< January 9 January 11 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was pwn3d - D3l3t3!. - Mailer Diablo 03:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Leet in videogaming[edit]

Examples of Leet in videogaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I usually don't think content issues warrant deletion, but this article is just a mere collection of info that may not even be real, relevant, verifiable or even interesting. Examples are used to illustrate and explain existing article, not to be a actual article by itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanx (talk • contribs)

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

The result was no consensus leaning toward keep, so keep. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPG terms and acronyms[edit]

MMORPG terms and acronyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I understand that the first afd was closed as keep due to no good reasoning. But i feel that this article still needs to be deleted because it violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Sure that this list may contain terms that are notable for everyone (HP-Health Point). But this list is neither verified nor sourced. I won't recommend removing the not-so-notable terms and keeping the obvious, since determining which term is notable is original research KaiFei 03:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

219.74.192.19 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a reliable source for a single entry, remove it. That doesn't mean there aren't sources for OTHER entries. FrozenPurpleCube 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth noting that the list criteria does exclude such things, so if some have slipped in, it would be appropriate to remove them, though I'm not sure it would be the best idea to remove them. If they're used in MMORPGs, it might be helpful to include them, as people who don't know about their use in RPGs, chatrooms, or whatever, might seek help on them. FrozenPurpleCube 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of one poor article should not be used to justify another. See WP:INN. Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people play MMORPGs. Several million alone in World of Warcraft. Accordingly, the language used by this group of people is reasonable to include. If there were some absolute rule against glossaries, that would be one thing, but there isn't. Not in practice anyway. There's not just one article, there's dozens. This is no less useful than a glossary on ballet or tea ceremonies. FrozenPurpleCube 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ORLY? Tarinth 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even after I produced a book and a web page that provide reliable sources for many (if not all) of the terms? FrozenPurpleCube 20:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The website is specific to a single game, and only includes perhaps half of what's on this article. If you want to pick up a copy of the book you mentioned and source all of the terms, that would be helpful. It's still a collection of neologisms and a (rather) indiscriminate collection.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, World of Warcraft is a single game. It's also the biggest of MMORPGs. Even if most of the words used weren't actually common to MMORPGs in general, I'd have no objection to including those unique to the World of Warcraft culture(or some of the other big-name MMORPGs like Everquest, City of Heroes, etc). As a source though, it represents the work of a major company in the business. That makes it pretty good as a reliable source in my book. Yes, these are new terms used by a relatively new social group, but that doesn't mean there isn't documentation from reliable sources about them. The fact is, you said this list can't be anything other than original research. That's flat-out wrong, I found two sources without even trying hard. Maybe you should revise your comments accordingly? I can understand the concern about this being a collection of words (though given the other glossaries around, I don't feel it's especially objectionable), but your description is a tad overzealous. FrozenPurpleCube 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - a distribution restriction isn't something to tamper with. DS 22:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity code[edit]

This is a dictionary definition followed by a paste of a glossary specific to the United States armed forces. The source that we've pasted into the article could perhaps be used as a reference for articles on military terminology or slang, but the paste of this one particular list does not make an encyclopedia article, and it is hard to imagine how it could become one. Further, it is not crystal clear to me that we can be republishing this; while unrelated to copyright, there is apparantly some sort of distribution limitation on the document. This limitation may perhaps be unenforceable, but I'm not sure what we would gain by pressing the matter; I suggest we can just link to this if we need it rather than republishing it. Jkelly 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to rewrite. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lund[edit]

Mark Lund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article's creation reads, "12:06, October 9, 2006 MarkAshtonLund Talk contribs This page was written by Mark Lund." This article has received most of its edits from its creator and anonymous IPs. My concern lies with it being a self-published article. Fails - WP:Auto. Recommend deletion. Ronbo76 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I nominate solely on the basis of WP:AB. My history of AfD noms is clear. If I were under an influence, I would not nominate nor contribute to the debate. Ronbo76 02:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious violation of WP:AB-. Most 'accomplishments' are not notable. (cant log in for some reason)-155.144.251.120 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above Farside6 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:AUTO. Notability is irrelevant since User:MarkAshtonLund is the admitted author of the page. If he is as notable as he claims, the page will be re-created by a third party. I see no evidence that anyone is out to get him, despite his personal attack on User:Ronbo76. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Venicemenace (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Given the drastic rewrite by a third party, I'll change my vote to Weak keep. Venicemenace 15:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:AUTO says this article should be deleted? --Charlesknight 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself." Count me among the many. Venicemenace 14:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now completely rewritten the article as proposed, discarding all the autobiographical and unsourced material and providing verifiable sources for Lund's accomplishments. Mark, please keep your hands off the article now, and let other people write about you based on published sources. That is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Dr.frog 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put together with the rest I'd say that he's notable enough to stay, regardless of how the article got started, who edited it, and who/how many people will edit it in the future! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's a journalist, not an athlete. Awartha 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right, my rewrite has removed all content relating to Lund's own skating career since it appears he was never notable enough as an athlete to have verifiable, third-party references about his skating accomplishments. But his publishing/media/TV accomplishments are verifiable. Dr.frog 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed reason for keep based on Dr.Frog, but still a strong keep from me! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there is nothing in current policies saying that articles where the subject is also the author has to be deleted. However, due to the possibility for bias, it's advised against, regardless of weather it's Jimbo or others! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 23:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I will admit Dr.frog's edits are a step in the right direction. Nashville Monkey 10:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to no consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miklos Kanitz[edit]

Miklos Kanitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable individual; a Holocaust survivor, but there were thousands of those. The award he was given goes to multiple people and organizations each year, in a province with less than a million people in it. Brianyoumans 18:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read other comments, I change my !vote to Neutral--Anthony.bradbury 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Assuming this person is truely notable, shouldn't there be more information about why he is notable in the article rather than a single sentence at the end of an inspiring, yet common story? A Wikipedia article needs to assert the notability of its subject. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could put a reference to the award in the first paragraph, I don' think the format of the article is particularly important during a AFD. It seems to me we have notable survive (not famous) of a notable event. Daniel J. Leivick 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree 100%. If a factual article improves the encyclopedia then there is no reason to exclude. --Daniel J. Leivick 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The danger is simple: precedent. There are hundreds of millions of elderly people in the world, many of whom have interesting life stories, and many of whom have relatives who would be glad to put up a well-written article about their uncle who served in the war, their grandmother the college professor, etc. How many of these are truly notable? And who would verify them all? And maintain them? We are an encylopedia, not a memorial. --Brianyoumans 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in theory but many many many articles exist on this sort of expectation that maybe perhaps (wouldn't it be great if) more sources exist and will be added later--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That you assert he passes WP:BIO and is encyclopedic does not make it so - why do you believe this to be true?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He specifically meets the The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person criterion of WP:BIO. WilyD 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three references given, he is possibly the primary subject of the newspaper article (it isn't online, I haven't read it, so I assume it is about him). The Anne Franke Exhibition book has a page on him, out of a 24 page booklet on the exhibition (and I think it is obvious he did NOT open the exhibition in other locations; the exhibition is customized for each location, and probably in each location they find an appropriate opening speaker). The other article mentions him briefly in a list of award recipients. So, so far he is at most the primary subject of one source. --Brianyoumans 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above, though, does highlight that any person who comes up on AfD must be discussed on s/his merits. Perhaps "he was there" is not a reason to keep, but "he was there and has since been written about substantially in multiple non-trivial independant sources" probably is.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as original research. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hell problem[edit]

Monty Hell problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A mathematical problem proposed on Usenet (and apparently, an article that dates back to 2003). But it's unreferenced, and excluding Wikipedia mirrors, "Monty Hell problem" receives only 36 Google hits, showing a clear lack of notability. Because of its almost complete lack of coverage elsewhere, I'm inclined to call it Original Research as well. Ral315 (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make it clear that I do not support a merge into Balls and vase problem as is described below; it only makes the problem worse by adding original research to another article. Ral315 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. -- Selmo (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The issue isn't simply the mathematical accuracy, but also verifying whether the problem is actually commonly known in math circles as the "Monty Hell" problem and uses the same "plot". It's possible that this problem was formally published elsewhere using a different fictional premise, for example, in which case we should be using the name of that story instead. Dugwiki 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment there's a technical issue here; the history needs to be preserved, not just the text, for GFDL purposes. But if I'm not mistaken, it is preserved anyway, and can be resurrected administratively if so decided. The rub is that I'm not sure there are any procedures for resurrecting an article "because circumstances have changed" rather than "because it was improperly deleted in the first place". There should be, but I don't know that there are. --Trovatore 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, should references be added, the article can be recreated. It might go back to AFD, but if circumstances change, speedy deletion of recreations doesn't apply. Ral315 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but I wasn't talking about re-creation, but undeletion, which is different. Undeletion restores the history, which would certainly be desired. I don't know of any existing procedure for undeletion because of changed circumstances. --Trovatore 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't clear enough; what I meant was, if it's recreated, the history would be undeleted upon asking an admin to do so, and the work put into this article could be reused. Ral315 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agel[edit]

Agel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Self-promotion of MLM health-supplement company that does not appear notable. Contested prod. NawlinWiki 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death cube[edit]

Death cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - non-notable fictional technology, the aricle itself describes it as a "throwaway reference" in its main use. Other uses are described as "implied." Otto4711 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nearly unanimous discussion, and User:Kyaa the Catlord. JIP | Talk 10:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSF-007 Gundam Mk-III[edit]

MSF-007 Gundam Mk-III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

During a mass de-prodding of articles by TheFarix on Gundam related articles, I reviewed the various removals of the subst'd ((prod)) and have listed this one, the MSF Gundam Mk-III for deletion, as it does not assert its own importance in the Gundam metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exsphere[edit]

Exsphere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Ah, the Pokemon defense. If there are other articles you believe should be deleted for notability issues, then nominate them. Don't hold them up as proof that this article is somehow notable. Exspheres have not been the topic of multiple independent sources as required by WP:NOTE. Otto4711 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually merged information cannont be deleted. --65.95.16.65 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is this: Whatever useful information there may be in this article, merge into Tales of Symphonia. Then delete this article. But this duty should be the responsibility of whomever is interested in keeping this information. Val42 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 policy or guideline reasons for keeping were provided, and the nomination is not in bad faith. --Coredesat 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMX-003 Gaza-C[edit]

AMX-003 Gaza-C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

During a mass de-prodding of articles by TheFarix on Gundam related articles, I reviewed the various removals of the subst'd ((prod)) and have listed this one, the AMX-003 Gaza-C for deletion, as it does not assert its own importance in the Gundam metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..? Why is this a bad faith nomination? --TheEmulatorGuy 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:FICT are. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Artifact (Eureka)[edit]

The Artifact (Eureka) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - non-notable fictional technology item, insufficient to sustain a separate article. Could possibly be merged to whatever episode article it appears in if it's not already there. Otto4711 01:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please discuss any merge on the article talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabber[edit]

Fabber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
112,000 hits at Google. I've quickly added a few links. Paul Beardsell 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend that the article contents be lost? I agree with you: "great importance"! What about a rename to desktop fabricator? Paul Beardsell 11:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There should be an article under some title for 3-d fabricators. They exist,they are used, the scale and range of material they can fabricate are increasing. Find an industry-standard bname and move the info. Edison 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If neologism is the issue, we can use one of the many alternative, less hip, names. Several redirects to fabber. Paul Beardsell 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10922-desktop-fabricator-may-kickstart-home-revolution.html --selkins 16:24, 11 January 2007 (EST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the article has been merged and redirected to MS-06 Zaku II, so the arguments here no longer apply. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GM camouf[edit]

GM camouf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

During a mass de-prodding of articles by TheFarix on Gundam related articles, I reviewed the various removals of the subst'd ((prod)) and have listed this one, the GM camouf for deletion, as it does not assert its own importance in the Gundam metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:FICT. --Coredesat 19:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAN-05 Gromlin[edit]

MAN-05 Gromlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

During a mass de-prodding of articles by TheFarix on Gundam related articles, I reviewed the various removals of the subst'd ((prod)) and have listed this one, the MAN-05 Gromlin for deletion, as it does not assert its own importance in the Gundam metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 policy/guideline reasons for keeping provided (aside from accusations of WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and there's nowhere to merge it to. The article is mostly empty and lacks context. --Coredesat 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAM-07 Grabro[edit]

MAM-07 Grabro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

During a mass de-prodding of articles by TheFarix on Gundam related articles, I reviewed the various removals of the subst'd ((prod)) and have listed this one, the MAM-07 Grabro for deletion, as it does not assert its own importance in the Gundam metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to List of Halo series characters. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tartarus (Halo)[edit]

Tartarus (Halo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable, both per the primary notability criterion of WP:N and the oh so much more liberal WP:FICT. See also related AfD on Cortana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cortana. I seriously hope noone will argue for keeping of this one though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Artifact (Doom)[edit]

The Artifact (Doom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - not notable outside the game, insufficient to sustain a separate article. Could merge to the Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil article. Otto4711 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Samir धर्म 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death By Gluten[edit]

Death By Gluten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Disputed speedy with author. Desperately fail WP:MUSIC, an IP sockpuppet of the author has also been editing on the talk page to try and dispute the speedy RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Since we have now established (at least, I have said as much as I possibly can to try to convince you) that the other comments are NOT me, I'd like to point out that I can't control what they say. Whether their arguements are good or bad is irrelevant to me, because I did not make them. If that page has degenerated into farce, it is not good for me either, so why would I be doing it?

3) I realize that you may call me on 'meatpuppeting', but the fact is this: I myself never bothered to create a Wikipedia account until I decided to create this entry. I admit that some the people whose attention I have called to the article probably created accounts just to comment, but I can assure you that they are all regular Wikipedia users. I realize that that may not have any relevance, and also that I have no way to prove it, but I thought I might throw it out there on good faith.

4) My main arguement for the relevance of the page is this: The band does not meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines, that much is quite clear. However, as previously stated on the page's discussion, the main purpose of the band is promotion of Celiac Sprue awareness. That purpose comes ahead even of making music. Since that is the case, I would prefer that the entry be judged as a disease awareness tool, rather than as a band. If that is unacceptable, so be it, but please, Mr. Ryan, give me some specific points that we can debate instead of throwing the same sorry links at me when I have already accepted your point and explained why I think the entry is still relevant. I'd like to establish a dialogue here, but all you have done is paste internal links, insult me, and throw around accusations. But as I said, I respect the judgement of Wikipedia in the end. Shathaniel 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's already an article on Coeliac disease. Wikipedia doesn't need an article on this band to call awareness to it. You don't get to decide the criteria under which your aricle is reviewed. It's an article about a band and the band does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia under the appropriate guideline, WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would in turn argue that Wikipedia doesn't "need" a lot of its articles...but if the article is not competely farcical or frivolous, why go to the trouble to delete it? Obviously I can't decide the criteria under which the article is reviewed, but I am allowed to recommend the light in which the article is viewed. If you believe that the entry should be deleted, then I respect that opinion. But please do not talk down to me. I believe that the article does contribute something, whether as a band or otherwise, but as I have repeatedly stated, I will respect the final judgment of the Wikipedia admins.Shathaniel 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was that this be a speedy merge and redirect. I be inclined to acquiesce to your proposal. Arrr. Proto::► 10:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sparrow's compass[edit]

Jack Sparrow's compass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dermaplex[edit]

Dermaplex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - non-notable substance from a made for TV movie so non-notable it doesn't have its own article. Otto4711 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History eraser button[edit]

History eraser button (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - non-notable fictional item from a single episode of Ren and Stimpy. The article itself says that it has no known function. Otto4711 02:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by user:RadioKirk, "Fails WP:N as written". Have a nice day. --Dennisthe2 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Upon further review, I've restored the history for potential merger and redirected to Gerald B. Winrod. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defenders of the Christian Faith[edit]

Defenders of the Christian Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I proded this, but TruthbringerToronto removed it. This article has no sources. A yahoo search "Defenders of the Christian Faith" bring us less than 800 hits, the first being wikipedia, second a wiki mirror. Most of the hits don't seem to be about this group. For example, some refer to a group in Dorchester, Massachusetts. PatriotBible 02:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Gerald+B.+Winrod%22+%22Defenders+of+the+Christian+Faith%22 See http://ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1939_1940_4_YRUS.pdf (page 216) for example, which refers to Winrod and Defenders in the same sentence. (American Jewish Yearbook which covers the period from July 1, 1938 to June 30, 1939.) --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can be easily improved, I suggest you improve it. Alan.ca 21:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoon and Suger[edit]

Spoon and Suger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by Nut-meg with reason: "Spoon and Suger recommended for deletion because it is obviously a self promotion page. The user that wrote the article has the same user name (paperjammer) as the filmmaker's You Tube account. The user portrays his film as being a "cult classic", even though it is only a month old and has not had a significant number of views on the site. Also, the article is fraught with NPOV issues. I fixed some of it, but it's really not worthy of wikipedia." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 02:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Holden (political activist)[edit]

Lewis Holden (political activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I don't think Lewis is quite notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, he may be known among the blogger community in New Zealand, largely as a result of his blog and the Republican Movement. Yet there's nothing in this article that indicates that he's actually notable by wikipedia biographical standards Brian | (Talk) 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should deleted. Same views as above. - Shudda talk 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Kevin Murray 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per changes made since nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most games played, NFL history[edit]

Most games played, NFL history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

unneeded trivial list which would be good for a sports wiki but not here, violates WP:NOT, we rarely have articles on a individual record, deprodded by author, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know this kind of argument never works, but FWIW, there are lots of similar pages at Category:Baseball records (some of which are really narrow in scope). Zagalejo 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded a few of them Jaranda wat's sup 21:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, me and my big mouth... I do think the triples list at least deserves an AFD discussion, though. Zagalejo 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's incomplete, I'm doing it in my spare time, that's the reason I put "work inprogress". The reason I believe it's important it's because I haven't found anyplace in the web a page who contains this stats, and also helps to contribue to the bios of these players (i believe that the 150 plaayers with the most games in NFL history shoulkd have their bios in Wikipedia). Remember that I'm making the list manually, so I have to search in different sources or by memory which are the players with the most games. If Major League Baseball has it's list, why not the NFL? Gypaetus 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... Zagalejo 03:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this info should be in a sports wiki at best, not here, it's unneeded and dumb to add record stats of every record possible unless it's in one page Jaranda wat's sup 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, which part of WP:NOT is violated by this article? Since WP:5 mentions that Wikipedia incorporates elements from almanacs, and a list of records like this is something I would expect to see in an almanac or a specialized (sports) encyclopedia, I don't see what makes it deletable.Neier 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think it's unneeded and dumb; I think it's perfectly reasonable. If it were, say, List of NFL players ranked by number of touchdowns scored at Lambeau Field in the snow, then I would agree with you, but career games played is an interesting and important statistic. Zagalejo 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per failure to meet WP:RS and WP:BIO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Barwell[edit]

Gavin Barwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A Conservative party functionary. No independent sources cited, no credible or substantiated evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Alex North[edit]

Dr. Alex North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete article on minor soap opera character not worthy of its own article. Because article is unsourced and was created by User:Fatone411, a confirmed sockpuppet of vandal User:EJBanks, what little content the article has is unreliable. Given EJBanks's history of creating redundant articles, the character may already be covered by some other article anyway. Might redirect to Wayne Northrop, the actor who played the part. Might redirect to Days of our Lives, the program in which the character formerly appeared. Doczilla 03:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the user Fatone411 and the user's sockpuppet Poker Master have been banned indefinitely. Wryspy 09:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghaus (2nd nomination)[edit]

Mark Bellinghaus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Renomination from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Bellinghaus after article was substantially rewritten by Guinnog with help from a few others. Procedural renomination, see my opinion below. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE A completely new and shorter article has been written and is displayed at the talk page Talk:Mark Bellinghaus. This might be a less objectionable alternative to the auto-bio which is contested in this AfD and still published at Mark Bellinghaus. --Kevin Murray 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the above is an "old update", not a current one... Tyrenius 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comment by Downtownstar below was removed from here to avoid the breaking up of Bwithh's text. Tyrenius 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the article's claims have yet to be referenced - his early purportedly "championship winning" skating career is unverified. His stage career is unverified (and we have little idea of what level he was acting at - key player or minor role). The claim that he was the lead in an award-winning short film is unverified -"Susanne Aernecke"+"Josephine" gets 9 google hits of which 2 are somewhat relevant (counting all the multi-language imdb hits as the same), neither of which confirm that the film won any recognition - its not even listed in Aernecke's IMDB profile[3]. I can't find anything much with an alternate search using the film festival name either[4] (24 hits for festival name + josephine + susanne; perhaps my German isn't good enough but I'm not seeing anything relevant here).
In addition there was some puffery-by-association over his film roles that I've now removed - his role in The Name of the Rose was a minor bit part as I pointed out in the first afd. Just because you've had a bit part in a movie with a Hollywood star (or in a German TV screenplay by a famous writer) doesn't confer encyclopedic notability by association.
Assuming that the database references used are reliable, I think being a non-bit part actor in a major-award winning TV film is arguably sufficient here (though we don't know the extent of his role). Though as far as I can tell by references/searfching, Fremde liebe Fremde won ONE Grimmie not multiple and that was for its lead actress. Other awards went to the cinematographer, director, writer (again, the problematic notability-by-association puffery issue). I'm going to make adjustments accordingly
In my opinion, the Marilyn Monroe business is not significant encyclopedically (there is no evidence even that he is an especially important collector, or that this legal case is especially significant, plus Wikipedia is not news report archive), and is at best a cut-down trivia section - otherwise there are undue weight issues which verge upon WP:SOAPBOX misuse of Wikipedia Bwithh 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate deleted - Downtownstar has commented below the arbitrary line break on the latest version of the article. Tyrenius 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Trialsanderrors an expert on German TV?Downtownstar, AnonEMouse & Bwithh have changed their votes here based on the comments by Trialsanderrors. Why is this undocumented "evidence" about German TV so compelling? It seems as though Trialsanderrors is just expressing an opinion, which is not supported by any objective evidence. --Kevin Murray 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It says on T&E's userpage that s/he is affiliated with the University of Karlsruhe, a German university. That leads me to believe that s/he has lived in Germany, and thus would know more about German TV than many of the rest of us (myself included). Also, I've seen Bellinghaus' IMDB page [5] It's not very impressive. RedRollerskate 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red Roller, your skating on thin evidence of expertise. I use a toilet frequently, but am not a plumbing expert. --Kevin Murray 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say T&E was an expert. I said T&E knows more than the rest of us do. There's a big difference. Also, did you read Bellinghaus' IMDB page? He has seven credits listed. One of them (The Name of the Rose) is a bit role. Two are one-episode appearances on German TV shows. Do you know anything about the others? If you do, please say so (and I'm not trying to start a fight, I really want to know). RedRollerskate 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the other people, but you'll notice I specifically disavowed knowledge and asked for more knowledgeable people to help one way or the other on the German roles. T&E is the only one that has volunteered this help. Are you going to say differently, that they are, in fact, major roles? AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the contrary, I think that the acting is non-notable and irrelevant to the notability. Please see my proposed rewrite at Talk:Mark Bellinghaus.
  • On the other hand, I object to any implied "expert testimony" in support of an AfD nomination which would not be considered applicable to supporting the article.
  • As T&E is a fellow Cal alum, I'm inclined to feel he is automatically credible, but I have to stand on my principles.

--Kevin Murray 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Growing up in Germany and holding German citizenship helps a bit with the TV expertise, but I commend you for not trusting me on this. I have no credibility that would be sufficient for a Wikipedia entry, which is why I searched for reviews of his performances. The shows and movies he lists are amply covered on the web, so his roles are certainly verifiable. Do they give him notability? I don't think so, unless I read some review that actually comments on his acting. On the MM scandal, I only glanced them over and watched the KCAL clip, but in what way do those clips differ from interviewing the next-door neighbor of a shooting victim at the scene of a crime in your local 9 o'clock news? ~ trialsanderrors 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New vote! under arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is permissible to use articles by the subject as references to provide information about the subject, such as his views, for example. Tyrenius 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The only thing notable here is the memorabilia controversy, not Bellinghaus himself. Venicemenace 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Given the LA Weekly article I'll grant the subject some notability. IMO the article is way too long with a lot of detail irrelevant to the reasons for his notability, but that doesn't stop me from changing my vote to Weak keep. I think the proposed fake-memorabilia article would be an interesting one... Venicemenace 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, Venicemenace if there is a better place to put this story, I'd vote to redirect to that article. As Bellinghaus discovered the fraud, to me this is a good place for the story, but it will always be prone to creeping vanity spam after the AfD is closed. --Kevin Murray 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have enough material to write an article named Marylin Monroe forgery controversy? ~ trialsanderrors 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People get articles if they're associated with controversy, cf Mark David Chapman (this is not meant as a reflection on Bellinghaus, nor asserting an equivalent level of media exposure, just illustrating the principle). I'm sure there's quite enough material out there for a "forgery" article (or in this one for a stub), but I'm not touching it! Tyrenius 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STOP PRESS

(This article has just appeared)
Another Strong Reference http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/immortal-mayhem/15364/ seems non-trivial and credible. --Kevin Murray 03:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't open for me. I'll try again later. --Guinnog 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the link. It works now. If you can get it, then the sub page below can be deleted. Tyrenius 03:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LA WEEKLY article on Talk:Mark Bellinghaus/LA WEEKLY 10 Jan 07. Obviously it'll have to be deleted asap, but it features Bellinghaus strongly at the top of the article (and even mentions wikipedia!). Tyrenius 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Update Per Tyrenius suggestion (see discussion) have substituted the truncated and rearranged text at the article. Due to substantial rewrite the references are moved out of footnotes and segregated between (1) articles about Bellinghaus as collector, (2) articles about him as an actor, and (3) articles by Bellinghaus. Some references will be obsolte since much of the acting discussion has been removed. I suggest not spending time putting the references into footnote form until the AfD is decided. Attmpt to publish new form reverted by Tyrenius with my understanding and support--Kevin Murray 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References need to be put in properly. Here is the version with them in. Tyrenius 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More work than I'm willing to do for an article with a 50-50 for deletion -- I'm done here; good luck! --Kevin Murray 04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all & after latest rewrite[edit]

  • If the incident is significant and he instigated (and continues to maintain) it, being given media credit for the same, that is an argument to keep. If you want to launch an article on the controversy, where Mark Bellinghaus can be credited, that is an argument to merge (or move) and redirect. It also acknowledges that he deserves credit, i.e. he will still have a presence in wiki, which your delete opinion would remove. Tyrenius 17:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, I'll rephrase. While the incident itself is significant, I do not consider Mark Bellinghaus a person worth an article of his own, seeing as he has barely achieved anything "remarkable" (read: encyclopedic). Even if his name appears in the article about the controversy (as well it should), I don't see that as an argument to keep up his own page. However, I seem to be in the minority here so you do as you wish with him.--Downtownstar 11:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this hadn't been relisted before, I'd consider relisting it now, but as is, I'm leery of doing it twice myself. This is the Afd that doesn't end; Yes, it goes on and on, my friend; Some people listed it not knowing what it was; And they'll continue listing it forever just because— AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They've not been declared void, but they are undermined if they comment on something which is not there any more. This is a debate and participants should watchlist it so they can respond to developments. Tyrenius 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please supply substantiation for your questioning of LA Weekly as a reliable source. It is certainly taken seriously by the LA Times, which observes the Weekly is focusing on "hard news".[6] I have deleted the last sentence of your statement under [BLP]. This is not a platform for insulting the subject, who should be treated with courtesy. Tyrenius 03:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also point out that the subject of the article has refrained from commenting in this AfD and has not edited the article since other editors started working on it, so has had no say in its current state. Tyrenius 06:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not happy with the overly chatty details and NPOV of the article either. I think that it should be cut in half and then trimmed some more, but I don't think that is a subject which is pertinent to AfD. I'll debate the issue with Tyrenius after the AfD, but until then, why spend the time on nuances until the AfD is decided? A draft for a trimmed version is at: [7]
  • Kevin Murray 22:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bordering on consensus KEEP Cool Hand Luke 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babu (red panda)[edit]

Babu (red panda) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Story of minimal media interest and no encyclopedic value; sorry Babu your 15 minutes are over. Delete --Peta 04:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are guidelines for notability, not policy. And all policy and guidelines are primarily intended to help Wikipedia be an authoritative encyclopedia rather than a news report/cute story archive. Bwithh 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I strenuously object to the idea that a lot of media coverage, however brief or trivial, automatically confers notability for the ages, many editors do feel this way and many articles get kept on the basis of that argument.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) You're making a Pokemon defense argument and 2) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (you think Babu has the same chance of "immortality" (?!?!?!????????)) Bwithh 08:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was making a general comment about notability, in reply to Peta's comment "your 15 minutes are over". Nobody will remember, say, Leona Lewis in eighteen months time, but she's article-worthy. People still remember Goldie 40 years after the event. It's possible that Babu will be forgotten; but it's not as clear-cut as some people here seem to think it is. Tevildo 10:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a crystal ball obviously does not apply to AFD (or any talk page for that matter). Really, to say we can't speculate anything on discussion pages is ridiculous--the 100-yr test is based on total speculation. Also, I don't see a Pokemon defense here, he's offering support for his speculation, that a similar case may pass the 100-yr test, which is much more than anyone else here is doing. hateless 08:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without specifically addressing the merits of this article, I tend to think that when a topic is verifiable, especially from unquestionable reliable sources, we should never rely solely on the five/ten/twenty/hundred years' test to justify deletion. Because Wikipedia does not have "editions", we do not rotate content as do print encyclopedias. This feature is valuable in the context of historiography. Serpent's Choice 06:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1818 tusculum[edit]

1818 tusculum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is an article on the adress of a character in a movie, nothing links there and it contains no info of any notability in regard to the film, could even be boarderline OR †he Bread 3000 04:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say buildings are generally only notable if they have a long standing history. This building is far from that. If someone asserts an importance outside of being a set in a couple of movies then it can stay, else give it a mention in the Rocky article and delete this. —Mitaphane talk 04:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bignole 05:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft product activation debate[edit]

Microsoft product activation debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP is WP:NOT for essays, nor is it a place for WP:OR. This is an unencyclopedic topic that is covered in about 3 different articles. ju66l3r 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 04:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Someone who has the expertise or reliable sources on which are the canonical works on the subject can merge them into a shorter list at the main article. Mirrors and caches of this page can be found at [8]. —Centrx→talk • 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder[edit]

List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I think this falls into WP:NOT, it's just a list of books on a two topics, there are no criteria for inclusion and the books don't appear to be reference materials for the related articles; delete --Peta 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and furthermore, regardless of whether it's a good idea to have such a list in an article, the list itself certainly shouldn't be it's own article.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Avi 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Ceptor[edit]

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

This obscure arcade game will never be nothing more than a stub - it isn't even emulated in MAME. Namcorules 08:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Avi 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Ceptor II[edit]

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

This obscure arcade game is not emulated in MAME, and will never be nothing more than a stub. Namcorules 08:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martie Salt[edit]

Martie Salt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Entry does not establish proper reason for being listed on Wiki. Other than being a local news anchor, this is an unremarkable entry. If deleted, must remember to get the picture too. Harvestdancer 17:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja zafar iqbal[edit]

Khawaja zafar iqbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable journalist. Salad Days 21:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 04:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Hurts (Incubus song)[edit]

Love Hurts (Incubus song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This song is only rumored to be a single. Other Incubus non-singles do not have pages, and neither do some of their singles. Furthermore, this article is very short and does not feature any information about the song itself; this information could just as easily go in the Light Grenades page. Mikibacsi1124 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 06:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journey of the Ring[edit]

Journey of the Ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

This article does not assert notability and contains no reliable references; I nominate this page for deletion per these concerns. Yuser31415 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Sakamoto (2nd nomination)[edit]

Regina Sakamoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previous deletion discussion resulted in a no consensus keep; as is the article is still unverified, does not explain its importance and is a violation of WP:NOT. Delete --Peta 05:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Richards[edit]

Andy Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC; one release on a non-notable label; a career that extends back to 2006 (remember then?); biggest claims-to-fame are being #1 on said label's download chart and receiving some airplay on the very-niche BBC 6 Music Josh Parris#: 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jones (music)[edit]

Mark Jones (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO biggest claim-to-fame is that his was the manager of AFD Andy Richards Josh Parris#: 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Fresh Music[edit]

Daddy Fresh Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP key people seem to have known a lot of famous musicians, but aren't notable themselves. Company founded 2005. Most notable act is the AFD Andy Richards. Josh Parris#: 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Avi 06:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

123 Pleasant Street (2nd nomination)[edit]

123 Pleasant Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, previous discussions here and here. No vote. — CharlotteWebb 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Might be useful to spell that out for those of us who missed it.) I think the question here is: can we verify this from any independent sources. I can't seem to, so tending towards delete, but I'll watch and see if anyone else can first.--Docg 10:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, none of the links provided meet WP:RS or WP:V. We have personal websites, blogs, and news articles primarily about the owner, not the club. On the new links:

1)Jambase simply is a listing of the club.

2) Graphiti is an opinion article that is written in a 'state-wide' printed magazine with a monthly run of 30,000 copies. I'm not sure about it. It could be concidered a vanity mag and not meeting WP:RS. I'm not sure it's a Reliable, reputable sources.

3) Morgantown and West Virginia Music Sites is a private website with personal opinions without editorial review. It is not a Reliable Source.

4) Greater Morgantown Arts & Culture is a community/city website run by the visitor's bureau. The page in question simply lists points of interest in the community and is not concidered a Reliable source. Also the article is not primarily about the club...a trivial source if concidered a source at all.

On the Old Links:

1) We have a link to the club's personal website. Definately not a Reliable source

2) The broken link was removed however a missing person's page on a private website is not a reliable or valid source (nor has it and relivence in sourcing the club).

3) The Doe Network missing person's page did have a listing for the missing owner but the page said nothing about the club. The link, at 7:19pm CST on Jan 10th, is not working.

4) The local news story was primarily about the owner and in fact did NOT mention the club at all, except to say she went missing at 123 Pleasant Street (which to the normal person not from the area, would assume that was just an address, not a club).

5) The last link is a personal blog from a band. Per WP:RS, blogs are not concidered valid sources, especially those without editorial review.

On very very very weak source from a questionable publication? Still believe in deleting this article --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 01:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Betrabet[edit]

Ashwin Betrabet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A person who appeared very briefly in the Borat movie; prod removed by anonymous user. Note that this was created and is being edited by one of the perpetrators of the Hari Ananth, so expect sockpuppetry here as well. JuJube 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Danika Cleary[edit]

Danika Cleary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Individual fails WP:BIO. I don't believe we need the Product Manager of Pepsi, Sony, et cetera here either. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - fails notability. Avi 06:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cat (music)[edit]

Space Cat (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is confusing. It's an article about two different musicians - both apparently non-notable - yet not. Of the records covered, nobody's created them; one label is a label catering mostly to Olympia, WA, the other is a movie from 1985. Google turns up something of the techno film, but nothing more apparent than possible club notability. Dennisthe2 04:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The former is actually a reasonably prolific record producer. If you use his real name rather than the "Space Cat" name he's got a comprehensive listing at Discogs [14], with plenty of releases under his listed pseudonyms as well. I can't find anything that pushes him over the keep line though. One Night In Hackney 12:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a merge and redirect to his real name would be in order then. Still, I'll leave it to concensus. --Dennisthe2 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 06:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kerri Furey[edit]

Kerri Furey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable TV personality. The article does not assert her notability, and my attempts to find independant verifiable sources haven't turned up anything. Fails WP:BIO Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 06:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAVY 10 14:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. MER-C 07:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor alcantara[edit]

Victor alcantara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Seems to be nothing but a vanity article; consists of only one sentence fragment. Closest hit on Goggle si for the "Victor Alcantara trio". Jeske (Complaints Dept.) 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Avi 06:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Hess Kramer[edit]

Camp Hess Kramer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable summer camp, no evidence of multiple external coverages. Found a few articles about stuff that's happened at the camp, but not about the camp itself. Contested prod. MER-C 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. thunderboltz(Deepu) 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Bernal[edit]

Kristine Bernal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. Doesn't assert notablity, the fourth season of StarStruck still has to "heat up", yet this one already has her own article. Many dean listers don't have articles, either. --Howard the Duck 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. So what if Starstruck season 4 is yet to heat up? Kris already has a considerable fan base, and i think she is already deserving to have her own wikipedia article. and this is not just a dean's lister, she is a small time beauty queen, reality show contestant and dean's lister. wikipedia is for everyone, which means everyone has the right to create articles even if it is about the most senseless things. people of all kind browse stuff here in wikipedia, and some people care heaps about this article. aren't the articles in wikipedia created for the benefit of the public?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.199.237 (talk • contribs)

Ahem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. People can't (and shouldn't) create articles even if it is about the most senseless things. That's why Wikipedia has AFD. With that said, if an when Bernal wins, or if she has a career (becomes notable), then an article can be created. But as of now, the only people that will recognize her are her fans. And solely having fans won't be enough for a Wikipedia article. I suggest creating a fansite, instead. --Howard the Duck 10:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. why delete it? so what if the other finalist doesn't have a article, if you guys have a problem with that then make one. Wga niyo na lang idamay tong article na toh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searcher007 (talk • contribs)

DO NOT DELETE. By virtue of reaching the Final 14 of StarStruck: The Next Level, she is already assured of being a bona fide actress with an acting job at the GMA Network as per the latter's tradition. It's an absolute waste of time to delete this article now about a would-be actress and then create it again only after StarStruck: The Next Level is over. Note that even non-StarStruck winners like Nadine Samonte and Jade Lopez have their own pages here. The only thing that remains to be seen now is how long she would be able to last in showbusiness.--Pinoy Pride 09:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whatever. but as u say that! Why other people redirected Vivo Ouano he was already an avenger like Nadine and Jade! dont tell me just beacuse he's not famous! and why? we people just share our works! and other people just delete it?!! Wikipedia is not even yours! Jerks! Whatever delete it the article if you want! And again WIKIPEDIA IS NOT YOURS!. -Searcher007

Exactly, he (and Kristine) is not yet famous so he can't have an article. If everybody can create an article for anybody, I should've written mine a long time ago. As for your works, you can always create a fansite, a blog, etc. --Howard the Duck 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Wikipedia is not his but it is not yours either mister Searcher. WP is for everyone. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, so it must be encyclopedic. Can you find information about every single person in the world in Britannica or other Encyclopedias? Of course not. See WP:NOTE to be enlightened. We appreciate your interest in sharing here and making an effort to contribute, but it would be best to redirect energies into creating or improving articles that are more important. =) Also to sign in your name with date type in 4 tildes(~). Berserkerz Crit 13:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Are u a filipino?? if u are, oh my god i can't imagine it.... Whatever. Delete it already! why is the article still there? go redirect it! quick times fading! -searcher007

Delete per nom. Notability yet to be asserted. --- Tito Pao 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Howard. Berserkerz Crit 13:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY MAKE SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS WHOLE THING!? DELETE IT IF YOU WANT TO FOR CRAP'S SAKE! YOU SHOULD'VE JUST DELETED IT ALREADY MR.HOWARD THE DUCK, INSTEAD OF CREATING THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT. IT SEEMS AS IF YOU DON'T GIVE A HOOT ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS ANYWAY, SO DO WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DYING TO DO DAYS AGO, AND JUST DELETE THIS ARTICLE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.50.85 (talk • contribs)

That's because only users with administrator status can delete articles on Wikipedia. Nobody just deletes an article out of a whim; there must be a clear consensus that an article does needs deletion, which is why we need to solicit the opinions of other concerned Wikipedians. If you're having problems with the AfD (Article for Deletion) tag (specifically, with other members questioning the subject's notability), I suggest you take time to read the guidelines on notability. --- Tito Pao 11:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable as of now. And Searcher007, calm down and read this.Lenticel 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yamaraja (wrestler)[edit]

Yamaraja (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources to support this person even exists. The article does not provide sufficient reason to imply that Yamaraja is notable, so I'm nominating this page for deletion. If anyone can find reliable sources and add citations to the article I will close my nomination. Yuser31415 06:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read this for what he means by reliable sources DXRAW 11:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I verify that I exist too, I'm 15,000 years old, come from the planet Neptune and can lift boulders with my mind. See, that's why we need reliable sources instead of just taking someone's word for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to prove he's notable wrestler. Notable enough to get a cyclerpedja article. Click on this link: WP:N. You are loser! prepare to get a life! Hmmm.. Borg is claiming to be Emperor of Chicago, which may have a slightly greater and perhaps genuine assertion of notability (see Emperor Norton) than being a wrestler in a backyard wrestling fed. Maybe not quite Vince McMahon, yet? Tubezone 08:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and cleanup. Avi 18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brinkman v. Miami University[edit]

Brinkman v. Miami University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is an unsourced stub about a non-notable legal case. The case was dismissed at the trial level because the Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the University's actions. It therefore produced no binding precedent on the underlying issue of the constitutionality of same-sex benefit programs. Heybrent 07:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Kinu. Tevildo 10:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDI Role Play[edit]

GDI Role Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is about a non-notable web role-play gaming forum (see WP:WEB) that yields no hits on Google. The article even states that the forums were established on January 9, 2007. I prodded this article however the prod tag was removed by the creator. Nick—Contact/Contribs 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lewadny[edit]

Brian Lewadny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. The name Percy "Nobby" Norton is all we need to see. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Experimental Rock[edit]

Post Experimental Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Monique Sweep[edit]

The Monique Sweep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Term appears to be a protologism that was literally just made up at school one day. I cannot find anything on Google that suggests this term is in use outside of WP and its derivative works. hateless 08:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is that the page should be preserved as part of your effort to enlighten other actors? See WP:NOT: "it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it.". Should you manage to get this term printed in a reliable third-party publication, you can re-create the page and cite that publication. Until then, it's effectively original research. Venicemenace 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Jamify[edit]

Jamify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Dictionary definition for a neologism. Google search gets 232 hits, with no verifiability or coverage of the word by reliable sources. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT a dictionary. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MS-10 Pezun Dowadge[edit]

MS-10 Pezun Dowadge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Moreschi Deletion! 09:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The burden of finding reliable sources falls on the creators of the article, not the nominator for deletion, as per policy WP:V. Bwithh 12:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Avi 07:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSM-07 Z'Gok[edit]

MSM-07 Z'Gok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Moreschi Deletion! 09:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - In this case both potential merge targets were alrerady deleted, further underscoring the lack of notability and the -cruftness of this article. Avi 07:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MP-02A Orgg[edit]

MP-02A Orgg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Moreschi Deletion! 09:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Xenon Zaleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAN-03 Braw Bro[edit]

MAN-03 Braw Bro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi Deletion! 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Xenon Zaleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMX-000 Messala[edit]

PMX-000 Messala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi Deletion! 10:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fax software[edit]

List of fax software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia articles should not exist as link-farms or directories;

reference Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stock_photography_archives, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_open-content_projects

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. It's a redirect now, presumably somebody merged the content. Sandstein 06:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RGC-83 GM Cannon II[edit]

RGC-83 GM Cannon II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. What is more, apparently these "Specifications" are often rigged by fans to make my weapon seem more powerful than yours, so yet more WP:OR. Moreschi Deletion! 10:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only if they also ignore the WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. You've "cited policy" in that you claim it "reads like original research", but you haven't actually shown any actual original research. Redxiv 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The GM Cannon II is also heavier armed than its predecessors. It is equipped with two shoulder-mounted beam cannons, un-like the Guncannon, and can carry a 90 mm machine gun as well as a beam saber for close combat. It also includes two 60 mm vulcan guns mounted in the head, but these are usually strictly last-resort weapons. To power this strong weapons the GM Cannon II has a stronger reactor. It is also very heavily armored, featuring Chobham armor based of the same design as the RX-78NT1 Gundam 'Alex'. However, it pays the price for this durability for this with very low speed and mobility. A GM Cannon II on its own has been shown to not be able to fend for itself due to opponents being able to outmanuver it, unless its opponent also lacks speed."
  • As all of that is completely unreferenced, for all I know chances are it is original research. And do you see any sources? Certainly fails WP:V. Moreschi Deletion! 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try here, at Bandai's official English-language Gundam site. Lack of references in the article doesn't mean they don't exist and the content is original research, it means that the article needs work. Redxiv 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge This mecha certianly isn't notable enough to deserve it's own article, but as it fails to violate any of the condictions established by WP:FICT the rules in place to govern all Fictional Articles I don't see why perfectly good information should be thrown away simply because people want to delete it rather then put effort into cleaning it up. 69.244.126.189 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Utility rating of this article is (i^2 + 1^2) * 100%. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raytheon Six Sigma[edit]

Raytheon Six Sigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article describes a Raytheon internal company process and is non-notable outside the company. The tone of the article is very sarcastic and appears to have been written and expanded by disgruntled employees -- and in fact, the initial article and most revisions are anonymous edits from a company IP address. Article has been flagged for lack of neutrality and supporting facts since July 2006. Engineer Bob 10:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Wayne Bryce[edit]

Ronnie Wayne Bryce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Did have this tagged as a speedy, but then a large chunk of text was added, none of which is verifiable. Non-notable. 3 unique Ghits for Ronnie Wayne Bryce [20], search leaving out Wayne returns slightly more hits, but no reliable sources [21] One Night In Hackney 10:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 sources found or even indicated in the debate, thus OR -Docg 01:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Eragon[edit]

Differences between book and film versions of Eragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is basically a list of the ways in which various editors feel the film differs from the book. Seeing as there are no sources listed whatsoever, everything in the article is original research and inherently unverifiable. This isn't even taking into account the fact that the article is just a series of huge lists, whose points are often redundantly repeated throughout the different sections for no apparent reason. Even if it didn't violate WP:V or WP:NOR I still would have my doubts about the necessity of having gigantic lists of differences in a separate article when a short summary on the article for the movie itself could easily suffice. DarthVader1219 10:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006-07 New Jersey Devils season[edit]

2006-07 New Jersey Devils season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Individual NHL teams' individual seasons are not notable or appropriate for enyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not an up-to-date sports site or Devils fanpage. Croctotheface 10:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : The way the AfD was presented, it seemed to me like New Jersey was the only team to have this... --Deenoe 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy G11 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITZoom[edit]

ITZoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is an advertisement for ITZoom. Check out also the history of Professional e-mail address and E-mail forwarding which probably also ought to go Watchsmart 12:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley (dog)[edit]

Dudley (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

"Dudley labrador" (a liver pigmented type of labrador retriever), or even dudley as a type of pigmented dogs in general, doesn't seem notable by any usual criteria. The google test (a search for "Dudley labrador" on google) finds only 48 hits. A recent AFD was held on the grounds of verifiability. There were 4 responses and some web cites were provided to verify existance of the term.

Relist for AFD is on the twin basis that:

  1. 4 respondents (3 keep, 1 delete, excluding nominator) didn't provide a sufficient basis to determine consensus (WP:DP refers), more consensus is probably needed
  2. The real problem with this article and the more relevant reason for AFD listing was not verifiability (the existence of the term can be checked through Google); it's that the "dudley" probably isn't notable enough.

A possible opposing view might be that a person coming across the term might want to know what it means and see a photo. But this could be said of many non-notable subjects and can be fixed by disambiguation (dudley (disambiguation) -> labrador retriever). The "dudley" type in and of itself, doesn't seem very noteworthy. The information that does exist is fully covered in Labrador retriever#Lab nose and skin pigmentation.

(As an aside, WikiProject Dog breeds are developing notability criteria for subtypes and strains; it's questionable whether by any of the proposals to date, this one will be notable either.)


  1. It was already mentioned in Labrador Retriever, and I just expanded that section and added the references.
  2. The google test (in this case for "Dudley labrador") is an extremely poor way of testing notability. Other used names appear to include "Retriever Dudley", "Labrador Dudley" and simply "Dudley".
  3. Apparently, the dog breed notability standards are on the way. Speculating that this one might not be included, when the standards are not yet finished is a bit strange and there is no reason to hurry deletion of this article in the mean time.
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - many of the hits for the search you suggested aren't for dudley labs. they are for web pages which contain the term "labrador retriever" and the name "dudley", either of a person or a dog. A mention in Lab retriever might be relevant, but I just don't see its own article being appropriate. It looks like a fairly minor item within the lab world as it is, a term for a type of coloration. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be right about those hits, yet if you wanted the article merged (as you just included as an option [22] as a 'minor tweak' to your vote, you should not have put it up here at AfD, but simply should have merged it. Merging of articles does NOT include deleting one of them (see also Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a listing for deletion, which says Note that "merge into [[article]] and delete" cannot be performed simply by copying and pasting text from the original article into the target unless the information on authorship of the content is somehow preserved), as the author history should be preserved per the GFDL. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's been a long day. What I mean is, the information on pigmentation in labs is relevant to the lab article, and a disambiguation page on the word "dudley" should include a link to labrador retriever, but the dudley article itself should be deleted. Hence as stated, merging the information (not the entirety of the article). Apologies for lack of clarity, it's been a long day. I've just reworded it for clarification. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there was, but it was on an incorrect basis. There were other, legitimate, grounds for AFD -- hence this listing entirely independent of the first (and which would have happened anyway). Hope that explains. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The (correct) comment about relisting applies to repeated attempts to game the deletion system by instant relist, and also where there was a good quality outcome first time that a reasonable person would have accepted as the view of editors. In the present case the relist is on the twin view that appropriate deletion grounds omitted in AFD/1 are more appropriate for a genuine enquiry "should the article be deleted for these more correct reasons", and because 4 responses is not consensus anyway really (as anticipated and approved by WP:DP). It's not a relist 'just to get it deleted' or similar. Hope that clarifies. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt and you never addressed the other points of the flawed google search etc. --NuclearZer0 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that; keep. Too soon to re-Afd. F.F.McGurk 07:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 crioerion WP:CSD#A1, no significant content other than links and a re-statement of the title. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free web directory[edit]

Free web directory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Duplicates function of Web directory with no real value add. Someone tried a prod but an anon removed the tag. StuffOfInterest 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Avi 18:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press for Peace[edit]

Press for Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Small NGO in Kashmir without obvious notability against WP:ORG. Google hits in English have only some 1-line mentions of it, like[23], [24],[25] and [26]. Worthy, but not encyclopedic. See also the AfD debate on its founder. Mereda 12:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Vote changed to Speedy Keep - The nominator in the first two Google hits provided the best citations for keeping this article. Violence against Media in Pakistan : October 2006 Report lists an attack against their NGO media office in Pakistan which confirms they are international in scope of operations. Second, the UN Humanitarian Information Center For Pakistan Contact List (please see page 10) hit shows that they are an NGO listed on a humanitarian center website UNHIC.org. Both the attack and contact list have been referenced on the article and cited. The third hit, [http://reliefmedia.org.pk/p_pressclubequip.php INTERNEWS MEDIA EQUIPMENT GRANT TO PRESS CLUBS IN QUAKE REGION (their caps, not mine), details a grant they received. Unknowingly, the nominator provided the independent news articles that demonstate PFP is the subject of media reports which meet WP:V. Ronbo76 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "multiple mentions" are all trivial, so they don't satisfy WP:ORG "A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject". Mereda 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Although this might not be of any consequence, their website appears to be down at the moment, despite the fact that their host[27] is up and running.) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfyed to User:GSchoenfeld and then deleted. Avi 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Schoenfeld[edit]

Gabriel Schoenfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a kind of procedural nomination for Izzy65 (talk · contribs), who's only edits were to today's AFD log. However after reviewing the article in question, I feel that it should be deleted or at least debated because it is an unsourced autobiography. MER-C 13:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club[edit]

Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Twice speedied as WP:CSD#A7, this is a club which exists mainly because te Kennel Club does not recognise this breed, which is the work of a very small number of owners. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Usual walled garden thing. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is not the role of Wikipedia to do that education. Serpent's Choice 06:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, You can claim Wikipedia to be anything you want. However, as an informational resource the website by default is recognized as an educational tool. By the basic structure of the website and the way it acquires and disseminates infromation it is FAR more of an educational tool than it is a source of entertainment. Simply because one SAYS or WRITEs that the sky is green doesn't mean that it is. The evidence speaks for itself...Pages FULL of unverified data input by a variety of different people that nobody can verify as legitimate experts on the topics that they input into this website. Therefore, as a Public Encyclopedia, Wikipedia is by default an OPEN EDUCATIONAL TOOL. You are right when you say it is not Wikipedia's job to educate which is why I added the information to the website myself. The responsibility of educating is that of the people inputting the information into the website. Again, as a public encyclopedia or educational tool, it is Wikipedia's obligation to acknowledge NEW and ongoing information. Consequently, assisting their researchers to EDUCATE themselves. BTW, I appreciate your reasonable and mature response. The internet far to pampid with keyboard warriors that would NEVER have the confidence to someones face the way they do on internet forums. Don Pelon 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, because this might someday BECOME notable and have verifiable information written, we should just kick back and wait for it to happen? I don't think so. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and this Kennel Club has not demonstrated any evidence of notability. A cursory search shows a homepage, negligable mentions in lists, and Wikipedia articles and their mirrors. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh brother...Here we go with the pompous, arrogance again...lol. The internet is such a tough guy haven. As for notability go to the | American Rare Breed Association. This organization has been recognizing the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club for the past 5 years as the breeds breed club. If we were to hold 70% or better of the information in this website to your criteria of notability(a couple of internet searches...lolol) it would fail miserabley. Again, because you have no knowledge of this organization beyond what you read on the internet or what it represents. I can only assume based off of your childish, snide remarks that your arrogance in using the term "WE" is referring to the general public. Well, nobody is asking "YOU" to wait for anything. The OEBKC is offering information to the general public in the exact same manner that all the other information on this website is offered to the general public. I'm new to this non-sense, so please forgive my ignorance for not knowing all the cute little acronyms everyone uses.Don Pelon 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It's generally considered rude to directly insult someone by calling them childish and arrogant. If you would like to know more about what is considered a good reliable source, please see the following:
Articles must demonstrate an ability to meet these criteria to be included in Wikipedia. It may be that many other articles also fail to fit these guidelines. This is an argument for their exclusion, not an argument for the inclusion of this material. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah huh...Now that's much better, constructive advice instead of rude sarcasm, Thank you. I looked at your suggestions and I will be happy to utilize them in improving on this article. In fact, I apologize for not doing this in the first place when I created the page. I'm new to this format and I was a little short on time when I put the article together. I also wasn't quite sure what format to follow based on my statement above regarding other articles on this website, so I did the best I could with the time I had. Once again, thank you for the change of tune and I look forward to your advice in the future. I will be working to improve this article in the next couple of days.Don Pelon 04:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMS-05 Agg[edit]

EMS-05 Agg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi Deletion! 13:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MA-05 Bigro[edit]

MA-05 Bigro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi Deletion! 14:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changi Airport Skytrain[edit]

Changi Airport Skytrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An article about the meta-transportation system at an airport. Reeks of non-notability, and although formatted correctly does not warrant its own article. ~ Flameviper 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It was the first auto-guided system in Asia.[29] --Oakshade 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:WEB and WP:V. --Coredesat 20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lackadaisy[edit]

Lackadaisy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Minor webcomic with no reliable sources. It's well drawn and rather unique, but it isn't very verifiable. Doesn't meet WP:WEB either. Nothing from Google. Wafulz 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily closed, clear bad faith in nomination (school remains open). Proto::► 17:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marion-Franklin High School[edit]

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

This article should not be deleted. End of story. All high schools in Ohio will have an entry.EagleFan 18:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


THIS SCHOOL IS OPEN AND OPERATING. STOP WITH THE BOGUS CLAIMS OF THE SCHOOL NOT EXISTING! EagleFan 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC) This deletion nomination should be removed. EagleFan 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this link to view the school's 2006 football results. They were even a playoff team! Further proof of the school's existence...

http://www.joeeitel.com/hsfoot/teams.jsp?year=2006&teamID=962

EagleFan 18:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich von Mollingrad[edit]

Heinrich von Mollingrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD)

Looks like a hoax. Zero hits. Is it loosely based on Heinrich Himmler? Sander123 14:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Avi 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Rogers[edit]

Billy Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Musician with very little notability. Joltman 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Avi 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Howard[edit]

Gail Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Bio and promotion for an author telling you how to win the lottery. Looks like spam to me. Fan-1967 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Seems to meet the criteria under WP:CSD#G11: "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." (emphasis added). Fan-1967 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but this does not need a fundamental rework - it is anough to drop the advert-loaded 50% of the article and tag it as a stub.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would rate the advert as closer to 90%. Fan-1967 06:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA-002 Neue Ziel[edit]

AMA-002 Neue Ziel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi Deletion! 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Jesus as myth[edit]

Criticism of Jesus as myth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unsourced OR POV fork: POV fork from Jesus as myth, unsourced OR, with an addition of a summary from a section of another article (Historicity of Jesus#Greco-Roman sources. New contributor acting like an old contributor has created this POV fork. Criticism belongs in the Jesus as Myth article, if appropriate. No merge indicated, as this is OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between Jesus and Horus[edit]

Similarities between Jesus and Horus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Group of OR Forks from the Jesus as Myth article. Unsourced, unsupported fork from main article. Author deleted the sections he was "replacing" with these essays. I am also nominating the following related pages, same reasons:

Similarities between Jesus and Dionysus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Similarities between Jesus and Mithras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Similarities between Jesus and Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) KillerChihuahua?!? 14:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living With April[edit]

Living With April (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Was previously deleted via prod, but the author contested. I vote delete- not notable. Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with single syllable titles[edit]

List of films with single syllable titles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

almost useless listcruft about movies delete Cornell Rockey 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Hybrid[edit]

3rd Hybrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:BAND. Felt is claimed notability so is not eligibile for CSD#7. NMajdan•talk 15:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Issues Committee[edit]

Great Issues Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Totally fails the proposed guidelines of WP:ORG. No verifiable, outside sources are given for this article (the only source is the organization's website). Articles on Student Government Associations are generally merged into the school's article, however, this is about one committee of a student government association, so I don't know if that merits a merge into the article. Metros232 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anything salvageable to English language learning and teaching. I've redirected; mergers can take place from the history. Sandstein 06:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching English in Taiwan[edit]

Teaching English in Taiwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article does not appear to have any notable content and just appears to exist to hang a lot of web links to commercial organisations to it. I therefore propose it is deleted--BozMo talk 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, similar versions for Hong Kong etc were put in and we didn't pick them all up --BozMo talk 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. --Coredesat 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XND Radio[edit]

XND Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Appears to be all original research, with no published sources, and lots of links to their website. An "importance" tag was added back in November, however it seems some IP user removed it without explanation. Article still doesn't state why it is important/significant.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Awards[edit]

Jack Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No evidence that these are significant in any measurable way. The user's other "contributions" include adding Percy Nobby Norton vandalism so I don't trust his judgement. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Szental[edit]

Gideon Szental (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Autobiography of a non-notable teenager. -- RHaworth 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Martin[edit]

Kris Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Essentially the article is empty - a list of exhibitions does not make an article and does not even claim notability. -- RHaworth 15:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Herrero[edit]

Federico Herrero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Essentially the article is empty - a list of exhibitions does not make an article and does not even claim notability. -- RHaworth 15:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Delete as above: no content --BozMo talk 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESLUSA[edit]

ESLUSA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

since lacking in any content or notability: just a plug for a website BozMo talk 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Nicholson[edit]

Rob Nicholson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nonnotable. Fails both Wiki:BIO and wiki:notable User:Superkioo 16:09 UTC

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

The result was speedy keep. Read those policies before citing them, why don't you? Zetawoof(ζ) 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Flaherty[edit]

Jim Flaherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nonnotable. Fails both WP:bio and WP:Notable

User:superkiooo 16:13 UTC

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

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

Teach English Abroad[edit]

Teach English Abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Shallow pretext for some external links BozMo talk 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to BCS National Championship Game. Johntex\talk 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 BCS National Championship Game[edit]

2009 BCS National Championship Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is for a game that will take place in January 2009 and will have no significant developments until mid 2008. Like the AFD nomination for the 2010 BCS National Championship Game, this article should redirect to BCS National Championship Game until after the 2008 BCS National Championship Game. NMajdan•talk 16:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Multiple reliable sources (barely) achevied through USAToday and Epsom Guardian. Likely to get more coverage in Feb 07. If they do not, it can always be relisted. Note: Tour is not in and of itself a keep criterion, but one that makes it more likely that multiple reliable sources exist.. Avi 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clocks (band)[edit]

Clocks (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC notability guideline, only one local news article, no albums, etc... Thanks/wangi 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Match Inferno[edit]

One Match Inferno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

prod tag removed twice without an attempt to clarify notability per WP:MUSIC. ccwaters 16:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete the album and single, keep Nikki Flores. Majorly 21:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Flores[edit]

Nikki Flores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

One album, not released yet. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:


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

The result was Delete. Avi 07:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Under Fire[edit]

Marriage Under Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable bookcruft. Author is notable, but that alone doesn't mean that any particular book he wrote is notable. It seems this one is not. Delete. — coelacan talk — 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kioti[edit]

Kioti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article fails WP:CORP. No notability, no verification, and almost no information. Diez2 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Avi 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LudumDare (2nd nomination)[edit]

LudumDare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A pior deletion was overturned on review and is now here for further discussion. Note the article is about the contest, not the accompanying website. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion ~ trialsanderrors 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, I would like to keep this article around for some time, so I can look for references about notability. I know from some participants that their LD games (or spinoffs thereof) also were featured at other places, might add some info in the next days now that I know about the relisting. There are also websites about most of the competitions (except the ones on ludumdare.com which is down) which I will try to add. (Oh, and the next LD will be held in April according to people in their IRC channel, but has not been announced yet officially (as the site is down..)). I can't say how well known it really is in a global sense or how big/noteworthy the indy game developers scene as a whole is, but I guess for a lot if indy game developers LD indeed is a known term, and among all those similar competitions (pygame, speedhack, 72 hour contest, rpgdx, ...) LD probably is the biggest and most well known. Allefant 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Naturman[edit]

Dan Naturman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn comedian and non-winner of a variety/reality show. User:Zoe

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, despite the confusing nature of this AFD, there is consensus to delete. --Coredesat 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiaholic[edit]

Indiaholic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

At best, this is a dicdef and should be sent to Witionary. At worst, it's a neologism and shouldn't be included anywhere. I tend to lean toward the latter, so I'm nominating it for deletion. Kafziel Talk 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding Indophobia to this AfD per Dev920's suggestion. Once deleted, that can be turned into a redirect to -phob- along with the tons of other made-up phobias. Kafziel Talk 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Second nomination withdrawn to avoid a trainwreck. Can be nominated separately if anyone so wishes. Kafziel Talk 00:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Extremely strong keep for indophobia (delete Indiaholic, non notable term). Not a neologism. Please see the following academic sources for the word: #http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-1607(197224)2%3A4%3C12%3AGAATIE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23 #http://www.nd.edu/~milind/posts/tr_chap4 by scholar Trautmann (old scholar, so not a neologism) #See Idi Amin for an example of an indophobe #Why is there an article on Sinophobia? #More refs for indophobia: #http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0520066510&id=Fu5h2T7dZFEC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&ots=lNVuqLlkux&dq=Indophobia&sig=LtUrLzQaI9fFyDLEd2OC5epXsK8 #http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00623933&id=MpOJ6Rt9q1IC&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1 #http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00489344&id=-cQrsUX03-0C&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1 #http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00897826&id=R4AeAAAAMAAJ&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1 #http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03980670&id=CgMEAAAAMAAJ&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1 #http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1586840614&id=IzRr1_iPKVcC&pg=RA6-PA237&lpg=RA6-PA237&dq=Indophobia&sig=e_TO6kSNydRKRdSSKgwoiNE1nuU #http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN817027088X&id=BRMNAAAAIAAJ&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1 #Idi amin & indophobia: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-1607(197224)2%3A4%3C12%3AGAATIE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23 #http://www.apcss.org/Publications/Edited%20Volumes/ReligiousRadicalism/PagesfromReligiousRadicalismandSecurityinSouthAsiach3.pdf #http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/OPs/Saikia/SaikiaOP.pdf These are all academic refs. Rumpelstiltskin223 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indophobia debate removed so changing my vote to delete indoholic article. It is a non notable term. Indophiles are already mentioned in Indomania.Rumpelstiltskin223 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pyrophobia has six times more hits at Google books than Indophobia does, but it's still a redirect to -phob-. Contrary to popular belief, wide use of a word does not mean it's not a neologism. We don't need an article on every "phobia" people can come up with. Still, I know the India cabal is one of the strongest on Wikipedia and tons of people will therefore show up to "vote" to keep this without reason (as Bondego did below). So I'm removing Indophobia, as it was not part of the original nomination and I don't want to sink the Indiaholic nomination by association. Kafziel Talk 00:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
India cabal? Please do tell us about unicorns, East Dakota, and the Canadian Army while you're at it.Bakaman 01:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my third rule and I'll tell you all about it. But judging from your userboxes, you have nothing whatsoever to do with India so you are clearly neutral and therefore an exception. Humble apologies. Kafziel Talk 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i voted to keep indophobic. Not indoholic, which can be speedily deleted for being an non-notable term.nids(♂) 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - indophobia seems to be a term that's thrown around frequently. Indophobia also has connotations pertaining to International Relations. Its can hardly be compared to pyrophobia, which is merely a person's irrational fear of fire. Indophobia is more along the lines of Islamophobia.Bakaman 01:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which, as the intoductory sentence states, is also a neologism. But in any case, Indophobia is no longer up for deletion. Please see the rest of the discussion. Kafziel Talk 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete - Indiaholic is a rarely used neologism.Bakaman 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Is a stupid word, never heard of it before Dictionary.com doesn't even recognize it as a word, article has no content, and overall is just unencyclopediac.--Sefringle 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 14:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiamike[edit]

Indiamike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Web forum that does not meet standards for notability at WP:WEB. It asserts notability, so it's not a candidate for speedy deletion, but it falls short of actual notability. The articles cited are not about the site (they just mention the site, which is not enough) and the article largely reads like an advertisement. Kafziel Talk 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Paxton Movie: A Baby Story (Not!...And Other Footage)[edit]

The Paxton Movie: A Baby Story (Not!...And Other Footage) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
The Paxton Movie 2: Paxton Returns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
The Paxton Movie 3: The Quest for Pax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'm nominating three articles, The Paxton Movie: A Baby Story (Not!...And Other Footage), The Paxton Movie 2: Paxton Returns, and The Paxton Movie 3: The Quest for Pax. All were created, and (other than administrative edits) only edited by, user James Preston, and James Preston is mentioned on the pages as part of the crew for the movies. None of the pages have any real information or sources that would lead me to believe this is anything more than something someone made up one day, and Googling "The Paxton Movie", "James Preston" Paxton, "Lawrence Paxton P", etc., comes up with nothing to indicate that any of these are actual films. I've brought this to AfD in case there's something out there I'm missing that would indicate these pages are worth keeping. Pinball22 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy[edit]

US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Comment Devil, how familar are you with this subject? Have you read any of the 18 sources listed on this page? If so, how many. How much have you contributed to this article before the deletion? I don't see your name in any of the 500 edits on this page. You state: "much of the factual content on the article is disputed" What factual content is disputed? You don't say. Have you attempted to discuss this content on talk? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see your name anywhere on the talk page either.
As per WP:Afd#Before_nominating_an_AfD:
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.
Jersey Devil, have you or any of the editors who want to delete this article edited the article before? Have you:
1. consider sharing your reservations with the article creator,
2, mention[ed] your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or
3. add[ed] a "cleanup" template?
Now these three points are not policy, but it is something that should be considered by every person who wants to delete this article, and by the person deciding this case.
a hopeless case links to Wikipedia:Speedy deletions does this page meet any of the policy reasons under Speedy deletion? Editors have to guess if this page violates Wikipedia:Speedy deletions because your nomination explains no reason behind this WP:AFD. Since you have not edited the article ever before you put it up for deletion, editors can't depend on these reasons on the article talk page either.
User:Khodavand the only person who I see who has contributed one word to this article wrote, "IMHO this is a bad faith nomination", based on the three points at WP:Afd#Before_nominating_an_AfD I have to reluctantly agree. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment For some reason people started to accuse one another of being "leftish" or "conservative" here. Just for the record, my edit history is bipartisan and I'm not related to U.S. in any way. I edited the article even before it was nominated. This article has 11 sources:
  • First linking for whatever reason (???) to the homepage of The Iranian-American Bar Association.
  • Second one after sentence "Nemazee was also national finance chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee until late 2006." cites Marketplace commentary on democratic financing, but sentence needs rather official source saying that Nemazee was indeed chairman from xxxx until late (?) 2006.
  • Third source is for Nemazee being "top fundraiser and donor to the Democratic National Committee for the past 10 years." But doesn't state that this title was given to him by activist blog...
  • Paragraph "During his presidency, Bill Clinton attempted to name Nemazee U.S. Ambassador to Argentina but was rejected by the US Senate after Forbes magazine published in May 1999 an expose of his financial dealings and involvement with the Islamic Republic. According to the New York Times he withdrew." Doesn't cite source for his rejection but than states that NYT said he witdrew - so what's the true?
  • Another source (Cybercast News Service) really sources what's written in the article but why quote conservative news website?? No other outlet ran this story? What about some major daily?
  • Anoher sources is for what Nemazee testified - WorldNetDaily - and again, why source from conservative website?
  • The same as the one before...
  • Another two are Chinese People's daily and Iranian farsi.net stating that Clinton's "missive" was ignored. Farsi cites American State dep. spokesman, etc. Again: No other source?
  • NYT is about other unrelated letter and should support that there was only one previous letter sent to Iran ("This was Clinton's second letter to Mohammad Khatami.") Could there be other letters as well? Does this source guarantee what it should? (Well, this is really not so terribly important to the article.)
  • In the last one People's daily says that Teheran Times said...
This is just about the sources... there are lots of unsourced statements/weasel words and I removed the most POV statements before this article was nominated. There is no substance in this artcile, is unencyclopedic, is indeed badly sourced and I still do think it should be deleted.--Pethr 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I reviewed all your sources what about commenting there? Nobody responded to your points because you don't have any - 1) yes, Wikipedia isn't censored; 2) subject isn't legitimate because it doesn't have single academic or at least major news article supporting it's main topic; and 3) we are not talking about other articles here but about this one. And if you don't want to be attacted don't write things like The above users appear to have a leftist, pro-Democratic POV. next time, may be others won't say the opposite about you and this discussion will be a little more normal. Thank you.--Pethr 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly 18:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futanari[edit]

Futanari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is unreferenced, and has been so since references were requested seven months ago. I have not been able to find reliable references (following an admittedly cursory look, as I wasn't enjoying going through the material), and seems to be comprised almost exclusively of original research. The topic may also be a neologism. Please do not make accusations of cultural bias. Futanari is a portmanteau neologism based upon the Japanese words for 'double' and 'form'. If we had an article entitled an English cultural phenomenon 'doubleform' about pictures of nude women with penises, were utterly unable to provide any references for any of the claims, and the article's sole link was to www.doubleform.com, this would have been deleted within a week of creation. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. Delete. Proto::► 18:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found some sites with book references and partial citations (they should be enough to define the concept): The Politics of Androgyny in Japan: Sexuality and Subversion in the Theater and Beyond and The Gender of Onnagata As the Imitating Imitated: Its Historicity, Performativity, and Involvement in the Circulation of Femininity. At least, now we know that reliable sources exist. — Comment added by 217.129.218.198 (talk • contribs).
The blog is not the only link, and not the focus of futanari.org, it is just for news management. The true link(s) are from the now... 160 or so sources of illustrators and doujinshi circles within this genre. (http://futanari.org/links/) 3pyon 11:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's one good reliable reference. Well done. If you (or someone else) is able to find another, to satisfy the requirements of WP:RS ('multiple reliable sources'), and include them in the article, I will happily withdraw this AFD. Proto::► 09:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strange Fates. Sex, Gender, and Sexuality in Torikaebaya Monogatari, Gregory M. Pflugfelder, Monumenta Nipponica Vol. 47, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 347-368. On page 359: "Ambiguous bodies surface in the native literature at least as early as the twelfth certury. Yamai no Soshi, an illustrated catalogue of rare afflictions dating from that ero, provides an interesting example. 'Recently there was a man [otoko] who walked the streets of the capital with a drum hung round his neck. He had the face of a male [otoko], but there were things about his form that resembled a female [onna] as well. A certain person was confused [obotsukanagarite] by this. One night when the drummer was asleep, he secretly lifted his robes to have a look. Underneath, he saw both male and female genitals [literally, roots]. This was a hermaphrodite [futanari].'" Futanari seems to have meant "hermaphrodite" then as early as the 12th century. I found more examples for androgyny in Japanese culture as someone pointed out above but I couldn't nail down the word "futanari" to these references. 69.174.66.47 20:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another reference, though this one's just in passing:
Jennifer Robertson. "The Politics of Androgyny in Japan: Sexuality and Subversion in the Theater and Beyond." American Ethnologist, 19(3): 1992. On page 424: "Ayame eschewed what he called the prevaling "androgynous" figure of the onnagata, describing it as futanarihira - literally, "double-bodied". BookishAcolyte 04:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think its called Oisinbo-soft[49]. The fact that I don't speak so much as a word of Japanese is conspiring with the reality that there really are topics I've enjoyed sourcing more than this one to make it a challenge for me, too. I'll fully admit that the places I found this discussed aren't ... erm, reliable, so I've got no way to navigate that all-Japanese site to get information (if its the right one...). Back into the fray I go, I suppose. Still no idea where on their site to find detailed material (if that's the production studio and not the distributor, even!), but the series is evidently marketed in English as "Futanari Lesbians" ... 1, 2, and 3 (because porn studios have creative naming conventions). (updated again Serpent's Choice 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
As far as anime, rather than live-action goes, Pink Pineapple[50] seems to be the dominant production studio, although I'm informed that there are others. And again, I haven't got the foggiest how to navigate their site to get to a sourceable page. You'd be looking for Parade Parade or Stainless Night, that I know of. Serpent's Choice 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to Adult Video studios producing futanari genre specific media, most major studios have jumped on board. TMA, SOD, Aroma-P, Moodyz, Waap. You even have multiple series of AV movies which have multiple volumes, e.g. ふたなりレズ (1-6) and ふたなりズム (1-4). I would link to the complete list, but just google "Live Action Futanari Movies" instead.3pyon 11:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big 11:01 (GMT), 14 January 2007

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

The result was delete without prejudice if confirmed at a later date. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old School Dos[edit]

Old School Dos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An article about a proposed movie that the stars of the supposed movie have said they will not do. Seems to be just fan speculation. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old School 2 for similar previous nom. ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 18:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:NEO. I look at the google searches and would not be surprised if in a few years with sourcing that meets that standard, but the opinions below are unanimous. GRBerry 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diobesity[edit]

Diobesity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Few Google results, no apparent references in reliable sources.  ::mikmt 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional cats[edit]

List of fictional cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This list is a complete mess. First of all, the topic is so broad as to be rendered useless, as I shudder to think how many thousands upon thousands of cats have appeared in fiction over hundreds of years. Second of all, the list has no definite criteria, with house cats standing side by side with lions and others with no distinction made between family Felidae and the domestic cat subspecies and including anthropomorphic and robotic variants that would not actually fit into either definition. Third, the list does not even follow its own criteria entirely, with some entires describing the fictional cats themselves and others merely describing works of fiction that include cats. Fails the guidelines at WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Indrian 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 14:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Turback[edit]

Michael Turback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Having investigated all contributions made by this article's creator, I can see that it was created by Michael Turback himself. He has also inserted himself into lists of notable people [52] and sprinkled spam links to his online department store (for which he was warned several times). Clearly self-promotion and violates Wikipedia:Autobiography. Icemuon 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Will recreate as a redirect to Toledo Metropolitan Area. --Coredesat 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities near Toledo, Ohio[edit]

Municipalities near Toledo, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A good example of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a gazeteer and articles of the form 'places near other places' just isn't encyclopedic Nuttah68 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:V. --Coredesat 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible (song)[edit]

Invincible (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There have been suggestions for Invincible, Map of the Problematique and (sort of) Take a Bow as the next single within the last few weeks. As a result, NOBODY knows which (if any) will be released. This article should be laid to rest until we know what the next single will be for definite. Look at the Muse forum to see for yourself the confusion surrounding the next single. U-Mos 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion Maybe there should be a note on the Black Holes and Revelations page stating the confusion over the next single. It certainly is mighty odd that three seemingly legitimate sources would announce four different singles as the next release. U-Mos 19:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 20:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle Sports[edit]

Whistle Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable pseudo-company. Does not meet WP:CORP. Mike Peel 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Only 'keep' is a conflict of interest, all 'references' on the page are to sqlmaestro.com, if it wasn't deleted via AFD it could have easily been deleted via WP:CSD#G11. Proto::► 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Maestro[edit]

SQL Maestro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is clearly advertising and not notable. Futurix 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article. We are working on the content and improve it in several days. Fionik 11:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 11:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've improved the article according the Wikipedia Official Policy. Sqlmaestro 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is still advertising (even more then before), shameless self-promotion, still non-notable... Futurix 14:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Futurix, what is the differ between your page FuturixImager and ours? I did utmost to write the article from the neutral point of view. May be you can advise me to do it better? Best Regards, Sqlmaestro. 16:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FuturixImager is not my page - I did not create it, I did not write it, and except two minimal changes I haven't edited it. Writing page about your product is promotion and forbidden by Wikipedia rules. Futurix 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you vote here? You have created that page! You are biased. Futurix 11:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page changed significantly from initial state. Don't bite newbies. Fionik 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record - none of the other pages in the Database administration tools category are as blatant advertising as yours. Futurix 11:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. Completely not true. Let's take an example Advanced Query Tool. Can you show difference betwen AQT page and SQL Maestro? What makes AQT not advertising article comparing with SQL Maestro? What makes SQL Maestro blatant advertizing? Can you give clear answer? Fionik 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters though - even if they were advertising, this is not an excuse for yours (this is a hint to admins to remove that advertising as well). Futurix 11:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So they all advertising or not? If they advertising they all should be deleted, if they not advertising then your assertions about this page are biased because it has no differences from the other pages in this category. I just noticed that the article about viewer you created was added to the list of articles for deletion (hint, it was not me). Now i understand why you see so called "advertising" on SQL Maestro page. Fionik 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yesterday everning I asked an absolutely neutral man, a very respected person, a university professor (I can give the contact information if it's necessary) to remake the article. Three Wikipedia policies of Verifiability, No Original Research and Neutral Point of View are observed.

In fact, before blaming in an advertisement let's understand the difference between an information article and an advertisement. If a mention about a thing with its short performance attributes is an advertisement, so this article and the main part of Wikipedia articles are advertisements. So, Parmalat is an advertisement of yoghurts, cheeses, butters, ice creams. Bolshoi Theatre is undoubtedly an advertisement of the theatre. Nero Burning ROM and Nero Digital are naturally avertisements of the appropriate shareware. Aside from, I guess the author of a product and the author of an article about the product may be the same person. All the more, such an accordance is nondescript.

2 Futurix: Sasha, ne volnuites. Krugom svoi i vsem kushat hochetsya :) Sqlmaestro 12:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding me!
It is not verifiable anywhere except your own page (Verifiability), it is written by author(s) of the software (No Original Research, NPOV) - the article violates every relevant Wikipedia rule.
Articles of Parmalat, Bolshoi Theatre, Nero Burning ROM, etc - are informational texts written by third-party people, who do not profit from the article: that's the main difference here. In your case we have article about a new (virtually unknown) commercial product, written by authors of the software - do I really need to spell out what's wrong here?
And, finally, you clearly know all that - the translation of your message in Russian ("Sasha, don't worry. There are friends around, and everyone wants to eat.") implies that.
Futurix 11:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)+(G11).--Húsönd 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NESguide[edit]

NESguide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Random website that doesn't assert it's notability, mostly because it's not notable Clyde (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Alvarez[edit]

Ralph Alvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Seems entirely unremarkable, therefore non-notable - DeleteAsstBot (on behalf of IP: 81.174.157.135) DeleteAsstBot

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

The result was delete and protect from re-creation. It was a valid G4, as these sentences are the same as the first two sentences in the deleted version. --Coredesat 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Blade of the Ancients[edit]

Note: This page was listed on AfD before and recreated, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: Blade of the Ancients.

The Legend of Zelda: Blade of the Ancients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a hoax, the only source appears to be this page, and as the site's index page states for that article 'In our neck of the woods "rare"="make-believe.'. FredOrAlive 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Bio info moved to Rahm Emanuel, this article will be deleted.. Avi 15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin M. Emanuel[edit]

Benjamin M. Emanuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Twice tagged as speedy (not by me), once as attack, once as nonnotable. Moving here for fuller discussion. I'm neutral. NawlinWiki 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

06:21, 11 January 2007 Chick Bowen (stubbify per WP:BLP, used sources that were not reliable)
Then I do not object to using regular AfD instead of speedy delete, if the slanderous material is reverted back in then I will follow wiki-guidelines and call for its Speedy Deletion.--Wowaconia 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If not reverted I vote merge. The one new sentence found in a reliable source by Chick Bowen should be moved to the Rahm Emanuel page where the rest of the reliably sourced info on this page was cut and pasted from.
If reverted SPEEDILY DELETED I have argued and will continue to argue that this page metirts speedy deletion as an attack page against Benjamin M. Emanuel's son Rep. Rahm Emanuel if the claims from blogs it cited are included.

it asserts that “[Rahm] Emanuel is no stranger to political assassination. His father was reputedly part of the Israeli assassin team that murdered Sweden's Count Bernadotte, part of a U.N. team in Palestine in 1948.”--Wowaconia 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Emanuel.html makes similar claims:

Concerning the above question of relevance: The material from the blogs isn't in the article anymore because it was removed, in the past I had removed this material citing the same standards that were used to create this current version. I did this on 19:31, 10 January 2007 but in little over an hour they were reverted back in by User:Mel Etitis at 20:38, 10 January 2007. Mel Etitis also took me to task on my user-talk page for "deleting large swathes of text". As I had posted my objections to the article before the edit removing the blogged material was allowed to stand, that is why it is mentioned. As the previous revision by User:Mel Etitis cited the bloggers belief that Benjamin M. Emanuel “participated in the assasination of Swedish diplomat Folke Bernadotte in 1948” I included the above points. I also included quotes from the blog about 9/11 being done by Irgun (of whom the blog claimed that "After 1948 they became part of the new Israeli government") to show that this source was not only unreliable but also anti-Semitic and a promoter of the generally discounted conspiracy theory that it was the Jews who were behind 9/11. I was astonished that it was being argued continually that these are reliable sources and that quoting them in any manner was acceptable according to wiki-standards. As Mel Etitis was an early contributor to the article that included the blog statements (see page history at 10:33, 7 January 2007 and 10:29, 7 January 2007) I was worried that he would simply revert User:Chick Bowen's edits away to restore the blogged material and accuse him as he has me on my talk page of having "some personal or political axe to grind with regard to the articles on this family". (See also his accusation above that I'm "protecting a politician against what he sees as negative facts. he shouldn't be allowed to get his way on this.") These comments were made because I removed the same blogged statement that Benjamin M. Emanuel "was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization" on the page Ari Emanuel that he allowed in his edit of that page on 10:35, 7 January 2007 and his edit on 19:47, 9 January 2007 where he himself inserted onto the Rahm Emanuel page the claim that "Benjamin M. Emanuel, was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization". I find it troubling that he failed to disclose any of this when he posted his response on this page.--Wowaconia 10:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bowen as long as his edits that removed the slanderous material are not reverted.--Wowaconia 07:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Pence[edit]

2 Pence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn neologism game. Contested prod. David Mestel(Talk) 19:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if you look at this diff and compare the names on the left to the username who created it, it could have been ((db-nonsense)) at that point, if it wasn't for the removal of this information and the claim to have migrated across state borders! Bubba HoTep 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MA-04X Zakrello[edit]

MA-04X Zakrello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Moreschi Deletion! 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short answer: WP:INN. Longer answer: apples and oranges comparison, since those fictional weapons play important roles in the movies, with the attempted destruction of the latter being essentially the main plot of TWO movies. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*How does WP:INN apply? The poster made a blanket statement about fictional weapons, which if taken at face value means they should also be suggesting Lightsaber and Death Star as well. If that isn't what they meant, why did they even bring the issue up? Notability is a separate issue altogether. Edward321 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Racing[edit]

Mango Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article in question fails to meet notability criteria with regard to available reference sources. It refers to an obscure racing team that completed barely half a season in a sub-class of British F3. I have contacted the original contributor via his talk page, but have received no response. Adrian M. H. 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Protect[edit]

Project Protect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a non-notable political group that sits in a walled-off topic with few web or media mentions Rkevins82 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 [53]. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League pitchers by pitches thrown[edit]

List of Major League pitchers by pitches thrown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

List will be too unwieldy, AFD request comes from article creator. Will think about using Categories for notable pitchers known for specific pitches in the future. Seinfreak37 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdingers[edit]

Hamdingers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Appears to be an unverifiable locally-produced food product. Google search reveals lots of wikipedia mirrors and trivial web forums that are unrelated to the product itself (mostly related to a couple of references on Mystery Science Theater 3000); article itself mentions that the product's existence is disputed. I suspect at least one person from Wisconsin or Minnesota might see this AfD and insist s/he has seen or eaten one of these things, but it can't really stay on wikipedia without some kind of proof of existence or definitive evidence that it's not just a local variant name for spam, or one town's nickname for a ham sandwich. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We need evidence that Hamdingers are notable, not just evidence that they exist. I exist, but I don't get to have an article because I'm not notable. If we delete articles about elementary schools and politicians, we can certainly delete an article about a spam sandwich. :) Kafziel Talk 12:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would further suggest that someone's reminiscence, several times removed, posted on a webforum is not really "evidence" per se. It still doesn't establish what a hamdinger is, where they come from, etc etc, and is not firm proof that they even exist.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per insufficient reasons for deletion. Nishkid64 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution of children[edit]

Prostitution of children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I wish to have this article deleted for the following reason: It is completely in need of a cleanup, it needs a complete rewrite, as the form it is written in is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia.--Rasillon 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completing malformed nomination Martinp23 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Bigg-Wither[edit]

Harris Bigg-Wither (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nom and vote...
Del on this exquisite model of WP-Bio style, which nevertheless is technically eligible for speedy-deletion under provision A7, no claim of notability, and appears to address a n-n topic and person.

_ _ (IMO speedy deletion of such a long-standing and thoroughly collaborated-upon article would abuse both the process and the concept of "speedy".)
_ _ I will joyfully change my vote to Keep if it can be shown that seriously regarded academic Austen scholarship has kept alive any theory of how the night of the 2nd and morning of the 3rd of December 1802 had an impact in her writings -- perhaps mediated by later thots and discussions of them. But the absence of such information in such a polished bio makes me believe no such scholarship exists, despite its eminently plausibility but for the article's history. (I would add that evidence to its talk page, confident that others will eventually reflect it in the article, as would be necessary in the long run.)
_ _ I note that instances of notability are far, far fewer than instances of notability being avoided by at least one factor amounting to a hair's breadth, so that each of many such hair's-breadths are always what has made all the difference in achieving notability rather than utter non-notablity. And being one of the hair's breadths that didn't prevent someones else's notablity is not in itself notable.
_ _ I also would hope that it is obvious that good men, fine manor houses, and English country squires are about a dime a dozen, and thus non-notable, and i trust that the closer will require those asserting notability based on those elements to meet a high evidentiary standard.
-Jerzy•t 20:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE although the two who indicated "delete and maybe merge" should know that their opinions have to be discounted. We can't delete and merge. -Docg 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay cruising in Canada[edit]

Gay cruising in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Was prodded, but removed on grounds of "censorship". Basically, this article is not notable and currently consists of a list of places gay men can go for sex. Not something we need on Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep minus the list of cruising spots. The top part of the article seems reasonably sourced and gay cruising is certainly a sociological phenomenon worthy of encyclopedic attention. Otto4711 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete for now, recreate when it becomes reality if you wish.. Avi 15:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 ATP Masters Series[edit]

2007 ATP Masters Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is superfluous in MPOV. The great original ATP Masters Series article contains all the relevant information on the subject, the detailed score of AMS finals. The semifinals and below results interests only few people, I think, mostly fans, who can find that info on the official pages that can be reached via the links in the main article. Moreover there are no such articles for 2006, 2005 etc and it does not seem that there is a need for them. Scineram 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a link from the main article should indeed be included.alsookayy

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

The result was delete as no verification provided. Please do bring any additional evidence to my talk page, or questions about how things work, appeals, what it takes to stay, etc, to my talk page. I'm always happy to talk about it. - brenneman 04:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionSwap[edit]

Fails WP:WEB Rightfully in First Place 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entry for 2007-01-10 19:31 GMT Apologies for editing (possibly incorrectly) but could someone enlighten me regarding the reasons for the QS wiki entry being considered for deletion?

It said the reasons could be traced/checked on this page, but I see no reason apart from an expansive list of potential reasons.

This page has just been noticed by the main users of QS, and as such has been subject to a sudden storm of changes: mostly minor.

Thanks to any Editor who is willing to spend time explaing this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.249.96.84 (talk • contribs) 19:35, January 10, 2007.

Hi. The article QuestionSwap was nominated for deletion because an editor thinks it does not meet the qualifications laid out in WP:WEB, our notability guidelines for web sites. If you think that the subject is notable and should be kept, your best bet is to find evidence that QuestionSwap does meet those qualifications and lay them out here. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for information on how to participate in an AFD discussion. - Vary | Talk 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This wiki entry covers a web phenomenon which has become popular for many reasons. One notable surge of users followed it being featured as one of the "year's 10 best time-killer websites" by the Times Newspaper (UK) I'm unable to provide proof: I didn't keep the paper. Personally, (If the site were my creation) I'd be pretty chuffed with that, and count it as a notable award.. Featured Questions have also been broadcast on Radio 1. (UK) though I'm unsure if they were correctly attributed :( I speak for many on the board: Not all are net-savy enough to edit these pages. Thanks for your time. EDIT: and sure.. we can happily ditch the "members" area. :o)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensiblenick (talk • contribs) 21:38, January 10, 2007

Most newspapers keep their archives online. If you could get someone to dig up a link, that would help, but there would need to be more than one to qualify under item one of WP:WEB. If you can prove that the site's content is re-used by Radio 1, that might qualilfy under item three. If there's anything out there that will help the site pass wp:web, I'm sure one of your members will be able to turn it up pretty quickly. I've found a valid link to the click column, and I'm adding it to external links now; you'll still need more than one non-trivial mention in a book/newspaper/magazine to qualify under item one. It will be up to the participants in the discusion to determine if this or other media references are 'non-trivial.' -- Vary | Talk 00:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Majorly 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Ragab[edit]

Emad Ragab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I was trying to source this article, but both Emad Ragab and Ahmad Ragab don't seem to bring anything significative... I can't assert any notability so I bring this article to AfD. This article was tagged as being of low notability since last June. weak delete -- lucasbfr talk 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Tango. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC anchors who have never held even a moderately high position in the financial field[edit]

CNBC anchors who have never held even a moderately high position in the financial field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Can you say, POV fork? And not even one that could be developed. This information, if sources are available, should be incorporated into the CNBC article, but nothing more. -- Merope 20:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lady Records[edit]

Mr. Lady Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A tiny record label that went defunct in 2003? Non-notable, surely. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think Proto has done a marvellous job of improving this article and it is only for the sake of process that I am leaving this AfD open. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - does not assert notability. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Moreschi Deletion! 21:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scene kids[edit]

Scene kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by Tamajared with reason: "This is a page for Urban Dictionary. My own Chonga article was deleted because it was not notable enough, so why have this one stay?" This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - unless someone is going to take this article under their wing, and do some serious research, in order to find sources (and thus bring this article up to standards) I lament of it ever being of encyclopedic quality. --Haemo 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Time NHL Transactions[edit]

All Time NHL Transactions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
NHL transactions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - identical copy

I am not even sure what to make of it, but it doesn't seem encyclopedic. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kennesaw Mountain High School[edit]

Kennesaw Mountain High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

School with no assertion of notability and no encyclopedic content. Húsönd 21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is does for WP:SCHOOLS3 Pbroks13 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – yes, it's true, the marching band asserts notability on behalf of the school in the last section, but I'm not sure how this affects the school's overall notability. I see some people have been working on the article and will revisit it in due course to reassess my !vote. Bubba HoTep 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bubba's right. If the band is notable then it should have an article on itself, not an article about the school where it comes from. If Mr. Smith has a dog that is notable, would you write an article about the dog or Mr. Smith?--Húsönd 14:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. We don't usually make separate articles for notable high school sports teams and bands. If a school has a notable organization within it, that is reason to have an article about the school itself. WP:SCHOOL has been very clear about this. --- RockMFR 14:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It makes perfect sense. If a high school would be notable simply and only for the fact that it has a notable band within its premises, then apart from the band there's nothing worthwhile to say about the school and therefore an article about the band would suffice. WP:SCHOOL is not a policy.--Húsönd 14:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, we should split some schools up into 5 or 10 different articles, depending on how many notable organizations they have. --- RockMFR 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although I doubt such numbers would occur frequently.--Húsönd 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if a school had 5 to 10 different notable organizations, it would be considered notable as a whole. The crux of this matter is two-fold: the notability of the school (contested), and the notability of the marching band (agreed) – therefore you would expect the claim to notability to be the main focus of the article and as such placed in a more prominent position. Just a thought. I'm still out for deliberation. Bubba HoTep 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taken from WP:SCHOOLS3:
"2. The school has verifiably gained national recognition in an area such as curriculum (academics in U.S.), architecture, athletics, or extracurricular activities, or for its history or its program of instruction. For example, the school has won a science competition at the national level, or its athletic teams hold a nationwide record.

- The band as well as the winterguard has many nationwide awards.

Taken from WP:SCHOOLS3 as well
"3. The school has verifiably gained regional recognition in at least two of the areas mentioned in criterion #2."

- Easy. 1) In 2004-05 The baseball team was the semifinalist the class AAAAA State tournament. 2) in 2004-05 the basketball team was the 5-AAAAA Region champions. — Pbroks13 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:SCHOOL have never become policies. Wonder why.--Húsönd 22:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you tell me, why should it be deleted? Pbroks13 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See nomination. The article asserts no notability for the school, the subject of the article.--Húsönd 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it states the history, that its a magnet school, scores a higher average on the SAT and ACT than the rest of the nation, 1 of 5 magnet school in its county, basketball team region champs in the frist year of play, baseball state semifinalist in 1st year of play, marching band 7th in nation first year of competing in the national competition, as well as 4th, 2nd, 3rd every year they competed, and (although not stated, but soon to be), the winterguard was the Scholastic A DCI World Champions in 2004. How can you say that none of that is notable? Pbroks13 05:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The borderline between trivial and notable is at each one's own discretion. For me none of that information is encyclopedic. It's perfectly suited for the school's website which has the duty to provide that information, but not for Wikipedia which is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information that includes registries of all achievements of high school teams.--Húsönd 05:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not take every professional football and basketball team off wikipedia. You can find most of their information on ther own websites. Pbroks13 21:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Schools3, they are very notable. Please read my above post, (starts with Comment Taken from WP:SCHOOLS3:) Pbroks13 21:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment---I'm the guy who kinda started trying to fix up the page and stuff, and I'm kind of new to this whole "articles for deletion" discussion thing...so I was just wondering if there was a time frame for stuff like this, and i just wanted to say thanks to all the people who have helped me with the page and to all of you guys who are making sure that Wikipedia articles are all legit and well made. CRD07 06:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perturbed by the above comment, and particularly perturbed that the person who made it did not feel able to contact me directly. I would encourage him to "assume good faith" here and elsewhere. I have added a note about why I participate in AfD debates to my user-page, which I hope is useful. I have also added a comment to the above user's talk-page. The problem for me is that I feel that for a school to be notable it has to do something more than just exist and teach students. The two places where notability might most plausibly be asserted for this school are: (a) the fact that it's a magnet school, and (b) the supposedly unusual steelwork in the architecture. On (a) I feel that although the policy of magnet schools is notable, the individual schools so designated are not per se notable unless their teaching styles develop unique characteristics that are not general to all magnet schools. On (b) I feel that the reference from the "Steel Joist Institute" simply uses the school as an example of an architectural and construction technique, and does not assert any particular notability for the school building per se. On balance, therefore, I do not feel that notability is sufficiently clearly established. I hope this helps. Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information. WMMartin 18:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 decision, malformed, try again later at own discretion. - brenneman 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles that have been merged into Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe[edit]

Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

An incredibly massive amount of articles in the Gundam series that I merged into this article. Once you've seen one, you've basically seen them all. Medium-sized articles of non-notable fictional weapons. ~ Flameviper 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (Here's a list if you want to see them: FA-010A FAZZ - FA-78-1 Gundam Full Armor Type - FD-03 Gustav Karl - MSA-007 Nero - MSA-0011 (MSZ-011) S Gundam - RAG-79 Aqua GM - RB-79 (RX-76) Ball - RGC-80 GM Cannon – RGC-83 GM Cannon II - RGM-79 (RX-79) GM - RGM-86R GM III – RGM-89 Jegan - RGZ-91 Re-GZ - RX-104FF Penelope - RX-75 Guntank - RX-77 Guncannon - RX-78 Gundam - RX-78GP Gundam GP series - RX-79 Gundam - RX-93 Nu Gundam - MSZ-006+ (MSK-006) Zeta Plus - TGM-79 (RGM-79T) GM Trainer)

You realize that if these are merged, they can't be deleted, right? Edit history must be maintained for all of them. --- RockMFR 06:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least we should keep RX-78 Gundam because that survivied a recent AFD attempt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.172.30 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty South Improv[edit]

Violates WP:VAIN and WP:N. --Ineffable3000 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Fatalism[edit]

Neo-Fatalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neologism, no reliable sources provided: Google search for "neo-fatalism" finds that, other than in the context of mirrors of this article, the term is not widely used. Delete. The Anome 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All delete opinions were prior to the article improvement. GRBerry 16:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant joke[edit]

Elephant joke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, merely a list of jokes. If it should exist at all, then it should be at Wikisource or elsewhere. The first AfD was speedy closed as no deletion rationale was given. Ezeu 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. It is a substantially different article now. --Ezeu 17:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Keep, Uncle G has transformed this into a brilliant article. Paul B 13:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Gibson (police officer)[edit]

John Gibson (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. Otto4711 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may not be automatic but in this case the incident was notable enough for them to have funerals attended by members of congress and lying in honor in the Rotunda. This may well be because of circumstance but it does give them an element of notability, every other person to have done so has an article.--Sully 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, actually, I think Chestnut might be independently notable because of being the first African American to lie in honor at the Capitol. That's why I didn't nominate his article. Otto4711 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, did you review the AfD I linked to, which clearly demonstrates that you can have an article on a cop killing without an article on the cop, before posting that? Otto4711 14:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that, but the primary article is titled "Russell Eugene Weston"; if you want to talk about the incident, leave all three or create one board article about the 1998 shooting event similar to the 1954 event. Why should the killer be more notable than the person he killed? --Daysleeper47 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just off the top of my head, Richard Speck is more notable than the women he killed, Ted Bundy is more notable than the women he killed, Jeffrey Dahmer is more notable than the men he killed, John Wayne Gacy is more notable than the men he killed, the Columbine shooters are more notable than the people they killed, and so on. I would support a rename of the Russell Eugene Weston article to one more descriptive of the incident. I also have no problem with merging this article into the Weston article and I don't have a huge problem with merging the Chestnut article either, although I do think he might be notable because of the first of his ethnicity lying in state aspect. Otto4711 15:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, well, Russell Weston didn't strangle 17 people and alternately have sex with and eat bits of them after, what's your point? Otto4711 17:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noting the existence of one article to support the existence of another is a meritless argument. Each article must meet notability guidelines on its own. Otto4711 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say that I found the opinions expressed "offensive." I said that taking this personally is an error. Further, at no time did I suggest in any way that any editor was not free to express an opinion on this or any other nomination. If you're going to whip yourself up into a dudgeon, please try to do so over things that are actually said as opposed to things that you make up in your own head. Otto4711 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Situation Resolved I have taken care of the problem with this article and followed the direction of most of the editors in merging all of the articles. I created a decent article which can be viewed HERE. The concensus was heading that direction and instead of letting someone else lead the charge, I took care of it. The information for the articles for the two officers and the shooter have all been merged into one. Let me know if anyone has any other problems with this new article. --Daysleeper47 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I don't really give a rat's ass in hell whether you express your opinion or not. Express away. It would, however, be noce if you based your opinion on Wikipedia policy rather than drama queen histrionics. Otto4711 22:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Andrés, Lempira[edit]

San Andrés, Lempira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiddenhearts (talk • contribs) 23:05, 10 January 2007.

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZZZap![edit]

ZZZap! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article does not assert notability and contains no reliable references. It would also be easier to write this article from scratch than leave it in its present messy state. I nominate this page for deletion. Yuser31415 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insmed[edit]

Insmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable company, no reliable third party sources, et al. Fails WP:V, WP:CORP, WP:RS. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 23:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dontcha[edit]

Dontcha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea if this guy meets WP:MUSIC. I was going to ((prod)), but I don't want to erronously tag an article if it does meet MUSIC. So, envoking the fact that AfD is meant to be a discussion, eat your heart out - I'm leaning towards delete currently because of the lack of souces, and no assertion of notability, however if someone can convince me his labels are notable, and find a source or two, I'm amacable to withdrawing. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Big Brother 2002 (UK). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Culley[edit]

Tim Culley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
The book is published by Channel 4 Books, which doesn't really count as a third party source. And musings on the word "comprende" don't meet the definition of "non-trivial published works" as I understand it. Anyone on a game show might get some blurbs written about them, but unless they win, I don't think they qualify as notable. Leebo86 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the book as a reliable source for biographical details of Culley, not for anything that happened in the Big Brother competition. The two Guardian articles are more about Culley than anything else, and certainly would not have been written if he had not done what he did. I fundamentally disagree with Leebo's last sentence; win or lose, if the non-trivial works exist, then the only logical conclusion would be to keep. In this case, there is an argument that sufficient works do not exist. Should the consensus be that the articles do not support a stand-alone article, then I would strongly support a merge. Eludium-q36 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my last sentence I was referring to the situation in which there are not multiple non-trivial written publications supporting notability. Obviously, if the person is notable for something outside of the blurbs written about the show, that notability would apply. Leebo86 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Scaruffi[edit]

Piero Scaruffi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Negative points:

Positive points:

TRM-G 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both per consensus. Although I personally think a decent article could be written on e-mail forwarding, doing so would require looking for sources instead of writing from personal knowledge. GRBerry 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional e-mail address[edit]

Professional e-mail address (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

leftover corporate vanity from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITZoom. Check the edit history. Watchsmart 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating E-mail forwarding for deletion, since it is the same sort of advertising by the same author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Watchsmart (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, change of venue to RfD. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HermitStory[edit]

HermitStory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable protologism for video game MapleStory. Fails WP:NEO. Lmblackjack21 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this nomination and relist at WP:RFD because the article in discussion is indeed a redirect. Lmblackjack21 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keeping Talbott, Flynn, and Parslow. Deleting the rest.. Avi 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Woolford[edit]

Martyn Woolford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The second part of my analysis of Conference players started here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Benson WP:BIO states that the players must have made an appearance in a fully professional league. Woolford has not played a league game above Conference level.

For the same reason, I am nominating Noureddine Maamria, Liam Blakeman, Nathan Talbott, Wayne Daniel (footballer), Craig Lovatt, Nathan Smith (footballer), Danny Edwards (footballer), Ged Murphy,r Chris Seeby, Scott Cousins, Tom Davis (footballer), Rambir Marwa, Paul Hakim, Dean Cracknell, Ricky Perks, Simon Martin (footballer), Lee Flynn, Ben Martin, Nick Roddis, Jason Goodliffe, Michael Touhy, Kyle Storer, Dave Clarke (footballer), Shaun Ridgway, Harry Hambleton, Tony James (footballer), Craig McAllister, James Bittner, Neal Bishop, Byron Webster, Darren Hollingsworth, Alex Rhodes (footballer born 1988), Arran Reid and Daniel Parslow. I've been through these players Soccerbase profiles and again can't spot any League appearances.

I know the Conference is approaching fully-professional status, but until it attains that these players fail WP:BIO. Precedents are here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Gray and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Eyre

Further comment and a suggestion. Talbott and Flynn are the only two who appear to have played a game at a higher level than the Conference (I've added to those two articles to clarify this). Danny Edwards did not, the Edwards that played for Shrewsbury in 2002-03 was Dave Edwards. Not sure about Ged Murphy as he may or may not have played for Oldham. If the others are to be deleted, how about transferring the details to a section on the club page about non-notable (in the WP:BIO) sense players? WikiGull 10:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to above, Keep Dino Maamria per ArtVandelay13. Robotforaday 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit- this shows he played 9 times in the US, and refers to him as a former Tunisian Under-21 international. Setting up the redirect from his shortened name (Dino) also reveals a link from the Tunisian senior team article, but I'm not sure he was ever a full international. ArtVandelay13 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Strong Keep - There is very little difference in standard between League 2 and the Conference. Playing for aconference side is a lot more significant than bring a youth team player in league 2 Ram4eva 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And Conference North/South isn't much different from the Conference. Where you draw the line? HornetMike 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just so you know, youth team players in League 2 (or in the Premier League, for that matter) would generally be deleted, unless they'd made an appearance for the first team. Robotforaday 20:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen plenty of youth and reserve players at big and not so big clubs who have never played first team football. So that is a lot of work to do to get rid of them. Ram4eva 10:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I would argue the Conference is the lowest league that should have player profiles in its own right as it is a professional league (personally I think 5 full time divisions is too many) , Conference North and South are not so any profiles should only be for players who have dropped down. Ram4eva 19:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not what Wikipedia's all about. Wikipedia's about creating a verifiable online encyclopedia. I could put a lot of effort into writing an article about me. Wouldn't mean it should be kept. And if we had an article for everyone who appeared on television... HornetMike 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your telling me, hours of work on professional footballers is just going to be deleted off because they are not in the top flight, please! And what do you mean you could write an article about yourself, you have, it's called your user profile, wake up!. All I'm saying is that the lower down teams deserve as much recognition as the Premiership, these players still go out on Saturday afternoon and play football for 90 minutes and if you ask me, a better quality of football than the Premiership sometimes. If there was a profile for every player in the Conference who would that be hurting? No one. it would just educate people. I think some people need to stop being so picky. -- Jonesy702 22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying these players should be deleted because they're not playing in the top flight, don't put words in my mouth. The point is, if Wikipedia is to maintain its standards, there has to be a point whether you're either worthy of a page or not. According to guidelines WP:BIO, Conference players are the wrong side of that line, so they should be deleted. The point I was trying to make with "an article about myself" (and by the way, the userpage shouldn't really be an article about oneself!) is that you can't use the justification that people have put time into something as grounds for keeping it. One could create an article on something utterly trivial (like me!) and devote huge amounts of time to it, but that doesn't mean it's worthy of a place on Wikipedia. Cheers, HornetMike 00:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is if a team is relegated from League 2, all the profiles for each and every player should be deleted? and if your own userpage should not "really be an article about oneself", who should it be about? -- Jonesy702 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. If a player plays in League 2 or above they pass notability criteria. That's why I haven't nominated every single player in the Conference. All the players (well, not all, I've made a couple of mistakes) have only played as high as the Conference, and thus do not pass WP:BIO. Re: the user page, it should contain information about you, but I would call it an article per se! Cheers, HornetMike 01:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing is that the BBC, Sky Sports websites etc all give as much coverage on the Conference as they do on other leagues; the BBC site has profiles for all Conference National clubs, and Sky Sports provides news for them. -- Mattythewhite 10:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but I'd argue that the press covers them far less. You might get a report on League 2 sides in the papers, but it's very unlikely you'll see anything but results for Conference sides. HornetMike 11:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

erm Danny Edwards HAS played for shewsbury, i saw him play for them in a competitive match. Also Ged Murphy has played in for Oldham Athletic during his time there. I also feel the line is to high why not stop players profiles at Conference North/South.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pique28 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but the principle of an encyclopedia is that it requires sources in order to make the information verifiable. If you can provide sources to show that these players played, then please do, but we can't just take the recollection of someone who may or may not have seen them when there is no other evidence- in effect, to do otherwise would be to accept original research, as odd as that might sound. I myself strongly disagree with opening the floodgates to allow semi-professional footballers at conference and conference north/south level, but this is of course open to debate. You may wish to argue with the point at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, and establish a new consensus of notability. The state at the moment, however, is that the players (with the exception of the few noted above) fall below the level of notability established by consensus at WP:BIO, that is, footballers who have played in a fully professional league. Robotforaday 15:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the Yorkshire Post and York Press both give detailed match reports for York City who are in the Conference National, and the BBC also gives a match report which also includes statistics on the match. -- Mattythewhite 18:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Tamworth get the same kind of coverage in the midlands area. They often featured in the Birmingham Evening Mail as well as the BBC website. -- Jonesy702 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I have to agree, some hard work has been put into these profiles and it shouldn't matter whether they are world class players or semi professionals, people work hard to make these profiles for others benefit, I cannot believe some people have the time to go over wikipedia with a fine toothcombe looking for things they don't like, my advice is get a life pal, there are more important things in life than deleting off profiles of players that you don't like. Anyway Hornet man the way Watford are playing they will soon be in the Conference and we can delete off all their profiles when that happens.

Stew jones 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 admin Grutness (CSD A1. Title has no relevance to the one sentence of the article). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 11:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why fort pitt is fort pitt[edit]

Why fort pitt is fort pitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Meaningless title, little content, probably a test page. I think this refers to Fort Pitt (Pennsylvania). Neil 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God's Message to the United Nations[edit]

God's Message to the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A seemingly unremarkable Message, which seems to be neither from God, nor actually to the United Nations. A quick search engine search reveals only Wikipedia copy-cat/mirror sites. Furthermore, the text of the article goes something like "Mrs Unnotable from the University of Redlink received this mystical message (God knows how) via Mr Who-the-heck. Montchav 23:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom--SUIT42 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The title needs work also, since this is a Unification Church missive. A major blanket term usage of "God". --Eqdoktor 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Born Kittens[edit]

Natural Born Kittens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No sources to verify that this is making it to the air. Ghit sis poor -- thee is an intervbiew with the creator that hints that a deal has been signed, but there is nothing concrete anywhere. The JPStalk to me 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Several comments have bee removed from this discussion by anonymous accounts beginning with the prefixes 86.135.185.* and 86.135.90.*. Please check history for full details. --Farix (Talk) 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite hours[edit]

Infinite hours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC - lack of external coverage, only sources given are Purevolume and Myspace, etc. Crystallina 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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*. Closing this as a keep hopefully won't end discussion about a possible renaming if consensus is for that, perhaps even a broader discussion about the overall organization of evolution-related articles could be in order, this discussion indicates not everyone is happy with the current setup. But there is clearly not a consensus to delete this particular article. W.marsh 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstandings about evolution[edit]

Misunderstandings about evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Following several days of discussion on Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution (see also Talk:Evolution), there seems to be significant support for the idea of deleting this article, and moving whatever useful information it has to other articles, such as the newly-planned article Objections to evolution (a more NPOV approach to addressing misunderstanding-based criticisms of evolutionary theory). Although it is indeed important to clear up common misconceptions about evolution, the topic does not merit an entire article (it can be addressed briefly on articles like Evolution, and in more depth on articles like Evolution as theory and fact, Evolution (term), and Entropy and life; a middleman article is quite unnecessary and superfluous), and there is no precedent for naming articles about people's views (even clearly counterfactual views) specifically as "Misunderstandings".

The NPOV of such an article seems very dubious; consider that in many cases it touches specifically on creationist arguments, not just on the misunderstandings that underly many of them. It has an entire section for the creation-evolution controversy, thus practically stating outright that the entire controversy is a "misunderstanding". Regardless of whether or not this is true, it is not Wikipedia's place to make such judgment calls; we should simply present the facts, backed up by reputable sources, and allow readers to weigh the arguments largely on their own. Therefore, although it may indeed be accurate to characterize most, or even all, creationist arguments as resting on misunderstandings, that doesn't make it acceptable (or necessary or helpful, for that matter) to bend WP:NPOV just to over-emphasize that. We only discredit ourselves in the process.

The topic and title of the article, thus, is at the very least a borderline violation of NPOV, if not a clear-cut case (not to mention grammatically dubious; misunderstandings "about", rather than "of"?). And the informational contents of the article can all much more easily and thoroughly be provided by transferring those contents to other pages, such as the in-development "Objections" page, and the many more specific articles on these topics. Without any good reason to bend or ignore our NPOV standards just for the sake of a largely redundant and unhelpful article, I propose that we either delete this article outright, or, if the edit history is deemed important enough to save, move it to Objections to evolution, where it can be rewritten almost from scratch and where we will be able to provide a much more in-depth, thorough, balanced, and informative article on pretty much all of the same topics. Silence 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that seem odd? You think that creationists and others might have different misunderstandings? And of all the misunderstandings out there, which misunderstandings do you think are repeated more often and more loudly? Those of a graduate student trying to learn the material and making a mistake? Or the "misunderstandings" of a willfully ignorant but heavily funded creationist that presents evolution as a threat to civilization as we know it and responsible for everything from Hitler to plugged toilets, and makes his living by repeating these misunderstandings over and over, in the shrillest possible voice, at high volume?--Filll 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd because it's taking Creationist statements and turning them into misunderstandings, thereby systematically invalidating them. I make no claim as to whether Creationists or Evolutionists are right, but when it comes to this article, we should call a spade a spade. .V. (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "the title is very NPOV", did you mean to say "the title is very POV"? -Silence 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's EXACTLY what I meant. I swear it looked perfectly understandable, to me, when I wrote it. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given the fact that we just went through another lengthy exchange on the talk pages of both Evolution as theory and fact and evolution about this very issue, it is clear to me that the "theory vs. fact" issue continues to be poorly understood and poorly explained. I am in the midst of a substantial rewrite of Evolution as a theory and fact to address more of the confusion and misunderstandings that these discussions have amply revealed, and still exist in public discourse and the media. It will have many more references and be more carefully written. If you look at the talk page of Misunderstandings of evolution, you will see that there is a substantial amount of other material that will go in this article once it is renamed, and quite a bit already exists in two other separate sandbox articles. It would be nice if everything could be addressed in one short article or in one short paragraph, but the fact is, this is a huge issue, and it is not going away any time soon. And it has many many facets. Just take a look at Support for evolution for example, another proposed "subarticle" in this series, which will probably survive in a renamed form.--Filll 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I agree with that. - RoyBoy 800 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand the meaning of "argument": an argument cannot be a misunderstanding, anymore than a book can be a misunderstanding. An argument, or book, can be based on misunderstandings, or can contain misunderstandings, but neither can themselves be "misunderstandings". You also misunderstand the meaning of "valid": validity is not dependent upon the truth of premises (i.e., it doesn't matter whether the premises are misunderstandings), but on whether the conclusion follows from the premises. It is impossible to "frame" a misunderstanding into an argument; creationists' arguments aren't misunderstandings, they're reliant upon misunderstandings. For example, "Evolution is a theory. Theories are just guesses. Therefore evolution is just a guess." This argument is not a misunderstanding, but it's based on one ("Theories are just guesses"), which makes it, although valid, entirely unsound.
That's why we decided to focus on misunderstandings.
  • But it is outside the scope of an article on "Misunderstandings" to assess arguments against, criticisms of, or objections to evolution, even though doing so has much more potential to be informative to readers than only addressessing the misunderstandings; in contrast, an "Objections" article to address every single one of the misunderstandings involved in the page, since, as has been noted, the misunderstandings form a key part of the objections (but the objections are not themselves misunderstandings, so we couldn't do the reverse and interject every major creationist argument into the "misunderstandings" page). I couldn't care less whether we end up moving, redirecting, or deleting this article (there is already one explicit vote for just "deleting" so far, and several votes considering that possibility, so it seems worthwhile to continue the discussion rather than speedying anything, since there's no hurry anyway), but I don't see any reason at all to keep it around as-is.
It is more informative, and it also means replicating a lot of stuff that is already well laid out elsewhere, like talk.origins. The point initially was to actually avoid doing that.
  • Moreover, it is important to note that just because a premise is factually inaccurate, doesn't make it a "misunderstanding". To conclude from the fact that a creationist argument is faulty that it must be based on a misunderstanding is to assume that we can see into the minds of everyone. Obviously it is fully possible for someone to make an argument that simply deliberately relies on falsehoods. Because there is no reliable method for reading someone's mind to see whether they "understand" something (it can only be inferred from their actions), distinguishing misunderstandings from deliberate falsehoods is impossible, and it's not Wikipedia's duty to stick its neck out to try and discern such things. What matters for our purposes is the various arguments, and the factual errors they may involve, surrounding evolution; an "Objections" article can address all the relevant issues much more effectively and directly than a "Misunderstandings" article.
That's why we focus on known misunderstandings; magically no mind reading is required. It can also be said we assume good faith for those who put forward the arguments, and that they would not rely on falsehoods. Again, we didn't see an immediate need to address "all the relevant issues" in that initial section; but I feel it did address the relevant issues insofar as misunderstandings go. If you feel the scope needs to be changed; well then the sections focus does need to shift.
Good faith only applies to our interactions with other editors, never to article contents. It is a violation of WP:NOR to always assume good faith of public figures and other article subject matters. We should not have to assume anything at all, at least in dealing with opinions like these. Simply reference and state what people have said, and leave speculating about motives to others. -Silence 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm abundantly aware Wikipedia policy is applied to Wikipedians; but its simply a POV one can adopt regarding a subject to maintain a NPOV framing of a debate. Nothing is being violated so long as you do not reference specific people, but rather provide generic examples of known misunderstandings... and with a misunderstanding there is no motive. - RoyBoy 800 04:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Its simply a POV one can adopt regarding a subject to maintain a NPOV framing of a debate"? How on earth can adopting a POV help maintain NPOV?! Wikipedia should neither adopt the POV that creationists do not misunderstand evolution (and thus are disingenuous in their objections), nor adopt the POV that creationists are genuine in their objections (and thus misunderstand evolution); it should simply state the fact that they object to evolution, explain their objections, provide verifiable responses where appropriate, and not participate in, or weigh in on, the disagreement itself.
Besides, isn't it much more valuable to our readers, and much more verifiable and concrete, to provide specific examples of these claims rather than shirking from "referencing specific people"? And if we can't reference specific examples of these misunderstandings (because to do so would be to assume that the speaker misunderstands, when you yourself acknowledge that there are other possibilities), then we can't provide any direct sources to back up any of the claimed misunderstandings at Misunderstandings about evolution. So the article is POVed, useless, and unverifiable either way. -Silence 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Evolution as theory and fact is really just too long to merge anywhere. If you want to merge that article elsewhere, you'll need to delete most of the text currently on the page. And will you do the same for every other comparable sub-article, like Entropy and life? -Silence 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Filll quickly convinced me by mentioning legal battles. - RoyBoy 800 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that when Evolution as theory and fact is rewritten it will be longer with more material yet. From my conversations with both people in favor of evolution and creationists, both sides badly understand this issue, which seems like a trivial issue to me. It clearly needs to be explained carefully because it is a recurring source of confusion. After all, the confusion has been written into state law or considered for inclusion as part of state law in over 20 states, if I am not mistaken (maybe as many as 40 states). Since there is a strong opinion that the previous status quo was adequate, I think this is worthy of inspection, since that is what spurred Orangemarlin and I to create it in the first place. We asked for a while if anyone was interested in making the sections that existed in evolution actually readable, and no one responded after days of asking. So we made one and invited comments for days and days. No one responded. So we made an article. If the original article was readable and adequate at addressing this question, we would have never gone down this road.--Filll 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • How are we wary of addressing them head-on? Thanks to my summarizing and re-adding removed content to Evolution, all of them are adequately addressed in Evolution#Misunderstandings, a much more direct approach than a daughter article. Further details can be provided quite fine in other articles, such as the "Objections" one. The problem is as much that this article is useless as that it is POVed (which it is). Removing this article will have no negative effect on people learning about misunderstandings, since the "Misunderstandings" section on evolution is where most people will get their info anyway; and it will have a positive effect on the people who want more detailed information, as we will be able to provide a much more in-depth and comprehensive coverage of misunderstandings in an "Objections" article. -Silence 11:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't produced any evidence that the article is "POVed". It is basically on your say-so. There is obviously enough material for an article here, so I cannot for the life of me divine what exactly your rationale is for trying to get this particular article deleted. To me "Objections" looks like a much bigger problem in terms of article naming. While a misunderstanding can be documented as a lapse in rational thought or due to a lack of complete information, "objections" can be levied with impunity and without regard for research. No, "objections to evolution", as I see it, shouldn't be an article while "misunderstandings" seems much more appropriate and NPOV. --ScienceApologist 15:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "lapse in rational thought" cannot be documented, nor is it NPOV for Wikipedia to state as fact that a person, organization, or movement is suffering a "lapse in rational thought", even if it's true. To claim that it is suitably NPOV to explicitly state in an article title that certain common beliefs are "lapses in rational thought" is to demonstrate a profound misunderstanding (or "lapse in rational thought"?) of WP:NPOV itself.
And nobody has "complete information", so if lacking complete information is sufficient to make something a "misunderstanding", everyone misunderstands everything. Misunderstandings are defined by being false, not solely by being based on incomplete information; an article called "Falsehoods spread by creationists", "Errors in creationist arguments", or "Irrational objections to evolution" would be POVed, so why is a "Misunderstandings" article which lists common creationist claims so much more acceptable, much less ideal?
The reason I haven't bothered to go into specific examples of POV in the article itself in depth (e.g., the presence of a "Social and religious controversies" section in a "Misunderstandings about evolution" article) is because POV problems within the text should be resolved by fixing them, not by deleting or moving the article; it is because the POV problems are with the article title/topic itself that merely changing the text would not resolve the problem. Therefore it is the title/topic, not the specific claims within the article, that are important to discuss, and that is exactly what I've been discussing, and provided a number of valid arguments against, thus far.
Your argument against making an "Objections" article ("'objections' can be levied with impunity and without regard for research") is absurd, as it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to censor objections based on how well-researched they are; our standards for including a certain argument on the encyclopedia are notability and commonness, not validity or evidential basis. Indeed, it is the very fact that objections can be levied with impunity and without regard for research that makes having an article on them so important, since that's the only way to neutrally point out how poorly-researched just about all of the objections to evolution really are! -Silence 17:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you on all counts. Which is exactly why this article should be deleted (or moved). As you correctly note, this article is not about objections; and while it does a good job, an objections article would do a much better job. And to change the name here would require changing the entire scope. So, changing the name, and scope, is necessary. -Silence 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Silence, you are taking a somewhat "creationist" stance here. You support an article "Objections to evolution" but want to delete an article on "misunderstandings about evolution" seemingly on the grounds that "misunderstandings" are POV while "objections" are NPOV. That, to me, does have a little bit of a creationist spin (to the tune of "teach the controversy"). --ScienceApologist 15:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is an effort to broaden the article by incorporating this article material into an article that includes both misunderstandings, and other kinds of objections in one article.--Filll 19:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As a non-American I find this conversation bizarre and I wonder why it is included in a world-wide encyclopedia. Should we have pages on "objections to gravity", "objections to the proposal to use fire for cooking and heating"? The problem stems from the failure of parts of the US eduction system and an article on "Misunderstandings about evolution" might help clarify this issue.--Grahamec 04:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, although this is a worldwide encyclopedia, since this is such a huge issue in the US, it is also important from a world perspective, since the US includes a large fraction of the Western world, and also forms a large part of the world's economy. The US also has an inordinately large effect on the culture of the rest of the world, so if this does happen in the US, it is a bit premature to expect that similar things might not happen elsewhere. Also, there have been problems with creationism in the UK, in Russia, in Serbia, in Poland, in Italy etc. The Muslim world also struggles with their own brand of creationism, as does the Hindu World. So if we start to add up the people affected or potentially affected by creationism, a conservative estimate is well in excess of one out of three people on earth, and certainly more than one out of three people in the developed Western world. If we concentrate on the AngloSaxon world, the ratio might be even more pronounced. It is partly because of problems with the US education system, but it is far more complicated than that. If you make such a claim, it tells me that you know very little about the US, and it demonstrates an even greater reason to include this sort of material in an encyclopedia, because you clearly do not understand the US, which has a huge influence on the English speaking world, and on Australia in particular. Misunderstandings is just a subset of the Objections. And that is why it is more appropriate to have an Objections article. Also Misunderstandings opens itself to charges of NPOV far more.--Filll 04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as creationists start objecting to gravity in enough detail and with enough verifiable frequency to merit a separate article, feel free to make Objections to gravity. Likewise, I could see a strong case being made for creating an Objections to the Big Bang article, as this is a very common creationist theme and has a lot of different facets, though not nearly as many as the objections to evolution do—and the objections to evolution are much more noteworthy because they have played a central role in a number of recent U.S. court cases that have shaped and reaffirmed the implementation of the Establishment Clause. At best, such objections to evolution will be an important historical footnote; at worst, they could foreshadow a future anti-intellectual dark age. In either case, they are noteworthy, verifiable, and relevant enough to merit an article. The fact that an objection or criticism is ridiculous or baseless does not make it non-noteworthy! What Wikipedia policy page says that an article's topic is inappropriate for Wikipedia if it is "bizarre"?
You yourself note that this is a "world-wide encyclopedia", which means that topics that are important only in a specific part of the world—including the United States—are worthy of inclusion. They do not need to make international headlines; national ones suffice. As an American, I find creationism's claims bizarre too, and in many cases laughably unsubstantiated. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist, nor that they aren't important enough to be neutrally reported on in a Wikipedia article. If you want us to make up for the U.S. education system's failures, then the correct article for us to work on is Evolution, not Misunderstandings about evolution; the best way to clear up misunderstandings is to nip them at the bud and try to clearly and thoroughly explain what evolution is, rather than just what it isn't—the best way is not to presume that we can predict every aspect of evolution that will be misunderstood by anyone. If a lot of people misunderstand George Washington, does that mean that we should leap to make a Misunderstandings about George Washington article, or that we should try to further clarify and improve the George Washington article itself?
For the same reason, misunderstandings of evolution should be covered on Evolution and, for more depth, in their specific areas (e.g., misunderstandings of natural selection in Natural selection, misunderstandings of vestigial structures in Vestigial structure...), not in a generic "Misunderstandings" article. And since clearly the main intention of such an article was to undermine the major creationist objections to evolution, both the stated and the unstated purposes of Misunderstandings about evolution can be better served by an "Objections" article. Where misunderstandings merit in-depth coverage (i.e., beyond the level at Evolution#Misunderstandings), they by and large merit it as a result of their common usage in the creation-evolution controversy, which means that the ideal place to thoroughly, and neutrally, discuss them is at an article like Objections to evolution. -Silence 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Objections article is explicitly not about scientific objections, but about objections in general. See User:Silence/Evolution for the draft, which, unlike the "Misunderstandings" page, makes it exceedingly clear that there is no scientific controversy regarding evolution. -Silence 16:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, other than the "Evolution is a theory" and "Devolution is possible" sections on the Misunderstandings page, I don't think that any of the topics covered on Misunderstandings about evolution are very common among laypeople, other than laypeople who are either creationists or perhaps agnostics who have been significantly exposed to creationist literature. There might be a common misconception that "Evolution is unproven/hasn't been observed", but the specific claim that speciation hasn't been observed is a creationist trademark; even more so, the the entropy and information arguments are exclusive creationist arguments. They're creationist claims first, and misconceptions second, because they didn't arise until after creationists tried to think up possible scientific-seeming ways to object to evolution and ended up resorting to thermodynamic laws and information theory. It is disingenuous to present arguments which only creationists use as though they were general-use misunderstandings, i.e., the kind of things that high-school biology students, for example, are remotely likely to get wrong. Although they are based on misunderstandings, the information theory and thermodynamic arguments are quite complex and sophisticated (albeit pseudoscientific) falsehoods. -Silence 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand. If I read Silence correctly, he is proposing incorporating this material in a more general article, the Objections to evolution article in preparation.--Filll 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The reason this article is different from the "AIDS misconceptions" article is that the distinction between misunderstandings and objections to evolution is so fluid, and the two topics are so fundamentally interwoven. To try to artifically subdivide the two would be both an unnecessary hardship on editors, as it will require much more work to try and neutrally distinguish misunderstandings fom non-misunderstandings, and a disservice to interested readers, as it will be withholding tons of important and relevant information from them. Misconceptions about AIDS are almost solely a result of lack of education; misconceptions about evolution, in contrast, are a complex mix of natural misunderstandings and a huge number of deliberate distortions and falsehoods resulting from decades of creationist propaganda. Once we strip away all the misunderstandings that aren't used by creationists as objections to evolution, we strip away pretty much everything that would make a "Misunderstandings" article useful to begin with. I say, kill two birds with one stone by presenting the two interrelated topics together, and thus avoiding the problem of having to sort mere misunderstandings from lies, distortions, arguments, and criticisms. -Silence 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you incorporate material from this article into yours, that's an automatic redirect or, more likely, a page move. ~ trialsanderrors 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that bad?--Filll 02:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but no grounds for deletion. Deletion, amongst others, removes the edit history necessary for attribution under GFDL. ~ trialsanderrors 02:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a page move or redirect. This deletion discussion is a useful way to get broad community input before we decide what to do; it shouldn't be assumed that the only two options are to delete the page and its history, or to keep the article exactly as it is. We should discuss all the options. I'm not in favor of deleting any page histories just because I proposed this AfD; even if it ends up getting "deleted" rather than moved, it makes more sense to turn it into a redirect. -Silence 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. GRBerry 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland network for injured equestrians[edit]

Maryland network for injured equestrians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Fails WP:ORG. Only 50 ghits. YechielMan 03:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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