEB. riana_dzasta 08:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable website. Dave6 08:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no assertion of notability. Quite literally something made up in school one day. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete not something made up in one school day, quite a hit in southern Indiana. Leave it to the WikiNerds to know nothing about a good sports site. IndianaHighSchoolGameday
- I know this is frustrating for you, but insulting us and calling us "Wikinerds" is not going to convince people to keep the article.Sarah 14:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, made a wrong generalization I was just offended by the "made up in school one day" comment, due to the amount of time we have put into this. IndianaHighSchoolGameday 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind showing how this site happens to be notable, then? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Come back if something interesting happens. Edeans 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've been profiled by the Mitchell Times and the BNL Star, and the Bloomington South Optimist. Why don't you guys focus on deleting things like Sara Jay or do you want this to be a porn directory? Indianahighschoolgameday 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sara Jay has been deleted before, and it will probably be deleted again, as it fails to meet our criteria for inclusion for porn stars. If you can provide sources in the article itself, not here, and beef it up, there'll be no reason to delete the page. riana_dzasta 10:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love it, guys. I was on the basketball team at South Knox and this AFD really grabbed my heart. I'd love to support the local young people with this endeavour but sadly the site just doesn't meet website notability guidelines per WP:WEB. Delete, sorry, guys. Sarah 14:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if mentioned on the Colbert Report, HS websites are not notable. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, look I'm sorry, the BNL Star and Bloomington South papers do not have webpages, and I can't find it on the other. We're ran by aspiring sports editors and we have no money or funds to be submitted to Yahoo or Google searches. It can be beefed up I just feel that things like Blue Chip Conference and Patoka Lake Athletic Conference are more significant than us? Why should North Dakota Class AA high school football be listed and not us? If you insist upon deleting us, why can our link and our big-brother site, HoosierAuthority.com, be able to keep our links on the Indiana page. HoosierAuthority is the official news source of the IHSAA. Please, I just ask for you to beleive me that it is notable in this area. And Sarah thank you for your support. We ask that you continue to support the site, even If you will not allow us to remain on Wikipedia.IndianaHighSchoolGameday 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not clearly demonstrated, nor self-evident, and anyway there are no supporting independent references, which means that the article automatically fails. Sorry. WMMartin 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:52Z

Brandi Alexander[edit]

Bit-former Miss Universe Canada pageant contestant who came outside the top 10, part actress and eliminated contestant on Canada's Next Top Model. Gsearch turned up a substantial percentage of non-relevant links: 374 Ghits, mostly for namesakes: wrestler, field hockey coach, Miss Gay America 1990, deviant art photographer, Miss Louisiana Leatherette. There are a small number of incidental hits for the pages related to 4400, and smallville, and a couple of articles about being the hopeful challengers to Miss Universe Canada. I move to delete as failing WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brandy Alexander (disambiguation) as reasonable alternate spelling. Past AFDs as I understand it have generally indicated that contestants on game shows aren't really notable unless they win or become independently notable. Her IMDb credits (assuming these are for the same person) don't appear particularly notable, either. 23skidoo 14:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:54Z

Fergenschmeir[edit]

Article about non-notable fictional corporation—no independent coverage, so no verifiability. Article was deleted and reposted, so I’m seeking consensus on its status. —xyzzy_n 09:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivia, at best. --Calton | Talk 09:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were a real-life corp., it would fail WP:CORP. YechielMan 16:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable in that it's a test bed used in print by a notable magazine and has a viable online presence. --Bdunbar 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not say anything worth reading by anybody. Wikipedia is not about stuff somebody made up that has no impact on anything. WAS 4.250 19:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The article does not say anything worth reading by anybody." - isn't that a rather subjective opinion, WAS? --Bdunbar 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True. So, what does it say? Fergenschmeier is a blank, a placeholder. It's not even a widely-used placeholder like the Acme Corporation. It's empty. Delete. DS 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews Against Zionism[edit]

Non-notable personal website (its address is PMB, a personal mailbox). This website has already appeared in WP once as True Torah Jews and has been deleted for the same reason. This stub (only a few lines long) looks like an advertisement. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have redirected True Torah Jews to the article about Torah Judaism which is a non-controversial and much used label and slogan in the English-speaking world of Haredi Judaism. IZAK 14:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Kuratowski's Ghost 10:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A7 - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:WEB and discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews, concerning a deleted article about the same web site. 6SJ7 13:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Neigel von Teighen 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:NN group that does not speak for Jews nor does it have any official or recognized mandate to speak for those Jews who may even oppose Zionism for whatever reason. Utter rubbish. IZAK 14:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG.-- danntm ^T _C 14:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. YechielMan 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:14Z

Dots and Motherhood[edit]

Hoax or non-notable book. Article in support of Neva Bowers who keeps coming back under claims of various notability[25]. Google hasn't heard of her or her book. Deprodded, can't think of a matching speedy deletion category. Weregerbil 09:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced and as far as I see also unsourcable. Tikiwont 11:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it does exist, it's not notable enough to appear anywhere on the interweb --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the author isn't notable enough for an article (and probably doesn't exist, see here), the book isn't either. ElinorD 17:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. ShadowHalo 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:13Z

Management Dream Team[edit]

Article is about a team of students at McGill university, apparently formed last month with the intention of participating in the 'Faculty Olympics' held at the University. Notability not established and has WP:Cruft and WP:COI issues. TexMurphy 10:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely non-notable. Only link from an outside source doesn't mention this "team" specifically. The Early Hardship section should probably be removed regardless. --Onorem 10:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Mathmo ^Talk 10:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, not even one result from google. Mathmo ^Talk 10:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too new, not notable --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 11:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obviuous reasons. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea the Faculty Olympics were being held this year at McGill! As a result of this article I have formed a group to challenge McGill's talent in the areas of academics and athletics. Without this page I would not have realized that this opportunity to showcase McGill students' abilities would soon occur. Please keep this site as I intend to refer to it to learn about future developments.

Comment. I reverted the vandalism and inserting this comment written by Mgmt, an account created at 05:20, 8 February 2007. -- TexMurphy 07:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:13Z

Jet Asia[edit]

Violates several Wikipedia policies.

WP:COI and WP:OWN: User:202.175.101.188 identifies himself as the IT manager of Jet Asia or as Chuck Woods, the CEO, and whenever anyone edits the page, he reverts the edit and gives them this warning you dont have any mandate from us to edit or posted on internet even if its missin formation. (See [26][27]) I put a prod tag also on the article, and he also reverted it and accused me of giving false information. I suspect he will also try to remove the AfD tag.
WP:NOT a business directory
Notability, the primary failure, which I pointed out in my prod summary: "~500 GHits, and the only instance of non-trivial press coverage I can find reads [28] like an advertorial (so I suspect it of failing the "independence" criterion of WP:RS)"

Anyone have any valid reason this article should be kept, or knows of reliable sources which prove notability? cab 11:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, if we can get their mandate to do so ;) -- TexMurphy 12:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete thinly disguised advertisement with no assertion of notability. If you want to exercise mandate over a description of your company, keep the page on your own website. Flyingtoaster1337 14:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even the revision before all the COI edits does not assert much notability. Flyingtoaster1337 14:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination Cornell Rockey 16:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable company apart from the COI and "ownership" issues. NawlinWiki 19:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and may I suggest a light sprinkling of salt on this, given the nature of the creator's editing? SkierRMH 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salt might not be necessary yet; the creator was User:Instantnood, not the anon above; Instantnood was making a bunch of HK transport-related edits around that time back in May 2005, seems like good-faith creation to me.[29] cab 04:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a seriously alarming conflict of interest, in addition to seeming to lack notability. No need to salt until re-creation actually occurs. --N Shar 00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update Anon is doing it again, even after I left him a ((uw-own1)) and a link to WP:COI. User:Eastmain made an effort to source the article, and found one mention in a newspaper from 2001; however, the anon removed it [30], and left me a message. Basically, his argument is that the published sources about his company are wrong; of course, if no one independent author has bothered to publish anything correct about his company in the last 6 years, that's an even stronger argument for deletion. Zero information is preferable to misleading or false information, as WP:V puts it. cab 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
basically i think you didnt read carefull what i said ok? independent sources doesnt means any information on net, not everything on web is true or Updated information, to post information on encyclopedia the facts need to be checked as in real life not copy and paste . understand CaliforniaAliBaba ? the basic fundamentals of digital Information its 1 and 0, true or false and all information needes to be checked because not every information is true there always noise , if you dont understand advise you to study the theiry of infomation then u might know waht is all about .dont use the copy paste thinking. best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.101.188 (talk • contribs) 2007 Feb 10 04:50 UTC
Do you understand what is an independent source? Let me define it for you: it is someone who is not working for Jet Asia (e.g. not you the IT manager, and not Chuck Woods the CEO). As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, the independent sources are required by Wikipedia policy for us to verify that your company meets the inclusion guidelines for corporations; editors also use independent sources to check the truth or falsehood of information which corporations write about themselves. You continue to complain that the information about in your company's article is false, and that the information in the newspaper articles we have been able to find about your company is also false; well I ask you again, now for the third time, can you point us to true and independent information about your company, whether on the internet, in newspapers, in books, or wherever?

Or does such information not exist? If not, then there should not be a Wikipedia article about your company; to continue to keep it here would be in contravention of our policy on verifiability. This is non-negotiable. If you would like to spread truthful information about your company, I would suggest you do so by updating your own website. Or, you may suggest to your public relations department that they contact journalists to inform them of your company's accomplishments and see if they are interested in writing about your company. Per policy, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance for new information; it is a tertiary source, which means it relies on information which has already been fact-checked by other reliable secondary sources. cab 07:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 23:58Z

Note: The following were also deleted via expired PROD:

List of number 23 television references

List of number 23 Television references

List of number 23 literary references

List of number 23 Literary references

List of number 23 music references

—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 00:27Z

List of number 23 film references[edit]

In my opinion, this is indescriminate and fails WP:NOT. Salad Days 12:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems to have been split off from 23 (numerology) together with other similar lists. Tikiwont 13:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This was probably created as a tie-in to the upcoming film The Number 23, or if not it will probably be of interest once that film is released in a couple of weeks. It can use some expansion and a firmer connection to 23 (numerology), but seeing as the films themselves are the sources (not all sources need to be books), I don't see this necessarily being POV. It might need some trimming if any of the items violate WP:NOR. An alternative might be to merge it with the numerology number. 23skidoo 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Mathmo ^Talk 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, synthesis of published material. Recury 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is pure originial research synthesis, and movie trivia. If this is a tie-in to the upcoming film, then that creates potential spam concerns.-- danntm ^T _C 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My posting above isn't intended to suggest that. 23skidoo 21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mix of unsourced information, trivia, and original research -- Whpq 17:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia and orginal research.-MsHyde 21:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't matter if it might be of interest later. It's original research. At one point, there is the statement that in a movie, characters "'randomly' select floor 23 in an elevator." Why is "randomly" in quotes? There is obviously an agenda being pursured here.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if you assumed that the article was properly referenced (which it doesn't seem to be) there's the issue that it makes no claims that the appearance of the number 23 in these movies is anything other than sheer random coincidence. Lacking any verifiable connection between these items other than a random number, it's simply a list of random unrelated snapshots. Why restrict this to films, for instance? The number 23 occurs in thousands of places in notable media. Delete, and if a user wants to maintain it move it to their userspace if they want to preserve it. Dugwiki 23:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and complete 23-cruft EvilCouch 07:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As already mentioned, the list on movies is split off a more general artcile 23 (numerology) which has has many more sections and besides that article there are other spin-off lists to be considered here:

List of number 23 Television references
List of number 23 literary references
List of number 23 music references —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete list of references to an arbitrary number in an arbitrary entertainment medium. There is no encyclopaedic topic "references to the number 23 in film". Guy (Help!) 09:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait, is this the 23rd AFD listing? NVM. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IronGargoyle 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Spectre is Haunting Europe[edit]

A band stated to have a few hundred fans worldwide, two albums on an unknown label, three references cited of which one is 404, one does not mention them and one is a publisher's blurb in an online catalogue. Reads as original research. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the appeerance of the references. All three worked for me, however, but one loads slowly and another (Punk planet) is printed (as mentioned), but I found a secondary quote for it [31]. Tikiwont 14:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - under 1000 fans, despite being on myspace and forming five years ago. Politicised lyrics in rock are nothing new and not grounds for notability Totnesmartin 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the substance of the claim to Notability had nothing to do with any lyrics.--Jeandjinni 14:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Totnesmartin, doesn't your vote here represent something of a double standard, seeing that you created [this] article, which makes scant attempt to present itself as verifiable, and has never been nominated for deletion?--Jeandjinni 16:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are three verifiable referecnes and I found them now also featured on the Canadian Public Radio webpage which should raise their claim to notability. As regards the number of fans (of which I am not one), that is actually an unsourced statement (about popularity) and how would that be counted anyway? Tikiwont 14:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's the number of friends on their myspace. Totnesmartin 15:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks, I cannot see myspace right now, but then it is my impression that WP would not consider such a myspace friend number a determining factor, whether it is high or low. Tikiwont 15:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failure of WP:BAND; not enough external sources. Walton monarchist89 15:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - doesn't "multiple" include "three"?--Jeandjinni 14:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Punk Planet is a well known music monthly, Georgia Straight is a mainstream entertainment weekly, and Starvox (now defunct) was arguably the most important online review magazine for gothic/deathrock music in the early 00s. Ask anyone who knows anything about the DR scene whether or not the band is notable. The band also contains a former member of Skinny Puppy, as asserted in the article.--Jeandjinni 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Totnesmartin and Walton monarchist. -- Scorpion 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the proposal for deletion is based on a misreading of the article (the band has released music on multiple record labels, one of which is a well known DR label based in Germany, not a single "unknown label"), and uses criteria that have nothing to do with Notability (number of fans) to assert non-Notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeandjinni (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - I've cleaned up some of the writing and added in five more references. Are eight sources sufficient to satisfy the primary notability criterion (considering other relevant criteria, such as notable cross membership), or what? If not, there are more sources that can be added, but I fear that doing so would make the contestation over this article's notability look rather overwrought, which might reflect unfavourably on its detractors, who are probably well intentioned people that for some reason won't admit that they're wrong about a topic about which they lack basic knowledge. I notice no one's given The Vanity Set or even Jeremy Inkel equivalent scrutiny. Seems that the whole AfD process is rather biased in this case. What gives? Does the mention of socialism freak some of you out?--Jeandjinni 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on the article to be kept, I also see no evidence of a systematic bias. The nomination and earlier votes, however, are related to an earlier version of the article, so leaving irrelevant comparisons apart, they might be revisited. Tikiwont 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Peveril College[edit]

No ascertation how the college meets WP:SCHOOL, It is non notable with no sources to show how it is any different from any other school RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, the article entirely fails to have adequate sources/references. In addition, there is no evidence that the college is any more notable than its peers. WMMartin 19:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this search. I've excluded results concerning this tragedy, which is possibly notable. Addhoc 18:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not shown. If the article were interesting it might be worthy of keeping nonetheless. Article has no reliable sources and no mention of any articles in the press. EdJohnston 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 00:32Z

Planet Earth (and other tourist traps)[edit]

Utterly non notable webcomic. Was kept two years ago after this VfD: Talk:Planet Earth (and other tourist traps)/Delete, but I don't think that the consensus on notability is the same as it was back then. 10 distinct Google hits for the complete title plus the author[32], 86 distinct Google hits if you take the shorter "planet earth" version[33]. No claims to notability or importance are made in the article (which is over twoyerars old and survived a VfD, so every chance of providing those sources and claims has been given). Article is only linked to by the list of webcomics and a disambig page. Fram 13:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, no relaible sources. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not provide reliable sources or assertions of notability.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 (no assertion of notability), g1 (nonsense). NawlinWiki 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parody Pictures[edit]

No notability established. No sources provided. Speedy and Prod removed. --Onorem 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per ((db-attack)) (CSD G10); it seems to exist primarily to disparage the group in question. Alternatively, Delete per WP:BIO due to no evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Basically, W.M. said it. YechielMan 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed without prejudice as it was created by a banned user. Please feel free to renominate should you deem it appropriate. --BigDT 13:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shanel Kalicharan[edit]

Probably not notable, and it's just crystal-balling anyhow. Jason Gastrich 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination was made by User:Kolmscott who vandalized Wikipedia by adding and deleting admin messages on various talk pages, creating nonsense and attack pages. User has now been blocked indefinitely. -- TexMurphy 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:10Z

Atmosphera[edit]

Delete - Not notable. Only released one album. Short-lived career and local performances only. Davemcarlson 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if a decision of deleting content is reached, this should be turned into a redirect to Atmosphere. Tizio 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one (unfinished) album, and only played in one country. Totnesmartin 14:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't come near the low bar for WP:MUSIC - only one album, no documented tours, can't find any independent 3rd party coverage... Would redirect to Atmosphere as per Tizio's recommendation. SkierRMH 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --MaNeMeBasat 14:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 00:36Z

SCOforum[edit]

Apparently the SCO Group's tradeshow. Are tradeshows in general worthy of Wikipedia articles? Well, tradeshow article says some are - but this one makes no specific claim to be notable IMHO Montchav 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; no coverage by third-party sources; only link is to their own site. Walton monarchist89 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability no cited sources, and the link 404's--Hu12 07:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:09Z

Women's studies[edit]

This article, as it is now, along with all the resistance against it being fixed, is very poorly written, it mostly has the anti-feminist backlash as opposed to definitions and history of what the department is... I do not think it is fixable and I suggest this article be deleted and rewritten from scratch. It is an Attack page as far as I see it, and its history seems to confirm me. Towsonu2003 19:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, Delete Towsonu2003 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no idea why this reasonably good short article on a clearly notable topic should be deleted, and I think the nominator should read Wikipedia:Deletion policy more carefully. There have been occasional problems with (anonymous) POV-pushing, though even most of the text is NPOV (the remaining problem being one of undue weight, and there was an NPOV tag on it until the nominator removed it). This article is basically solid, relatively well-sourced, and if anything, is primarily in need of expansion. The nomination makes no sense to me. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not remove the tags, I replaced them with db-attack, which turned out to be the wrong tag. As per the aricle being NPOV, well, everyone has eyes and my eyes see it as more of an attack page that should be rewritten than a page with undue weight. Towsonu2003 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and Comment - Towsonu2003 has correctly observed that this article is not well-written and not well-balanced. It's a stub that has been about 70% dedicated to covering criticism of the subject field (from a fairly obvious POV), with only 30% or so of the article dedicated to the subject field itself. This article & other articles in gender studies have been under protracted attention from editors (usually anonymous) who express criticism of the articles, and of the subjects of the articles (e.g., "This article on feminism is really biased, and is clearly written by feminists who hate men; the feminist movement has fostered grave injustices on men and this is one example.) That's a caricature but not much of one: Truly if you follow these discussions there is a lot of ranting about feminism, that is not directed to improving the article as a reference source, but is instead just expressing the editor's frustrations & personal / political views about feminism.

More seriously, a lot of these editors effectively treat the articles as a battleground. They don't get the encyclopedia article is a reference work angle; instead, they think that an article about women's studies is actually an advocacy piece for the subject. Coming from that perspective, their interactions on Talk pages and their edits are often combative, expressing their view that "equal time" for criticism is the way to express NPOV.

However, I disagree with Towsonu2003 on to handle the problem. Towsonu2003 thinks we should scrap & start over. Unfortunately, that's not going to be a good solution, because the instant a new stub is created for women's studies, it will still be a magnet for the critics of feminism who want their voices to be heard on the matter.

I think the only way out of this mess is to (a) write the individual articles as they should be written, anyway; not stubs subject to overbalance, but reference pieces with length and depth appropriate to their subject matter. Criticism and alternative views will naturally find a home in such an article, hopefully satisfying the anti-feminists & feminist critics, but more importantly, satisfying the real reference needs of someone trying to understand Women's studies -- the discipline, the political responses to it, and so on. And (b) educating the editors about the purpose of wikipedia, appropriate behavior, what good articles look like, and so on, and crucially, that an article is not an advocacy piece for or against the subject of the article, but a NPOV reference about the subject of the article. This work is incredibly tedious and difficult when people are hostile, but I don't see a way around it.

I am trying, now, to work on this one article; to add substantive content that needs to be there, so that it's not just a stub; and so we can integrate the necessary criticism that should be in the article in a way that makes for a useful reference source for someone seeking to understand what women's studies is, its history and context, its ties with political feminism (including how the discipline & movement have affected each other, and how criticism of each has affected the other), and its influence and role in modern cultural studies. I think we should keep the article & would appreciate it if editors of good faith would help think about what the article should look like. --lquilter 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AFD is not generally the place to argue article content. I agree that the article is lousy, but the topic is clearly encyclopedic. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing in it that is (for example) so slanderous so that we should delete it so as not to have it in the article history. There is nothing to prevent a complete rewrite without going through any formal process like AFD. - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not interested in the article's history so much. I believe that a formal procedure that deletes the article will make it much easier to rewrite it. The Criticism page is already separate, so anyone who will be starting to write it will have a clear view of what to write: stuff that explains what this discipline is, and properly do so, without mixing up priorities...

If deleted, the article will also have an argument against edits that result in the entry attacking itself Towsonu2003 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is clearly encyclopedic. I agree with the nominator's and lquilter's concern, but suggest that you just rewrite boldly. --Slp1 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is encyclopedic, content needs expansion but seems strong (valuable) in places. --Joe Decker 15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. It is trivial to demonstrate that many, probably most, Western universities offer a section of courses in women's studies, and that many have departments devoted to teaching it. Obviously, as a topic it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. Finally, despite any issues that the nominator or other people might have with the current text, it isn't broken enough to require deletion. AfD is not for content disputes. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known major at many universities. Rewrite if necessary. NawlinWiki 19:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Internationally notable and encyclopedic subject, and Afd is not for requesting cleanup. Well-known major at my university also. Prolog 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, develop and expand such that WP:NPOV#Undue weight is not violated. Please use the appropriate avenues for dispute resolution in the future. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the article is badly written and that the "attack" content is inappropriate. However, the subject is notable and does not qualify for deletion.--Cailil 14:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is important that we correct POV in the articles, but deleting them is not the way to do it. The article has now gotten enough attention that I hope it will be soon fixed. DGG 04:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miranda, California. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 00:38Z

South Fork High School (Miranda, California)[edit]

No independent, non-trivial sources or even an assertion of notability beyond an average high school. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 13:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Miranda, California as a school of WP:LOCAL interest mostly. May well be one of the most notable institutions in that small town, but unless more is added I am not convinced that a separate article is warranted. {[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] (Check!) 14:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A separate article is probably not warranted. I think it should be merged with Miranda, California. Who decides if it is going to be merged, and how long do I have to wait before merging? Vampyrecat 15:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After long consideration, I've decided my position is that high schools (of any substantial size) are per se notable. We should not bother debating these on an individual basis any more. These articles are often a good gateway for future contributors. To Vampyrecat: These discussions are kept open for five days after which the consensus reached can be implemented. Newyorkbrad 17:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is de facto notable. WP:NOTE still applies. Whether a high school or a person, every article must be properly (verifiably, independently) sourced. If it can't be, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and this article is not. Calling an article a "gateway for future contributions" is a very euphemistic way of saying it currently has no substance to it. Such an article should not be here until such substance is available, at which time recreating it would be a trivial amount of work. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 18:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sorry, not notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrDolomite (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
At worst this article should be merged into Miranda, California. — RJH (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see a merge, but a merge at best. This article isn't even close to stand-alone quality. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish to echo the comments made by Swpb. If "All X are notable" then, trivially, "notable" ceases to have any practical meaning. We need to see why this school is different from its peers - what should make us pay attention to it. This article doesn't do that. WMMartin 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 00:45Z

Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny[edit]

Only slightly more notable than The Demented Cartoon Movie, which was deleted for non-notability. ~~Delete~~ Redirect to Neil Cicierega, never thought of that... Random the Scrambled ^(?)(Vandalism and other nonsense!) 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Neil Cicierega. The song is arguably notable due to Dr. Demento's coverage, yes, but it's not notable enough to justify more than a section in Neil Cicierega. This is underscored by the fact that the only other media coverage cited, [34] , is a profile of the author with only a passing mention of this flash. Not to mention that so much of this article is nothing but listcruft, trivia, and original research; Neil Cicierega#The_Ultimate_Showdown_of_Ultimate_Destiny already describes the flash concisely and sufficiently. Krimpet 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Neil Cicierega. Much like the Potter Puppet Pals, AfDed a week or so ago, this is better covered in Neil Cicierega's own article, and indeed a much better version of it is already there. The big article seems to attract plenty of vandalism, and virtually nothing besides its existance is backed up by any reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Article has no verifiable independent references (only published reference appears to only mention this in passing and is an article about flash animation in general). Dugwiki 23:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 14:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: until now, the article didn't have an afd tag placed on it, which means that the people interested in the subject wouldn't have been able to see the concerns mentioned in this dicussion. Therefore it's relisted. - Bobet 14:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh! Random the Scrambled ^(?)(Vandalism and other nonsense!) 15:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per the same argument we brought up the last time this was nominated. This is not just a webtoon, it's a very popular comedy song and was the top song of 2006 on the Dr. Demento chart by a longshot! VERY notable! -- EmiOfBrie 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the song did chart and thus passes WP:MUSIC guidelines. However, this article is rife with original research and unverifiable claims and "trivia"; if edited down only to verifiable facts, this article would have no more content than Neil Cicierega#The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny does now, hence why redirecting would be a good solution. Krimpet 05:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is a notable internet culture meme. We may as well prod the Star Wars kid for AfD, or Numa Numa.
Keep and shorten by a lot. It's a notable meme, but the current article's level of detail is hopelessly crufty. --Sneftel 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect The animation, while perhaps popular, is not notable. The comparisons (above) to "Star Wars Kid" and "Numa Numa" are inappropriate, as each of the other two internet phenomena have spawned parodies, tributes, etc. This article is basically a vanity page. Jiggz84 18:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultimate Showdown has spawned parodies as well, the most popular among them being The Ultimate Orgy of Homosexuality, but it seems any time someone puts a link up to it or it even gets so mush as a mention, it gets reverted O.o There is also the tribute to it in Destroy All humans 2 that's mentioned in the trivia section -- EmiOfBrie 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only thing is, how credible of a link is the parody of a parody? bibliomaniac 1 5 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ultimate Showdown doesn't parody any particular song. It's a Lemon Demon original as far as I'm aware. -- EmiOfBrie 04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This should absolutely have an article. Most internet memes have articles and this one is well written. It's popular enough to be notable and should stay around 24.107.6.167 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- As WP:N#Notability is not popularity describes, though, popularity does not render a subject notable, multiple secondary sources do. It has been established that the artist is notable, and the song charting means it meets WP:MUSIC and merits a mention on the artist's page. However, no secondary sources have confirmed its notability as an "internet meme" worthy of its own separate article. Krimpet 06:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a highly notable meme. Has anyone tried searching LexisNexis and other news databases for this subject? Yamaguchi先生 08:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 00:48Z

Realms of Ishikaze[edit]

Non notable webcomic, fails WP:NOTE. Lack of external reliable sources, awards, reviews, ... 25 distinct GOogle hits[35] (47 if you don't include the author into the search[36], but one can wonder how in-depth a mention is that doesn't even name the author). Print versions are self-published (lulu books). A good article, but on a subject that sadly is not fit for Wikipedia. Fram 14:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ↔NMajdan•talk 15:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable webcomic; no evidence of non-trivial coverage by external sources. Walton monarchist89 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, crystal ball journalcruft? That's a new one.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new york sociologist[edit]

PLEASE NOTE there is a separate AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New York Sociologist (NYSSA)

Non-notable journal published by a single faculty of a university. Google turns up only 27 hits, and none of the relevant hits are independent of the journal itself. [37] Flyingtoaster1337 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough for its own article, but I would suggest to merge and redirect into State University of New York at Cortland, e.g as part of a new section.Tikiwont 15:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete It now becomes clear that there is edit warring about two rather young online journals with the same or very similar names both of which do not seem to be notable yet. Tikiwont 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content relating to the university journal to the university's main article. Walton monarchist89 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - this online journal appears to have just started and the site really doesn't have much content yet. May be worth an article later. Citicat 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The journal published by the New York State Sociological Association is preexisting with peer reviewed content submitted at their October 2005 annual meeting. The Cortland College journal of the same name is planned for either June of 2007 or January of 2008 NBeat 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)NBeat[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well the Cortland journal makes it clear it's crystal ballism: "with the stated goal of publishing the highest quality scholarship across the full range of the social sciences. Submissions from faculty, researchers, and advanced graduate students exploring the problems of modern social life are welcomed." What about the other one? ~ trialsanderrors 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To faciliate further discussion, I've now created a (maybe temporary) disambiguation page under The New York Sociologist which lists this article here as TNYS article (which was nominated for deletion) and has an entry for a NYSSA article, should someone see the need to create it. Tikiwont 20:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if kept, I doubt we need separate articles for the two. ~ trialsanderrors 20:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, Delete Looking at the edit history, the other one was launched in December 2006. Academic journals need to establish notability the old-fashioned way, by being noticed. No evidence that any of the two did. ~ trialsanderrors 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly agree (and ~~voted~~ argued already as much); I just created the page because I let myself get dragged into their debate, and also to create something neutral on the page which actually woudl be the right title for both. Tikiwont 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (Corrected my wording Tikiwont 08:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oh well, I see you're already made up your minds. Perhaps later. tnys

If you'd like to put forward an argument for keeping the article based on wikipedia policy, please do so. This is not a vote.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can certainly understand why we appear to lack notableness (the journal is new and lacks content, so, yeah, it is not notable in that regard) but when sociologists see what is developing and examine the editorial advisory board it is more than notable; it is a real powerhouse; it's not that we just have some famous people on board (I know that fame is not notability around here) but tnys.org represents a major convergence of established and emerging intellectuals that rivals anything of its kind. tnys.org is administrated out of a single campus but that's just the administrative unit.

Again, I totally understand why we look like candidates for deletion and, if that's the decision, so be it. Just keep in mind that when a sociologist examines tnys.org it's pretty darned impressive. Thanks. tnys

TNYS has the makings of what could very well evolve into a respectable journal. And when that happens, Wikipedia should list it. I also see no reason why it can’t be listed now as an organization created with the purpose of creating a journal. My only point is that Wikipedia needs to differentiate between The New York Sociologist published by the New York Sociological Association and TNYS published by Cortland State College. I think Tikiwont’s disambiguation page does just that and I appreciate the effort. I’ll create copy for the NYSSA page. As to how NYSSA and Cortland work out the same title problem, that is not Wikipedia’s concern, so long as we find a way to make the existence of the two efforts clear. The fact still stands that NYSSA is a statewide organization of sociologists that counts among its members, Cortland State College sociology faculty, NYSSA has been holding conferences for 53 years, NYSSA has been developing a journal since 2005 when calls for papers went out, and NYSSA published a peer reviewed journal in 2006. That journal is online. There is no reason to delete an entry referencing it. I suggest two pages: one with “NYSSA” in parenthesis and one with “SUNY Cortland” in parenthesis if the consensus is to not delete that listing. NBeat 02:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)NBeat[reply]

Your point is understandable, but unfortunately wikipedia has explicit policy that says you can't have an article about something that is not notable (or in existance) but might become notable (or exist) in the future.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- So what about the NYSSA? Is that a notable organization? If so maybe starting there with a mention of the journal would make more sense. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. The The new york sociologist / TNYS (Cortland State College) journal really does have a very impressive advisory board, but has not yet achieved enough notability in its own right. Not surprising since it hasn't launched yet. The The New York Sociologist (NYSSA) journal article is not dissimilar, having only just launched. That there is no New York State Sociological Association article speaks volumes. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there was, but the author created the page with the NYSSA abbreviation in the title. It's now at the correct page. I take the organization's 50-year history as some sort of notability assertion, but other than that the organisation is also borderline notable. AfD'ing it is left as an exercise to anyone interested. Kimchi.sg 00:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete but the key issue for me, is that the journal is not yet published, and acccording to its web site, does not have the first issue scheduled until 2008 (as is said in the above discussion) I don't think we have any basis just yet for entering it. From what I've seen here, we wouldn't include any media that far in advance of publication, with no idea yet of what is to be actually included. It's good that you are starting to establish its web presence, but even librarians do not usually think seriously about a journal until it has at least a table of contents for the first issue. Come back then--as I think everyone above has said. DGG 04:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 19:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taffi Rosen[edit]

Not notable photographer. I did a gsearch, about 700 results, but few if any from rs. There may actually be two Taffi Rosens, both photographers, given that there's a myspace for one who's 37, and the one in the article is about 53. In any event, it has been prodded for over a month, no one has bothered to do anything, and it is plainly not notable Wehwalt 15:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD A7 no assertion of notability; it describes her as a "photographer and videographer", but doesn't say what makes her famous, or what photos/videos she has released. Walton monarchist89 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Does not assert notability. Maxamegalon2000 18:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tipp City, Ohio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 00:51Z

Bethel High School (Ohio)[edit]

Not notable high school. Jeez, people at least make an effort to make it notable if you must have an article about your school! Wehwalt 15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My position after long consideration is that high schools (of any substantial size) should be considered per se notable to end the endless debates. These articles are also a good gateway for future contributors. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every school is notable to its ex-scholars. There have been bouts of debate about schools pages before. Anthony Appleyard 17:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence my reference to ending the "endless debates." Newyorkbrad 17:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Newyrokbrad, you could end the endless debates by taking the opposite position as well: every school is non notable unless notability is verifiably demonstrated. This would be equally clear, and would bring schools in line with all other subjects, instead of making an arbitrary exception. As for being a good gateway for future contributors; they are also a good gateway for vandals and WP:BLP violations (with comments on individual teachers and co-students). Taking such a principal position as yours only helps in antagonizing those people who feel that schools should not get a special treatment. Fram 12:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - CommentWhatever. We need a policy (I know one is being batted out) and a way to implement it. There are over a hundred similar stub articles for Ohio alone, and it probably run into the thousands for the nation, to say nothing of the rest of the world. In my opinion, a secondary school should either be notable of itself, or else should be subject to speedy deletion if no notability (famous alumni, notable nationally for its sports program, famous or infamous incident took place there) is shown.--Wehwalt 13:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This school's recent basketball state championship makes it notable. I vote to keep the article. Not sure why some users in here are quick to nominate for deletion. EagleFan 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Six years ago? EagleFan, I realize you have an interest in this, since your user contributions reflect that you do almost nothing but create and edit articles about high schools and lists of high schools, but is a six year old championship (and how many champions does Ohio have in a year, how many groups are there?) enough?--Wehwalt 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my point. Wehwalt, like several others, is on a mission to delete pages rather than add content. That will work against Wikipedia's long-term development into the premier encylopedia in the world. EagleFan 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, EagleFan, I have nominated perhaps 20 articles for deletion. I have contributed to dozens of times that many articles. Let's not engage in invective.--Wehwalt 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to encourage everyone here to "assume good faith". It seems to me that we all want Wikipedia to be the best it can be, but we interpret this in different ways and have different talents at the service of the project. Let's try to "play well with others". WMMartin 20:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable school — MrDolomite | Talk 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary into the Tipp City, Ohio article. If not then keep. — RJH (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. This article was created as a Stub on 1/26/07 and should be given a chance to gain some traction. Seems like a "Stub" article ought to at least be given a few months before being nominated randomly by another user. EagleFan 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I understood the policy on stubs was to keep them if it appeared possible for them to become an article. I think that unlikely, --almost no stub for HS ever develops content. DGG 06:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with particular reference to DGG's comment. WMMartin 20:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Newyorkbrad and my belief that secondary schools and above are inherently notable, or notable enough to be included within Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Convention closed. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkakan[edit]

Event only happened once in 2001 and had less than 500 people. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - well-sourced and verified, but probably not notable outside the anime fan community. Walton monarchist89 15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - For all intents and purposes, this was the first New England anime convention and essentially evolved into Anime Boston as most of the staff went over there. It is very notable in the northeast anime scene. Again, Colin, I really don't think attendance alone should be your only basis for deleting an article. --PatrickD 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Even if that is the case, AKA Kon of Vancouver should have its own article because many of its staff moved from that convention to Anime Evolution. In this case, I base it more on the fact that it was a single-year convention and the low turnout. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not-notable. Notability is not an inheritable attribute. --Haemo 04:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any reliable, independent and non-trivial secondary sources at all. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:08Z

Gavmo[edit]

Not encyclopedic, no sources given. At best transwikiable to Wikionary Jvhertum 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a protologism: it's not in Google's dictionary of the English language. YechielMan 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells of neologism. Down the /dev/null with it. Anthony Appleyard 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this is just made up bollocks. no ghits except for Myspace, Livejournal usernames etc. Totnesmartin 20:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds like a load of crap to me, cant find it in any dictionarys. Probably just some kid making up his own little word TSMonk 13:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of I Love New York episodes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 00:54Z

Do You Have Love For New York?[edit]

Each episode for I Love New York has its own page. I have first tried on the discussion page of the show to bring it up, saying how the show it's based off of (Flavor of Love) has all of it down the page, conserving space, as does every reality show I can think of. It was reverted to the discussion page of the first episode (very quickly, I might add), which has been ignored for two days. I would like all the episodes to be on one page, or better yet, for them to be on the show's page but that won't happen unless these episodes are deleted. Plus, they're taking up too much space. Babylon pride 15:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also putting these up for deletion because they're the following episodes:

Strong delete TV show episodes do not need their own articles unless a particular episode was a cultural phenomenon which received a lot of press independent of the show.-MsHyde 17:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no need to have its own article, though perhaps content should be merged into the show's page. Roadmr (t|c) 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim down, merge, and redirect to List of I Love New York episodes. That way a brief summary of each episode is kept in a location that is easy to watch for spam and or fanwankery, and people who serarch here for information on these episodes are directed to said location. -- saberwyn 20:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per Saberwyn. I don't have any inherent rule against episode articles, but for a brand new reality series, this if far too detailed. In the alternate, delete.-- danntm ^T _C 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- Thank you for advising me through the bot. All the other episodes are on Flavor of Love page. When I have time (probably this Saturday), I will merge the information to the page. Or, you can do so. However, to have a more quicker response, you should have contacted Jtervin. --- Real96 13:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- I agree, individual episodes of a show should not have their own pages unless that episode was particually of note. Just because many other shows do it does not mean that this one can. TSMonk 13:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 00:57Z

Robin Kimber[edit]

Non notable conductor, fails WP:BIO. OF the 154 distinct Google hits[38], none seem to indicate any notability via reliable sources. Has contributed to CD's, but is nowhere I can find discussed, interviewed, reviewed, awarded, ... Fram 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO & WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has no claims to notability. - grubber 19:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:08Z

Gun Fu - Animal Fighting Styles[edit]

Non-notable local martial arts style UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability; no external coverage by reliable sources; made up by one man, no evidence that it's widely practised. Walton monarchist89 16:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomPeter Rehse 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Seraphimblade 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete ...What??? "Gun Fu Animal Fighting Styles"? That's flat out outrageous, man. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:07Z

List of North American Malls with Children's Play Areas[edit]

Delete, bordering on trivial and/or directory information. --Vossanova ^o< 16:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Also possibly the most incomplete list on wikipedia? It only lists seven malls! Jules1975 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Walton monarchist89 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 18:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather arbitrary list.-- danntm ^T _C 19:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no idea what this was supposed to accomplish. It's like trying to list every mall that contains a food court -- in North America virtually every mall has a food court and a children's play area of some kind. Way too broad a topic. 23skidoo 05:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Merge to Ambler, Pennsylvania in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 00:59Z

Wissahickon[edit]

Non-notable school. This school is a high school in a small town with a population of 6426. There's nothing in the article to suggest it's notable Jules1975 16:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly named article about a school with no real notability. Lots of weasel-wording and uncited/nonspecific content. DMacks 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability; further, the mention of its tarnished repuatation is unsupport{able|ed} -- not notable. - grubber 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough, and inadequate references. WMMartin 20:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 01:00Z

Pooya Rad[edit]

Self biographical. Personal page. Notability questions. Steve.Moulding 16:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability apart from his athletics achievements, which are unverified. Comment at bottom of page makes this a clear conflict of interest, as it's autobiographical. Walton monarchist89 16:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics were not athletic. On http://www.windvu.com/content.asp?contentid=461, under "Educational Attainment" he received an "IT and Web Olympics certificate 2004". -- Steve.Moulding 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, autobiography. NawlinWiki 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BML Hillen Keene[edit]

Non-notable author. Also nominating her sole book and articles about the book's protagonists. The book is published by vanity-press PublishAmerica (although, technically, PublishAmerica say they're just a "print-on-demand" publisher). In any case, the book fails WP:BK and the author fails WP:BIO as there are no reliable third-party sources about the book or the author. Pascal.Tesson 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Jackaranga 16:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable- I looked, but found no reviews or other coverage of the book or the author. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - no reviews or independent coverage of the books cited. However, the fact that it was published by PublishAmerica shouldn't be a reason for deletion; describing them as a "vanity press" is a POV comment, as their article says that they claim to be a "traditional publisher". So if independent sources can be found, keep; otherwise, delete. Walton monarchist89 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly clear: I am not recommending the deletion solely based on the fact that the book is published by PublishAmerica. But there is a total absence of reliable third-party sources on the book and its author. Saying that PublishAmerica is a vanity-press is not really POV by the way: most of the editing world considers PublishAmerica to be akin to a vanity press in the sense that they publish just about anything as the article on the company explains. Pascal.Tesson 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is an independant source? a review of the book prehaps? These can be found on amazon.co.uk. Prehaps the authours page should be deleted as she has only published a single book, but why should the book itself be stigmatised because of the fact that it is written by a currently unknown author. I know for a fact that people have bought the book, and enjoyed the it, so why should it be deleted, I find this grossly unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyn1987 (talk • contribs)

Interestingly, there are two reviews on Amazon [39]. The first is written by "Mr. M. Stenning". The article BML Hillen Keene said that Mrs Keene's boyfriend is a Matthew Stenning, although you deleted this information right after posting the above note [40]. The second review is by "M. Newton" which has no other reviews written on Amazon and wrote the review a mere 12 days after the book's publication. Given that PublishAmerica does not do any promotion for its books, it makes it unlikely that this reviewer is not in some way or another connected to the book's author. Pascal.Tesson 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? just because they happen to know the authour does not mean that they lied about liking the book or anything else. And you did not in fact answer my question, what is an independant source? Why should this book be stigmatised? This is what you are doing, yes, you have not prehaps read this book, you may not prehaps ever read it, but why should you have the right to disallow someone who has read it and enjoyed it, to share it with others? This site as an infinate amount of space, so one little section devoted to a little known book should really be no skin off your nose. Why are you even bothering about this really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyn1987 (talk • contribs)

You can read all about reliable sources here. I have indeed never read this book, nor do I plan to. However, this debate is not about the book's worth: it could very well be a brilliant piece but as far as anyone can tell, there do not exist any reviews of the book from sources independent of the book's author or publisher and there are no third-party sources about the author and the book fails all of the criteria outlined at WP:BK. That is why this book article might get deleted, just like hundreds if not thousands before it. Pascal.Tesson 17:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. No reviews.-MsHyde 17:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see exactly why reveiws of the book are so important, is this supposed to be an information site, or is it not, if looked for it is very obvious that this book is indeed a real book, not a fabrication made up by some random person wanting to mess with this site. It is information on book found enjoyable, and yes, prehaps there are no other reveiws, but these do not really matter. Personally I do not reveiw items that I buy online, does this mean some other person should be stigmatised and not allowed to express how much they enjoy another book? And the fact that the book was published by publish america should not factor in at all, everyone has to start somewhere, every page on this site has to start somewhere. You must give these things time to develop. Also, the Newry Democrat did a piece on this book, I do not know if this can be found online, but I do know that it was done because I happen to own a copy at home. And no, you cannot just say now that just because I own a copy and you cannot find it that I am making this up, because I would have no reason to. besides this I can offer nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyn1987 (talk • contribs)

It says on the PublishAmerica page In December 2004, PublishAmerica agreed to publish the novel Atlanta Nights, which was later revealed to be a hoax designed to illustrate PublishAmerica's low quality standards. It was not the first such hoax either; a previous author had submitted a manuscript with the same 30 pages repeated ten times, which PublishAmerica had accepted.

The wikipedians here don't want to delete this article because it is bad quality, or because the book is bad, but because the only sources available are friends of the author, or the editor himself, who does not have a good history of reviewing their books it would seem. They don't mean to be unkind Martyn1987, but it is important wikipedia does not become a blog, and achieving the right balance can be hard. Maybe the people here would not object if you wrote about it on your userpage instead ?

Also please sign your comments Martyn1987, or things become hard to follow. --Jackaranga 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for advertisement and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Again, please don't take this so personally: this book is not being stigmatized. Simply put, Wikipedia has standards and this book fails to meet them. Pascal.Tesson 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this book is a book, there has not been enough time for it to gather the momentum to become a bestseller, and o will probabaly not garner any more reviews. It's not really fair what is being done, but I suppose you will do what you will do. It is a book, I should be allowed to write about it, as everyone here is allowed to write about books on this site. I really don't see why this is realy such a big deal. Reviews should really not matter, when you walk into a shop do you ask the sales person about reviews on a book you wish to buy, no, you read the blurb, which tells you about the book. henchforth, a page that tlls you about this book, not forcing you to buy it in anyway, merely informing you of it, about the characters the plot etc. it doesn't make sense that yo should make such a big deal. but do as you wish. However, if things need tobe proven, how can you prove timetravel, why do you have pages on magic, is magic real, can it be proven? Thi will be my last post, do s you want.

Delete per WP:BK. Fails notability and other criteria -- Steve.Moulding 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, nonnotable author, selfpublished books, all self-promotion. NawlinWiki 19:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per NawlinWiki. --Dhartung | Talk 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete all, of course I supppose we keep the article on the publisher for future reference.DGG 06:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pea ceNT 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ladle (metallurgy)[edit]

Keep. I started this AfD to call public attention to what has been happening to Ladle (metallurgy). It was created on 18 April 2006. At about 6.12 am on 7 Feb 2007 User:CopyToWiktionaryBot decided to transwiki it to Wiktionary, and copied it to Wiktionary:Transwiki:Ladle (metallurgy). But foundry ladles are a very important tool in heavy industry, and big foundry ladles are much more complicated than (e.g.) kitchen soup ladles. Ladle (metallurgy) is already more than a dictdef, and a Wikipedia member who works at a foundry could add much more about safe design and use of big foundry ladles, steel casing, firebrick lining, how to avoid its hot liquid contents from slopping or spilling out, and such oddments as how to avoid surface scum and slag from getting in the casting being poured. My father worked in a big engineering factory that had its own foundry. I was reading my father's metallurgy books before I heard of Winnie the Pooh or Andy Pandy. So, please, who thought that Ladle (metallurgy) could not be more than a dictdef? Anthony Appleyard 16:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - merits its own article, even though it's been transwikied. Transwiki doesn't automatically have to mean deletion. Walton monarchist89 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per WP:POINT and that the nominator isn't even arguing for deletion. Please, take your issues to the bot and/or it's owner instead of AFD. --Jackhorkheimer 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But who owns or uses User:CopyToWiktionaryBot? I have learned the hard way that a remark in a talk page does not always stop a running deletion process. Anthony Appleyard 17:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The user is Connel MacKenzie. Mathmo ^Talk 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, encyclopedic. --Dweller 00:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per Jackhorkheimer. Mathmo ^Talk 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not really sure the real reason for this, so what if it's been transwikied, it can be both a definition and an article. No reason for this one to be deleted! SkierRMH 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Arjun01. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 01:01Z

Edward Marcus[edit]

Non notable company. I originally added a notability tag, but this was removed by the author without explanation, and without providing any evidence of notability. Delete from me, unless notability can be proven. J Milburn 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability per WP:CORP; no coverage by third-party reliable sources. Walton monarchist89 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Walton monarchist89; also notice the only links to the article are two redirects for possible spellings and one from LHP, a badly-formatted disambiguation page whose only purpose is to add a gratuitous link to the Edward Marcus page, all this reeks of self-promotion. I'd go as far as saying that the LHP page should go too. Roadmr (t|c) 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The disambig is now a redirect to the school that is mentioned. It can always be recreated, should other meanings come up. J Milburn 18:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Thank you for explaining why, go ahead and delete it (all the reasons are perfect) Darren Frenrith 11:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then that is db-author. So tagged. J Milburn 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vsion 18:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Northstar V[edit]

A large-scale terrorist-simulation preparatory exercise in Singapore. It's well written; parts ought to go to Counter-terrorism in Singapore. Nothing unexpected happened here - all went to plan. Question is, does general preparatory terrorist-simulation exercises constitute a separate article？As this stands I think it is too detailed, reads more like news reportage. Mandel 16:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Counter-terrorism in Singapore. Walton monarchist89 16:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I'm the creator and main contributor, and agree with summarizing and merging. Hence, let's close this afd. --Vsion 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:06Z

Colony (CMS)[edit]

After reading this article, I still don't get what "Colony" actually is. Also, the only reference on this page is the supposed company's web site. This fails WP:CORP. Diez2 16:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP; no evidence of independent third-party coverage. Also doesn't make much sense. Walton monarchist89 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably an advertisement, although too confusing to be sure Citicat 17:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement-like, plus lacks context and is only linked from articles referring to CMS products. WP:CORP would apply. Roadmr (t|c) 18:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet more spam. Down the -atory with it. Anthony Appleyard 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either a business that fails WP:CORP, or a website host that fails WP:WEB; lack of context makes it hard to say which. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:06Z

Oxygen boost[edit]

Can't find any info about the subject of the article and the two "titans of intensive care" mentioned appear to be land developers[41]. Let's file this under WP:HOAX. Citicat 17:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squeezing the oxygen system's breathing bag is hardly "incredible and innovative". Dictdef. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 17:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsubstantiated, nothing to support claims of notability. Parenthetical citation without a full cite is not a viable ref. Rare that a medical experiment would name the patient...I smell hoax, or neologism at best. DMacks 17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my limited experience, the writers of reports in medical journals do not frequently refer to each other as "titans," and probably would not report an "invention" of such astounding triviality. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pea ceNT 05:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Wrestling Federation[edit]

Non-notable wrestling promotion, no third party sources, fails WP:CORP One Night In Hackney 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: see newly added mainstream references - 128.241.40.27

Comment It would have been helpful if you had added the references before removing the prod tag, then we wouldn't be here now. Nomination withdrawn, close please. One Night In Hackney 19:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced on major wrestling news websites (PWInsider, Obsessed with Wrestling), etc. Hard to judge this type of organization under WP:Corp, because any wrestling group is likely to be mentioned on these sites, and almost no group other than the WWE and possibly one or two others are likely to be mentioned in the mainstream media. They've existed for more than ten years, run shows regularly, and would seem to be of interest to the indy wrestling fan. Equivalent to a single-a baseball team, which would be kept. Citicat 18:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Citicat's reasoning. Mathmo ^Talk 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep More notable than other wrestling promotions. EWF has been around for a long time, and has been acknowledged many times by WWF and WCW. Bad faith nom. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some notability is shown in the article. TJ Spyke 02:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do the sources not suffice for notability? (ps im the first strong keep above)

Keep and Clean Up - I feel this meets the notability guidelines, but there is too much in the intro and not enough in the body. This is not a reason to delete it; I'm just mentioning it. Diffuse some of the information out of the opening and into subsections. -- The Hyb rid 02:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, article positively asserts subject's nonnotability. NawlinWiki 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Vance[edit]

A supposed poet whose existence is unverifiable. Google searches for his name and any of the poems come up empty. Anon removed the prod and added the following to the talk page: "I think there were no Google matches because this poet is some sort of lone nut who writes his poems on napkins. Simply because he does not have any matches on Google does not mean that he is not worthy of being recorded in digital history.". So yeah, delete. ... discospinster _talk 17:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I did a Google for Mike Vance, Michael Vance, M. Vance, plus some of the quoted titles and found nothing relevant. Plus the linkage to Lindsay Lohan, Hilary Duff, and Jessica Simpson in the "Sexual Conquests" section of the article seems just maybe possible a little bit hoax-like. :-) Thomas Dzubin ^Talk 17:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These poems do exist. I have read them. If you look at http://www.myspace.com/babymohl you can see the remnants of his blog where his work resides. Also, on Mike Vance's Facebook page he has a group entitled Rip These Poems OFf where he presents his work. I met this poet and can ensure you he does exist! Everything on the article is true at the time of this writing. 17:53, 7 February 2007 User:208.7.218.32 (= author of Mike Vance page).
But there are likely -illions of minor poets and poetasters who write in blogs. Anthony Appleyard 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me everyone here is missing the point. The people who call for deletion and those in favor of keeping the article don't understand that this guy represents the unheard mass of people who clamour for a voice in this new world. Look at this discussion page, it has brought serious inquiry into a life no one would have bothered with before the article was written. I am in favor of keeping the article simply to remind the world how powerful one life can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.7.218.32 (talk • contribs)

ok, I see the "Sexual Conquests" section has disappeared now, However...Since you are the author of the page, perhaps you might want to put some references on the article page as per WP:VERIFY ... well I still say delete based on non-notable, as per WP:NN. I doesn't mean that "I don't understand that he represents the unheard mass of people ", I just think that the article doesn't fit the Wikipedia policies for being included in wikipedia, that's all. Thomas Dzubin ^Talk 18:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~Thomas~~ Whoever authored the article: take a look at WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the place to leave your mark on the world. Also, apologies to Mr. Vance but jotting poems on napkins leaves him a long way from notoriety under WP:BIO; his alleged publications on numerous magazines would have to be documented. First he has to become notable, then maybe an article on Wikipedia about him will be warranted; not the other way around. Roadmr (t|c) 18:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy, Vance, is a jerk. I met him once and he was all ignorant and stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.7.218.32 (talk • contribs)

Comment Since the author appears to be participating in this discussion, I agree with Thomas Dzubin on putting some sourcing in the article. Otherwise I can't see it meeting notability. Citicat 18:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Sabow (2nd nomination)[edit]

This article was previously nominated here and I closed that nomination was early for procedural reasons. Having a few days to review the article content, I don't think the subject meets WP:BIO. There is one non-trivial news story in the OC Weekly and he is mentioned in a Senate appropriations bill, but I don't see evidence that this individual meets our guidelines. Beyond that, there is an element of WP:OR here as it appears the primary editor on this article is trying to collect various sources in one place to advance or publicize the notion that the subject was murdered and acheive some sort of wikijustice. WP:NOT a memorial so I'm not sure this is the best usage of resources here. All this take together leads me to believe this article should be deleted.--Isotope23 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regrettably there are thousands of routine murders. Anthony Appleyard 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article does not satisfy WP:BIO, and I see no way the murder claims could be presented here without running afoul of WP:BLP anyway. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Very few of those "routine murders" are covered in an OC Weekly story titled "Former DA homicide chief says El Toro officer was murdered". I can understand every effort to impeach every material about this person... but in the 16 years since his death, a lot of people have considered him noteworthy. http://google.com/search?q=James+Sabow JPatrickBedell 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page exists to back up the creators claim that many living people, including a former Commandant of the Marine Corps, had the man murdered so the US Gov't could continue in the illegal drug trade. It is nothing but conspiracy and this individual does not rate a page because of it. The article is riddled with original research and will continue to serve as a forum for this individual to make outrageous claims aginsts still living people.--Looper5920 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO with published coverage, passes WP:V with lots of verifiable sources, at least some of which are reliable. Editors aren't required to be neutral - edits are. I see no evidence the edits aren't neutral (even though it's clear the editor(s) are probably not). WilyD 19:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, where is the published coverage that meets WP:BIO? Other than the OC Weekly, I see blogs, reprints of USENET posts, and personal websites, but not coverage from WP:RS.--Isotope23 19:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is not a blog, usenet post or the like. It's a publication from an unrelated company. Sure, this isn't the kind of sourcing I'd want to take into a featured article nomination, but they bring it up to the minimum standard of WP:V and WP:RS, nevermind bringing him past the notability criterion of "multiple published coverages" of WP:BIO. This is such an open and shut keep I'm frankly flabbergasted that there's even a debate, nevermind that so many arguments fly in the face of the facts. WilyD 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a blog... it is a PDF of the forensics report compiled by an outside consultant that they apparently made available on the web. personally I think it is a bit of a stretch to consider that towards WP:BIO... "multiple published coverages". That is close to saying anyone who has had an article written about themselves and then dies and gets an obit would meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obits are typically trivial or nearly trivial coverage, of ~1 paragraph, whereas the publication on his death from the Meixa Tech is 30 pages long - I would be hard pressed to see how that could be called Trivial. WilyD 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was trivial; I just fail to see how the fact that the forensics lab decided to post the PDF on their website meets the spirit of WP:BIO's "multiple published coverage". This isn't a word count issue.--Isotope23 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one instance of a independant published source in which he's the focus and which is nontrivial. The OC Weekly article is a second such item. So there are multiple published coverages - I guessed you were deriding it as trivial because I can't imagine any other argument one could hope to plausibly make ... WilyD 19:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference of opinion then... I just don't consider a PDF of a forensics report posted on a website to be a "published coverage".--Isotope23 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you can make a plausible argument to that effect. Even simple dictionary definitions will show that it's published coverage. Since I'm not sure how you can deny this (in that I can't guess any rational) I'm not sure what policy or guideline to point you to. The essay WP:HORSE may be applicable, but it's a fairly inscrutable argument you're making, so I'm very likely wrong. WilyD 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your perceptive comments! WilyD, I thought the mention of WP:HORSE justified the image to the right. JPatrickBedell 23:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Neither Colonel James Sabow nor his death have any notability."

If you are interested, the argument is simply this: As I said before, I don't think a PDF of a forensic report to meet the intended spirit of WP:BIO's "multiple coverages". That is my opinion and interpretation. [[[WP:BIO]] is a guideline & not a hard policy so it is open to interpretation.--Isotope23 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of those are reliable sources from what I can tell, so no, it does not meet WP:BIO, nor WP:V. Unless several reliable sources are found, this one's got to go. - Taxman ^Talk 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only references are trivial.-MsHyde 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two references added to Col. Sabow postmortem controversy from .gov domain - a finding of fact by a US District Court and US Congress budget language directing an investigation. JPatrickBedell 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Court proceedings are factual events that can be used to back up specific claims, but they do not establish the subject's notability.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Third party reliable sources would be needed that show importance or impact of the case. And mac.com pages can't be used for references of any kind. - Taxman ^Talk 23:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Wikipedia is not a forum to see that "justice" is done. The article creator has explicitly states that "I am determined to see that justice is served in the death of Colonel James Sabow. I apologize for the graphic content of some of my contributions. I am very disturbed by the fact that Col. Sabow's civilian superiors and their successors have been able to continue their narco-mercantilism." This material is better suited to the editor's personal website. Also, see the User subpage User:JPatrickBedell/JDSabow evidence 2007 which is a gathering of information on the subject and appears to fall under WP:OR — ERcheck (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subpage is part of the campaign for "justice", now on Miscellany for deletion. — ERcheck (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a serious lacking of notability. He was a Marine Corps officer- not notable in its own right. He was ruled a suicide- not notable in its own right. His suicide is questioned- not notable in its own right. Add the three up and there is still nothing significant to contribute here. Teke^(talk) 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:BIO - The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person - since ths does exist, he is notable, and notability is not subjective. WilyD 15:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you make that enough reliable sources to support an article then perhaps you have something. I only see one source that's marginally reliable (Even that one's not a given) here, and that's simply not enough for an article. Really it's not that big a deal, we don't need to cover everything, just what has substantial reliable sources. - Taxman ^Talk 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Meixa Tech and the OC Weekly sources are reliable. WP:BIO says you need multiple such sources, and two such sources is thus the threshold. WilyD 19:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe Meixa Tech should be considered a reliable source on its own. Do they put up every "article" they publish, or only ones that might convince a potential customer to use their services? Richard D. LeCour 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have some reason to believe they're an unreliable source? They apparently win American government contract(s) [42] and are apparently considered a reliable source by the National Center for Biotechnology Information [43]. So why do you call them unreliable? WilyD 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is one undoubtable reference, the one cited at "NCBI" above, which turns out to be an article in the peer-reviewed. J Forensic Sci. 1991 Nov;36(6):1745-52. Most murders do not get covered by pathology journals. That makes this one N, and the other sources add the context. I was about to vote delete until I stopped and looked at this article. DGG 06:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a saying that says, "Sometimes you have to call a spade a big F*&^ing shovel." Why do we give people with crazy conspiracy theories a voice on Wikipedia for fear that might we offend someone. Read this guys userpage. He is pretty clear on his intentions and what this article is here to accomplish. Officiallty Colonel Sabow committed suicide and no one on this site is in a position to contest the findings.... pretty simple. So can I assume that any suicide that is contested rates it's own wikipedia article? I mean anyone who complains loud enough will eventually get a mention somewhere. How about keeping this in the trashcan where it belongs until something actually notable becomes of it.--Looper5920 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per Taxman. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. Local attention to murders / suicides does not make notability. Kusma (討論) 13:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Additional reference added to address published articles regarding activity at MCAS El Toro. JPatrickBedell 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment user already !voted "keep" above. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken... please only add keep or delete' once per discussion. Thanks!--Isotope23 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per many of the above, lack of sources. Medical claims pointing to xray images (like most wikipedia readers will be able to verify the claim by looking at the image). Also wikijustice stuff seems - wikipedia is not a soapbox --pgk 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article exists solely to advance an agenda. The subject is not considered notable by anybody other than those promoting that agenda. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real assertion of notability, even as a murder victim. Also, the article itself is a soapbox. -Will Beback · † · 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial references, invitation to soapboxing. --Mmx1 03:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inappropriate content throughout article as it currently exists. JPatrickBedell 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
would anyone like to follow the rules? Very few homicides are interesting enough forensically to get a full published peer-reviewed paper about them, and that is N. It & the press coverage are two RS, one of which is of national significance. This meets the rules. DGG 08:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have rules. What you are referring to is a guideline which means it is subject to interpretation.--Isotope23 01:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)--Isotope23 01:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wash socks, then delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Sami Haddad[edit]

Delete fails WP:BIO TonyTheTiger 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention of notability, not even up to our usual "my college professor" rule of thumb. DMacks 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete For an AUB student the Lee Observatory Pioneers are our predecessors and Mr HADDAD's

made a lot of research that we use as material in our courses until today. The Lee Observatory itself is the only Astro Dome of Lebanon. It is not stated in any of Wikipedia's articles. And so you choose to delete the only article that talks about Lebanese Astronomers. Instead of expanding Wikipedia you try to shrink it. I found dozens of articles that are unsignificant on Wikipedia yet they are kept. --George CHOUCAIR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.224.136.107 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unfortunately, I have not found any articles written by him using the ADS (Astronomical Data System) or arXiv --or in Google Scholar, just in case. DGG 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, however it is very sad, that you choose to judge and delete after an article has been published on wikipedia, this shows a certain weakness in this system. Allow me to explain:
The administrators of wikipedia could have been more creative in a way that they would include all material that are subject to approval in a waiting zone prior to their publication. Once they are approved they should be published. It is quite discomforting in my particular case since the person being my own father, and he will find out that because he does not have internet evidence of his work well guess what you are not credible and all what you have done is to be considered as nothing and subject to deletion. In this case i think it will only humilate the person and his work.

So it is very nice from all of you to have followed this issue and no offence Go ahead and delete it. You have my approval Signed Walid HADDAD 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This deletion process isn't aimed at banning the subject from ever having an article, just that this article at this time isn't up to standards. When the subject becomes notable, we'd welcome an article about him at that time. DMacks 16:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, please read the "conflict of interest" guideline. Please do hang around and write objective articles about topics such as Lee Observatory. John Vandenberg 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few of the proper names on this article can be linked to other articles and I cant find the evidence of notability. John Vandenberg 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

I Thank you to write and I appreciate your comments and trust that you will make wikipedia better.

I have added the links to Mr Kennedy and Mr Gingrich on my father's page. I have also deleted the link to his homepage not to appear as if i am making any attempt to sell his work through wikipedia.

My father being born in 1935 (which is not yesterday) most of his papers used until this day by scholars at the AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT are not to be found on the internet. Actually most of the studies written or not by him are not to be found listed on any internet databse this was back in the 1950s where i beleive not even computers existed. So checking references on the internet for some facts is irrelevant. Internet is a product of the 1990s So anything before that has 90% chance not be available on this internet. Or is in the process to be inputed in a databse. This is why through wikipedia there is a chance of letting these historic facts come to light.

So once again if you feel there is no way that this article / bio is by the guidlines of wikipedia because there is no proof of it/he/she on the web please feel free to remove it. Knowing that his notability is valid only to a very tiny world for astronomers, scholars of astronomy astrophysicians of Lebanon, a country that will may be stop to exist one day. I just hoped that one day in the far future people would consult and find facts, about this person and know about astronomers and that particular period of time.

Thank you all for you concern, and time. Sincerly Walid HADDAD 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete until proper notability can be shown. thanks Fotografico 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note I have also searched Web of Science back to 1900, the Catalogs of the Princeton and Harvard Libraries,

each noted for its astronomy collection, and Library of Congress. I haven't found the publications: & I suspect they were locally published--if so, I wouldn't rely on any of these. But it would take a knowledge of Arabic to go further, because I can not trust the transliterations or read the titles. My apologies. DGG 04:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do not Delete Mr HADDAD is genuine, he is indeed notable in lebanon, FYI I found an article from him describing the Lee Observatory from the American University of Beirut. Here is the link:

Saad S. Haddad article The subject's name is Saad HADDAD (Sami) being his father's name, it is very common in the middle east to write one's name with the father's first name in the middle hence Saad Sami HADDAD, I also found the subject's website Saad HADDAD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.224.136.107 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. But only with a stub status. This gives the chance to the author of the article and other wikipedians to work on it. It doesn't look like a typical authobiographical article of people with a high ego. Mr.K. (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing our WP:BIO criteria. This is not us saying your grandfather has no credibility, we are only saying he's not well-known enough in the world-wide community. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect/merge to Malone Road. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 01:07Z

Malone Presbyterian Church[edit]

Deletion contested on the grounds 'This church is famous within the local area, providing outreach to people from all sections of the community and providing a chirstian light in the city by its famous window'. Unfortunately, there is no indication of notability, although some claims, and no sources. Other than that there is minor spam on what groups meet when. Nuttah68 17:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable individual congregation. NawlinWiki 19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but add reference about church to local area article- appears not to fulfil WP:CHURCH at present. However its age indicates that it's probably more notable than the article reads at present, so I'd be happy to see some references indicating otherwise. JROBBO 11:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:05Z

Holland Park School[edit]

No assertion of notability, which is really a speedy delete criterion, but it's a big enough/contributed to enough article that I thought this process better for it. Deltopia 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seem to be plenty of Wiki-notable people among its ex-pupils. Anthony Appleyard 17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since articles about individual schools abound, like Lake Highland Preparatory School or Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School for example; these last two are in connection with recent AfD's but the schools themselves are a bit above the deletion mark. Perhaps criteria for these should be revised but for now the article makes it for me. Roadmr (t|c) 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of felt bad for not speedy'ing it, but now I feel better. The trouble is, WP:SCHOOLS hasn't really reached a solid consensus on what notability criteria are. Is any school that ever had a pupil that was notable on any level worth keeping? Because that seems like each notable person would then deserve at least two or three school entries along with. Over the course of a few decades, any school with an enrollment over a few hundred will probably produce someone able to reach a notability threshhold -- ultimately, I think that leads to every school in the world winding up on wikipedia eventually. Deltopia 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Anthony Appleyard and Roadmr. Furthermore this school is the most infamous in the UK and is notable for pioneering comprehensive education. These points are all alluded to in the article, so give it time for contributors to expand it and add references. I will probably do some myself if I get time. bunix 13:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs clean up Fotografico 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vile, loathsome institution, exemplifying the hypocrisy of the socialist education "reforms" in the UK of the 1960s. Undeniably notable/notorious, and a sad object lesson to us all. WMMartin 20:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vespers_(Rock_Band)[edit]

NN group (WP:MUSIC) without released album or press citations. (Why am I nominating this group for deletion when it looks like I created the article? All this information was added to the top of the article Vespers, where I know for sure it didn't belong above all sorts of information about the centuries old religious practice, so I moved it here for AfD discussion. I hope that was the right thing to do; first AfD for me). --Myke Cuthbert 17:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, haven't released album.-MsHyde 17:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename to Rathskeller. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 01:10Z

Rathskeller (disambiguation)[edit]

Move or Rename I have removed the ((disamb)) tag because this page is not really a dab page. I am not sure where to move it or rename it given the existing redirect at Rathskeller. TonyTheTiger 18:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created this page and I am not really sure either. Originally this link just pointed to the famous Boston establishment of this name and I thought it worthwhile to let it be known that the word has a generic meaning and is used as a name by many places. I guess it really isn't a dab anymore. I'll wait to see what others have to say before opining. House of Scandal 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What seems to be wanted, is to move Rathskeller (disambiguation) to Rathskeller although Rathskeller exists. Anthony Appleyard 18:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rathskeller is a redirect to The Rathskeller, so that wouldn't be a problem. House of Scandal 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 01:13Z

Bruce Daniels[edit]

Very minor actor and comedian, appears to fail WP:BIO as I understand the criteria for actors there. He has one significant movie role--but in a movie I've never heard of. I'd delete Wehwalt 18:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the opening act for Margaret Cho, he has toured internationally, and his performances are included on the DVDs of Margaret Cho's live shows such as Assassin. Probably one of the best-known African-American gay comedians. --Eastmain 23:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Larrybob 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 01:14Z

Doctor Who Online[edit]

Website with claims of popularity, but Alexa ranking is below 530,000. Seems to fail WP:WEB. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 19:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB--is not the subject of multiple non-trivial press mentions.-MsHyde 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cleaned up the article a little but it needs more. Right now, that Sci Fi Channel article is the only independent source, but judging by what it says and the numbers the BBC provides about the number of people using this ten-year old site, I really think more sources are out there waiting to be found. I suspect this was one of the author's first articles and that the author might be a younger person. I think it would be in the spirit of Wikipedia to at least try to improve this article. House of Scandal 11:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article reads as a promotional press release with only a "website of the week" cutting as its single source. I also dispute House of Scandal's quote above about "the numbers the BBC provides about the number of people using this ten-year old site" - there is no exact source given for this citation. Using the BBC website's own search engine I could find no results for this site's name. Doctor Who has literally hundreds of fan-run websites. For this page to justify its claims of "extremely popular", "very active", "very secure" there must be at least some reliable independent sources cited as proof. --The Missing Hour 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nareklm 21:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitnews, another Doctor Who fan site with a higher Alexa ranking (264,984 as opposed to 547,713), which was also deleted. By contrast, Outpost Gallifrey, a Doctor Who fansite with an article that passes WP:WEB, has an Alexa ranking of 32,403, an entire order of magnitude higher. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. The "spirit of Wikipedia" should not be bandied about in the face of established guidelines for inclusion. Eusebeus 15:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with above, reads too much like an advert for a website A wikipedia member with an awful username

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 01:15Z

Iceland_Pure_Spring_Water[edit]

Not notable with 13 GHits, one of which is to this entry in Wikipedia. Entry reads like advertisment Markb 14:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Keep and wikify. Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk 14:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Nothing indicates it is being sold on a noteworthy scale. Punkmorten 15:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's at every Walgreens in America. If I put that in the article, it would be flagged as an advertisement. There are pages for Jolt Cola, Martinelli's Sparkling Cider, Aquapod, Imsdal, Apollinaris, etc that are sold in far less locations and have much less notoreity. Closure2000 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC) — Closure2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Closure2000 is the creator of this article SkierRMH 03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think Wikipedia was so elitist. I've been editing anonymously for a while now, but with the first article I try to do, I am shunned as a "one purpose" author. I was trying to add an item that wasn't already on here (hard to do) and I assumed my favorite brand of water, which you can get at 5500 stores nationwide in the states would be fair game. Closure2000 03:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this any more noteworthy than other spring water brands? And why does this article need a link from Spring (hydrosphere)? Delete. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every other water has a page. I don't think it should be deleted based on that.Closure2000 03:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RELISTING TO GAIN BETTER CONSENSUS. Metros232 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 19:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it stands, looks like a bland press release. Needs a broader picture to be a decent article, but could be notable in itself if sold across America. Totnesmartin 20:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (and part of the reason it is so weak is that Closure2000 is pushing it so much, which makes me raise an eyebrow or two). Frankly, I looked over a lot of the bottled water articles, such as Ozarka and they aren't much better. I'd let it go and hope for more improvement in this area.--Wehwalt 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 California State University, Chico. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 01:16Z

Chico University Arboretum[edit]

Very small article half of which contains info on something other than the topic. Google shows mostly mirror sites, other sites only show that the place exists in passing and provides no further information, unable to show notability. Firelement85 19:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with California State University, Chico. There's a brief mention there already, but more could be added there. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not notable enough for own article.-MsHyde 21:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 01:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bucket of crabs[edit]

Delete: No encyclopedic value (contested prod) – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unencyclopedic. User who added it has only one other edit: a test/nonsense edit to the page for April 23 (diff: [44]), so I guess this page was a test edit. --Wittyname 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a dictionary of ~~modern slang~~ idiomatic phrases of sundry origin Bucketsofg 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The project that is a dictionary, moreover, tells us that it is a French idiom that is at least a century old: "panier de crabes". Uncle G 22:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete seems to be a catchphrase for lifestyle gurus and life coaches etc, along the lines of "boiling a frog". Not worth an article. Totnesmartin 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Cancel show. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Boy, My Girl[edit]

These are separate articles for a single story arc of the TV series Love Spell. If you look at the articles, they actually contain little-to-no additional info compared to the episode summaries already on the parent article, and are entirely redundant. Whatever info that can be merged should be merged back into the parent article and the separate articles should be deleted, per them being useless/redundant. Shrumster 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons given above:

Shrumster 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect back to the parent article "Love Spell". That way, anybody searching for a specific episode will be dumped at a location where they can find the information they're looking for. -- saberwyn 20:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per saberwyn Bucketsofg 20:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to merge. Looks like a page in the director's notebook. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 02:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lajbi. Wikipedia doesn't need these. --Howard the Duck 11:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how individual story arcs are even close to being important enough to include in an encyclopedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Whitehurst[edit]

Speedy deleted under the criteria for articles with no assertion of notability, with additional reference to Wikipedia is not a memorial. This was challenged at deletion review, where the deleting admin consented to a listing here. New contributors are advised to consider Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions in offering their opinion, if they wish to offer a persuasive opinion. This is a technical nomination by me, I just don't want to see it at deletion review again. GRBerry 19:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, it's hard to call the page a memorial page when it existed long before the subject passed away.

I prefer to begin addressing the claim of notability by analogy. Logan Whitehurst is to the Velvet Teen -- a band which does warrant inclusion on Wiki -- as Pete Best is to the Beatles. Pete Best has an article, despite having no claim to fame himself except for having been a member of the Beatles before they became famous. Given that the Velvet Teen is notable, it stands to reason that Logan Whitehurst's page belongs here as much as Pete Best's.

It's worth noting that Logan Whitehurst released six albums and has been acknowledged by indie labels such as Pandacide and Slowdance records as a notable figure. Dr. Demento, Pab Sungenis, and Nigel P. Stinkwell have all played his music on their shows. Dr. Demento and Pab Sungenis have dedicated entire broadcasts of >30m to his music and his memory. While the actions of these three individuals (and probably more who I'm not aware of at the moment) do not constitute a major radio network, they are nationally known. Dr. Demento's show is syndicated and gets airplay on major radio stations, so this could be argued to count.

Along with the Velvet Teen, Logan Whitehurst has gone to Japan on tour. Sources: popmatters.com Portland Mercury

On his second to last album, members of Death Cab for Cutie and Pedro the Lion -- both notable bands -- recorded with him.

Another thing of note, though unrecognized by wiki as notability as far as I know, is that much of his popularity came from MP3.com.

All this and I haven't even mentioned his artwork which has appeared on the covers of releases by The Velvet Teen and Tsunami Bomb.

Keep - There's no question in my mind that Logan Whitehurst's page belongs on wiki. Phil 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Logan toured internationally (wiki criteria 3 for musician notability) and was the subject of a half hour or more radio broadcast (wiki musician criteria 11) on the nationally aired Dr. Demento show (January 7th, 2007, and October 12, 2003.) In addition he was a founder, lyricist and drummer for the wildly successful group "The Velvet Teen", which is notable by wiki standards, and wiki criteria 2 for notability of lyricists says "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above." In addition, he was a highly visible and well known artist in the Northern California indie music scene, and apart from his musical talents was an accomplished graphic designer, creating album art for Tsunami Bomb, Dynamite Boy, and many other bands. There is no doubt in my mind that Logan meets wiki's standards for notability. FilmCow 22:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are basic, sourced assertions of notability. Article just needs work.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Not only are all the other keep arguments still valid regarding WP:MUSIC, but I have done a lot of work on the article to better assert his notability, include more sources, and provide a whole lot more information about his actual career than his death. The disparity there was among the reasons it was speedy deleted as a memorial site in the first place. Albrot 05:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:MUSIC, the primary requirement for notability is that the musician in question "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." As was noted in the Deletion Review discussion, there have been multiple, non-trivial, independent published works, although these were not adequately cited within the text of the article. I have edited the article to incorporate additional citations to these independent sources. Argument about individual WP:MUSIC criteria doesn't seem particularly fruitful to me, because these criteria are simply those which imply the above-stated central criterion, which is, in my view, met. Nchaimov 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is apparent under the guidelines of WP:MUSIC, and the recently edited article better conveys this notability than the original, deleted, article did. This may have been a better candidate for cleanup and expansion than deletion to begin with. PabSungenis 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a joke or a hoax. Yuser31415 02:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formosan Mountain Dog[edit]

Google search failed to show any other reference to this breed of dog. I believe this is a joke. Clerks 20:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, not a joke, also known as the "Taiwan dog" or a "Taiwanese" [45][46] this may not be a notable breed -- one claim is that it was recently created and is seeking certification as a breed[47]. A mention in this scientific journal says:

Of these [sampled] dogs, the Korean native aboriginal dogs (HADs), the Sakhalin, and the Taiwanese native dogs are not breeds. Blood samples from them were sampled randomly from several areas in Korea, the Sakhalin, and the mountain area of Taiwan Island, respectively.

--Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is the Taiwan dog, also known as Formosan.[48]

This page mentions one winning a dog show [49], once you get past the long waffly intro. A rare dog, but real. Totnesmartin 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a hoax. Added the Taipei Times ref to the article. —Dgies^t c 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the stub. Not a joke. I found the breed listed on Wikipedia's list of dog breeds, but most of the articles about this breed are found on Chinese-language websites. Reviewing Google results, I found three reputable articles in English that cover the breed, and I listed the URLs on the discussion page. Hoping to find out more. / Internet Esquire 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, the dog show one is iffy, the livejournal not reputable at all. I did find some more sources via the website apparently of the dog breeder, and it helps to have all the altnerate names in there. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 14:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Dawson[edit]

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- ((db-a7)). It was contested with a reason of "Lindsay Dawson is a notable artist. He has been painting professionally for over twenty years. In addition he is a regular Television Guest on the National show "the Fine Art Showcase". He has appeared five times to date, and is scheduled to appear again in March. He is also listed on the AskArt.com site, and the Internet Movie Data base. He has also been published by three major art companies. they are listed in the bio. He has worked on numerous television shows and movies. More sources and references will be added asap". Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was tagged for afd before it was actually completed. The reason this happened was that it was the first article I had submitted to Wikipedia, and I did not realize that it would post when I saved it. I thought I could edit, correct, and add to the article before I published it to Wikipedia. I thought there would be a “publish article” button somewhere, but of course there was not. As soon as I saved the initial article it published an unfinished piece and that was why it was tagged for afd. I believed “saving” the article would place it in cyberspace for future corrections without posting it to Wikipedia. I have since added reference, links, and corrections to the article which I believe meets the standards of notability and writing style for Wikipedia. Please check out Dawson’s credentials before you make a decision. I believe this is a Keeper article. Dawson is certainly more notable than many artists listed already at Wikipedia (how many artists are on national TV as Dawson is regularly). In addition, I will add a "published" area to the article, because Dawson has had over twenty published works of his original paintings. I am in process of gathering the info for all of this, and will post it soon.

Thank you

L. Collins

Gallery 365

How did you want the article improved? In addition, it seems that the first reason given for speedy deletion (a notable person) has been lifted. Is this correct?

more references have been added

The article has been improved by adding even more references.

Delete as is now. Lindsay Dawson is not mentioned once in any of WP's 1.6million articles, which seems strange for a "notable" person. Are the events mentioned in the article notable? They dont strike me as notable. - grubber 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not state anywhere in the Wikipedia:Notability on people section that to be notable they have to be mentioned in other WP articles. However he is mentioned and written about all over the web. - L. Collins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.113.23 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2007 February 9
The article does not establish notability as far as I can tell. If an artist is notable, then, for example, he is an influential person in a certain style or he wins some award. Dawson is not mentioned in his alma mater's notable graduates list. There's no evidence in all of wikipedia (let alone the article itself) that he is notable. - grubber 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a little confused about this inclusion thing. Grubber above votes to delete because Dawson does not come up on other WP articles. But in an old article (Edward R. Thaden) that was deleted Daniel J. Leivick wrote: Being mentioned in a Wikipedia article does not equal notability. Please read WP:NOTE and it will make everything a lot easier. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Dawson has talked at length on The Fine Art Showcase about how Political Art Center was. He paints in a style that is not Modern (and he actually makes money), and for that reason Art Center does not want to recognize him. He has won several awards including the California Arts league Best of show (1991). As I have stated I am getting more of this information together. I'm still bewildered by the shifting standards for notability. For example check out Ferenc Cako who is listed here at WP. He has no sources, references at all, and does not appear in any other WP articles. The only links are to his site, and a video of him doing his art (cool as it is). Why is this acceptable as an article and Dawson is not? I am not trying to be a pest. I truly am trying to figure out the standards.

Thanks for reading my lengthy post - L. Collins

It says above that my post was unsigned (although I did sign it), but I wasn't logged in. Sorry for this. I am not a tech person. I am an art collector. - L. Collins

In response to Grubber’s comments about not being listed on Art Center’s notable Graduates WP page. As mentioned above Dawson has explained in many interviews, but also he did not graduate (please see WP article), he only attended for three years, so he would not be listed under notable graduates because he isn’t one.

Grubber also asserts: “If an artist is notable, then, for example, he is an influential person in a certain style or he wins some award.” Please see list of awards below which have also been added to the article.
California Arts league Best of Show, 1991 (media/oil on canvas)

Gold Star, Worldfest Charleston International Film Festival, 1997 (media/film)

Gold CINDY, International Cinema in the Industry competition, 1997 (media/film)

Bemerkenswert Award, Festival Der Nationen, Austria, 1998 (media/film)

World Premiere, Breckenridge Festival of Film 1998 (media/film)

In addition, Dawson is very influential in his style of Impressionism. He is one of only ten living artists to be represented by The Fine Art Showcase. (a national TV show) that also represents Salvador Dali and Azoulay (who is the youngest living artist ever to have his work accepted into the permanent archives of the Musee du Louvre in Paris). Dawson is the ONLY impressionist that they represent. This fact alone is prestigious and notable. Therefore it would seem to me that Dawson has certainly exceeded the standards which Grubber has listed.

Once again I would like to point out Ferenc Cako that IS listed on WP. One can debate whether a museum exhibition is more important than a national award, but you certainly can’t debate that Dawson’s credentials far and away exceed Ferenc Cako’s. Please don’t dismiss Dawson so easily. He is more influential and notable than other artists already listed on WP. It would seem to me that to remain consistent and fair that the article would be kept. How else could I gauge what is and isn’t acceptable on WP if WP is not consistent with there definition of “notable person”? L. Collins – 2-9-07
Every artist has a list of awards. That does not entitle them to an article. When I read the article about him, I do not see anything "notable". If he is notable, then the article must talk about those accomplishments. The fact that the article does not establish notability and that nothing in wikipedia itself vouches for his notability and the fact that the top 10 results from Google are sites selling his art (rather than vouching for his artistic abilities) makes me believe he is not notable. If there is something notable, then add it to his article. Otherwise the article should be deleted. - grubber 17:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the first point: Grubber stated: “the article does not establish notability as far as I can tell. If an artist is notable, then, for example, he is an influential person in a certain style or he wins some award.” When I listed a series of award Grubber dismissed it this way: “every artist has a list of awards. That does not entitle them to an article.” So in one post he states that one award would establish him as notable, but in another post a series of awards is not valid. I’m confused about the standards. In addition, it is obvious that every artist does not have a list of awards especially at Dawson’s level.

In response to grubbers second point above: I have added to the article, and have established Dawson’s notoriety beyond what I see in almost all of the other articles at WP (imho). Please read the article.

In response to the third point I had stated above: Grubber above votes to delete because Dawson does not come up on other WP articles. But in an old article (Edward R. Thaden) that was deleted Daniel J. Leivick wrote: Being mentioned in a Wikipedia article does not equal notability. Please read WP:NOTE and it will make everything a lot easier. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the forth point: Grubber states that Dawson’s top ten hits are sites selling his work (rather than vouching for his artistic abilities). Actually it’s 9 out of 10; one being the ASKART.com hit that does vouch for his notoriety. I did a search on Thomas Kinkade (arguably the most notable living artist) and his top 9 hits where also sites selling his work. I also did a search on Wyland (another incredibly well known Artist) and his top 10 hits where of sites selling his work. Both Kinkade and Wyland are included at WP, so the top 10 hit rule is obviously not a way of establishing notoriety. In addition, does the fact that sites sell his work mean that he is NOT notable? I would think just the opposite. Most artists do not make a living at it until they are notable.

My statement in regards to Ferenc Cako was not addressed.

I appreciate all the feedback from Grubber. I am truly, with all honesty trying as hard as I can to understand and comply with the “notable Person” standards.

Thanks—L. Collins 2-10-07

This issue will not be decided solely on what I think. There will be (hopefully) ten other people who will vote on this deletion. This takes a few days and we'll see what other people think. - grubber 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced per above searches. For the avoidance of doubt, none of the seven references currently in the article are reliable. Addhoc 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Addhoc; why aren’t the sources reliable? They are real brick and mortar businesses with real people that have written about Dawson’s art. Is Addhoc saying that if they were “reliable” then the article would stay? Why are there other articles at WP about living artists with NO references (Feenc Cako and Kent Williams to name two)? If I removed the references would the article stay? Please help me to improve this article so it can be kept. The references are real. Please tell me the proof you need. Please tell me the standards I need to meet in this article. Thanks, L. Collins 2-12-07

Delete. The current references all seem to be promotional in nature, except for imdb.com, which says very little. You would not expect a sales outlet to give an unbiased judgment. Surely if he is widely known his work will have been reviewed in the press. For the definition of a reliable source, see WP:RS. EdJohnston 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are three sources that are not promoting his work: imbd, askart.com, and the Montecito article (can be verified offline). The fact that most of his references are promoting his work is one of the reasons that he is notable, because he has been very successful. A lot of what has been said about Dawson has been on television. How can I verify that? Thanks - L. Collins 2-12-07

Delete - I don't think notability via WP:BIO has been established to an acceptable degree. It's just skating the edge... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Content of article shows that his work is actively marketed but no 3rd party references about notability that does not have a commercial interest. AskArt and IMdb are just databases that do not establish notability. The additional material that has been added just shows the artist is heavily promoted (New York Art Expo, ect) but that does not mean notability... it just shows an artist that is being "pushed" by an advertising campaign. As is it is just too thin and too much of an "advertisement". Fountains of Bryn Mawr 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:03Z

Ben Powers[edit]

non notable politian, ran for senate in a small party in 2006 and lost, fails WP:BIO, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and note lack of reliable sources. —Dgies^t c 20:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't a phrase like As of 13oct2006, he is the only ballot-qualified candidate not to be invited to appear on Minnesota Public Television's Almanac program. shout "non-notable" from the highest minarets? Not important enough for PBS election coverage? Yikes! Caknuck 21:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rather, I think it demonstrates the bias of PBS, as both the other two minor party candidates (also political unknowns) had been invited. The decision of the media to use polling results to determine inclusions in debates/interviews is somewhat suspect, as the media coverage influences those very results! The media should not be the gatekeepers who decide which candidates are "important" enough to bother with - that's for the voters to decide. That being said, I agree with the delete nom. Someone with "losing candidate" as their whole biography probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally "also rans" are non-notable, unless there are extenuating circumstances. That applies in force here! SkierRMH 22:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no good references.-MsHyde 21:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Semperf 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mescher's method[edit]

Unverifiable - this is merely FOIL named for someone's math teacher, it appears Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a Mescher in the history of algebra, but since the author of this article has added no references, it is not possible to discern about whom he has written. Here is a source for the Mescher who may have made a notable contribution to the history of algebra (very far towards the bottom): http://archimedes.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/toc/toc.cgi?page=109;dir=hutto_dicti_078_en_1795;step=textonly-MsHyde 21:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now has a link. Zbl 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a how-to. This is a little more than FOIL, since one must work backwards; but it's not a good method on problems that aren't guaranteed to factor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not notable enough WP:N --Tunheim 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Link appears to be for a homework set? Doesn't seem like it would be a landmark algebraic method! Sdedeo (tips) 06:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No google hits outside Wiki for "Mescher's method", so this name appears to be a neologism. External link given in article describes method, but does not call it "Mescher's method". Gandalf61 13:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable topic, probably a vanity article. DavidCBryant 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 02:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connections nightclub[edit]

Creating deletion discussion page for connections nightclub because it fails notability criteria and is a self promotion/advertisement. Jellonuts 21:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - claims to be the "oldest continuously running LGBT nightclub in the southern hemisphere" which means it may be notable I suppose. If this claim is true presumably the article could be improved and particularly supported by sources verifying it's notability. A quick google of "Connections nightclub" brings up the club's website and a number of other links, mostly nightlife guide or review sites. Jules1975 10:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of whether it is the "longest continually running LGBT nightclub" or something (a tenuous award in itself), that by itself should not make it notable. I cant see any other notable events or occurences related to the club so cant see any reason to keep the article at all. TSMonk 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete IronGargoyle 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boozerama[edit]

Drinking game which does not appear to be notable; prod was removed by creator with the comment "I feel no need to edit this page as it would come under a drinking game, and drinking games are placed on your website. I don't find your reason valid for deleting my entry as its known in my area." FisherQueen (Talk) 21:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as person who put the prod tag on it in the first place. -- Hawaiian717 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, no assertion of notability. WP:NFT. DMacks 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced per above searches. Addhoc 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 21:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Sabbatini (2nd nomination)[edit]

Strong delete. Article has already been deleted once. Same reasons as before as he has not become notable in the mean time.Mr.K. (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having been through a deletion discussion already, I assume this article is about as improved as it is going to get right now. It is written well, but when you get right down to it, it says he is a newly-minted PhD and professor who spent time working on online scientific journals and web-based education... not really terribly exciting. --Brianyoumans 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete based on the article, and assuming it all Verifiable, it is not enough from the point of view of a conventional academic career. I am not sure how to evaluate it otherwise--there are a large number of very informal publications--this is a continuing problem with those publishing mainly on the internet. Using the experimental indexes Citeseer and Citebase, which do cover information science and related fields, I found no articles and only 1 possible citation to his work. There is a language barrier, because most such indexes do not make a serious attempt to cover non-english language sources. The subject of the article should be able to document references to his work, which can then be verified--if he or his relatives see this, that's something that might help. Please do not speedy close, to provide an opportunity.. DGG 00:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His mom recreated this article, which means WP:CSD#G4 applies. The last Afd should have been relisted for having insufficient input, so please dont steamroll this one. Her article is also on Afd. John Vandenberg 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph F. Sutter[edit]

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but contested. Tough call: it's not clear whether the available sources (none cited, but they do exist) pass the test of independent and non-trivial. For example, he's discussed by name by Richard Feynman in What Do You Care What Other People Think? but I am undecided whether that amounts to non-trivial coverage. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Has with the work on the jumbo and the challenger comission two clear claims to notability and references are easy to come by. Tikiwont 13:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~And~~ Several references and cats have now been added. Tikiwont 13:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per updated version. Being a member of the national academy of engineering is a significant achievement, too. Mango juice^talk 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above searches. Addhoc 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete IronGargoyle 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scuba fetishism[edit]

Contested prod. No references, I doubt that there's a lot that can be written about this. So I think this should be deleted and/or merged to aquaphilia. --Conti|✉ 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not merge. Water is one thing, scuba gear is another thing. Anthony Appleyard 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Rubber fetishism or Uniform fetishism might be more appropriate merger destinations? Grutness...wha? 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another made up fetish. Come back when there are references in the relevant academic journals. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-encylopedic. Everything can be an object of fetish, which doesn't mean that we need to have an article about everything out there. --dcabrilo 22:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biise[edit]

Non notable software, still in development. No Google hits found. Jvhertum 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we talk about this, biise is a relatively new project and application. --Brendan.laing 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it's still too young a project to gain any notoriety and hasn't even had a release yet. Brendan, are you a developer? Perhaps it's too soon to add a wikipedia article about your own project; wait until you have a body of users and they deem it worthy enough to add it themselves. As it is, the project was added to sourceforge just today, has released no files and doesn't have an entry on freshmeat.net; meaning it's not even in active development yet. Roadmr (t|c) 00:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability, and comment. Brendan.laing, you appear to be in charge of this thing (as admin of the sf project)...careful of WP:COI...but also note that that deleting now does not prevent an article from being written in the future once this thing has some third-party verifiable notability. DMacks 01:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI sounds fair although this posting is for no financial gain. Please note the project has been running for more than 2 years (although not publically), and google does return hits. If you wish to delete, that's fine, I'll come back later :-) - --Brendan.laing 13:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brendan! if you wish to make your project public I recommend you add it to the freshmeat.net index; it's far better suited for that purpose than Wikipedia. Also, open source projects abound, and while most have entries on freshmeat, only the most important merit a wikipedia article. Hopefully it'll become a successful application and eventually without you even realizing it a wikipedia entry will appear "on its own". Roadmr (t|c) 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When you release something and gain a userbase, we can start considering notability. For now, not even close. Nardman1 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's not notable. --Tunheim 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Google hits are not a substitute for reliable sources, and nothing was provided to show that WP:V was met. --Core desat 02:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dental braces fetishism[edit]

Contested prod. I doubt this is a very noteworthy fetish, and I don't think that enough sources can be found for this to warrant its own article. --Conti|✉ 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy - No reliable sources of info on the topic. Seems to be patent nonsense. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are 12,700 Ghits for "braces fetish" (323K hits without the quotes), and those hits show that there are several commercial enterprises dedicated to providing pictures of girls and boys in braces. It's a real sexual phenomenon, and I think sexual fetishes, unless extremely rare, are notable. This one doesn't seem extremely rare. --Hyperbole 23:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTSOFHITS does not appear to be a policy, whereas WP:V is, and WP:RS is a widely accepted guideline. Perhaps you could help us out by identifying the reliable sources for this term? Guy (Help!) 12:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a subject yields thousands of hits, there's a very strong chance that at least one of them is reliable. The existence of the fetish is relatively noncontroversial; it's best to give the editorial process a chance to find appropriate citations. --Hyperbole 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editorial process has time, 5 days. That it may someday pass Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not a reason to keep. Jeepday 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article should be deleted only if the subject cannot reasonably be expected to pass WP:N or WP:V. If it's reasonably clear that the subject passes those policies, but the article in its current incarnation doesn't prove that the it does, that's grounds for improvement, not for deletion. And setting a five-day timetable is bad policy - we could probably nuke two-thirds of Wikipedia using that reasoning. --Hyperbole 07:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hyperbole's reasoning. Mathmo ^Talk 00:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Semperf 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because?... Guy (Help!) 12:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N also note that Wikipedia:Notability_(pornographic_actors)#Dubious_methods_of_establishing_notability talks about Ghits The adult film industry uses Googlebombing to influence rankings on search engines for current performers' names. As a result, the Google test is not suitable to determine the notability of a performer. This is especially the case for performers whose work antedates the Web. While a fetish is not a performer the same theory would seem to apply. Jeepday 04:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up also fails WP:V as it is unreferenced. Jeepday 04:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another made-up fetish. Come back when there are articles in the relevant academic journals. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hyperbole's reasoning. There are several dedicated websites and forums on this out there, and have been for many years (even by web standards). Only problem is lack of scientific writings, which applies to most fetishes. From personal observation definitely not a "made-up fetish" or "patent nonsense"! The article needs to be edited, though.--George3rd 12:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC) — George3rd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per Jeepday's reasoning. Just because there are forums and websites out there about the topic, doesn't necessarily make it worthy of inclusion. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:V, Google hits are inflated due to monkeying by porn site owners. Andrew Levine 19:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I don't see anything useful/sourced to move over to an article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field trip procedures[edit]

PROD removed. Unencyclopedic OR by synthesis; Wikipedia is not a repository of how-to materials or policies or procedures or other instructional documents. The article was originally the author's work and was a detailed set of instructions on how to run a field trip; the present version is a simplified set of policy/procedure issues, either the author's own opinions, or summarized from the school district manuals cited as primary sources. I suggested WikiBooks or WikiSource for the original. Delete. --MCB 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what is useful back to field trip, delete the rest. Wikipedia is not a collection of how-to articles. --Brianyoumans 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Brianyoumans. It's not just a how-to manual, but it's substantially a how-to manual listing blatantly obvious stuff. I imagine a school administrator would love to point to an external source and say "we are doing our policy by this published method" even if it's a publication of obviousness. But WP is not for OR or how-to. DMacks 00:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redirect for a merge is inappropriate. The article should not exist in any form as it is clearly WP:NOT an encyclopedic article. The author may wish to list it on Wikibooks. Alan.ca 04:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nothing worth saving or merging. Mango juice^talk 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alan.ca, a how-to guide isn't an encyclopedic article. Addhoc 18:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous commercial failures[edit]

Like List of flops in entertainment, whose AfD can be viewed here, this article is entirely made up of anecdotal, unsourced original research. The very title demonstrates that it is an indiscriminate list. Furthermore, it does not define "commercial failure", and is written in a gossipy tone. List of films that grossed less than their budget or List of Broadway plays that ran for less than 6 months are well-defined, potentially encyclopedic topics. This article is not and should be deleted or blanked and restarted with real criteria and sources. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word flop or failure itself isn't neutral, therefore each addition to the list would have a point of view from the author's own perspective. I agree with the nomination that this list and other similar ones should either be split or moved to separate lists with more accurate titles. So unless reliable sources which describe the failures could be provided, delete. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there simply aren't specific enough parameters for this list. We shouldn't have this for the same reason we don't have List of miscellaneous French words - the list couldn't even approach completion without being mind-bogglingly long. --Hyperbole 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT a list of indiscriminate (i.e., miscellaneous) information. Semperf 00:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...but I suspect this is an article which is going to come back from the dead when someone decides that "Commercial flops (whatever they should decide that means) should be in one place to reference". If this article is deleted, all pages which reference here should either be de-redlinked, rephrased, or otherwise not be pointing here, to avoid this happening. This article is widely linked (check 'What links here' for the page), and if only deleted without these changes, I suspect the article will reappear quickly. Skybunny 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with the concept of this page. If it reappears with a clear definition on top and each entry sourced to meet that specific definition, that would be great.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the word miscellaneous says it all. Define failure. Define miscellaneous. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's the history behind this article: It was once at the title "List of major flops", but later changed to "List of commercial failures". Later, someone decided this list was too big, and split it into a bunch of different lists, accessible from Category:Commercial failure lists. Entries that didn't fit into one of the delimited flop types ended up on this list. Anyway, like most of the other "commercial failure" lists, this is almost pure original research. This is unsourced trivia appropriate for an entertainment website, not an encyclopedia. A neutral, verifiable article on this subject is possible, but it would have to be rebuilt from the ground up. (On a side note, this is one of the first pages I worked on when I was new here.) szyslak (t, c) 17:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bussiness failures are common and present everywhere. Pavel Vozenilek 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This list is a good resorse for product that were suposed to be revolutionary but missed the mark with consumers. I originaly found this page looking for information on a product I did not know the name of, DVD that only lasted 2 days, for a report i was doing. Thanks to this list not only do I now know that it is called Flexplay I also found information on older flops that I was not aware of like the Digital Compact Cassette. Several good resorses have recently been deleted from this site pleas do not make this anouther victim of deletion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.176.200.253 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - needs strict rules on what counts as a 'flop'. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a list of products that somebody doesn't like. Blowski 10:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 04:00Z

Augustus Supreme[edit]

Found in Category:Uncategorized from February 2007. What. The. Heck? I'd db-g1 it, but thought a discussion might be in order. Fvasconcellos 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utter fraudulent nonsense. Lived in Italy in the 14-1500s, studied in California and invented the paper airplane?! I would personally be tempted to whack it with ((db-nonsense)) but this AfD is already running. I recommend someone BJAODN it and check the copyright legitimacy of the image. 68.39.174.238 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax article clearly Jeepday 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for obvious reasons. --Haemo 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Drivel. WMMartin 20:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

River Bend Middle School[edit]

non notable middle school; stub article on completely unremarkable school. Brianyoumans 22:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent that middle schools are non-notable unless they have some special claim to notability. Note that someone has made these stub-class articles for every middle school in Loudoun County - see Loudoun County Public Schools#Middle schools. We should delete those as well. --Hyperbole 23:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I would AFD this one, and if it gets deleted, do a mass AFD on the others. --Brianyoumans 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nothing more than a directory. TJ Spyke 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do feel slightly sorry for any kids who have put some effort into a page about their school, only for it to be deleted as nn. (Some school entries are better than others but a school is still non-notable even if the article on it is well written) That's not a reason to keep these articles however, unless the concencus is that all schools are notable. That doesn't appear to be the general view, so is there any way to have a mass cull of nn school pages? Jules1975 10:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel slightly sorry for anyone who puts time and effort into Wikipedia only to have it deleted; still, we don't want to end up with a whole class of articles that are of so little interest to all but a few individuals that we end up with little graffiti magnets subject to very little peer review. Schools are particularly notorious for this; I've got five or six high schools on my watchlist and the amount of vandalism I have to revert, compared to other articles, is ridiculous. --Hyperbole 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is not the work of kids but instead of a diligent new editor to Wikipedia who saw a bunch of red links and assumed that they all needed articles. The real culprit is people who red-link things that will never need articles. --Brianyoumans 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable — MrDolomite | Talk 16:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. WMMartin 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Top[edit]

Conflict of interest and self-promotion -- MightyWarrior 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VANITY, but without prejudice to recreation - if the awards Top has won are reasonably notable, he might meet the criterea for notability. --Hyperbole 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The wikis for the awards have just been created by the same editor, so it is currently not possible to judge their own importance. (I will tag the for notability). Tikiwont 14:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 14:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be blatant self-promotion. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep or delete Oscar van Dillen (me) as well? ;-) greetz, oscar 17:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 18:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above searches. Addhoc 18:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Press reviews would aid us in determining notability, but there are none. The article is not too helpful in describing his music: "Top's music is characterized by extreme contrasts; eloquence and inner expression are pivotal." It is hard to see any meaning at all in this kind of language. Surely something more definite can be said, or he could be compared to other classical composers who are better known. EdJohnston 00:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 00:55Z

Pennsylvania Route 999[edit]

No indication of notability for this nine mile long stretch of highway in Pennsylvania Edeans 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TMF and the links V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a highway that the state has numbered and marked for motorists. If you're worrying about notability, think of it as summary style: we could have a large article, list of State Routes in Pennsylvania, that certainly has "multiple non-trivial sources". Splitting is then an organizational matter that cannot affect whether the information should be on Wikipedia. --NE2 01:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the nominator Wikipedia is not paper. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there any state in the Union that fails to "number and mark" those public byways for which they have financial (i.e., construction and maintenance) responsibility? If we accept this public budgetary argument of notability, are not all of the persons on a state's public welfare rolls similarly notable, and similarly entitled to WP articles? Edeans 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. But there are some states that designate a portion of a state highway (example Pennsylvania Route 60) to be maintained by another commission (in this case PTC). Those commissions also do their part to sign the highways as well. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specially designated portions of highways, due to cultural or historical significance, are not at issue here (like the Lincoln Heritage Trail (Oops! No article! How did that happen??)). Edeans 02:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funding is a complicated issue; most (or all?) states have a state aid system, in which the state provides funding to local governments for local improvements. These are not marked by the state. Similarly, many states choose not to sign some of the more minor state highways. And in a few states, the numbers are assigned to and marked along major highways, regardless of whether the state maintains them. Essentially, a numbered and signed state highway is a highway that the state not only (usually) maintains, but has decided that it is useful to mark it as part of a system for motorist navigation. --NE2 02:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NE2 et al. We are working on a solution for articles like these currently at WT:USRD, and I please ask that we be allowed to come to consensus in finding a solution to all concerns. --MPD^{T / C} 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete --many a topic belongs in WP as a part of an article that is not N by itself, and this solution has been used repeatedly. It has the advantage of avoiding these debates. None the less, we have to decide on the matter that is in front of us, which is this article about something with nothing much to say about it.DGG 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you say about an article like California State Route 37? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, this highway was constructed, but so was the crappy road in front of my house. And so was my house. And so was the sandwich I had for lunch today. The key to inclusion is not truth, but importance. Salad Days 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a strawman, since none of those were deemed important enough by the government to be marked on signs for the benefit of travelers. --NE2 03:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The road in front of my house has government signs displaying it. And my house number was painted into the street by government employees. Salad Days 03:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a strawman; there is a major difference between a standard street sign and a signed numbered route, which is an additional "layer" of navigational help. --NE2 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim that all numbered routes are inherently notable. That's lovely, but I fail to see why this particular stretch of road deserves an article when its simple mention would suffice on list of State Routes in Pennsylvania. Salad Days 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize how long the list would be if all the individual articles were merged there? --NE2 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the articles contain minutae which an encyclopedia does not need; I don't see that to be relevant. Salad Days 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you remove from this article? --NE2 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the article that a detailed map would fail to provide, other than the date it was created. Salad Days 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A map would not allow the reader to click on the place names for more information. We use wikilinks in articles to interconnect them. --NE2 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google maps provides a quite detailed perspective of virtually any location. We appear to have a fundamental disagreement about what this site provides. Let's get a divorce. Salad Days 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State routes are notable. --UsaSatsui 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per TMF, V60, NE2, MPD, et. al links • master_son^{Lets talk} 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State highways are notable. —Scott5114 ↗ 07:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highways make up the backbone of an areas road network, and are about as significant as railway lines in terms of usage and importance. While there are too many roads and streets to justify articles on every one of those, articles on numbered highways are reasonably discriminate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is to be deleted, then any other numbered highway should be deleted for the reason given. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 11:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This section of roadway fails notability. Apparently there has been no coverage in reliable and independent sources where it is a primary subject. There is absolutely no Wikipedia policy that every section of road with a number on it is inherently notable so that it doesn't need to satisfy the basic notability criterion. The government pays for and puts numbers on lots of things, such as toll booths and salt spreading trucks. Signs are pretty cheap. There are marker signs on every mile of interstate, but that does not entitle every mile of interstate to its own article. There are articles about sections of state higheway less than 1/3 of a mile long, and articles about county highways are defended with the same arguments as for longer statw highway sections. The notability arguments do not go beyond "ILIKEIT" and the joy of making an article out of every datum in a state database of numbered roads. Inkpaduta 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh really, have you read the ILIKEIT essay? I argued for notability here, I pointed out that the state highways form the backbone of the state's transportation infrastructure, and that they are notable because of this. Trying to dismiss all the "keep" arguments by labelling them as "ILIKEIT" is really very insulting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting opens up a maelstrom of deletions to all road articles, with the exceptions of someone's vague idea of notability. I-295 isn't very notable (as in no one talks about it here in St. Pete), yet it just recently attained GA-class status. Would that need to be deleted too because it's not known outside of the Delaware Valley? Please think about these things before we delete something like this. It may be some backroad somewhere, but notability is a subjective term that could lead to much more harm than good. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 16:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a precedent to keeping roads at WP:USRD/P and, per EaglesFanInTampa, dealing with the subjective notability opinions of the thousands of highway articls one at a time would be a nightmare. Roads are inherently notable. --Oakshade 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not entirely sure if this is supposed to be a "point" nomination or not, but numbered state highways and routes should be notable. (jarbarf) 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The state of Pennsylvania has asserted that this road is important enough to designate it as a primary state highway. Krimpet 20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Okay, this road exists. So what? Let's say I made an article on a farm, and the only thing I said was "This is a farm. It was established in 1900. It covers 10000 acres. It is on the border between Kansas and Oklahoma. It recieves farm subsidies from the government". That would be most certainly deleted. But because it's a road, it gets kept? And this kind of blatant votestacking doesn't help. Seriously, what is with the "OMG EVIL PEOPlE ARE GONNA DELETE OUR ROAD ARTICLES!" -Amarkov moo! 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your non sequitur does not help. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fully agree. I dispute, however, that this unhelpful non sequitur exists. And refuting everything I said with one sentence is no more helpful. -Amarkov moo! 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Farms are not maintained by the state and given a number. One farm is not, by itself, important to the local economy. One farm is not known and used by thousands of people in one day. That is how it is a non sequitur. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think anyone is arguing "Cruft Blvd. in Podunk, Idaho" deserves an article because it's a road, and therefore notable (or if they are, they're seriously mistaken). State highways, though, are another matter. If they weren't important, they wouldn't be state routes in the first place. That's the basis behind the "State routes are inherently notable" debate: That being enshrined into law makes them so. The comparisons to farms and mailboxes and the like are just silly, because it assumes that if all roads aren't notable, none of them are. There are some notable roads, just like there are some notable farms (though I'm unaware of notable mailboxes at this time). As I mentioned in the other AfD, it may be a good idea to go to mediation or some other dispute resolution process and hammer out some notability criteria for roads. --UsaSatsui 22:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not my point. My point is that other things with this amount of information would be deleted, and a road should be no different. Plus, all your arguments for why a road must be notable apply to pretty much every room in any City Hall with a big enough population. For instance, let's take the legislative chamber of a random city. Thousands of people use it every day, and it's very important to the local economy, as they make laws which regulate it. It may or may not be given a number, but being given a number is really not even close to notability. -Amarkov moo! 22:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        However, there is little notable about a City Hall. Specifically, there are 5400+ road articles about roads in the U.S. Do you believe that they should be deleted? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "If you're worrying about notability, think of it as summary style: we could have a large article, list of State Routes in Pennsylvania, that certainly has "multiple non-trivial sources". Splitting is then an organizational matter that cannot affect whether the information should be on Wikipedia." --NE2 22:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're arguing from an interpretiation of Wikipedia:Summary style that I disagree with. I agree that, for it to work well, there have to be somewhat relaxed standards for notability, which is why many road articles certainly deserve to be kept. But this does not have multiple reliable sources, so it fails WP:N. And besides, the only information in the article is date of establishment, date of completion, and location. Summary style does not demand that you split everything out, and this is one of the things which should not be. -Amarkov moo! 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Summary style and notability conflict in this and other similar cases. Though if you went into newspaper archives, you probably could find many independent sources, such as coverage of the state takeover, and the building of the Lancaster and Millersville Turnpike as a private toll road in the 19th century. [50] is a starting point. --NE2 22:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact remains, there is next to no information on this topic. Regardless of summary style, I do not think it should have a seperate article. And the fact that the notice that the precedent was being challenged has to be so blatantly biased (and calling this a vote, no less) does not help. -Amarkov moo! 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why are you "voting" to delete if you believe it should be merged? --NE2 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Because my experience is that in contentious issues, a merge consensus is declared not the purview of AfD, so I say delete, because a merge to me is "delete but save the information". I have no objection to merging if someone wants to put the information in another article. -Amarkov moo! 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability of secondary highways justifies retention of this referenced and sourced article. Alansohn 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close Alright, we're not going anywhere here with the naysayers, we have a strong presence of Keep (myself included, see above), and we have over 75% in favor of keeping after 4 days, so I move this is finally closed, as the consensus has obviously spoken. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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