< January 15	January 17 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was speedy keep, article was nominated by mistake, nominator has withdrawn, and there are no delete !votes. --ais523 10:51, 5 February 2007 (U T C)

Haja (Rave Master)[edit]

Non-notable holiday with no apparent sources Sopoforic 01:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't right... NPWatcher nominated the wrong article. --Sopoforic 01:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. --Sopoforic 04:11, 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. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD consensus, also looks like a reasonable policy-based view too.

Department of Political Studies (Auckland, New Zealand)[edit]

small academic department. not highly notable. no significant reason for separate article. should go bye-bye. some substantial error facts in establishing the notability (it is not on of the largest in Australasia by a long stretch for instance). Much of the information is a violation of copyright. reads largely as an advertorial Fredrickthenotsogreat 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight ^(rendezvous) 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I note that there is a merge tag to University of Auckland, not much relevant information could be added without unbalancing the University of Auckland article. While universities are inherently notable, I do not believe that individual departments within them are, unless there is an exception reason (such as with the Harvard Business School). While the Department of Political Studies (Auckland, New Zealand) is a reasonably department (although being ranked 3rd out of the 5 political science departments in New Zealand in the PBRF), I see nothing in it which would constitute it requiring a separate article. Notability assertions include having Robert Chapman as a lecturer, Helen Clark (PM of NZ) as a student, being located in the Faculty of Arts (the faculty being ranked 25th in the world). --Midnighttonight ^(rendezvous) 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Business School isn't even a department, it's a separate graduate school of the university. I agree that any given university department does not merit inclusion.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I vaguely remember hearing something about the (nominal) difference between political science and political studies when I last studied at the department. I think this might have a bearing in the 'largest' claim; not that I, personally, consider that as a good measure of notability. --Dom 11:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The assertion of copyvio must be dealt with before Afd can be considered. Remove any information which is a copyvio, then we'll see what's left. Until that is done, Keep.~~-gadfium 03:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt to. The entire history section is pretty much taken out of a book. Removes a significant amount of content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.237.72.98 (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I had feared that there might be very little of the article left. As the article is still substantial, and the department has had both notable lecturers and notable students in its history, my opinion is still Keep.-gadfium 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, if merging unbalances the article maybe it will encourage people to write fuller paragraphs about the school's other departments? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after making sure that no general information will be lost in it's deletion (there doesn't seem to be much). Radagast83 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see any notability in university departments, nothing will be lost anyway. Terence Ong 12:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Auckland. -- Whpq 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Auckland, although it would need to be reduced somewhat so as to not dominate the University's entry. JCO312 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Merge cleanup in accordance with WP:SPAM, then merge with University of Auckland per above users. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per JCO312. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see the point in merging it, since it will significantly alter the university page and leave it unbalanced. Unless someone wants to create info on all the programmes at Auckland Uni, I suggest you delete this article instead of merge it into another.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.72.98 (talk • contribs)

Because the department has had a major influence on the modern course of NZ politics, and because a few of its current lecturers are major figures in their own right, the page should stay. People can edit as they please, but the impact on of the department on contemporary NZ is felt throughout the policy spectrum. Incidentally, it ranked 1st of 5 in NZ in the PBRF system-the coment that it was 3rd smacks of jealous misinformation by one of the lower-ranked departments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.146.240 (talk • contribs)

Have you read the PBRF report? [1] Table A-34. It clearly indicates that Auckland University is third overall in the PBRF for Political Science, International Relations and Public Policy with a score of 4.0 (Victoria University of Wellington is at 4.7, and University of Canterbury at 4.3). Learn to fact check.

Furthermore, do you have any evidence that the department has had a substantial impact on the course of NZ politics, or that any of the lecturers are major figures? --125.237.72.98 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Addhoc 18:20, 22 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iqaluit Public Transit[edit]

I think this article is very short, and information is unnecessary. And because its short length, it could merge into Iqaluit, Nunavut, or simply be deleted. It is listed in Iqaluit, Nunavut that this article would provide more information, but I think this paragraph could go into Iqaluit's transportation section. Also, there are no citations cited. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 01:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iqaluit, Nunavut per nom. Big top 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article Iqaluit, Nunavut has a transporation section. Mkdw ^talk 03:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mkdw's recommendation. Ronbo76 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Transit agencies, even defunct ones, generally have their own articles. Having a separate article makes it easier to find if you are looking at a category of transit agencies. The article has a verifiable reference from a reliable source, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Iqaluit article is already fairly long.--Eastmain 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced, albeit little, article on a part of a capital's infrastructure. The town may be remote, but its public transit received national attention as per the source. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, sourced, and somewhat notable for its resolution. It's a stub, but someone with knowledge of the subject matter can expand it. Not all articles on Wikipedia have to be 1000 words or more. 23skidoo 04:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo. The necessity of information is subjective and therefore not covered by Wikipedia guidelines. This failed attempt at public transit in extreme circumstances is both notable and verified from reliable sources. --Charlene 05:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/expand or merge useful inforomation shouldn't be deleted -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo. GreenJoe 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo. Article is verifiable, sourced and everything is there. Hope there will be a bit more expansion. Terence Ong 12:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per 23skidoo. Ground Zero | t 13:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iqaluit, Nunavut per nom. Madmedea 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: an article about transporation in Iqaluit would have much better chances of expansion, and this information could find its place there. It would also be a ((Main)) link in the transportation section of Iqaluit. Suggest keep, then move to Iqaluit transportation, then ((expand)). --Qyd 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined to agree with Qyd. I don't see much purpose in a short article about a now defunct public transit system and there isn't much potential for expansion really. Forking out the Iqaluit transportation section of Iqaluit, Nunavut to a new Iqaluit transportation article and then incorporating the small amount of content at Iqaluit Public Transit into this new article pretty much guarantees a decent amount of information in the article.--Isotope23 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Eastmain and move per User:Qyd. --Arctic Gnome 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close. This is not the place to discuss merges, or a substitute for ((expand)) or other content requests. No real request for deletion is presented (nor is there a policy reason cited if there is - the main complaint is that the article is a stub). Agent 86 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as noted by Qyd and Isotope23 above. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Agent 86. JCO312 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some people need to give more consideration at times not just to content itself, but to how best to organize that content for maximum clarity, visible relationships with common topics, and ease of location. If this were merged into Iqaluit, for instance, then it wouldn't be in either Category:Transit agencies in Canada or Category:Transportation in Nunavut — so even if we keep the information itself, we have no natural way to flag to a reader of those topics that the information is present in Wikipedia. I'd suggest something like Qyd's proposal: merge to a larger article on Transportation in Iqaluit, and redirect this title to that...but keep the redirect filed in Category:Transit agencies in Canada as a flag. As a suggestion, however, the nominator should be aware that in future, if you're going to propose a merger, you should use ((mergefrom))/((mergeto)) rather than AFD to do that. While an AFD can result in a merge if people disagree on the appropriateness of deletion, it's not the correct process to use if you're proposing merger rather than deletion right from the start. Bearcat 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per all above. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eastmaine's rationale is convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep nom boils down to "article is a stub" which is not grounds for deletion. also, everyone else, name changes don't get debated here. ⇒ bsnowball 09:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I agree with Smcafirst, although I am new at Wikipedia, I think this article is not useful at all. (From a visitor's point of view). --Mix Precipitation 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete or merge. As per above and Smcafirst. Stephy100--A person who loves music!
Keep per 23skidoo. Short articles are fine. Real encyclopedias have plenty of "stub" sized articles. RFerreira 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. I added a 2nd refernce [2]. And as far as this being defunct, per WP policy, Notability is generally permanent --Oakshade 07:01, 20 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 clear consensus. I see significant camps wanting merge, delete, and keep -- ultimately, it seems the mergists may have the most support, but it doesn't seem those calling for deletion have carried the discussion, one way or another. Feel free to DRV or re-nom individual articles, no problem for me. Luna Santin 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Broadcasting Westport Tower et al.[edit]

Sorry to bore you all again, but someone has seen fit to contest my prods on the above with compelling (sic) arguments such as "I disagree that masts aren't notable", "leave masts alone", and "towers and masts of this height (349m, 401m) are categorically considered notable enough for articles". No improvements have been brought to the plain one-line stub articles in question. I beg to move for deletion as per numerous overwhelming precedents. For full rationale, please see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts. Ohconfucius 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the listed articles. All sub-stubs that don't show notability.--Jersey Devil 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's the problem with prods; they don't have to even improve the article to contest them and render the notion useless. Delete them, they have no claims to notability, and I very much doubt they ever will. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with List of masts (where not already there) - information could easily be transfered there with little loss. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Ollie. No reason to have a two-line article. Gan fon 00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Big top 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, no reason to lose the information and better off having links to where it can be found. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, as above. --Davidbober 03:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and repeat, or merge/redirect if information is verified. Seraphimblade 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heathens and villians all - You should all be hung from six-inch high yardarms. But seriously... The arguments that tall masts aren't notable (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts don't hold water. Notability is subject specific and to some degree locally determined as well - these masts are in most cases notable locally (the tallest thing around, often visibile throughout a county, etc). There really aren't that many of them in total. Having adequate descriptions for each would require one overly long article. There is no damage done by keeping the stubs; at some point, we may have someone who wants to expand them and can gather the requisite details. Ohconfucius' assertion that there's a consensus on this is specious - the consensus is one (him) plus those few who noticed them on AFD - there has been nothing approaching a reasonable effort to construct a notability guideline for Masts, get consensus for that, and then apply it consistently and globally. The current campaign has no logical well defined stopping criterion and is a terribly bad idea. This should be abandoned and Ohconfucius should start working on a notability criteria document for masts, and get real consensus on that, first. Keep all, and stop AFDing until there is an agreement about notability criteria for masts Georgewilliamherbert 04:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would tend to think that the consensus at AfD has been overwhelmingly to delete-notability is actually not subjective, including subject specific, it depends over anything else on multiple non-trivial reliable source coverage. If a subject has that, it's notable, if not, it's not. Seraphimblade 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree here, although there are a few quite vocal editors who disagree (and deprod articles like this), the vaaaast majority of editors who come to AfD agree that these things should be deleted.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have outlined what I believe could constitute notability, and assertion thereof, and my approach has been consistent. This approach has been consistently backed over a 7 week period at AfD. Articles which have been de-prodding with even a remote improvement in line with policy have been left alone. The above were only brought to AfD because somebody disagreed but did not shape them up. I'd be happy to participate in hammering out a guideline for these structures, but I feel WP:N is adequate for the sake of these discussions. Please note that there have been a few stubs which editors have been spurred into turning into full-sized articles - Mediumwave transmitter Mainflingen is a good example of this. Ohconfucius 09:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if people can turn up articles or other sources about any particular mast to allow for expansion into something of substance (like an article on its construction, for example), then we can turn the redirect into an article. As it is now, we don't have any more information than the FCC's directory entry for each mast. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I want to seem like I'm trying to vote twice, but any of these that don't already exist in List of masts should be included there, and then delete the rest. Radagast83 06:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Terence Ong 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least Mediumwave transmitter Lopik (I haven't looked at all the rest). It was built in 1938 and was one of the few masts of this height at the time, is listed on List of famous transmission sites, has a corresponding Dutch wikipedia article, and has occasionally made the news over the decades. --Delirium 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per aboveOo7565 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) per the rapidly-growing consensus that individual mast articles aren't encyclopedic. List of masts should be enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list of masts and delete. These are as fungible as mailboxes and as unencyclopedic. If one has multiple independent reliable sources, bring them on and we can see if that one is notable. Creating a spew of articles such as these from another database also enshrines data which is stale: there is no automatic mechanism to detect changes in the source database, if one is replaced or extended higher or used by a different broadcaster, so we would be wasting server space with stale data. Refer those who are interested to the source database (FCC or such).Edison 19:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you could quite happily refer any wikipedian who is interested in any subject under the sun to "the source database" or whatever. The point isn't is it available elswhere, but should it be available here to. Jcuk 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure that I think a list of masts is notable. JCO312 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Georgewilliamherbert. Wiki is loosing touch with notibility thinking if something doesn't have 3 million google hits its not worth the small amount of wiki space. Forgetting that its VERY notable where its at. key word here is subjective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiahou (talk • contribs) 03:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment nobody's talking about millions of GHits, just a few which may show why a particular mast has merit, whether aesthetically, technically, geographically, sexually ;-0. LIN TV Wiliamsport Tower, for example, only gave 8 unique Ghits, Woodstock Television Tower gave four unique Ghits. In both cases, all of Ghits are wiki or mirrors. Ohconfucius 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. Addhoc 12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lopik, as argued by Delirium. No comment on the others. Eludium-q36 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, including Lopik. While it has more external links than other articles, they do not provide more content. The Dutch article is equally stubby as the English version. I don't see any of these articles meeting WP:N. Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to find more information about the CBS Broadcasting Westport Tower. The only results on Google were Wikipedia and Wikipedia-mirror pages. I searched the FCC databases and looked around Wikipedia. After a bit of effort, I was able to determine that the Westport Tower is a transmitter for KCCO-TV (a "satellite" of WCCO-TV in Minneapolis) in Alexandria, Minnesota. KCCO-TV doesn't even have an article, nor should it. It simply duplicates the WCCO-TV broadcast signal. Sources can't be found, aside from the FCC, that give any details about the tower. Even the WCCO-TV website didn't say anything. It is simply not notable. The WCCO-TV article mentions "Additional TV transmitters in the north serve Alexandria (KCCO 7, 24 DT) and Walker/Bemidji (KCCW 12, 20 DT)." Having the tower mentioned as such in the WCCO-TV article is the way to go. The other transmission towers don't appear to be notable either. --Aude (talk) 18:25, 22 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 trending towards keep, as I'm reading it (though I've been wrong, before). Perhaps give it some time and see if things improve in the article. Luna Santin 22:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands[edit]

No sources to indicate notability, no indication of signifigant third party coverage, no inidcation that it meets the criteria for inclusion of websites. brenneman 00:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it has won awards shows it's notablity in my eyes. The article could use some other sources rather than just the main site, perhaps some of the many Google hits it gets? Gan fon 00:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I should have made that more clear: If there is documentation that demonstrates it has won a notable award, it satisfies the guideline. I may be missing something obvious, but I did not see such documentation. - brenneman 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gamesdex.com Game Review - Not sure if this counts. Mkdw ^talk 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The link for awards simply points to user praise. Not nearly good enough. Fails WP:WEB. Resolute 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the publisher is a notable company. A Google test for the exact phrase "Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands" results in 33,800 search results. Until direct criteria can specify why this article should be delete, it meets Wikipedia:notability. Mkdw^talk 03:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that a search designed to emilinate Wikipedia mirrors returns only 111 unique results. Not that that means anything anyway, as the h"Google test" for notability has been rejected mroe times than I've had hot dinners. - brenneman 03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Google returns more than 1,000 hits, the distinct Google hits are only the distinct hits from the first 1,000 pages. So it is more or less useless to use "distinct pages" as a measure for any result with significantly more than 1,000 pages (like this one), and therefor should be discounted (This and the underexposure of historical figires and facts on the Internet are the only reasons I know of to discount Google as an indicator of notability: for all other items, it is a valuable indicator of notability, which of course is inferior to actual sources). Fram 13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the "Reference" is nothing but a page of fan testamonials. Unless someone comes up with real sources, this appears to be non-notable and full of claims that are unverifiable.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done some cleanup (although the "Concept" section needs revision) and provided references beyond just a company testimonials page. I've had to rely on the company's site for the John Romero quote, although the RPG Planet review and two articles from Wired are certainly independant. Pretty sure there's more out there, I've never played but remember reading quite a bit about this game. Serpent's Choice 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing now includes a Computer Gaming World article, a nod from an IGDA white paper, in addition to the Wired articles (including the use of Achaea's engine at a conference with substantial UN involvement). I feel fairly secure in saying that WP:N should no longer be at issue. Serpent's Choice 09:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I lie awake at night and dream about deletion discussions like this one. I'm quite satisfied and would ask that everyone who reads this strolls by Serpent's('s?) talk page to give a pat on the back. - brenneman 11:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. The only review is that of RPG-Planet and on its own it is not enough to prove notability. Even more so, the review is everything but objective and has the appearance of being written by the fan. Quoting: "For instance, after the PlayStation2 came out, I obviously had to own one, and couldn't spend any money in Achaea for a couple months.". Reviewers don't operate in this fashion. In addition to that, Mr. Reves is neither listed as a staff member nor does he address any controversial issues of the game apart from saying that they exist. It's a praise, not a review. The other sources simply don't mention the game as a central subject nor address it in any way other than existing. Still no evidence of the awards provided. Non-Notable.~~MaxGrin 11:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I haven't found evidence of an "award" (although the company nebulously claims it has done so), but I'm afraid I do not understand the criteria you are trying to fulfull. The Terdiman article in Wired and the CGW article are both demonstrably about the game -- or, rather, about an item introduced to the game, which would seem to be splitting hairs to differentiate. Also, I might argue that the use of the Achaea engine for the medium of communication of a conference involving UN dignitaries would be sufficient under WP:N regardless of other concerns. Serpent's Choice 11:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the discussion about the item is rather about the phenomenom that was observed while doing so, rather than about the game in which it was introduced. Similarly, if a rock band in a small town would run around and slaughter bystanders, the phenomenom would be notable, yet not the participants, i.e. we would not be interested in the biographies in an encyclopedia. Also, the reference made is to the engine, not to the game itself, making it a rather weak link. Feel free to disagree, but that how I see it.~~MaxGrin 11:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, out of pure interest, where did you dig up that Computer Gaming World quote?~~MaxGrin 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, CGW made a giant database of all their articles publically available, and I grabbed it. The link to it that I used back then seems to have died, but, happily, I now find that a 3rd party site has mirrored at least some of the article text. That one, in particular, is here. I believe there's also an interview with the Achaea designer in another issue; I'll try to scrounge that up shortly.

In any case, I'm not sure your analogy is ideal here. Jokes about the addictive nature of MMOGs are pervasive, but Achaea had the gall/insight to actually introduce an in-game substance that got characters (rather than players!) addicted. If nothing else, its novel. I'll probably agree to disagree on the importance of the engine use as regards the game itself, although I'll point out that the Quake article discusses the uses of the Quake engine for other games (it never hosted a conference ... I don't think).

Regardless, I'll try to find some more content. I'll admit that the article as it stands is still poor. I just think is keep-able. There are a lot more negative comments from reviewers to be had, but they are often in comparison to other games, in those games' reviews (Foo-game gets my recommendation, because, unlike Achaea, it does bar). I didn't include such sources because they don't advance notability for AFD (although they will be important to present a comprehensive and NPOV article if it survives this process). Serpent's Choice 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice link, thank you. On the matter of engine, Quakes engines have been used in a good score of games, making it very special, however it is only a side note as Quake itself is notable. I completely agree that shall the artcle remain, the engine bit should be a part of it. Would be nice seeing the UN directives chat with Quake running in background though.:P

Anyway, Achaea has quite a number of curiosities about it, such as the Gleam story, however the AfD states that "that's an interesting article" is not a criterea. The way it stands now, it is objectively speaking non-notable.

PS: This is terribly weird, but after about a 30 minute search in google(one sees that sometimes I get really bored), I didn't even find a hint on Achaea winning any awards other than their homepage. This is off-topic, but why on earth are they so well hidden? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maxgrin (talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It may be testament to the need to retune the notability guidelines in general that we can both read WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE and reach diametrically opposed opinions based on the material at hand. In any case, unless I can figure out what award they think they've won (I can't find it either... /boggle), I'll let this stand on its merits and see what consensus looks like. Serpent's Choice 12:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of awards, where does it say that they won away awards anyway except the former Wikipedia article? I can't find on either of their official pages...(is probably blind)~~MaxGrin 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(dropping indent) Not many places. This page on the official site doesn't say that, but its meta content is "The website for the award-winning game Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands". There are a few other sites that seem to have parroted that line independant of Achaea's official site, but I'm not certain. They've also noted a couple of reviews I can't find, such as a "#1 MUD" from gamers.com and a 5/5 rating from mpog.com that I'm having trouble finding due to their age. Mpog.com has been bought since the review was probably written; archives were not preserved. I'll have to hit up Wayback. Not sure on the gamers.com reference right now. Serpent's Choice 13:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I need to catch at least a little sleep, so I'll have to come back to this later. However, I found a Wayback archive of the MPOG reviews - there were two, which seem legitimate (and more ... shall we say, "professional" review than RPG-Planet's. See the wonder of the Internet Archive here and here. The gamers.com review is lost to history, as it was buried too deep in the structure of the short-lived format the site had in 2000 (PC -> Role-playing -> Online) to be indexed by the Archive's crawler. Serpent's Choice 15:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MUDs (and similar) are generally deleted, and the one thing that supposedly raises this one above the pack, the "awards", don't seem to be substantiated. If anyone can find verifiable, reliable sources for these awards, and if they are indeed notable awards to begin with, that may be something to consider. Otherwise it's apparently just something else the dog gulped down while it was munching on homework. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2 references in Wired. Edison 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual MUD articles are, far more often than not, unable to meet the policy requirements as described in WP:WEB that can warrant their permanent addition to Wikipedia's pages. From what I've seen and read this article only substantiates this further, as in being one of the few to have actually brought forth some sources, those same sources quickly reveal themselves to be replete with bought reviews, biased fan testamonies and the like. Articles on specific MUDs in general are best deleted under the current guidelines. I've seen no valid arguments as to why this one should be an exeption to this. Adblock59 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the ref in Wired and Computer Gaming World suggest it's got somewhat "mainstream" coverage for its activities, and sticking around for nearly ten years seems to help it along. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A MUD article of a virtually identical content to this one was deleted very recently, which described a free-to-play MUD that had been in continued operation for almost 4 years longer than this one has. I don't see how this is an argument in favor of keeping this article. 84.192.125.204 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did that one have non-trivial coverage in reliable sources? Tony Fox (arf!) 06:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would dare say it did at least when compared directly to this disputed article, as I re-wrote that now deleted article myself in late 2006 with the specific purpose of fixing the problems which had the original version deleted under consensus back in 2005. (Rightfully so by the way, hence my initiative to attempt to make the content acceptable to Wikipedia standards.) The great irony is that I actually based the structure of that re-written article heavily on this very Achaea article, as since this article was not being considered for deletion, they apparently seemed to be doing something 'right'. And yet that very same 'something right' certainly wasn't its reliable sources provided, as this debate seems to be making increasingly clear. The aforementioned deleted article didn't have any notable differences in content to this Achaea article, apart from the former having a more detailed gameplay section, and neither article provided valid sources to establish its notability. Both were essentially in the same situation, yet one was deleted and the other was not. I thus am left with the distinct perception that a double-standard seems to be in effect at this point in time. I can very easily provide my deleted article with the precise same type of sources as this Achaea article has done with itself, yet that would simply not be ethical on my part, as they would not be valid under Wikipedia's guidelines to begin with. Logically, the same standards should thus apply to this article. Given the near identical situation of these two articles with regards to both content and validity, they either should both go, or both be restored. 84.192.125.204 09:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with a previously deleted article, deletion review is --> thataway. This isn't the place to argue it, as each article is considered on its own merits, not by saying "This one was kept, therefore this other one should be." Here, I see two major publications that have covered this topic specifically, establishing notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe I just don't know enough about MUDs, but this seems to me to be notable as a somewhat popular computer game. JCO312 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've made a 2nd pass through the article with an eye toward improved sourcing, again. At least for now, I've removed the RPG Planet review over concerns that it was inappropriately hagiographic. However, the article now cites its review on The Screen Savers, as well as substantial coverage in Richard Bartle's most recognized book on multiplayer online gaming. I've located a couple of additional criticism sources in an effort to ensure the article adequately reflects all available opinions, have brought the text more in line with the manual of style, and have found quite a bit of further discussion regarding the payment system, especially from IGDA. At least to my eyes, the WP:SOFTWARE proposal requirements are more than satisfied. Serpent's Choice 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I think if we really want to keep this article we at least need to refine the sources. Now you did a great job of finding them, but we really need to sort them out a little. Right now it's a puddle of mud. Even more so, I think we should make an exception here and add the links to the forums from the previous version. Since Achaea is not very famous, we won't get any of this feedback from independent press and in my eyes, we're missing a big point about the revenue system by leaving out those entries.~~MaxGrin 09:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps it's simply the hour here, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting needs to happen regarding "sorting out" the references. Regarding the forum links from a few versions back ... most of that appears to be standard MMOG "how dare they make me play!" forum banter. On the other hand, linking to a forum discussion regarding the autoclass changes might be prudent, since it won't be covered in a better source, and directly impacts the roleplaying environment that the positive sources spend so much time lauding. I'll see what I can conjure up. Serpent's Choice 10:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment for keeping This is my personal point of view, but if we decide to delete this then what will be next? I realize that there are extensive rules, regulations, and preconceived notions of what should and shouldn't be on wikipedia, but i also think that it is or should be more accepting. But i digress. For this article i call into light such others as the article on D&D, Zelda, and other games of such note. True, this particular game is not as well known, but if has been around for so long, and has so many participants in so many places, then it meets my notability requirements. I also feel that if wikipedia is such a "comunity oriented" excersize then we should be allowed to have articles about other communities. Achaea is a community, much like Gaia and some other games of note. If you need it to be more suit-and-tie, isn't it owned/run by the Iron Realms? Surely they are notable enough. At most we should smerge this with any wiki on Iron Realms. I believe that Achaea is stand-alone enough to reside in wiki's hallowed halls. 64.251.57.196 13:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Rhunsulrana[reply]
keep -- Achaea is the most popular MUD today (according to topmudsites.com), and for that reason alone should be on here. It has a large player base and is one of the few remaining examples of quality text-based roleplaying games. I agree the article should be improved, but deletion is not warranted. - John Nowak

'comment' Category:MU* games lists a great many Muds. If almost all MUDS are not notable enough, Is shouldn't this whole category be up for deletion as well. I mean If we keep the top5 most notable, a whole category of it's games would be a little redundant. Martijn Hoekstra 21:42, 23 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 Kinu (CSD A7 (band, no assertion of notability)). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lab Table[edit]

Delete - Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:BAND as far as I can see. -Painezor ^T^C 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Band with no assertion of notability. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. No content, no sources..no notability. Gan fon 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, per above. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete definitely does not meet WP:BAND, tag has already been added so might as well go ahead and delete.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nomination (doesn't meet WP:BAND criteria). —S .D. ¿п? 01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Clearly a WP:SPEEDY. Mkdw ^talk 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Note: User:WJBscribe has marked it as "speedy". SkierRMH 03:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per SkierRMH and WP:SNOW. Ronbo76 03:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:18, 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. --Core desat 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Terror was restored[edit]

Article about the non notable restoration of a non notable boat Daniel J. Leivick 00:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this is a news story, and there's no sign that we have the sources to make an article about the boat. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per Night Gyr's comments. --Dennisthe2 02:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The author may want to try writing about the company who made these lines of boat and then give mention to this particular boat. But right now, it fails Wikipedia:notability. Mkdw ^talk 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a boating club or magazine. JIP | Talk 06:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons outlined above. BTfromLA 07:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Walton monarchist89 13:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's great that they restored this boat, but there's no independent sources to indicate the notability or import of this restoration.-- danntm ^T _C 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Magarmach 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see the point of making an article about the restoration of a certain boat when that boat doesn't even have its own article to begin with. Metrackle 21:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Rename and Expand the last of a particular type of boat in an area could be notable, particularly if oysters were a significant part of the economy in said area. As it is, I agree that it's presented as a news story, which is unacceptable. JCO312 21:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 22:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all above by Snowolf (talk) on 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RFerreira 21:25, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mrs Goggins Trophy[edit]

This appears to be an article about a NN subject, namely a group of people who watch sports together. janejellyroll 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as non-notable group of people playing a computer game. Possible BJAODN - it made me laugh anyway! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, non-notable game/group of people no question.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and BJAODN JuJube 01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. I'm not sure this can go for BJAODN. At any rate, tagged for CSD A7. --Dennisthe2 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Non-notable subject. Mkdw ^talk 03:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - tagged as csd-a7 by user:Dennisthe2 for Speedy Delete. Ronbo76 03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete should be BJAODN'd too -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:22, 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 merge to Fire Emblem. Will tag as such. Luna Santin 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in the Fire Emblem series[edit]

I created this article a long time ago, back before I knew what was appropriate for Wikipedia. The reason I'm AfD'ing it now is because I've realized that 1) it's basically a game guide and/or nonnotable material and 2) it spawned the second article I've listed for deletion which is even worse than the first, in terms of game guide-ness. Axem Titanium 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs (great article, BTW). Some of this material could be merged into the gameplay section of the Fire Emblem if anyone thinks that there is anything worth saving. --- RockMFR 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to StrategyWiki. There's a place for that instead of GameFAQs, so go there! 74.192.221.198 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment StrategyWiki was recently deleted, but merging to there might be useful. Big top 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per User:RockMFR. JIP | Talk 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article on the game in question. Walton monarchist89 13:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per RockMFR and nom. Big top 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per other editors comments re:GameFAQs. JCO312 21:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fire Emblem. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge to Fire Emblem, lots of information with little practical use. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:24, 23 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 nonsense, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter Day[edit]

Non-notable made-up holiday with no sources that I can find Sopoforic 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dumb. JuJube 01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Falls under WP:SPEEDY for non-notable, non-sense added. Mkdw ^talk 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --- RockMFR 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Not really nonsense, so not really a speedy candidate, except under WP:SNOW. Resolute 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT - it's not gibberish, but it's downright silly. SkierRMH 03:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regular delete, fails WP:NFT. It doesn't quite make it as patent nonsense, so I've declined speedy deletion. --Core desat 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely a joke. Only about 150 hits on Google, and nearly all of them have something to do with motorcycles. Metrackle 03:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no verifiable sources, agreed definitely silly Soundoftoday 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious non-notable made-up holiday. It is supposed to be tomorrow, which makes it look like it was invented today. JIP | Talk 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:V, WP:NFT, nonsense. Terence Ong 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic case of WP:NFT, unverified, quite possibly a hoax. Walton monarchist89 13:22, 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 keep, closing early per WP:SNOW - article has been expanded, no other arguments to delete. --Core desat 21:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Soubise[edit]

Just because you are dead, doesn't make you encyclopedic. If there were some sort of hook regarding this guy, were he the subject of a book, or did something outstanding, I wouldn't nominate. But as it is, it seems a violation of WP:BIO Wehwalt 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ - Fails WP:BIO. Mkdw^talk 04:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been greatly expanded since my vote. Mkdw ^talk 08:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, I disagree that he is non-notable. That he, a former slave, rose to a prominent position in British society is notable, and the references seem pretty good. Just because he didn't write poetry like Phyllis Wheatley doesn't mean he isn't notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [I moved my !vote above the comment below because it was here before the comment was made). (it's silly to keep doing this, but I !voted keep based on the original version, not the revamped one)[reply]
REVAMP I carried out a major revamp of the article at 05:17 UTC - corrections, rewrite and search for references. Votes below this line refer to the new version of the article. It's late here. I'll do some more cleanup later Bwithh 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -P4k 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the revamp Bwithh 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it stands now, the article clearly shows that he is a verifiably notable historical figure. --The Way 06:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised and kudos to Bwithh!! SkierRMH,06:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that it has been revised, I'll withdraw the nomination, if I may.--Wehwalt 11:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now it has sources it meets WP:BIO, still think it could do with more of a cleanup however RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - sounds like he knew quite a number of notable people in this historical period, and as a freed slave who became prominent in society in this period, he is intrinsically notable. Walton monarchist89 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup. Reasonable article subject and seems to pass WP:BIO, however at present all the references link to Google Books searches. I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to be, although it might be a temporary placeholder until real references can be put in. Definitely doesn't seem to be a deletion case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but wikify Alf photoman 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Big top 18:28, 16 January 2007

(UTC)

keepHe's a significant historical figure, and several of us will be adding references. Just because you're dead doesnt make you non-notable.

Perhaps it might have been better to look for sources rather than listing for deletion. DGG 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable Hut 8.5 18:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has good references, clearly meets WP:BIO. Interesting dude. Edison 20:05, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Malla nox 01:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mummy 3[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL. This film is not even in production yet. The sources are all rumour, none of them can categorically say the project is greenlighted possible breach of WP:V. Malla nox 01:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, shows up on imdb as "announced", and appears to have a director and writer attached, and slated for 2008. [3] I'm not sure that's really a breach of WP:V (AIUI). Thoughts? --Davidbober 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB suffers from the same problem as Wikipedia: anyone can update it. They may have used the same sources to validate those claims, difficult to know. If anyone can prove that production is underway I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Malla nox 03:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The latest January 2007 citation (from Variety, no less) indicates that the film is in active development. Development is the first stage of a production cycle, and the studio is in active talks with a potential director. This isn't a film that's on the backburner; there's official interest in it, and I think AfD is too soon to determine whether this film should warrant a deletion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Internet Movie Database (IMDB) recognizes that there is a movie by that title in preproduction. See The Mummy 3. Mkdw ^talk 04:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the IMDb reference may not be considered acceptable, the Variety reference should be, and there has been other media coverage, too. I would recommend revisiting the article in 6 months, however, to make sure the film is still a going concern and hasn't gone into development hell or something. 23skidoo 04:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB reference is acceptable. Its been recognized by the G13 Universities in Canada as a credible sources for film information. It's also listed as a recommended resource at the Vancouver Film School and University of British Columbia. I also believe their budgeting reports are on the recommended reading lists at UCLA. Mkdw ^talk 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure I would consider IMDB a reliable source for article writing based on the opinions of a few Universities. IMDB is chock full of errors and incorrect information and they are ridiculously slow about actually fixing incorrect information. Regardless it's sort of a moot point here as Variety covered this.--Isotope23 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, movie has been already on the IMDB, sources are already present. There are also other coverage of this film and has been talked about in several places. Terence Ong 12:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Big top 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Arctic Gnome 18:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IMDB related comments. JCO312 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IMDb cannot be updated by anyone. You can register on IMDb and the only thing you can do is offering modifications that gets supervised by the IMDb research team. So if it gets a new page than the film is in production (as a third part of a successful sequel it rapidly becomes notable). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 22:59, 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. --Core desat 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Martell[edit]

Paranormal researcher with a website. No assertion of notability, does not appear to pass WP:BIO or WP:RS. Only reference is subject's own website. Dragomiloff 01:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep possible notable crack pot, has been a guest on coast to coast am and seems to have lots of third party Google hits, I will make the see also section shorter then the actual article. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless this article is greatly expanded it falls under WP:SPEEDY: DB-Empty. Its mainly just linkspam to other articles on Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 04:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources exist.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, it's 'nocontext' (1 line) with a ton'o linksSkierRMH,06:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no context. Terence Ong 12:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not much more than a page of links to other topics. Walton monarchist89 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete as per no context and pseudoscientific nonsenisical claptrap --Isolani 15:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone makes a notable article out of that by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent any real sources. JCO312 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources and demonstrated notability. DanielEng 07:32, 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 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope and Faith Dever[edit]

A pair of 18-month-old "actor" twins who show up in various TV shows as babies, aka very realistic props. They're 18 months old: how, exactly, are they "acting" or "playing" anything? Calton | Talk 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom appearing is not the same as acting. Malla nox 01:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hope and Faith are more than props, they are two little girls who have appeared in many different TV roles in a year, more than most kids would by age 5. Even if the role is small, to use a baby to film the kid(s) have to be able to feel comfortable working with other kids and not become every time the cameras roll. Agents look for certain things in young children, so they must have shown some kind of promise for agents to choose to represent them. Yes, they are babies but they won't be that way forever and their resume is going to keep on growing. So many other young kids around their age have Wikipedia pages, what should make Hope and Faith any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megan xo (talk • contribs) (Megan xo is the article's author.)

Comment/Question Could you please cite specific examples of infants/babies "actors" that have their own articles. SkierRMH 06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting on this debate, but if you browse around Category:2004 births and other recent years, there are basically three classes of articles: a) Royals and nobility, b) victims of infamous child murders and medical cases, and c) child actors. Sam Blacketer 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Mallanox's acute observation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, does not WP:CITE sources. Special acting skills that involve crying and pooping your pampers does not meet WP:NOTE in my opinion. --wtfunkymonkey 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much else to say.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO Nashville Monkey 09:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hope Logan

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor and Preston Shores

Strong Keep - anyone who has appeared in major TV or films is notable. Just because they are babies doesn't stop them being notable. Walton monarchist89 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, if we deleted every article that failed WP:CITE the encyclopedia would be a lot slimmer. Walton monarchist89 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! A lot slimmer! And a lot more reliable, a lot more trustworthy, a lot more respected, and a lot more useful. Wouldn't that just be a terrible shame? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so are you saying we should delete the article on United Arab Emirates? An entire country whose article doesn't have a single source/citation. Better to have some information than aggressively delete anything that can't be instantly verified - where common sense conflicts with WP policy, common sense should prevail, as per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Walton monarchist89 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry for forgetting to sign the above - it's been a long day. Walton monarchist89 18:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your basis for asserting that, Walton? An unnamed extra in a crowd scene isn't notable, even if it's a crowd scene in Spider-Man 2. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "appearing" is hardly notable, there is a lot of precedent for deleting articles on actors who have nothing but a couple of bit parts on their resumes - and those are adults who can propel themselves and might even have had a couple lines. Babies on TV shows are, in virtually all cases, essentially props. I would not be opposed to merging them to List of child actors as apparently happened in a previous similar instance.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Molly Lansing. No chance of expansion at present, but could easily be re-created if they grow up to have acting careers (or other notability) later on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's face it, they are props at this stage. They are not called upon to do anything which requires special skills. Presumably, they are in these flicks because of parental connections or some such, not their own merits. If they wind up being the next Olsen twins, then reassess if and when that happens!--Wehwalt 14:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete "When taping, Hope is used more often than Faith." , I'd call that an admission of being a prop rather than an actor. Toss it out --Isolani 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a potential conflict of interest in the article given the apparently personal details (i.e. the OR) the writer knows about the kids.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per aboveOo7565 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subjects don't meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO. Just appearing in a movie or television show, even a notable one, does not qualify one for automatic inclusion on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 18:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 40 appearances on one show alone, appearances on 7 different shows, and entries in IMDB. The article and this discussion do not make clear if their appearances were credited or uncredited extras as some comments implied. If the appearances were credited, that argues for notability. The claim that they got the role because they know someone is pure speculation and should be ignored in evaluating the reasons for keeping or deleting. As for "appearing" rather than acting not being enough for an article, chimp J. Fred Muggs gets an article for "appearing" on the Today Show dressed as a baby in diapers. No species-ism, please. Edison 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "appearing" I wasn't making a distinction between acting and just being on camera; even "acting" in a notable show or movie is not an automatic qualification of an article per WP:BIO. The subject should have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works and/or meet one of the sub-criteria for a notable actors and television personality. These two do not appear to meet either of those conditions, while J. Fred Muggs appears to have been the subject of several non-trivial published works.--Isotope23 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if appearances are listed in show credits If the baby's names appear in the show credits, then their names would be considered notable as they have casting credits on notable shows. If, however, the babies are not credited, as with uncredited extras, then the article should be deleted. The fact that the babies aren't doing much acting doesn't alter the fact that they are notable in the sense that someone reading the show credits might be interested in reading about the people listed there. Dugwiki 20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. Saying that whatever it is they do isn't "acting" seems to me to be a value judgment on the quality of their contribution. Appearing regularly on a major soap opera seems to me to be notable enough. JCO312 23:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having your name appear on show credits is not non-trivial coverage, as required to be notable. These two do not have any non-trivial coverage. GassyGuy 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Delete They do portray a recurring character on a major television show but as noted, they don't seem to have any non-trivial coverage. Perhaps they'll be notable enough in their careers to warrant a Wiki article later, but not right now. DanielEng 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Addhoc 12:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Babies. Herostratus 07:22, 23 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, obvious hoax, patent nonsense/misinformation. NawlinWiki 14:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Grossman[edit]

Appears to be a hoax, Neither imdb or TCM database knows who this person in question is. Furthermore the movies listed do not correspond with the release date, and some of the movies listed were made/distributed by studios other than Warner's. Nothing links to article, unreferenced. MegX 01:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article doesn't make sense for reasons given by nominator. Malla nox 01:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Anthony.bradbury 02:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some sort of elaborate joke. All these movies were made decades earlier than claimed, some before this guy was born. Fan-1967 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, checked too. Movies as listed do not exist, nor does any listing for this guy. Moreover the other article created by the same editor suffers from the same lack of reality, also up for afd.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:HOAX, nonsense. Terence Ong 12:50, 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 Merge and Redirect to The Cheetah Girls (girl group). Summary: As per Non-administrators closing discussions, section 1, subsection 1, I may close this variation of "keep"; an unambiguous "merge and redirect." This case has been open for at least 7 days and may be considered back loged since regular AFD requires only 5 days. Tally of comments/votes shows a majority concensus of 8 or more for merge, 4 deletes and 3 keeps. CyclePat 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls (TV series)[edit]

Article about TV series that was canceled before it was aired. Was already deleted as The Cheetah Girls (TV Series) (note the different capitalization), and is not much different from it's previous incarnation. Full of speculation and crystalballery (WP:NOT). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to The Cheetah Girls (girl group). Not enough verifiable content for its own article. --- RockMFR 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreated material. Resolute 03:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, if there's anything worth merging. --Davidbober 03:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreated content. If the author(s) feel that the content is important enough it can be merged into The Cheetah Girls (girl group). -- wtfunkymonkey 03:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak keep. The article states that episodes were actually produced of this series. If so, then it is notable as one of the few American TV series to be cancelled before airing an episode. 23skidoo 04:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really a marker of notability?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, recreation of deleted material. Terence Ong 12:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE- I did not create the page, it has information that is encylopedic, just like other cancelled pilots have pages. But I also see the point. I will merge the information to the page. Just wait one second. LOL Jtervin 14:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - with the merger. It was merged into merchandise. Jtervin 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Cheetah Girls (girl group). The projects of this group that actually come to pass are notable; those that never make it to air can be covered in the general article for the group and don't need separate articles. --Metropolitan90 19:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Cheetah Girls (girl group) Considering the show itself never even aired, its notability is questionable. However, including that information in the article about the musical group would be appropriate. Dugwiki 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it was canceled is not enough to call it non-notable. Many shows have been canceled and still have articles (Quantum Leap for instance). JCO312 23:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing Quantum Leap to a series the never even aired? GassyGuy 00:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording in the nomination was misleading. Leave it to Beaver and I Love Lucy have been "cancelled" too, but this article states that this show never aired. That's a different story. Wavy G 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just realized how vague I was in wording that nomination. Fixed it to be more specific on what actually happened to it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per terence ong ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted article. Wavy G 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it has sources and other shows that never aired (like "Haversham Hall") have pages. LAUGH90 22:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to The Cheetah Girls (girl group) it never aired so it pure speculation. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm disappointed that this article might wind up as a "no consensus keep", which I don't think is necessary. Therefore, I would like to point out (1) that unlike most other television shows which are cancelled before being aired, this one has an obvious target to merge into, since the Cheetah Girls remained viable as a project despite the cancellation of their series; and (2) that there are only 4 sentences of prose text in this article, which could easily be merged into The Cheetah Girls (girl group). --Metropolitan90 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to The Cheetah Girls (whatever that is?) per Metropolitan90. The TV show is worth a mention in the main article, but its own article would be unnecessary. Wavy G 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" I think this should be as a topic in the Chettah Girls Article. Should Not Be Deleted.Pendo 4 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Pendo 4[reply]

Speedy delete per above... Addhoc 18:13, 23 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. --Core desat 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alienese[edit]

This was speedy deleted earlier today but I guess that didn't stick. All the information in this article is already in the Futurama article and there is not likely to ever be any further information nor any reliable sources for the information Stardust8212 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, the language is quite prominent in the Futurama universe (moreso than All My Circuits, Blernsball, or The Scary Door), I believe it can be expanded to more than what is in the Futurama article. Also, see beta crypt 3 (maybe put that up for deletion also). Possibly merge both into "Futurama Alien languages", or something to that effect. Unfortunately, this was speedily deleted earlier because it was poorly put together at first, now is cleaned up. --Will Mak 050389 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small part of a short (yet excellent) TV series. Can't be expanded any further without adding fan fiction or speculation.--M8v2 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication that there's enough source coverage for a full article on that. Seraphimblade 03:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm a Futurama fan, but this is already here Futurama#Setting; as a minor part of the show, I don't see how it could be expanded much beyond what's already there. SkierRMH,06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Futurama per above. JIP | Talk 06:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SkierRMH. I like Futurama, too, but IMHO the only possible reliably sourced expansion of this subject would be listcruft, eg: List of Alienese Words in Futurama, etc. Tubezone 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SkierRMH and Tubezone. Sufficiently covered in the main Futurama article. —Cel ithemis 07:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Futurama. Terence Ong 12:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No need to merge since it's already there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect already covered in Futurama.-- danntm ^T _C 14:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand if possible, otherwise redirect- It might be a little hard to expand though. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 22:03, 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. --Core desat 01:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Armstrong[edit]

I didn't place this template, but the editor who did is editing from an IP address. This article has been the focus of frequent POV edits and there have been issues with establishing notability. He is apparently an author, but is "notable" mainly for his blog. I don't believe the requirements of WP:N have been met and I think the page was mainly established as an attack page anyway (note the frequent edits over whether or not his job as a "home spa salesman" should be included in the lead). janejellyroll 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - He does meet WP:BIO as being a guest on a notable talk show and is the author of several published books. Mkdw ^talk 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being on a talk show and being an author does NOT meet WP:BIO requirements. The article itself admits that he is only 'relatively known' in a certain niche of Catholic blogs. Notability has not been established yet. --The Way 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BIO, it doesn't mean you have written a book and being on a show gives you an article. Also, no notability is established at all. Terence Ong 12:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete , notability not established --Isolani 15:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. The page is nothing more than a blogger and self-publisher trying to create his own notability through Wikipedia.24.27.7.198
Delete non notable. Agree with the above. There is no way this should be an encyclopedia entry Leofff
Delete per editors re:notability. JCO312 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* He meets the wp:bio. He is well known in his field (Catholic Apologetics), has made significant contributions in it through published articles as well as several published books that make Amazon top 100 in Catholic theology frequently as of 1:18 Jan 18, 2007, a books he authored or contributed to are at number 20, 38, and 72. PioMagnus 07:22, 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 Delete and redirect. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual series[edit]

From the article, A virtual series is an unproduced series of teleplays, TV scripts, stories, which a screenwriter, or a group of screenwriters, post onto the internet, either as an unauthorized continuation of an ended, existing series, as fanfiction for an existing series which may still be in production, or in some cases, as a completely original creation of the writer(s) that simply hasn't found a network audience. In other words, they are unproduced scripts made by screenwriters, posted onto the internet as fanfiction for a niche market. This article tries to demonstrate the notability of the term, yet fails to provide examples of famous virtual series. The most famous one appears to be Buffy, however the series already have an article at Buffyverse (fan films). The article mentions a site that hosts a lot of scripts, but an article about it and related topics was deleted due Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Zero Productions. The article has had a section of "How to do it yourself" since a month ago. I suggest deleting this article due lack of notability. At worst, redirect it to Fan fiction. ReyBrujo 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then Redirect to Fan fiction to discourage re-creation. Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, with language like "Have you ever come up with an idea that you think is just as good or better than anything you've seen on television?" Ugh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above, as this really is nothing more than a visual form of fanfic. If it's not discussed in the Fan fiction article, perhaps something could be added there on this topic. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is apparently a distinction between fan fiction and a virtual series (according to the entry anyway) which is that a virtual series can be an entirely original creation. That distinction may warrant a separate entry. Of course, it still needs a major edit to Wikify it any get rid of the painfully bad language. JCO312

I tried to do a quick edit to remove the worst parts of it, but of course, that doesn't have anything to do with whether it should be deleted. JCO312 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, but I would not oppose a merge with fan fiction, as that's really all it is, outside of creative labelling. TheRealFennShysa 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep It seems to be an interesting variation on a topic there with a great deal of WP material, and well written.DGG 06:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 18:27, 23 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, ST47Talk 11:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to fanfiction, I'm seeing nothing to merge. Despite the list of links at the bottom I didn't see any that could be used as references for the subject. QuagmireDog 12:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect as per above. Madmedea 13:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Re-Write. Virtual series exist, they're popular on YouTube and such, they don't have to be fan-made, and can be of any genre. Such as lonelygirl15. Pink moon 1287 ^{(email • talk • user)} 15:35, 24 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 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Korean ambassadors[edit]

This is a list of two, count them, two South Korean ambassadors. Seems to have no purpose. Been around five months. Wehwalt 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - everything in Category:Lists of ambassadors seems to be a mess. --- RockMFR 02:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Just because the list is incomplete is not a reason to delete it. --Oakshade 04:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily expandable subject. Mkdw ^talk 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's still incomplete. Let it grow -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and let the list expand. Terence Ong 13:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and verifiable, there are many lists of ambassadors on wikipedia, I just saw a more specific list at United States Ambassador to Israel GabrielF 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the example shows where such a list should be. A list of all ambassadors from a single country to any other would potentially encompass thousands of entries. Restricting to a single international relationship would bring order to the expected chaos. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are few names on the list. As it gets bigger entries can split off to South Korean ambassadors to country X, but it makes sense to start the coverage in the present article. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important list. --Magarmach 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above Jcuk 21:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear precedents for articles covering countries' ambassadors. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments re:expansion. JCO312 00:48, 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 g1, obvious hoax, patent nonsense/misinformation. NawlinWiki 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Willow[edit]

As per my previous nomination re: Andy Grossman. Appears to be a hoax. Article created by same user (Nymski). The films in this case match dates listed but were directed by D.A. Pennebaker, not Terrence Willow. A google search of Pennebaker and Terrence Willow doesnt seem to correlate any hits, except wikipedia mirrors. imdb and TCM databases turn up nothing on Terrence Willow. Again nothing links to article and is unreferenced. MegX 02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Malla nox 02:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As indicated above, like the other article created by the same editor, the suibject has no listing at imdb nor is he listed in the details for each specific movies. Pretty clear hoax.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless hoax. Fan-1967 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Clearly a hoax. --Miskwito 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 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 delete. --Core desat 01:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Hill Middle School[edit]

No assertion of notability, no sources, no content worth saving. Hús ö nd 03:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, particularly given there is no content.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after almost a year there is really nothing here but the schools address. The school only opened in 1997 and there is only 1 news article I can find ( where the school is peripheral ). Does not pass any of the proposed guidlines at WP:SCHOOL and really appears to be a non-notable school with no verifyability from third party sources of anything but it's existance. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of schools and school programs-related deletions. -- Peripitus (Talk) 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no content. Terence Ong 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable school. ♠P M C♠ 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SCHOOL without sources RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JCO312 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. --Core desat 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Runners Scenario Paintball Team[edit]

None notable paintball team. Only 63,000 Ghits. No sources M8v2 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, mostly unsourced conjecture. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also when looking at the people who have edited the page it is a clear Conflict of Interest--M8v2 03:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Delete While there is likely a conflict of interest here, that isn't in and of itself good grounds for deletion. The real problem is the lack of verifiability and possible notability problems. If the information in the article is actually true then it is likely that there are sources out there and if they are provided I'd probably support a keep --The Way 06:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't get a lot of paintball team articles so it's tough to say just where precedent lies. However, the article is obviously unsourced and I don't see anything obious in Google News or Google Books to source it with, either. The nominator is being pretty generous when it comes to Google hits. I get no unique hits at all for "Gun Runners Scenario Paintball Team" (in quotes) and only 32 unique hits for "Gun Runners" + "Paintball". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomOo7565 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent some additional argument for notability (i.e., ranked nationally or something). JCO312 00:47, 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 Keep. Navou ^banter 13:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Please discuss merging in article talk Navou ^banter 13:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

The article was deleted awhile ago (link) when it was rumored to be the second single. Now it's back as the supposed third single. Once again, no references, fails WP:CRYSTAL. ShadowHalo 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful into The Sweet Escape and redirect. ♠P M C♠ 16:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Sweet Escape ::mikmt 18:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see why it should be deleted. It just documents a Gwen Stefani single to be released in the near future. There's nothing wrong with it. Onur 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with it is that it documents a single that has not been released and cannot be verified to be the next single. This goes against Wikipedia's policy about unverifiable speculation. —ShadowHalo 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. Velten 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete 4.176.69.57 00:18, 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 delete. --Core desat 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Fidel[edit]

Subject's main claim to notability is a non-successful recording career, some unpublished books, and apparent friendships with more notable people. The article doesn't appear to have been created as an autobio, but the subject has made multiple recent edits. The entire article is unsourced and appears to fail WP:BIO. I had placed "notability" and "unreferenced" tags on the article several times, but the subject kept removing them and refused to use the talk page to discuss the issues with the article. janejellyroll 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, NN Nashville Monkey 09:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, creator seems to have admitted it's autobiographical. --RaiderAspect 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed to prove notability, not sourced by Snowolf (talk) on 21:07, 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 keep. There appears to be a lot of support for improving and verifying the article to the best of our ability -- that sounds like an excellent idea. Some people think splitting the article between different articles would be the way to go; could give that a shot, and either redirect, disambiguate, or re-nom for deletion, if you like. One way or another, though, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete at this time. Luna Santin 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music in professional wrestling[edit]

Nothing more than listcruft/fancruft...sorry to be blunt but I fail to see how the big list serves much purpose beyond that. I propose that the big entrance theme list be deleted. Have no problem with the intro beind kept, but the list is all unsourced. However, these theme songs are an indiscriminate list of information which is specifically said to not be accepted on Wikipedia (see WP:NOT).Rubyredslippers 03:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless listcruft. JIP | Talk 06:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first paragraph explains that music in professional wrestling is notable and important. Normy132 07:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the paragraphs describing the music in professional wrestling should be merged to professional wrestling, and the huge list of wrestler entrance themes should be deleted. JIP | Talk 08:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, if your going to delete this one your going to have to do Music in the movies, Music in football, Music in theatre, Music in church, etc... However this article does lack references and I fail to see how it will succeed in finding documentation. I would like to know so I could go get the books and help out with the article. May have some promis! --CyclePat 08:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mabe merge to Music at sporting events. --CyclePat 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but provide more references "Listcruft/fancruft" is not a valid reason for deletion. Entrance music is particularly important in professional wrestling, and many of the wrestlers and shows on this list are extremely notable. In addition, this list indexes a great deal of information that can not be easily cataloged within other existing articles or the category system. Therefore the list is both useful and notable. However, that all being said, it does currently suffer from a large lack of references. The songs are most likely correct, but to meet citation standards someone needs to provide references verifying the information in the article. I have therefore flagged the article requesting references. Dugwiki 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a valid reason - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FANCRUFT

No, it's not. Even per the above referenced essay (not guideline or policy), "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." In other words the perception of something being "fancruft" might contribute to people wanting to delete it, but it is not used as the reason for deletion. There is no policy or even any guidelines against "fancruft". Dugwiki 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to put it another way, you should never see an admin delete an article with the official reason being "fancruft". It might be deleted for lack of references or a notability issue, but you should not see articles deleted if the only complaint on the afd is "fancruft". Dugwiki 16:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy WP:NOT is quite clear. One Night In Hackney 16:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, WP:NOT does not mention the word "fancruft" once. So I'll say it again, you should never see an article deleted with the only reason being "fancruft". Dugwiki 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is a classification fancruft can fall under and does on this occasion. You are arguing over semantics while choosing to ignore the fundamental problems the article has, your time might be better served improving the article to address these problems? One Night In Hackney 17:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not ignoring anything, as I already described above that in my opinion the information in the article is notable and useful to readers, but that it does have a problem in that it currently lacks references. My complaint is that "fancruft" is, frankly, an unfortunately all too common and inappropriate phrase for afd and cfd discussions. I would much rather nominators not use that term at all since whether or not something is "fancruft" has no bearing on whether or not I'll support deletion. It's a waste of time to use the phrase in a nomination for deletion, and also is rather insulting to otherwise good faith article authors. Dugwiki 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You'll note that, as before, the word "fancruft" does not appear in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, again undercutting the assertion that it is a useful phrase that might apply to official policy. Dugwiki 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. You'll also note if you read the section you highlighted titled Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that the section is actually quite limited in scope. "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply...", followed by a list of consensus areas which are inappropriate (ie Lists of FAQs, Travel Guides, Memorials, etc). Lists such as this one are not included in those categories, so that section of that policy does not necessarilly even talk about this type of article. Dugwiki 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult, this one. The psychological aspect of music in relation to crowd "heat" at wrestling events is pretty large, as the characters are quite closely tied to their themes in the mind of the audience, so there's a reasonable amount of potential for an article on that side of things. However, sourcing is definitely missing, and the list seems to be overdoing it. Weak delete; possibly merge the information in the first couple of paragraphs to professional wrestling, but axe the list (despite my finding it useful once or twice) as being nearly impossible to source. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Serve the same purpose as soundtracks listings of discographies (different from those of an artist's). Same as List of songs performed on The X Factor (UK TV series) or List of songs in South Park, which are also musical lists related and belonging to highly different categories and apparently has no informational values apart from gathering them in one page. But that's not a reason for deletion for me. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 22:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. Also I like to add that if I was interested in any of the songs by wrestlers, I find this an excellent article to browser for the artist, find out the song name. This is a good article and it runs like a catalog. Maybe it also requires a category to run with it. Govvy 12:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete In its current state it contains large amounts of mostly unverifiable original research. If the article is kept I recommend the list of songs is deleted and started again from scratch with each song being properly referenced, otherwise the article will always have major problems. One Night In Hackney 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a surprising amount of the information is verifiable, although the references aren't yet included. You can typically verify what theme songs a wrestler or PPV used in a few ways. First, some of that information appears on the wrestling promotion's official website. Second, the major promotions release periodic official music CDs which feature the theme songs for their wrestlers and PPVs, including listing on the track list which song is for which wrestler. Just using those two sources, you could probably provide accurate citations of either official internet postings or from official CDs that verify who uses what. The remaining uncited songs could be either removed or tagged with "citation needed". Dugwiki 17:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt on notability, per arguments above. Verification is poor to non-existant; ideally, each entry on the list needs a source. Assuming a consensus that this is notable, we would want to keep the list for those cases where an article about the wrestler does not yet exist, or does not include this information. May be appropriate to keep, mark for verification, list on relevant Projects, and revisit in a month. If verification then remains flimsy, I would be minded to delete, but let's give the workers a chance. Eludium-q36 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that proposal. Give the people who maintain this list a couple of weeks to get the references in order. If it hasn't improved, resubmit for afd. Dugwiki 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Very usefull. DXRAW 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Usefulness is a very subjective judgment and like all subjective judgments should be avoided in deletion debates as far as is possible." (WP:ILIKEIT) --Aaru Bui ^DII 00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this part of the "I Like It" essay (not guideline) does not make a claim that usefulness has no bearing. Clearly the more people that consider an article useful as Wiki readers, the more likely it is to be worth inclusion. In the absence of going against policies, if an article is also useful that will weigh in favor of keeping it intact. Dugwiki 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to put it another way, being useful certainly doesn't hurt. Dugwiki 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and original research. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information contained within the extensive lists to the appropriate articles (e.g. incorporate the theme songs into wrestlers' infoboxes) and cut it off of the article. It is indiscriminate on its own but would complement other articles nicely. As for the prose, delete if it can't be referenced, merge into Professional wrestling if it can be referenced but not expanded, and leave it alone if both can be done. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. lots of good information, should be kept. Shelbysc 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shelbysc has not made edits outside of this subject.Rubyredslippers 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the usefulness of the information, though, the lack of references is a serious issue. My keep vote above is contingent on the article receiving references to verify the information, preferably an inline citation for each song directing editors to where that song can be verified as being a theme for that wrestler/show. Dugwiki 17:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split and Re-Write This info belongs on the wrestler's pages, and doesn't need a page of it's own. The prose can stay, but the list doesn't belong here. If someone wants to know the name of Austin Aries's enterance, they'll go to his page to find it. While the info here is valid and varifiable, the collection is messy and invites the inclusion of non-noteable information. A good way to decide if the enterance music is notable, is if the wrestler is notable. If they don't have their own page, they don't deserve an entry here. If we are going to use that logic, why not just put the info in their page, and throw on a catagory on it to group wrestlers with distinguished music? -- NickSentowski 20:12, 23 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, partially per the keep argument admitting lack of encyclopedic value. --Core desat 02:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G4 2006[edit]

Subject of article does not meet notability requirements of WP:ORG Nv8200p talk 03:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alas, this is a well written article and i'd love to keep it, however the topic is very non notable. THE KING 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT. Certainly is not suitable for Wikipedia. Three of the given "references" at time of writing are blogs and are in fact the same, as are another three, implying very little or no real references to backup any sort of notability. The article's quality might be acceptable, but its content is not. Bungle44 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Well written, but not encyclopedic material. Rettetast 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article may be not be encyclopedic material, but it might be a starting point for something big in the future and what not a place to keep it as a archive than in Wikipedia? The referencing method may be wrong as maybe the author do know know how to do citation. Maybe, wiki could ask help from the public to aids its citation method. User:HweiMing/Hweiming 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Your opinion is bound to be bias as you are the article creator. You admit the article is not of encyclopedia material, when Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and hence you are admitting that it also isn't suited for this purpose. Bungle44 15:25, 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 delete. --Core desat 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VLad Pants[edit]

Orginally tagged as speedy. Appears to be completely non-notable. Only 25 google hits, 9 of which are unique --Wildnox (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wouldn't have had a problem with a speedy either. THE KING 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can wait until those pants gain the promised "worldwide attention." BTfromLA 07:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 09:15, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACHOZEN[edit]

Subject of the article does not meet criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 03:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the artical... The Scars on Broadway page is no better but it got to stay. It also has enough refrence to keep it up... If it should be taken down I can re-add the artical once they start playing at other shows and get a CD... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WierdoYYY (talk • contribs).

Delete - At this time, the article does not satisfy the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. 209.139.204.97 19:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 14:25, 22 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. --Core desat 02:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bobble[edit]

Looks to be a non-notable neologism, author asserts that term is in wide use but has provided no sources to back this, and I can't find any. Seraphimblade 03:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports magazine. JIP | Talk 06:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no RS Nashville Monkey 09:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Walton monarchist89 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and as playoffcruft. Wikipedia is not a highlights reel. --Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 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 no consensus. Luna Santin 04:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flixster[edit]

Non notable website, article reads like advertisement/spam, would have CSD or prod, but another user on IRC would have contested MECU≈talk 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, site is at 2400 Alexa rank which is good for <1 year old. chart Minor mentions in media[4][5][6], possibly a bit early. Seems to be driven by word-of-mouth & blogs so far. --Dhartung | Talk 18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks a lot like COI or at least OR. An article with this title has already been speedied [7] as A7. If it's possible, could an admin compare the content of this article with the deleted one please? -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim of notability in the article. I place no reliance at all on Alexa rank. Eludium-q36 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Flixster is well-known amongst film fans, predominantly teenagers. The Alexa rank is reliant because it shows how popular a website is, and for a site less than 1 year old, as has been said, a rank of 2,400 is quite good Enton 18:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB... Addhoc 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard of this website a while back in a printed newspaper. Website is relatively new, so not a surprise there aren't a huge number of notable publications about it, but did find some online mentions which, while not all about Flixster, refer to it as a fact of the Web in the same breath as MySpace/YouTube, and a quickly growing site: BBC News Film Stew Internet data. Article itself needs improving, but is not incapable of being a good article. There are plenty of stubs on Wikipedia that have the capability of growing if not deleted too early and I think this is one of them. GDallimore 12:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of the external references above, only the BBC one seems like a reliable source, and it only mentions Flixster in passing -- the site is not the subject of the article. So, I reckon it fails verifiability and notability, although given its Alexa rank, it may become notable in due course. --DeLarge 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please see my edits. Although DeLarge may disagree with the notability of some of the references, the net is run by blog-makers these days. And having a regular commentor for the BBC mention Flixster in passing as if it were something everyone should know about it a positive, rather than a negative point for notability.GDallimore 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- we'll have to agree to disagree on several points; (i) The entire quote from the BBC seemed like a bit of name-dropping to me -- "look at the esoteric sites I've heard of, I must be a commentator with my finger on the pulse" -- but that's just my cynical opinion. (ii) The fact that there's 100x more bloggers than a couple of years ago doesn't make them more reliable, which is why they're explicitly mentioned as a largely unacceptable source (see "Using online and self-published sources"). Having said all that, it does look a lot better than when it was nominated, and probably wouldn't have come under the scrutiny of an AfD if the original editors had put in the effort you did. PS I thought the net was run by the same porn barons and online gambling sites as always... --DeLarge 21:44, 23 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. --Core desat 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Buck[edit]

This appears to be either a hoax or someone who's not nearly as notable as the article asserts. I can't find a thing that supports this claim ("Kevin Buck" draws plenty of ghits, but is a pretty common name, and no hits I've found back this article.) Seraphimblade 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely none notable--M8v2 03:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google turns up nothing. -Painezor ^T^C 04:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either a hoax or someone's exaggerated exercise in self-promotion. Walton monarchist89 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless neutral verifiable sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all aboveOo7565 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty good hoax. Even if not, it's pretty ridiculous. Downright hilarious claims of notoriety--let's see: a massive giant of a baby with an unheard of birthweight of 15bs; the speediest promotion in boyscout history; saved a person's life by recalling his eagle scout training; transferred to the University of Michigan to become a cheerleader; and (creme de la creme) "saved a distressed cat stuck up a tree." Check out the talk page to see the article's sole supporter (its author, of course) dig himself further and further into a hole, until using that standard tried and true hoaxer's claim that "Google is not a reliable method of checking notability." Wavy G 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a complete hoax, through-and-through. No reliable sources --SunStar Net^talk 17:53, 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 redirect to Megachurch and make use of Category:Megachurches instead (or essentially, delete) -- seems a hybrid of the delete/categorize camps, keeping history in case anybody needs this as a reference in other articles or work. Luna Santin 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of megachurches[edit]

Listcruft of a bunch of red links for a bunch of articles about a bunch of nn churches. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very good and accurate list, I don't see why it shall be deleted. Unfortunately, wikipedia have very few articles on churches, thats why the links are red. Blame wikipedias lack of articles, this list is still a good one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Janibanani (talk • contribs) 10:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, no need for this list. Most links are red and likely to stay that way. Seraphimblade 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no criteria for inclusion (and no verification of the "claimed" numbers of attendance) it's useless. SkierRMH,07:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many people need this list. Important information about local church life you can not find elsewhere.--RIH-V 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per policy, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages and Wikipedia is not a social networking or community-building site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yukichigai (talk • contribs) 08:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is information, not social networking or community-building. Church also is part of people's interest. Social networking means you helping somebody. Yellow pages - you give phone and directions to find. Nothing like these here, - only good start to write articles about all these megachurches what keep important place in today's life.--RIH-V 09:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:USEFUL. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We keep lists of local schools, but can't keep large influential christian organisations? Looks like losing freedom to write and read important information.--RIH-V 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why we keep lists of local schools is because there is a cabal of knee-jerk keep voters when there is any attempt to remove non-notable schools. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #1 - in response to Yukichigai, if the people can't "find elsewhere", the church would not be "notable" and therefore should not be included in this list. And, if it's a "megachurch", wouldn't part of the definition be that there would be lots of information readily available? And in the same line as Metropolitan90, there is already a category for those that have their own articles. #2 - Again, just doing a quick survey of numbers (the bottom #of this list in the 2000's for attendance/membership (again, it's not delineated) I could easily include 100 Catholic Churches from CA (USA) alone; multiply that by 50 states, and I've immediately added 5000 churches to this list! SkierRMH 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, insofar as I know a "megachurch" is primarily denoted by its congregation size and/or maximum occupancy, plus one or two aesthetic considerations. (Like "is this actually a church and not just an old Costco that a congregation uses for worship?") -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yukichigai above Nashville Monkey 09:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep , list has some interest and number of redlinks is not insurmountable. --Isolani 15:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INTERESTING is not a valid "keep" reason. Axem Titanium 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SkierRMH, but in fairness, some of these churches are in fact notable. There is already a Category:Megachurches but there does not need to be a list along the same lines. --Metropolitan90 19:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Megachurches such as Willow Creek Community Church tend to be large, influential, and much written about, hence notable. Many of them have articles. Some with redlinks could have articles which would meet WP:CONG and which meet traditional notability and verifiability criteria. Besides, even thoughWP:POKEMON says we are supposed to ignore the fact in these discussions, we have 493 individual articles about Pokemon characters which individually lack proof of notability, and a single list of megachurches seems far more encyclopedic. Edison 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of individual churches does not make a list about them notable. Axem Titanium 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it never fails to amaze me what is considered "notable" and "not notable" here. Jcuk 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to have any valid argument for inclusion here. Axem Titanium 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we can have lists of the schools is a district, we can have a list of the biggest churches in the world-Doc^g 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid "keep" reason. Axem Titanium 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, this is a social and cultural phenomenon and having a list of all of them contributes to a full approach to the subject.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there are citations that properly define "megachurch" and put each entry clearly into that category.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly, the doubtless well meaning editors who have created this have misunderstood Wikipedia. All of the external links should be removed and the guideline of maximum one red link for nine blue links should be followed. In this case, probably easier to delete completely and start again. Addhoc 12:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, where is this guideline that contradicts Wikipedia:List guideline? GRBerry 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRBerry, WP:MOS-L... Addhoc 00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What fun. I don't see any evidence that the contradiction has been discussed before. By the time that Manual of Style page was first created, the development list concept was in Wikipedia:List guideline. I'll leave this to the closing admin to sort out, but there definitely are dueling guidelines here that may need some discussion in a different forum. GRBerry 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, to be honest I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:List guideline and very possibly development lists were not envisaged by the authors of WP:MOS-L. Reading Wikipedia:List guideline there is a commendably strong emphasis on sourcing - if we are to have red links they must have reliable third-party sources. Also, I didn't see anything regarding external links. Essentially, I think Zoë's nomination was based on the unsourced red links, which is still, in my opinion, a valid nomination. Addhoc 10:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the concept of megachurches may be notable, a list for all of them is not. Axem Titanium 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per SkierRMH Cornell Rockey 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Surely the name isn't the right one, but a list of world biggest church may be useful. I think that this list can be like the one of the tallest living persons and so one. Why not? The school's example isn't the right one in my opinion. However, in order to keep it, churches must be listed by the attendance, non the country and sources must be provided. In that case, it can, in my opinion, considered encyclopedic. Why? I said it some rows above: it would be like the list of world's biggest stadiums (which is undoubtedly useful and has every right to stay in wikipedia, as I think everybody of you will agree) or the list of world's tallest person. It has encyclopedic and historical value. But in that case only. by Snowolf (talk) on 05:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoocat (talk • contribs) Note: User's fourth edit, relocated from above page heading. Accurizer 16:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An external link haven which would be a redlink central if they were converted to wikilinks. Wikipedia is not a link repository nor a directory. If the numbers could be sourced, we might have something. Without sources for the numbers, the numbers are useless, and without (verifiable) numbers, the article, as it stands, is simply an external link directory, which Wikipedia is not... I feel like I'm repeating myself. --Czj 07:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dmz5, the sociological impact of megachurches, especially as it pertains to community growth and social involvement, leads me to think this oughts be kept. While I would not want to have to "redefine" the term megachurch according to numerical value, I would recommend limiting the list to churches over, say, 5000 in attendance, due to the theory that large churches get larger all the time. --Avery W. Krouse 13:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep but modify AND limit.

One I added a great deal to this list by searching for third party or verified info, some were easier than others. I live in Louisville, Ky. so obviously I added a great deal to this area. That is part of the issue here consistency. Louisville, Ky. does NOT have the most mega-churches per capita ... I mean we could but I have no way of knowing that. By looking at the list it would seem that we have proportionally more mega-churches than other cities. These are issues. This is a list. Is it as important as the article "megachuches" ? No and in some ways yes. Merging this list with the article would make the article too long. However this is an interesting research tool -- if I'm correct that would be encyclopedic (in essence). What you get by looking at the list here is something that you don't get from the article. You see how diverse this cultural phenomenon is. Look at the diversity of denominations, geography, etc. you SEE more from the list than you do in the article. Admittedly I know there are a lot of "red" links in the text. But there are also a lot of external links (I know because I looked a great deal of them up). These links combined with a list create an interactive research tool that honestly exists nowhere else. You want to read about the mega churches fine here's a list including a link to their websites read for your self, see the similarities and differences. Most of these sites have an "about us" or "what we believe" section or news; any number of things that tell you more about the congregation. These links are not provided on the Hartford site. This is where you find diversity and this is where you have a tool for knowledge and research. YES this article or list needs some clean up, ok a LOT of clean up. I'd argue format first and foremost, along with set criterion and verifiability. The challenge is the list is growing and it's hard to verify them all. I mean some churches don't boast about their attendance you only find it buried in the church newsletter on the website. I think a solution would be a lock on the page. This would prevent someone just posting their church for recognition and in order to be added it has to go through the discuss page and meet a set format. I'd be happy (if I can be given a week or so) to go through and make the list uniform in format and I'll even research out the list as I go. I’m willing to step up and do it if and when something is decided. Format I think would work … Southeast Christian Church - Louisville - Dave Stone [66] [Attendance: 19,100]

Church name linked to internal site if none external – location – congregational leader – extrenal link if an internal article exists – attendance

This gives a source a set criteria (attendance avg weekly) and consistency. List by state or country and by church alphabeticly.

But I seriously think we need to keep this. Deletion gets rid of something that could be useful even if only to a small group, it is a research tool. Sorry for the length here but I kind of feel strongly about this. Thanks. M-BMor 08:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a useful development list (Wikipedia:List guideline, third type) and cleanup by eliminating the external links, because Wikipedia is not a directory of weblinks. Many/most megachurches are in fact notable by WP:NOTE standards - big things get talked and written about. GRBerry 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize ... put any articles we have on specific churches into a category, then the external link farm that calls itself List of megachurches is moot and can be deleted. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately a category is not an appropriate choice in an instance like this where many of the entries are red links. The external links aren't needed, however; red links would be more appropriate to encourage creation of the articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and categorise -- fails WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles are not... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" and "Wikipedia articles are not... Mere collections of external links." There's absolutely no WP content here beside the church name. If it's not a redlink, categorise it, since that's what categories are for. Do that and then wipe the page and you won't have lost a single byte of actual information. PS if "the information is not available elsewhere" then it shouldn't be here, since it'll fail WP:V by default. --DeLarge 17:33, 23 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 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hendy's Law[edit]

The article is about a term that has not reached any degree of notability, with only 6 Ghits, despite the article's claim of broad industry acceptance. Moreover, the term, Hendy's Law, is merely the application of a broader term, Moore's Law to a specific product. Finally, the article seems to be a form of Blatant advertising as the article's primary author, Barry.hendy has attached his own name to the 'law.' TheMindsEye 05:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the fact that a handful of people "in the industry" use or have used this term (maybe) does not make it notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Wehwalt 12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty interesting, but not encyclopedic. I count just 3 non-Wikipedia Google hits for the term, and those aren't exactly reliable sources either. I should note that I myself am a serious digital photographer and follow the industry closely, and despite reading countless articles and discussions on the general topic, have never heard this specific term used anywhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another "law" neologism. If I had a dollar for every Moore's Law and Godwin's Law rip-off that shows up as an article here... I'd have several dollars now.--Isotope23 18:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I infer Isotope23's Law: Every Moore's Law and Godwin's Law rip-off is worth 1 dollar. ☺ Uncle G 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some additional references and [comment ] but given the main references are from conferences (PMA Australia) and the comments above I guess I have to accept the deletion proposal! Barry.hendy 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. Incidentally, I've moved from 35mm to so-called 6x6 to so-called 6x9; I wonder if this progression is related. -- Hoary 10:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest moving the graph to Digital cameras where there is a note already. --Theosch 14:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Hendy also writes: "...This phenomenon was first presented by Barry Hendy of Kodak Australia at the PMA Australian conference in 1998 and has been updated frequently since then.[2] While this concept is only an incarnation of Moore's Law it is a very specific example for the photo industry and is referred to as "Hendy's Law" within the industry." However the internet references he gives don't say anything. It would be nice to have a valid reference and list "Hendy's law" as a variation of Moore's law in Moore's law. I would therefore also be for delete if the graph can be placed in either Digital cameras or Moore's law or both, and the term Hendy's law described in either if a valid reference is found. --Theosch 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Graph is now in Digital cameras#Image resolution Barry.hendy 03:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you re above. I've shortened the text slightly and thumbnailed the image with a caption. I am now for deleting Hendy's law. I'm not sure if this was a proper procedure, please point out if not. --Theosch 08:13, 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David-Matthew Barnes[edit]

Self-promotion. No sources describing notability. No sources at all. Discussion page says the text comes directly from the subjects publicist, violating Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Username that created article is Nickamoreno, the same name mentioned in the article as the subject's partner. Ocatecir 05:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The man has apparently been published, though by minor publishers. Has he been reviewed by mainstream media? I suspect that if the article's proponents really tried, they could write an article that satisfied WP standards. But based on what we have, it is self promotion.--Wehwalt 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable and verifiable sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO NOT DeleteThis matter has just been brought to my attention by an actor who was in the process of doing research on David-Matthew. Just to clarify: David-Matthew Barnes has a novel, two films and three collections of work coming out this year and two television series in the works. His stage plays have received over three hundred productions in eight countries, twenty-five states, at nearly twenty festivals and have been performed in three languages. Copies of his plays have sold in the thousands and he receives letters daily from young readers who identify with his work. His film Frozen Stars is available around the world on DVD, including rental copies via Blockbuster and NetFlix. Is that considered notable enough? I can have those who support David-Matthew as a noteable artist submit their opinions if it would help.--Nick 18:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that this is a discussion and not a vote, so enlisting an army to vote here will not accomplish anything. Also, please provide links to his notability from independent outside sources. The article needs to be rebuilt by someone other than his publicist, as it still violates Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.

Delete unless sourced per Alf... Addhoc 18:18, 22 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 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothers Of Metal[edit]

Contested prod so I suppose speedy deletion is not an option. In any case, clear cut case of group for which no claim of notability whatsoever is established. Pascal.Tesson 05:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there is no context whatsoever (despite the length of the article) this COULD be a A1 speedy candidate. Personally I'm in favor of a speedy but I worry that the article would be recreated immediately (if a prod on it was contested). --N Shar 06:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. no notability offered, no sources, nonsense and probably vanity. Nuttah68 14:59, 21 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 03:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K. G. Karthikeyan[edit]

Not sure if this individual meets WP:BIO in terms of the WP:PROFTEST. A fair number of Google Scholar hits, but I lack the knowledge to determine whether these publications are notable in terms of quality and importance to the field. The second paragraph also leads me to believe this is some kind of WP:COI issue at work (possibly a colleague or student?). Without WP:RS, the credentials appear to be similar to those at a comparable non-tenure assistant professor level. Delete unless this article can be sourced to show notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some more information. The article already has reliable sources, listed under References. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not believe that a US Assistant Professor is notable. If they are, then every academic in the world should have an article. He clearly does not satisfy WP:PROFTEST. --Bduke 07:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:PROFTEST further, article makes no claim of notability and ought to be speedyable. Pete.Hurd 07:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROFTEST and WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the article needs more references to pass WP:PROFTEST, on the other hand nothing of note has been added since April 2006 which probably means there is nothing or who ever started it lost interest. Alf photoman 14:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a fine fellow, but the article does not show he meets WP:PROF as more than an average assistant professor. Edison 20:51, 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 speedy keep Idon'tlikeit is not a reason for deletion, consensus has quickly formed, and during the nomination Uncle G has done an outstanding job of expanding and referencing the article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL (Internet slang)[edit]

page, although notable, is not necessary Carson6254 05:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP. According to nominator subject is notable. --N Shar 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article lacks citations.

Secondly, who cares about how many different ways you can type "LOL"? Carson6254 06:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment the article does not lack citations, although it could use more of them. And since "LOL" is maybe the most common piece of Internet slang, it's probably best to keep it. Otherwise we might end up deleting all articles on Internet slang, which would be too bad. (I'm all for getting rid of the slang itself, by the way (btw?), but since it exists it is, unfortunately, notable in my opinion (IMO?). --N Shar 06:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Reason for deletion is...? --- RockMFR 06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable Internet slang term. JIP | Talk 06:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most common slang terms ever on the internet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per nominator out-arguing themselves in the nomination reason. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --- Tito Pao 12:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One test I apply when I think about how to vote, is it likely that a reader, not knowing what the term means, might seek information. I think it passes. Really, though, I think we would do better to have a single list of internet slang, and redirects from the individual terms, since how much really can you say about LOL? Also, that way, an information-seeking reader would be quickly informed about related terms which might puzzle her.--Wehwalt 12:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's notable.--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - First of all, the article has citations. Secondly, I don't like it isn't a very good argument for deletion. --Onorem 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the very notable internet slang term ever used. Its used almost everywhere, this nomination is uh... Terence Ong 13:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lol at this nomination, meets WP:V RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, as the nomination seems to run afoul of I don't like it. Tarc 14:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Although it DOES annoy me when my friends use this term, it's still notable as many people use it.--S kully Collins ^Edits 15:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, LMAO @ nominator, ROFL. Tarinth 16:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, obviously. Yeanold Viskersenn 16:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Shadows[edit]

Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Albums are self-released and seem not to have gotten any WP:V critical attention. 37 distinct Google hits for their album "Descent to damnation"[8], and the 6 hits for bandmember Elysa Fein are no indication of notability either[9]. Fram 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BAND. Terence Ong 13:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 18:10, 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, bearing in mind that a consensus to merge and redirect is free to emerge at any time on the article's talk page, once further developments make clear whether that is appropriate. In this discussion, a majority of commenters clearly hold that newsworthiness merits coverage, and that deletion is inappropriate. Firm consensus for (or against) a specific merge and redirection does not yet exist, but likely will, once the any criminal probe concludes. Xoloz 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Strange[edit]

The only notability claim is that she died of water intoxication in a contest. While newsworthy, we are not the Guinness records or Ripley's Believe It or Not!. She has been featured in multiple sources for a single event in her life. -- ReyBrujo 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't take a whiz to figure this out. ^_^ JuJube 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Somehow a pun in this situation, while natural, seems a bit in bad taste. She leaves behind three children and, apparently, died in agony. That being said I would go for a ~~merge~~ to KDND as her notability I think is very short-term and current events based.--T. Anthony 06:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On further consideration the case seems to have become more notable than I expected so weak keep. My initial reaction was that this was a one-day story of oddball death, but I've changed mt mind. Will she be notable ten years from now? I'm not sure, but Anna Wood and Leah Betts are apparently notable after 12 years so it might be possible.--T. Anthony 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will joke about anything and everything, but that's neither here nor there at the moment. In policy terms, she fails WP:BIO because she didn't do anything notable other than die to try to get her kids a video game system. JuJube 07:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ironically, whilst researching Joke#Cycles I found a lot of material written by folklorists and others on the jokes that people tell after deaths and disasters, including one lengthy piece by Christie Davies that describes at length the error of commentators who complain when someone makes a joke about such subjects. We really should have that whole subject covered in depth, but do not as yet. Uncle G 11:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much of the time I don't mind jokes about a death or tragedy, "gallows humor" type stuff either, as they're a way to deal with it, etc. For example I didn't have a problem with people lampooning Heaven's Gate. For some reason though this was a case where I didn't like it. I'm guessing this woman didn't know about water intoxication and wasn't drinking huge amounts of water purely for her own amusement. This seems like a case that could get lawyers involved too. "Funny deaths" don't work like that to me.--T. Anthony 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with a Wii mishaps article or something. The page doesn't exist but i think it should be created. This article, however, is not notable to have it's own. Scepia 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somehow, I don't think any court of law would find this to be a "Wii mishap" :-) --N Shar 06:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (people) and User:Parasite's comments below. Scepia 02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge - being a nine days wonder on national media is not noteable. 24.16.164.253 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sufficient information is already in the water intoxication and KDND articles. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Water intoxication - there are already some hyperhydration cases listed there. SkierRMH,07:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no need to merge to KDND because all the information is already there. --Hyperbole 07:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging (as has already been done) is probably fine, since there probably isn't anything else we can say about her that would warrant an individual article. However, if someone can expand the content it might be worth having the individual article. Everyking 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(changed previous comment to:) Keep: this is clearly a breaking news story, and, given recent news stories, it's looking likely this article will need to be kept. -- The Anome 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KDND. My first inclination is to keep b/c I actually think she meets criterion one, but that obviously isn't getting consensus, so I'd say redirect. I can't find any clear evidence of a merger, but people here are saying that it's already been done, so simply deleting this article is a bad idea because our license encourages us to preserve attribution history. Redirecting/finishing the merger is the logical option.--Kchase T 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either KDND, or water intoxication. Personally I suggest KDND because it has more information about the incident there. It might be worth mentioning in the Wii article at some point, or if someone makes a Wii Controversies article it should be mentioned their but personally I am wear of such an article myself. --GracieLizzie 10:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.EvaGears 11:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. If we delete, given her present notoriety, well meaning editors will probably keep reinserting the article.--Wehwalt 12:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it gets salted.--Isotope23 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Water intoxication and merge all info to that article. Juppiter 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KDND. Terence Ong 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete b/c Although water intoxication is notable, I do not think (unfortunately) that Jennifer Strange is notable enough to keep/merge/redirect. That is, with a merge/redirect, you're still keeping the article with a redirect link. I do agree with making a note of this event in the water intoxication article. Roodog2k 13:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KDND, which explains what happened in full. Not sure this belongs in an article about the Wii or a proposed Wii Controversies article, since nothing here seems to relate to the machine itself. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KDND, which adequately explains this tragedy.-- danntm ^T _C 16:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's very relevant to both KDND and water intoxication. However, this information has already been added to both of those articles. This article, in and of itself, doesn't actually add anything. Bladestorm 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion would be fine with me as the subject does not meet WP:BIO, but since this is already at KDND, that is the logical place for a redirect if that is the consensus.--Isotope23 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KDND, as per above. --Measure 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I know it has already been said that she was only notable for a single incident. Google news comes up with over 300 hits on Jennifer Strange + wii. This was a notable event, and could be a useful resource to somebody writing a paper on the wii, or water intoxication or any other number of related topics. By merging and redirecting, we just make the information mroe difficult to find. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why would a person writing a paper on the wii want information on a radio stunt gone wrong? The incident had nothing directly to do with the console, any more than Alayiah Turman's death really had anything to do with the Xbox 360. And why wouldn't a person writing a paper on water intoxication read the article on, say, Water_intoxication? Don't you think that a person writing a paper on water intoxication would be more likely to look that up than to randomly choose Jennifer Strange's name? Hmm? Bladestorm 02:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Her death was somewhat notable, but she is not. There will never be enough source information about her to make a decent article. --Measure 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not opposed to mentions of her in the other articles. I think there should be a mention to this incident on the articles water intoxiation and the Wii, however i think it should be a brief mention that she died and with all the press coverage, have the article with more details on her and her death. I think this is a fairly tragic event and is getting a fairly large amount of press coverage (e.g. not a slow news day story that was covered by some local newspaper only). If i were doing reserach on water intoxiaction and saw a blue link to Jennifer Strange as an example, i would most certianly follow it and read up on it, and what happened. To me, this could be useful. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung, and this is not a memorial. Do Not Redirect, as it isn't an obvious search term for Wii or water intoxication, and will be less so with the passage of time. Agent 86 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The purposes of redirection are not only to help people find more information about the topic of Jennifer Strange (which is present in the radio station's article), but also to preserve the history of attribution (who provided what content, even if it was eventually merged into other articles).--Kchase T 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The term will unlikely be a search term; if it somehow is used, the term will still likely result in the target articles being provided as a search result. We also don't need a contribution history for every deleted article. The contribution history for what's already been added on the other target pages about this woman are all that's really necessary or required. Agent 86 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Water intoxication. Maybe the next bunch of radio station geniuses thinking up a contest will be reminded to choose a different task. Edison 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Water intoxication per reasons stated above. Dblevins2 22:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have gone for Merge but anything anyone would want to know about this case is already found at the KDND and Water Intoxication. Unless a prolonged investigation or trial results from her death, I don't forsee any new information coming up that might warrant keeping this article. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A problem with the redirect suggestions above is the fact that a Google search turns up several other Jennifer Stranges who may be more notable than this one. In fact, most of the hits on the first page seem to be for this artist from Indianapolis, who also seems to be the intended target of some of the current links to the nominated page. Thus, if the decision is anything other than outright deletion, a disambiguation page may be necessary. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the Jennifer Strange meets the Wikipedia:Notability_(people) criteria, specifically the central tenet of The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. and this is reinforced by the fact that this person has achieved renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, ~~such as by being assassinated~~. . If consensus is not to keep, than a disambiguation pointing to a redirect to Water intoxication to keep the edit history. -Parasite 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also, if the news report that a nurse warned the DJ about the dangers turns out to be correct, then this is likely to involve litigation or criminal charges and become even more notorious. Lets leave the article in place until we find out and see what transpires. -Parasite 00:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Non-Trivial means to me books and properly researched articles (such as are written by writers of high stature, William Langewiesche or John McPhee come to mind as examples), not newspaper articles. Further more - virtually all of the accounts/articles on various news outlets are reprints of the same single source, a wire service report, there is in fact much less there than the raw number of Google hits would seem to indicate. 24.16.164.253 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - People have been featured here for less. Such as Anna Ayala or Deborah Gail Stone. Both were part of considerably newsworthy events. If this article is deleted, then those two articles and others like them should similarly be deleted for failing notability.Rebochan 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Del / Redirect to Water intoxication. Most of the news and talk around this is centered on the water intoxication, not the radio station itself, and I doubt most people searching for this person care about the station in question. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And expand. F.F.McGurk 02:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the event was bizarre and tragic but in a few years it won't even be a footnote. Strange's story is something one stumbles upon while browsing fark.com, not something one writes an encyclopedia article about. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No need to merge to KDND or Water intoxication as all information pertinent to those articles are already in those articles. --Nlu (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But reconsider for deletion in a few months. It'll be easier to judge whether her fame is fifteen minutes or long-term at a later time. Right now the story is still developing so we can't really judge whether she will be significant or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rinkuhero (talk • contribs) 07:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete per Nlu. If we keep this article, it's only ever going to be a stub - better to merge. No requirement to protect page - editors can create a redirect if appropriate... Addhoc 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - recent news reports indicate that show has been cancelled - probably sufficient for a reasonable article[10]. Addhoc 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment, per Rinkuhero and comment by Parasite's. Also, per Ilmari Karonen, it looks like we need a disambiguation page over a redirect. Sanguinity 16:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - This should be covered in the KDND article. - hahnch e n 18:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has been in the news a lot as of late; front page of my newspaper two days in a row. --Indolences 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The radio show has now been cancelled, and the radio show hosts have been fired due to the death of Jennifer Strange. And as User:Parasite pointed out, Jennifer Strange definitely meets the WP:Notability criteria because she is a person who has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Dionyseus 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This woman's death is obviously notable and this issue has continuing ramifications as the DJs involved with the contest may face criminal charges for their actions and the radio station (not to mention its parent company) will probably find themselves the subject of civil action. In addition, there is public-service value in keeping this article as it draws more attention to the dangers of water intoxication. At the VERY least, her information could be merged into the article on water intoxication and her name left in as a redirect to that article. Those who are saying that the article should be deleted without a redirect simply haven't thought things through. --Lee Vonce 19:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable death caused while on the public airwaves. If not keep, Merge JPotter 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dionyseus. --Pixelface 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote Keep if we find more info about her before the "Hold Your Wee for Wii" event--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 22:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially if there are civil and criminal charges (which I believe will happen since I heard the aircheck of the contest). --SeanO 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or news source, and a page should not exist because of future driminal charges or notability. As of right now she is not notable. She fails the 10 year or 100 year notability test. If she becomes notable later then a page can be created for her. - Ocatecir 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. No use deleting if it is going to need to be recreated. Lets sit on it a little bit. BTW, though, I believe there have been a number of times that radio stunts have gone bad. Does anyone think that may deserve an article?Bytemaster 03:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the radio sations, not this preson--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 03:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separate points. Point 1 was keep until the news story dies down and we have a better idea of the longevity, because otherwise, if we delete and it is notable, the article has to be recreated and the history is lost. Point 2 was that maybe, as an alternative, if someone aggregates the references, a whole article could be devoted to radio contests and / or radio stunts that have gone horribly wrong. Bytemaster 03:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good idea. Have a list by years, maybe have War of the Worlds listed too--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Parasite. TacoDeposit 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The SF Chronicle is reporting that the Sacramento Sheriff's Office is now investigating the case and the behavior of the jocks because it appeared they knew about the dangers of the stunt, were even informed of by an on-air caller about them, and they still laughed it off. If the jocks do become indicted, then that is a huge precedent that needs to be documented, and the article should be kept until its determined if charges are filed. If it turns out no charges would be filed, then I would support a merge instead. hateless 06:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry that is an invalid argument to keep the article, refuted quite specifically in WP:CRYSTAL -- "Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball" and we don't keep articles based on what we think may happen. Tendancer 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does every darwin award recipient get a page to him/herself (BTW, I know she is not a darwin award recipeient, but its brings up a point)? Her description at water intoxication is enough. And she isn't notable at all. Most people know who know about her death only know about her death; I doubt they even know her name. Very few of the news articles you guys quote/cite even mention her name. This is a small event and it will die down after some time. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 09:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In Wikipedia:Notability (people) it says the person must be notable - ie referred to in several independent sources. It does not say that the person can not be notable for their death! The point is that she meets the Notability guidelines (she is reference in hundreds of international news sources), it does not matter WHY she is notable. -139.130.136.14 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into KDND where a sizable section exists on this incident already. --Daysleeper47 13:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ocatecir. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The media coverage of this woman, her family and the entire incident is only increasing. Raitchison 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Fails WP:N. For the keepers citing WP:N, note it says "[notability] is _not_ newsworthiness". Furthermore, the articles are about a human interest/curiosity event due water intoxication competing for a Wii, not about Jennifer Strange per se. We cannot let wikipedia expand into a repository for odd death victims, tangential mention in Water Intoxication is sufficient. Tendancer 17:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nor does WP:BIO preclude newsworthiness. It says multiple reliable independent sources with no preference of the source. Just because the source comes from a recent news article does not mean that criteria was not passed. hateless 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: That's a strawman argument as it's not being argued WP:BIO precludes newsworthiness, and also a false inference that Jennifer Strange by her own merit is noteworthy: she is getting attention because she was in the news due to a bizarre death that attracts human interest, not because herself was noteworthy nor newsworthy. Say 20 people died from the radio stunt, does anyone truly believe then all 20 victims would deserve their own wikipedia page? The answer is obviously a resounding NO. The fact just one person died does not change it: bizarre deaths in recent news <> worthiness of encyclopedic inclusion. Tendancer 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: If 20 people died from a similar incident and they get just as much attention from the media that Jennifer Strange is getting, we could make an article on them. Dionyseus 21:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Would you be able to point to the thousands of individual wiki pages there must exist on each and every September 11 victim then? (the only thing there ever was a list, and that was voted--successfully--to be deleted off Wikipedia). No intellectually honest person would claim 09/11/01 is any less newsworthy and noteworthy than a radio stunt gone wrong, yet one doesn't see the individual victims have pages. I rest my case. :) Tendancer 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You appear to argue that news reports should not count as an independent reliable source. If you are trying to say newsworthiness is irrelevant, then you should say so. As for whether human interest news reports are of a lesser quality than other types of news reports for setting notability, I would argue that is a distinction not present in WP:BIO altogether. hateless 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Another strawman argument as well as red herring to detract from an obvious point: where are the wiki pages on the September 11 victims then? Some have attempted to cite other death victimns in this debate, yet none have succeeded to cite one that was notable only for their deaths. e.g. one "keeper" cited Matthew Carrington (whose death lead to Matt's Law) and another cited the incongruant example the Columbine Killers (when a better parallel would've been the victims, only two of whom have wiki pages as books have been published with them as the subject). The keepers thusfar have not supported their case via passages from WP policies and guidelines, I suspect perhaps because there aren't any that would support keeping it. Tendancer 20:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Cry strawman and red herring all you want, or whatever other high school debate foul, but it's rather clear Jennifer Strange is more notable than a common individual 9/11 victim, and WP:BIO does not dintinguish human interest news from other "more legitimate" news. hateless 23:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I see, I'm spending precious time conversing with someone who thinks dying from water intoxication is notable, yet if one dies from a terrorist act with thousands of others then they should be dismissed as a "common individual 9/11 victim" because that doesn't qualify hateless' arbitrary definition of notability. Tendancer 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of mainstream interest. -Lapinmies 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes more sense to keep this article with links to it from KDND, water intoxication, and Wii than to have all the information spread out one all three pages. I would oppose a merge with KDND in favor of a merge to water intoxication if it comes to deleting this article. The cause of death is more important than a radio station. In 100 years, water intoxication will still be an issue, but the radio station will probably be defunct.--1pezguy 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reason I wikilinked her name on water intoxication page on the first place (after the current article had already been created by someone else) is that it seemed like there was a convention of doing this on the water intoxication page. Other people listed there (a marathon runner, a teenage school girl, a fraternity member) seem no more noteworthy than Jennifer Strange. Have they been nominated for deletion? I haven't seen a discussion of precedent, nor have I looked into it, because I'm being lazy.--1pezguy 21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone could nominate Matthew Carrington (student) for deletion for the same reason. --Pinkkeith 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold for the same reason as the original nomination. 70.136.255.156 00:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When the "only notabilty" is forced (since the subject died, they obviously will never get another chance at notability) I think it should be kept. Examples of "notable for death" abound (the victims of Jack the Ripper, etc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.33.20.11 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep. There has been at least one front page news article every day about this subject. It is notability due to the controversy of the radio station's negligence and ultimate criminal and civil liability, and will generate significant press coverage in the future. Clearly meets WP:BIO far more than many biographical articles. The incident is relevant in the KDND article and Water intoxication article, but only as an aside, not to the extent that is currently devoted to the subject. The KDND article, for example, is now very unbalanced with all the information on this incident that has been "merged" into it unnecessarily: there are four paragraphs about the station itself and a dozen about this incident. Somebody a month from now will rightly trim the article down to refocus on the station itself and the content will be lost. 70.136.255.156 00:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Leah Betts is notable; so is Ms. Strange - although I'd like to see more information included about the DJs. (The police investigation of her death would be WikiNews; Strange herself is not.) --moof 02:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really oppose deletion, but if it's deleted, I don't think this list: List of people who became famous only in death or any of the pages on it should be kept either. --Park70 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least for the moment. While we know the circumstances surrounding her death are not unique, the fact that this could result in a criminal manslaughter charge against the KDND DJs would almost certainly have a chilling effect on media outlets throughout the nation. Such a case would be highly debatable in modern communications law. Reckstei 02:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject's entire notability, judging from article, is staked on how she died. There is no information here not found, and more relevant to, KDND and water intoxication. I have seen no attempt to write an independent bio, and I suspect it's because there's nothing there that would otherwise meet our standards. Daniel Case 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what I was saying. Her mention at the water intoxication article is enough. There is no reason for a seperate article for her.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But there are many articles in here about people notable only because of their deaths. Should those be deleted too?Rebochan 15:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brandon Vedas and Christine Chubbuck are also well-known for only one even in their life.... Hbdragon88 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It'll be back-page news in a few days, but beyond that, it fits in much better with the larger topics that are possible...both the radio station's wikipedia page, and the topic of water intoxication. President David Palmer 11:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with water intoxication and/or KDND, failing that, delete. A clear case of WP:RECENT that fails the 100 year test of WP:BIO - would anyone, in a hundred years (or even a year's) time really look up this article? Railwayman 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that the DJs responsible for the contest were aware of (and even joked about) the risks of water intoxication, and that they were warned by at least one viewer before the contest took places. Exploding Boy 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Also now getting global news coverage as of today. F.F.McGurk 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:N and this is going to become a pretty big issue, if my reading of the landscape is correct. —bbatsell ¿? 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unusual and noteworthy event involving firings, lawsuits, and death. It's probably already been nominated for a darwin award ... or at least merge it with something--TommyOliver 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very noteworthy event that is growing in popularity. Her parents were just on Larry King Live with their attorney and I believe that this is significant. Mace 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Matthew Carrington gets his own page, I don't see why this person shouldn't, their deaths were very similar, water intoxication through bizarre stunt.
- Carrington has an anti-hazing law named after (and created because of) him. Just like Megan Kanka is notable because of Megan's Law. Do you think all child predator victims should get a wiki page because Megan Kanka has one? Tendancer 17:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KDND There is enough information about her in that article. TheDude2006 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge/redirect as consensus calls for, perhaps once the hoopla dies down we'll wonder why this should be a standalone article. But it clearly meets WP:N/WP:BIO so deletion isn't called for. --W.marsh 19:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some seemingly regional news items even make it to Austria, and this is one of them. <KF> 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anchoress 06:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Case is gaining more news coverage every day. DanielEng 11:16, 21 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 03:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Darien, Connecticut.[edit]

WP:NOT for indiscriminate lists of information. This list gives no info at all and is a list of mainly unencyclopedic aubjects anyway (so can't be used as an easy entry point or so). Previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streets in Darien was kept wrongly by the only Keep proposer (but the AfD is a bit too old to put it through DRV now, so I've renominated it). Fram 06:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a list of street names with no useful information about them. JIP | Talk 06:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:NOT - non-notable streets in a non-notable town in Connecticut. The Rambling Man 08:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, directory and listcruft. Terence Ong 13:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The result of the last deletion debate was no consensus, and the only outright keep was based on the fact that List of Hoboken streets existed as a precedent. List of Hoboken streets has been deleted so I don't see the point of keeping this one. Static Universe 04:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. GabrielF 16:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't even look like a complete list; it looks like the author stopped after the B's, with only a few notable roads at the end. (Like Boston Post Road, which is much more interesting.) Otherwise, the rest is listcruft. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary list, and lacks useful information.-- danntm ^T _C 02:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see the use of the list at all.--S kully Collins ^Edits 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. --Polaron | Talk 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable town, incomplete list --Park70 05:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Why isn't this in the town's article? I don't even know if it is needed there either. Jjmillerhistorian 15:24, 20 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. Yanksox 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elsebeth Baumgartner[edit]

Previous nominated for deletion in a lackluster debate. To quote from the original, "Article is about a non-notable crackpot who faces multiple charges of harassment and intimidation. I feel sorry for her, but she needs a shrink not jail time and a Wikipedia article." To which I can only add it lacks reliable sources -- the main source being a blog calling itself "The North Country Gazette", which is almost the entirety of the non-legal-notice "Google News" hits. This is, at best, a local story. Calton | Talk 06:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or properly source and reference by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a sad case, but I'm not really seeing anything in there to base an encyclopedia article upon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (maybe) - I'm not a regular around here and I don't know all the policy details for whether or not to delete an article. The woman is notable (see the previous discussion on deletion and the mentions of Baumgartner in the media on the talk page) but I fear it will be difficult to write a high-quality article about her due to the lack of verifiable, credible sources. I wrote most of the text that is currently present in the article, and it was almost entirely based on the Cleveland Scene article (which apparantly is no longer online) - unfortunately, I couldn't find another source that didn't seem to be published by Baumgartner or her affiliates. BB 07:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and the mentions of Baumgartner in the media on the talk page Except quantity does not equal quality (no matter what listing of hits from Lexis or wherever gets regurgitated), and the actually cited ones in the article lean heavily on a blog pretending to be a newspaper.
difficult to write a high-quality article about her due to the lack of verifiable, credible sources Bingo. There's a reason for that. --Calton | Talk 09:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this search would appear to indicate notability... Addhoc 18:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all of those are court records and the single news/blog source discussed above. Can you explain your thinking more? GRBerry 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt. Firstly, quoting a previous version of an article isn't a valid deletion reason. Secondly, the article appears to be sourced - could you explain why you think all the non-legal sources currently used in the article are blogs? Addhoc 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator omits to mention that the article also uses an article from the Cleveland Scene. There is also a fairly extensive list of news articles about her at Talk:Elsebeth Baumgartner#Notability of Mrs. Baumgartner. Without looking them all up, I'm willing to bet that more than one of the 278 listed there meets our standards, as all are traditional media. GRBerry 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources alluded to by GRBerry are generally unavailable for free online - you have to pay for archived news stories. However, I checked the Cleveland Plain Dealer archive [11], which gives small free abstracts, and the stories appear to be legitimate. It is primarily a local news story and the article needs clean-up - I share the concerns that the "North County Gazette" is not a reliable source - but it appears to meet WP:BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 17:40, 23 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. ST47Talk 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teabagging[edit]

Article is currently a dictionary definition and based on it's extensive history is unlikely to become more. Vicarious 07:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, article has survived afd in the past (when it was called vfd), see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Teabagging Vicarious 07:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also last month's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teabagging (disambiguation). --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nominator), I'm not questioning the veracity of the article, in fact I added the inline source, but it seems doomed to be an eternal dictionary definition and merits deletion on that basis, already exists at wiktionary, wiktionary:teabag. Vicarious 07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. Edison 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep WP isn't censored, and we should not evade it by quibbling. The article needed clarifying and expanding, and I have done so. (I would not object to reformatting the quotation, and I doubt whether the available illustrations were GFDL) If the present amount of material is thought not enough to justify an article, there seems to be more available. Note that the article in GLT was written as a condemnation of the practice, which shows it is possible to discuss these subjects NPOV. DGG 06:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the discussion deleting the disam p., and it contains the comments

"The sex act is the only one that has reached a sufficient level of common usage to be notable, and that already has an article" and

"Numerous references to teabagging imply a need for the teabagging article"

DGG 06:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm confused and mildly annoyed you even mentioned censorship, because it's completely unrelated to the issue and isn't mentioned anywhere else on this page. As for the quotes you provided, I'm aware of them, because I wrote one of them. However, both quotes provided attest to notability, which teabagging is, but that's not enough. The word "vicariously" is also notable, and is used 3 times as many places in Wikipedia as teabagging, that doesn't mean it's not a dicdef. I wholeheartedly support this definition being in wiktionary, just not wikipedia. Vicarious 07:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or transwiki There's no question that the term is widely used so the only debate we should be having is to whether there is sufficient material for an article that goes beyond a dictionary definition. At the very least, this should stay as a redirect to wiktionary. Pascal.Tesson 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is currently a stub, but I suppose that it has the potential to go further (no pun intended). Axl 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had not idea what this was until a link pointed me to this article. This in effect proves that it is a useful entry to have around.
- Does no one understand what dictionary definition means? Reading this on wiktionary (where it already is btw), would also have solved your problem. Vicarious 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an encyclopedia article, largely because there have been a large number of (sourcable) controversies, including interviews with victims of "teabagging", and the effects it has had on their social lives, I seem to recall one overstated interview where two parents claimed a teabagging incident had turned their son into a recluse. It definitely has the potential to be more than just a defintion. Plebmonk 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as without potential to go anywhere beyond wiktionary. Also non notable.ShivaDaDestroyer 02:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have squillions of so-called "dictionary definitions". We also have lots of articles about sexual practices - why should this one be any different? There is potential for a real article here: history of the term, references in popular culture, notable incidents (Australian Big Brother 2006 anyone?) etc. Stevage 03:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it certainly has the potential to be a nice article. Also, it's sufficiently notable/encyclopedic. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:14, 20 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. — CharlotteWebb 15:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's busiest airports by international passenger traffic[edit]

I'm not sure what the reason for this page is, but that's not a reason for deletion I know. It's apparently sourced from a single place, it's a list that was inexplicably moved away from having the title "list of..." There also exists World's busiest airports by cargo traffic, World's busiest airports by passenger traffic, and World's busiest airports by traffic movements but I'm explicitly not nominating these all together. These is an indiscriminate grab-bag of information that has problems with sourcing. brenneman 07:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some difficulty trying to understand the rationale of your nomination. Is it an issue with the article bering derived from one source, that its title dosent feature the words "List of", or what?--Huaiwei 07:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 07:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Huaiwei, I didn't make a very good nomination there. This nomination is based upon Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and thus is bound to be hazy. This article looks to me like something spawned from a possibly worthy article gone too far: When something has only one source, we should think again about it's inclusion. For example, what is gained by having the list duplicated here, as opposed to the place it came from where it will at least be kept up to date? - brenneman 07:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Information like this is a good supplement to the articles we have on airports, and information on which airports are the world's largest is valid and encyclopedic. Regarding the "single source" concern, I would like to point out that the World Almanac has two tables over large airports (one for US, one for rest of the world) in each annual issue, so there is at least one more. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Sjakkalle. This is useful information.--Wehwalt 12:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, such information on airports and is encyclopedic information.As long as the list is verifiable and sources are cited, its fine, though I would like more sources for different websites of the same type of list as some can be different. No reason for it to be deleted when such valid information is encyclopedic. Terence Ong 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cross reference to airports, the list should be maintained to reflect only the most recent years (maybe 3 or 4) or it will get out of hand Alf photoman 14:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe the last three or four and then say, every ten years previously, to show historical trends. Say, 2003-06 each year,then 2000, 1990, 1980, etc.--Wehwalt 14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, articles like this can be improved by including text about changes in total amount of traffic and changes in which airports have become more or less used in a certain period of time. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:53, 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. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space warfare in fiction[edit]

Original research Pete.Hurd 07:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion, article is either WP:OR essay on the nature of "Space warfare" as demonstrated in works of fiction, or heading to becoming a list of all depictions of space warfare in fiction. Pete.Hurd 07:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do note that you don't have to "vote" again after nominating: this isn't a vote. - brenneman 12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah I know, I just goofed making the initial page with the one-liner template, and wanted to add more desccription of rationale. Pete.Hurd 15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is one of my favourite articles and I found it immensely interesting when I first found it some months ago. I know my personal feelings don't affect WP:NOTE, but also I think every statement in the article could be sourced to specific statements in the books/films in question, satisfying WP:CITE. It's not OR, it's a collation of other people's research - which is what an encyclopedia article is for. Walton monarchist89 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:ILIKEIT, sorry no. We need to follow policies and guidelines, such things are original research and non-notable by default. Terence Ong 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not OR, it's a collation of other people's research — If that is in fact the case, you should be able to point to the research that is being collated, and thereby alleviate the concerns of other editors that this is original research. Please cite sources. Uncle G 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's no doubt that the fiction is published & referenceable, it's my contention that this amounts to OR by synthesis. From WP:OR "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C." Pete.Hurd 15:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Pete.Hurd - What "position C" are you talking about? The article doesn't make sweeping assertions. It simply collates verifiable pieces of information about space warfare in sci-fi series, books and movies. Walton monarchist89 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, essay. Terence Ong 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Terence Ong Madmedea 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely original research synthesis.-- danntm ^T _C 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I concur with Terence Ong. A decent, sourced article on Space warfare in fiction could probably be written, but there is nothing salvagable from the article as it stands to even establish a stub. Unless this article gets a complete and total rewrite before the end of this AfD I think this should be deleted without prejudice against an actual sourced article being created at this namespace.--Isotope23 18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it's sourced by the end of the AfD period. No sources in there at present, so it definitely looks like OR to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is at least 1 source up now. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite what is needed here. As someone else has pointed out above, the sources need have to explicitly discuss the topic of space warfare in fiction, and more importantly the article has to be more or less be about what those sources have to say. The sources cannot be sprinkled in there to support what the Wikipedia article author has to say. That's the essential problem with OR in this article. To repeat the relevant excerpt from from WP:OR "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C." Do you see what is meant here by Original Research here? An encyclopedic article has to document some notable bit of knowledge, and that knowledge has to exist prior to the article being written, otherwise it's just a collection of facts, and that's not what an encyclopedia is for. Pete.Hurd 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But what specific "position C" are you talking about? See my comment earlier. Walton monarchist89 18:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic of the article is fine, but unfortunately the article as written is entirely original research. It is not collating research by other published sources on warfare in space - rather it is the author giving his own analysis of how things might work using a few examples from fiction. What you need is to write an article using published sources that directly talk about space warfare. Dugwiki 21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify or merge back to Space warfare but there's no doubt in my mind that this is a perfectly valid topic for an encyclopedia. The current article however is pretty bad but keeping a stub might entice someone else to expand it properly. Of course, this is a perfect target for hit-and-run editors that add one sentence of trivia and leave but I don't think that outright deletion serves Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a good merge - Space warfare is mainly about real or projected space warfare with current levels of technology, while Space warfare in fiction is about space warfare appearing in science fiction novels, i.e. that has little or no basis in current technical fact. Stubifying might be a better idea, but I still think a lot of the text is salvageable. Walton monarchist89 13:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - IDONTLIKEIT != deletion criteri, perfectly good article with tons of potential. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, fancruft, no end of it in sight - Voyager fires a few torpedos at a Malon vessel in "Night", does that get an entry on the article? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information --Mnem eson 22:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your use of the term "fancruft" in this context is highly insulting - see the following from WP:FAN: (Fancruft)...implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. This article is not comparable to an article on an obscure one-scene character from a Star Wars novel. It is a remarkably succinct and helpful summary of the concept of space warfare in sci-fi (and no, before anyone asks, I didn't write any of it - see the article history). Walton monarchist89 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:FAN also states "Some users consider this a pejorative term and see it as insulting to well-meaning contributors. They might likewise consider use of the term in forums such as articles for deletion inappropriate, but it is nevertheless in common use there". I am not one of these users. It was a description of my opinion, not an insult, and afer re-reading the article, and its examples of Freespace using nebulae, and Stargate up a sun, I have not changed it.--Mnem eson 14:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I must admit, I am a regular contributor to this article (thanks for telling me about this RFA Pete.Hurd). That being said, much of the OR in this article is my own doing, as I have yet to referance it. The information should be kept, and at the very least merged back into Space Warfare. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read the nomination before the article and was expecting a massive essay, which I didn't find. To say that it's an invitation for a listing of every example of space conflict is a bit of a stretch. I can't get behind the OR accusation either. There is no synthesis, no ideas have been created through the merging of existing ones. This is a valid topic for anarticle, Keep. Malla nox 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the stub for a subject that ought to be in Wikipedia, and may inspire improvement. If it turns instead into a substantial amount of fancruft you can delete it when it becomes worthy of attention. Andyvphil 01:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This could have been a very interesting article, but the current version is, quite frankly, very disappointing. ^Blank ^Verse 15:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more references are included... Addhoc 18:0s9, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep If something is poorly written and/or contains original research, but could be made into a good article, then it would be better to improve it. Speaking about notability, we should focus on whether the title can promise a good article about something notable enough, not how it is written at a given time. --V. Szabolcs 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a notable fictional concept but the article is pure OR based soley on primary sources. Eluchil404 11:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Herostratus 16:44, 24 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Discussions regarding inclusion criteria are proceeding on the article talk page. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 06:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications in philosophy[edit]

This AFD nomination is the culminated result of a dispute over the inclusion and exclusion of certain works based on inherently subjective criteria. At this point, I have wiped the entire article due to it being source free (anyone may do this according to WP:CITE). There will never be sources available to verify that a particular philosophical work is "important," a "breakthrough" or the "latest and greatest." I'm afraid there is nothing to do here except put this dog to sleep. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing the nomination. This may be workable if we go by notability as opposed to the current, unverifiable criteria. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 04:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am going to revert to the article with content so people can see what it did contain. Many of the entries have their own article, so they can be judged to be notable and important. Also AfD is not an answer to a content dispute. --Bduke 08:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prod -ed this over the holidays but people disputed it. I agree, there will never be any accurate standard for this list and like a few other philosophy lists, it ends up being filled with non-philosophy every 3-6 months and starts a revert war which usually the philosophers give up on in a few weeks, thus this list had a category of disputed materials... so a list, including things that should not be on the list. it should be deleted. it is also generally uncited, those materials that are cited do not have reliable, unbiased sources. The majority does not need cited if you stay in the history of western and eastern philosophies, but it is never those additions that become edit wars. --Buridan 13:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, on the one hand this is useful information, on the other it is neither complete nor does it have all notable works, which could only be a very long list that nobody bothers to read. Additionally we have the problems pointed out by Buridan which does not make it easier to be in favor of this list. I suggest someone start a philosophy wiki for this type of information. Alf photoman 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any content you can to relevant articles then delete Madmedea 14:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful list and it should be kept. I don't believe that the "importance" of a philosophical work is unverifiable, there are many renowned texts that have attempted to compile a list of the most important philosophical works. Take for example, the Great Books series. The solution here is not to throw out the whole list, but to define a strict inclusion criteria that limits the list to important works and offers a way to verify them (e.g. identified as an important work of philosophy by multiple, notable philosophers and taught at multiple colleges and universities is a quick and unrefined example). GabrielF 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The nomination apparently ignored the warning on the deletion template that "the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed" Further, the nominator misunderstood WP:CITE, which reads "If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the ^{[citation needed]} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time; If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense." There is no provision for blanking a page that one thinks unsourced. To blank at all in face of a contentious issue seems inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

As for philosophy, to remove content & then propose for debate does not show an objective attitude. The nominator stated on the edit summary for the article, "I don't expect sources to ever be possible for any of this, but it will be interesting to see if anyone comes up with something" ; To remove the list and then challenge for sources to it, does not seem very logical. I have no involvement in the page, but this does not seem a very philosophical way of dealing with problems. The List of important publications in biology shows how selection can be done in an objective manner. DGG 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia ought not to be a bibliography, and it is not a directory. Stuff like this is what library catalogues are for. Agent 86 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I only commented above. I now support keeping as GabrielF but the inclusion criteria need to be agreed. Since many of the entries do have their own article, I suggest that be one criteria for being on the list. The second should be an argument on the talk page for sufficient notability that an article could be created or a cite from a clearly highly reputable source that states the entry is a significant publication. Comment on DGG's point above. The nominator did not blank the page. He just removed all the entries, leaving the intro paragraph and the external links etc at the end. --Bduke 21:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Philosophical books with their own Wikipedia articles need only have sufficient sales to meet notability criteria. This has absolutely nothing to do with the importance as a work of philosophy. The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer would be eligible under such a criterion. This problem may be addressable by "a clearly highly reputable source" vouching for it, but there is nothing that establishes what "a clearly highly reputable source" is. That is, of course, unless you just mean anyone who is relevantly credentialed (i.e., has a Ph.D. in Philosophy), which makes it no restriction at all (The Simpsons and Philosophy meets this standard). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with your first point, the presence of a wikipedia article is not in itself enough to justify inclusion in this list. As to your second point, the trick is to find a good inclusion criteria. We can set the bar very high by only including works that have been identified by multiple, notable sources as important to a particular branch of academic philosophy. We might even say that if there's any serious doubt about a particular publication's notability, don't include it. The point is that we can devise an inclusion criteria that will keep out the dreck. This page isn't the place to hammer out what that inclusion criteria should be, but if we agree that such a criteria is possible than we should keep the article. GabrielF 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that were possible, I doubt this would be proposed for deletion. However, what has come to passis that there are minoritarian groups in philosophy who can dig up enough citations from minor works to claim the work is major or influential. Since there is no such thing as a negative citation, people cannot make the inverse argument, so we have cited verifiable sources of what amounts to highly dubious works. Then...we go look up the authors of these sources and it is usually a very small network of people, or the citation does not represent the claim, or related issues. Believe me, if the problems of philosophical inclusion were solvable, they would be solved, however on wikipedia a vocal minority can outweigh anyone, so unimportant works will always end up on lists of important works. This usually causes an edit war.--Buridan 14:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this would be far better handled by a category. Pointless listcruft aside, what is "philosophy" is also often a judgment call, or original research. Seraphimblade 19:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Buridan and Simoes make claims that these lists will be populated with the Simpsons or Snoopy, but what was improperly wiped included publications by Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Lock, et. al.

Lists are handy for users to see groupings, to inform their searchs, to link to articles. That is why they are here. It is one of the valuable advantages to an electronic encyclopedia.
The need for total perfection, or of absolute correctness of an extreme exclusionary approach doesn't serve well for lists or categories. It is in the articles themselves that we should be rigorous and critical. To go overboard on deleting entries from lists or categories is just an unnecessary kind of censorship.
Notability is a sufficient standard. Words like 'important' or 'major' should be avoided in criteria or titles.
Sources aren't needed where there is good will and there no objections to an entry. Where there is a request for a source, then it can be supplied or the entry dropped.
There are always people who think any list is too long. If it begins to grow to too large, break it into sub-sections.

Common sense says to ignore wild calls to get rid of every page whose every entry can't be sourced beyond the objections of every editor - especially in contentious fields like politics and philosophy. Common sense says not to kill a whole page because someone might put Snoopy or the Simpsons on it. Same thing for worries that a page might grow too large. If we don't exercise common sense we will be walking Wikipedia backwards, loosing one page after another. Steve 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be easy to use verifiable criteria to decide who counts as a philosopher (covered in reliable philosophy survey texts as a philosopher, published a paper in a philosophy journal, etc. ) and what makes a book by a philosopher notable. Certainly these criteria should be narrow in scope and only include notable publications by philosophers. But with such criteria I think this would meet all the WP guidelines for lists, and so it would probably just get recreated in this form it were deleted. One caveat: the "mostly read by analytic/continental" part seems unverifiable (even in principle) to me; I think it should be removed. CMummert · talk 00:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- There is no WP standard for what makes a philosophical publication notable. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are criteria for what makes a book notable in general; the list could contain notable book by philosophers, with a verifiable definition of philosopher. CMummert · talk 01:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Notability (books) is only a proposed guideline. And even if we go by it, philosophical books can be notable without being important to scholarly philosophy. The above-cited example of The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer is both notable as a well-selling book and is the work of multiple people who are indisputably philosophers (they hold academic appointments in university philosophy departments). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - But there is still WP:NOTABLE, which says "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That standard would be fine. If the book about the Simpsons actually is a notable philosophy book by notable philosophers, then its inclusion on a list of such books is no cause for alarm. CMummert · talk 01:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is some cause for alarm, say... if the same principle is broadened, because the real issue ismore that there is no way of adequately distinguishing philosophy from non-philosophy and ideology. --11:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The nominator may not longer stand by his nomination, but it makes, to me, excellent sense -- this is potentially endless list that might far more usefully be a category. Robertissimo 15:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People say it will get endless, but it rarely is a problems. Categories aren't nearly as useful. Why throw away something that many users find very useful? Steve 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. This list will always be a major source of edit wars, and is unlikely to become sufficiently long/detailed to be reliably informative. I know of no references that could give this list acceptable (i.e., non-arbitrary) citations, (though the London Philosophy Study Guide is a good attempt). The list probably is no more useful at informing one of the important philosophical publications than the lists of philosophers is, and at least those lists can and do have thorough references. KSchutte 19:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think a version of this list might be acceptable if it were significantly reformatted. One could, say, just copy content from the list of philosophers over here and then give the philosophical works of each figure side by side with the figure's name. I'm not sure if anyone is willing to put in the amount of work that would require. KSchutte 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the problem with getting rid of the list: Where else will users (which includes people new to philosophy) find a list of publications in philosophy by topic? A list of philosophers with their publications tagged on like baggage wouldn't work that way unless you relist each philosopher in each topic section they wrote for but just with the books appropriate to that section - not likely to happen. And one can always see a bibliography by philosopher by just going from a philosopher list to their article. I think the approach to reducing edit wars is not found by getting rid of all philosophy lists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveWolfer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

One can get this information from sources that aren't prone to edit warring and vandalism. Hell, if this page were just a set of links to such uneditable sources, it would probably be useful. KSchutte 00:47, 23 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 17:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful snakes[edit]

This list can only be POV. What defines a harmful snake. Most snakes can harm a human in one way or another (i.e. anacondas are not venomous but could crush you). Just an unencyclopedic article. ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 09:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but either merge into "Snake" article or rename "Venomous snakes". Anacondas don't seem to be contemplated in article.--Wehwalt 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Snake. Terence Ong 13:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into snake. If we go on to harmful reptiles we probably would wind up with most species. The bacteria contained in most reptile's saliva could kill through sepsis, so we come to the conclusion that there is hardly an innocuous snake. Alf photoman 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Venomous snake, see below.Keep, but change into / move to Venomous snakes or List of venomous snakes (which both currently redirect to Snake). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move and flag for improvement per Wehwalt, Cpt. Morgan, et. al. The subject of poisonous snakes is of perennial interest, and deserves an article of its own. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of venomous snakes per above. This is precisely the sort of thing that encyclopedias are good at keeping track of. --Dhartung | Talk 16:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per above; excellent example of the usefulness of a list within an article (and change to 'Venomous' not 'harmful'). SkierRMH 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into snake article. There is actually almost no content in the Snake article under the section on Venomous snakes. Wikipedia needs a page to help identify a snake which has bitten someone so they can get the correct medical care. And the article notes these are dangerous, venomous, and sometimes kill the people they bite. That sounds pretty harmful to the bite victims. Not everyone loves rattlesnakes, cottonmouths, and copperheads. Edison 21:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ or rename to "Venomous snakes" or something. And for GOD SAKES, KEEP THEM AWAY FROM THE PLANE!!! Wavy G 01:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as it turned out, a decent start for an article already existed in the history of Venomous snake [12], which was redirected to snake in July 2006[13]. I restored the article [14] and propose a merge of the content of Harmful snakes into Venomous snake. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content per Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) Wavy G 16:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cpt. M(R) Static Universe 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Venomous snake. Noticket 22:49, 20 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. Visviva 11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korea IBM Company[edit]

Non-notable foreign subsidiary. This issue has been discussed several times already. First, Hankook IBM was deleted. Then IBM Korea was deleted. Then IBM Korea was resurrected after deletion by the user who started all these articles. As his talk page shows, this user has been sabotaging articles and has no regard for the deletion decisions. User:Mirmo has a history of deleting afd warnings and re-starting deleted articles. Then Korea IBM Company was created. It's not even the proper name, as IBM Korea (deleted) is the proper name. The user created an article with this improper name to avoid the scrutiny he or she was sure would follow. Slo-mo 09:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have speedily deleted this per criterion G4, a re-creation of content previously deleted through AfD. -- Visviva 11:37, 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. Majorly (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixophilia[edit]

Dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF, already transwikied. Robotman1974 10:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should not redirect to voyeurism because mixophilia is a sociological term akin to xenophilia -- all Google Scholar hits relate to this usage. —Cel ithemis 11:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the author: This and its sister term, mixoscopia, both had the same comments, mostly due to the fact that they were better suited for the Wiktionary. The entries were simply definitions, and that’s not what Wikipedia is about. They've since been transwikied and I totally agree. These were some of my first wikis, and I regret the miscategorization. --hypercritic 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definition is in the process of being transwiki'ed to Wikitionary. Luke! 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 17:24, 23 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 Redirected to voyeurism. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 06:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixoscopia[edit]

Dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), already transwikied. Robotman1974 10:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to voyeurism. —Cel ithemis 11:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. WP:DICDEF. Terence Ong 13:48, 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. Wikipedia may not be paper, but it is not an indiscriminate collection of information either. This is absolutely not what Wikipedia is for. There's also nothing to merge. --Core desat 07:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1987 Fiesta Bowl Play-By-Play[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This information could possibly be ok on a football blog or wiki but not a general knowledge one. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't think this has a place in Wikipedia as it stands today.--Wehwalt 12:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy delete as devoid of context. To anyone other than a fan of American football this reads as so much gibberish....ChrisTheDude 13:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an article. Terence Ong 13:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is actually understandable as the football summary of each and every play. However, there is scant encyclopedic value in rote recitation of the detailed play-by-play of even an extremely crucial game such as this.-- danntm ^T _C 16:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is actually not "understandable", I haven't got the faintest idea what "Penalty on PSU, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at PSU 44." means, for example.... ChrisTheDude 08:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for play by play. (YechielMan) 129.98.212.69 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As stated before, gibberish to anyone other than a fan of American football. Mcr616 00:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Penalty on the play delete - I'm sure this was copied from somewhere else to begin with, anyway... TheRealFennShysa 16:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information and Redirect to 1987 Fiesta Bowl, where an abbreviated version of this infomation should exist. VegaDark 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful information (IF ANY) with 1987 Fiesta Bowl, then redirect per VegaDark. Any transferred information needs to be writen for people other than college football fans.--Tlmclain | Talk 05:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any useful information. Delete. NMajdan•talk 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and wikify) or Merge/Redirect WP:NOT paper, and this is not indiscriminate: The play-by-play of an important CFB game is not random, it's very selective. My only concern with merging is it might make the 1987 Fiesta Bowl article too long. Further, this type of information, if sourced, is valuable as it could contain links of players involved. If cleaned up and put into a template system (to be developed, but on my/WP:CFB to-do list (not official)) it could be well presented and organized and perhaps merged onto the 1987 Fiesta Bowl article. --MECU≈talk 13:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Cleanup and wikify) per WP:NOT paper. This is not indiscriminate information. It is detailed information that is part of a bigger picture. 1987 Fiesta Bowl is written in summary style and refers to this article for more detailed information. If properly re-written, all the terminology can be explained/linked to appropriate articles as necessar and the player names can be wikilinked to their articles. Johntex\^talk 14:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the keep voters. I don't think there's a single other football article with play by play like this. If we keep this, we may as well create play by play for every Super Bowl and every other championship game that's ever been played. A summary of major events (mostly, the scoring) is entirely appropriate. A play by play with excruciating detail should be left off Wikipedia, and linked as an external link if one is available. I emphasize again, ask yourself, do you want every single football article to look like this? I don't. (YechielMan) 129.98.212.72 02:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I request YechielMan sign his/her post while logged in please.) Yes, I do think every game worthy of an article should have play by play as a part (or sub-part, listed on another page) of that article. For completeness of the subject (See WP:FA requirements, Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, specifically 1b) and as well as being a resource and complete encyclopedia. I do agree this needs cleanup, and this could be the precedent of whether the information should be on the main page or a "sub" page like this is acceptable. I think this AFD came before the system (ie, a template system and rules on how it should be done) is ready to handle the article in a proper manner. The information can be referenced and is valid information that contributes to the subject. I would content that a game that doesn't have a play by play couldn't even be considered a good article, but that may be extreme, since Fifth Down made it without it, but it likely couldn't make it to A or FA without it. The drive play-by-play that leads up to the fifth down would be critical for exhaustive completeness. The entire play by play would be important for a reader to get the flow of the game and understand how the scoring and position put the team in the situations they had. Is there a game article that's a FA? As far as I know, Fifth Down is the first (CFB) game article to make at least GA. I'm not aware of NFL games really though. --MECU≈talk 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to (YechielMan) 129.98.212.72 - the answer is "Yes". In an ideal world, any game which we cover with its own article would be written in summary style and would include links to other articles with a high level of detail. That could include pages like this play-by-play summary, rosters, photo-galleries on commons, etc. There is no harm to this level of detail. It is completely within policy. What needs to happen is it needs to be wikified and cleaned-up. If the article survives AfD, I will volunteer to clean it up. Johntex\^talk 05:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from scoring drives (already detailed on the main 1987 Fiesta Bowl article, the rest of this information is hardly encyclopedic. Any summary information not already on the main article should be merged. Without checking, I would wager that this play-by-play exists online somewhere else and can be linked under External links as an added reference for CFB enthusiasts who may desire this kind of information. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information I'll let the consensus decide. Kermitmorningstar 13:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep not indiscriminate in any way shape or form and far more notable than, oh, 95 percent of the comic book and video game articles on Wikipedia. ShivaDaDestroyer 02:46, 20 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. Luna Santin 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen Segev[edit]

Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgroos (talk • contribs) 2007-01-16 00:12:10

Note: this nomination was made by a SPA whose only edits were in placing this article up for AfD. --Farix (Talk) 14:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This individual has contacted the WMF office and asked for the entire article to be deleted, FYI.--Brad Patrick 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT User:F.F.McGurk, who has made several comments below, is banned editor User:Rootology.--MONGO 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if the one source added is enough for WP:BIO Alf photoman 14:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable See this. Also, this person has hired people to remove his entry per various sources on the Internet. Per this we shouldn't. People don't get to decide if they are notable themselves. F.F.McGurk 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More sources being added. There are tons out there; this person is definitely notable. F.F.McGurk 18:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable Looks like this guy just wanted the Priceline content removed. Regardless, his article, in its entirety (musical and otherwise)is not notable. User:Sgroos 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources being added are for the musical group that this guy is a part of, not Segev in particular, although he was named. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgroos (talk • contribs).
The musical group he founded per the sources. All valid. Notable. F.F.McGurk 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what is your primary username? This new SPA account has no edits beyond this. Thanks! F.F.McGurk 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my primary username..I'm still learning the ropes...I noticed the blogging on this, and couldn't understand why they were making an issue over this guy, not like he's a celebrity or anything.. Thanks! User:Sgroos 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already made the nomination. You don't get to vote twice. Not that AfDs are votes per say. And fix your signature. --Farix (Talk) 19:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! User:Sgroos

Keep - articles in the NY Times and Post along with other news coverage, for both his musical work and his recent issues, confirm notability IMO. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find it difficult to assume good faith behind this nomination. Subject seems notable to me, as (currently, at least) is the Reputation Defender brouhaha. Groyolo 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Left more info in article, with more sourcing. Establishing notability. F.F.McGurk 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than the silly harassment of this poor guy by Priceline, he seems otherwise not particularly notable. It seems impossible to me to have a very good article about him, there simply are not enough good sources. The only things that are publicly known about him seem tenuous at best, and mostly related to this one incident, which seems pretty irrelevant. --Jimbo Wales 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Meets standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content with Priceline article, delete bio as non-notable. --24fan24 00:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm missing something here. What does a classical artistic director have to do with an online travel booking service? --Oakshade 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. There is content that was removed and under discussion for reinclusion. --24fan24 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yikes. And here I was voting keep without any knowledge of that (that material was removed from the article before I got here). That incident just adds to his notability in my view and the sourced content should stay, albeit not the primary "weight" of the article. --Oakshade 07:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, not likely to become notable and it he does, the article can then be recreated.--MONGO 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References and subject pulic exposure are very good, particularly the New York Times article about him. --Oakshade 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The NY Times article is about his group, and mentions him, but is not "about" him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newbiez12345 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Exactly, it's about HIS group and how HE created the ensemble, kind of like a book review is about the book and the author who wrote it and in WP AfD debates, reveiws of an author's work is, per precendent, ALWAYS considered a supporting evidence of the notability of that suject. He's not just a passing mention, but is witten about throughout the entire article. --Oakshade 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, see what you mean, but I just feel like it's not really about him, and while the review covers him, the majority of the piece is about the evening as a whole, and the other performers. Newbiez12345

Delete I agree with MONGO above. At this point, there's not enough substantive info on the individual. If he becomes notable, the article can be recreated. Newbiez12345
— Possible single purpose account: Newbiez12345 (talk • contribs) has made only 2 edits outside this topic. Account created January 18, 2007, after this AfD started.
I think it's a clear keep but a minor incident with some company is not worth noting in a serious biographical article, and doing so by the backdoor by linking to an article that is about that and incidentally mentions him is unacceptable. Keep article but remove harassment.Grace Note 10:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was never any stable harassment of him in the article since I've been watching it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jimbo's opinion notwithstanding (incidentally, I agree with him when he removed some items of tabloid interest from the article), this does seem like a notable pianist and performer with performances in several locations. I think the New York Times coverage is not trivial, and the other media mentions mean that the person passes WP:BIO. The current stub looks valid enough, discusses his music and performing career only, and has no major BLP concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Harassment/legal; This Afd was created by either a meat/sock of someone, perhaps the subject or Reputation Defender. There has been no harassment of anything or anyone in here, and this appears to be a nom being supported tied into the fact he yelled at someone at the Foundation. We routinely put in comments about "issues" with people on articles, but we do censor them out if the person happens to yell at someone over the phone at WMF about it? If so are we going to whitewash? There was at last version "1" sentence about his arrest in the article, TRIPLE sourced to WP:RS sources. F.F.McGurk 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing everyone who disagrees with your position on this of bad faith? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newbiez12345 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
DeleteThere is no "there" there with regard to the personal issue. Has no bearing on his musical career, which is in an early stage to begin with. Why muck up a fledgling career with an article that has a bit of controversy that will potentially harm him? The old adage of "There is no such thing as bad publicity" is not true in this case.Lloyd Arriola 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Lloyd Arriola[reply]
I honestly believe the subject's notability originates from his artistic accomplishments and the Priceline incident is relatively minor in comparison to them. --Oakshade 18:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After long deliberation, I can only come to this conclusion. The only reason this person is notable is over the PriceLine incident, which isn't all that notable to begin with. On top of that, there are not enough non-trivial published works to convince me that he passes WP:MUSIC. Musicians are a dime a dozen, and they are bound to have at least a handful of non-trivial published works throughout their career. But that still doesn't make them notable. --Farix (Talk) 14:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm leaning towards strong keep, actually. There may in the past have been content added which stepped on the toes of WP:BLP, but looking at the article at this minute, all that's there is a brief bio which indisputably asserts his notability through this cited source. There's no need to get so antsy about deletion when all we have to do is splice out the stuff about his arrest. --DeLarge 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - spruced up the page a tiny bit with some background info, and rewrote the middle paragraph so that it's less of a copy/paste from the TOC website. Couldn't find birthdate/birthplace details though so it's still a bit sparse. And I stand by my "keep" vote - the article existed for six months without problem before the addition of cntroversial (though cited) content and subsequent edit warring led us here. --DeLarge 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More notable than the subjects 50% (min.) of articles on Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:24, 23 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 close as an improper AFD nomination. However, I will delete it as an uncontested prod. Note to other admins: If the article is re-created, treat it as a normal contested prod and not a re-creation of an article deleted in AFD. --Core desat 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World_live_web[edit]

Protologism, see WP:NEO Beachy 11:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 13:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a prod or an afd? If you have proposed the article for deletion, you can wait till after the prod period before deciding whether to nominate it for deletion or not (if the article ends up being kep, that is). --John Seward 07:31, 20 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 Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) (no merging of content, still in page history). Yuser31415 04:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Neutral[edit]

I can see how alignment in general in D&D is notable as it has influenced the design of other RPGs; but the individual alignments are not themselves notable. Wikipedia is not a game guide and doesn't need articles on every in-game term from D&D. This should be redirected to Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons). Percy Snoodle 11:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the person who restored the article from its redirect form, and its primary author, having read the arguments I'd agree it should go. Would have been nice, though, if in the month between me asking about it and restoring it someone had put these arguments to me in the first place. --Reveilled 13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons). FWIW, we also have Alignment (role-playing games). The various alignments of D&D are probably best treated in an article where they can be compared to each other. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and smerge if needed to Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons). (Reveilled, just be aware that you can't control when someone will drop by and make a determination about an article.) --Dhartung | Talk 16:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) It appears to be the only alignment with a separate article. A merge of content could be done if anyone is interested in doing so.--Isotope23 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and by the way, did we really need an AfD for an article where it appears the nominator is actually asking for a redirect? If you wanted to see a consensus to restore the redirect a better method would have been to add a proposed Redirect tag on the article and opened a request for comment to solicit outside editors' input.--Isotope23 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the main D&D alignment article. I did this last time, don't mind doing it again. --`/aksha 02:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect (if there is such a thing), as the original author states at the top they support the move. Sorry you didn't get a reply, Reveilled, I never saw that edit made to the Talk page in my Watchlist or I'd have responded. -- Kesh 03:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wikipedia is not a game guide, but Chaotic Neutral isn't an alignment only in D&D, but in many many RPGs. I think that the D&D part should be merged into Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) and the general part left there by Snowolf (talk) on 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- many RPGs which are based on the D&D system? I think that counts under the general umbrella of D&D --`/aksha 12:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment while some of the early D&D clones may have had CN (indeed, I think it was in Arduin before it was in D&D) this article is solely about the D&D use - so there is no "general part" to leave here. Percy Snoodle 12:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The principles are general by Snowolf (talk) on 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alignment, per OP. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:15, 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 speedy delete, it's a nn website, so the history isn't useful. Redirected to Wikipedia since it's apparently a common misspelling (otherwise the cybersquatting wouldn't be profitable). - Bobet 12:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikkipedia[edit]

It seems that the only reason this has an article is because it's a site that wants to make people go to it instead of Wikipedia, aka cybersquatting. It has no sources and does not meet WP:WEB. Jesus Christ, it's not even a proper website. Edit: Screw this, I'm trying for a speedy. The Sky May Be 12:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. BJ^Talk 12:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. We may want to have info on the phenomenon of people buying "misspelled" domains. Maybe it is on WP. But anyway, this isn't the place or the way.--Wehwalt 12:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. --- Tito Pao 12:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. -- Lincolnite 12:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's called domain squatting. Please note the original version of this article. Deletion, speedy or otherwise, is not required in order to solve the problem of this article. Uncle G 12:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Kohn[edit]

Fringe candidate for local office back in 1986. Came "next to last in a field of ten candidates". No references. No notability. No place on Wikipedia. Lincolnite 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The voters have spoken.--Wehwalt 12:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Terence Ong 13:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable minor candidate for local office. NawlinWiki 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or cite sources Alf photoman 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this page more than two years ago, on a fringe character from the 1986 Winnipeg mayoral election. At the time, I believed the article could be justified on the grounds that Kohn was a sufficiently interesting local character. My views have changed now, and, I don't plan to stand in the way of deletion. I may restore some of this information on a page about the election at some point in the future, but I agree that Kohn isn't sufficiently notable for his page. CJCurrie 02:38, 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 (as performed by Uncle G). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boubli[edit]

this page has been doubled up

Speedy delete due to nom and copyright violation of http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/news/publications/universitynews/issues/2006/15/news/monkey.cfm RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:44, 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 Merged and redirected to Inhuman Games. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Currie (games developer)[edit]

Fails WP:BIO There's very little on google about this guy. And there's a group of articles, each supporting each other--his company (I suspect he is his company) and the two games he's written in almost 20 years. None of which are particularly notable, but I will wait and see what reaction is here before proposing deletion of the others. They seem to be vanity or advertising articles. Wehwalt 12:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , I won't say that there is a notability problem because without references I can not determine that. That means we have a verifiability problem Alf photoman 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trash is an award-winning RTS with an active user community and Chopper Commando remains one of the best and most important DOS games ever created. Sure, the article can be improved and I'll do so should the page be kept. IceCreamJonsey 03:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Improving the article before a decision is made would probably be a better way to go.--Wehwalt 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Trash (computer game), though that article needs to be cleaned out so it doesn't read like advertising. The game appears to be marginally notable [15] [16] [17], but I don't think we need a separate article on the developer.--Kubigula (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For what it's worth, I think the company article should also be merged with Trash (I might use this phrase in future delete votes); I'm less certain about Chopper Commando.--Kubigula (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Inhuman Games. They're notable for developing a notable game, but having the articles spread apart doesn't do any good. I don't think it should be merged with the game itself though - that article is about the game, not the developers. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 04:39, 23 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, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Nationalist Liberal Organisation[edit]

Article appears to be a vanity piece about a non notable group, previous edits from this user have been of this nature. This is further backed up by Google which turns up no results for this group Ferdie33 14:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Wikipedia is not a soapbox RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 14:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only Wiki-mirrors on Google - from the sounds of it this "Organisation" isn't very organised... and not at all notable. --Canley 15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News Archive [18] and Google News [19] comes up with nothing. No sources are cited and they do not seem to be readly located. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chochni language[edit]

No Google hits. An entire language with no Google hits. I find that odd. Perhaps someone has heard of it. Someone who has tangible proof that it exists. Rmky87 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find a listing at http://www.ethnologue.com/ which is where I would expect to find an article on almost any language. Could it be an argot or something other than a separate language? But in the absence of ghits, I have to !vote delete. --Eastmain 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. —An gr 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lol, no Google hits, nothing. Terence Ong 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in Google Books or Google Scholar either. It is not one of the six main recognized dialects of Punjabi. --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe this is an alternate spelling of an actual dialect, but since this article has no sources to establish what Chochni is, it should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 20:00, 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 No consensus. ST47Talk 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers[edit]

Listcruft/fancruft, purposeless. WP:NOT. BlackDart D 07:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Terence Ong 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another great resource for wrestling fans like myself, but I think I'd have to agree that it's a bit overboard to have a list like this, when it's probably available elsewhere. Unsourced, so delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but update references to be in-line "Listcruft/fancruft" is not a valid reason for deletion. Note that finishers are an important part of professional wrestling as a sport; they are the signature move most identified with the individual wrestlers and often times serve to help define them. Listing them also allows readers to compare wrestlers who use similar finishers or, on occasion, share the same finisher. The article does appear to be referenced with four different external links to finishing moves as well. The only thing I see, therefore, is that it would be useful for verification purposes to provide inline footnote citations for each move pointing to a source that can verify the wrestler uses that move. Dugwiki 22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete This is a long list and has obviously been worked hard on. But my problem is it is repeating two things. The first being that every wrestler article already contains the information. The second is the actual move itself already has a page and is described on that page. This is less like a catalog and more like a list. The good note I can only think of is for those who are actually starting up wrestling can view this list and decide what kind of signature finisher not to do or what to do! Govvy 12:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Just to reply, the purpose the list serves is to reindex the information found in the wrestler articles. Let's say a reader wants to compare for historical purposes wrestlers that have used a particular move or type of move as a finishing move. It would be extremely difficult to figure out who did which move by simply perusing individual wrestler articles. By having this information in a list format, though, it provides a single source the reader can visit.
- In fact, all list articles have redundant information with other articles. A list of movies or books or games or people will always be constructed using information found in the associated main articles. There are probably no lists on Wikipedia that use information not already found in the corresponding articles for individual entries. The point of lists, then, isn't to provide "new" information, but is rather to reorganize and summarize existing information in a form that is useful but not easily accessible by reading the individual articles themselves. Dugwiki 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. but: we already have separate listings/categories for Professional wrestling holds, Professional wrestling attacks and Professional wrestling throws. Is there an argument for merging all three of those with this and identifying which fall into which category instead? ...or something... --Dave. 22:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of having two different ways of indexing the same information. One is to list all wrestling moves, and then next to each move list wrestlers that use it as a finisher. The other is to list all wrestlers, and list all the finishing moves that wrestler used. Note that it's possible for a reader to want to use either method to find information. For instance, they might be thinking of a few wrestlers they like and want to look at their moves in one article. It's also possible for a reader to be interested in a particular move and want to find people that might have used that move at some point. Dugwiki 23:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand my point here. I'm not debating the value of having a list of moves that identifies which wrestler uses them and wrestler pages that list their moves. What I'm doubting is the necessity of having a separate section devoted to finishing maneuvers when we already have lists of maneuvers under three other articles, and which could be merged with this one into one comprehensive article identifying the move, whether it's a hold/attack or throw, whether it's used as a finisher, and who uses it as a signature maneuver. Surely we should have one page devoted to maneuvers, not four? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batsnumbereleven (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC). Oops, sorry, should have signed it! --Dave. 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, that's actually an interesting question. I think what we both seem to agree we should focus on is the question "What is the best way to organize information about wrestling moves for Wiki readers?" Splitting information between three or four articles has the disadvantage of making it harder for the editors to maintain, and also makes it possibly harder for readers to navigate. Consolodating the information into one or two pages makes it easier to find the pages, and avoids duplication of maintainence, but in the case of extremely large articles can make the articles unwieldy to read and use.

Personally I think a good set up is to have one article that lists all wrestling moves sorted by type and then alphabetically by name. The move article probably would have to be split, though, into two subarticles since there are hundreds of moves, which might make that article too large. Then have a seperate list article that only lists the names of the moves sorted by wrestlers who use them as signature moves, possibly with a two or three word descriptive notatation, and links those moves to the main move article(s). I'm pretty sure this is similar to the set up we have now, but thinking from scratch that's probably how I'd set it up if I were doing it myself. It would allow readers to search for moves by name or by wrestler, but detailed information about the moves would be restricted to a single article and thus would be easier to maintain. Dugwiki 17:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now can you tell me what type of people would use this information? why? and who on earth would really want to be so geeky as to compare wrestler signature moves!! Govvy 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of the various I-don't-know-how-many millions of pro wrestling fans there are worldwide? If even 5% or 10% of wrestling fans were interested in reading about signature moves, that would represent possibly hundreds of thousands of people. I'm not a Pokemon fan, and I'm not personally interested in knowing every little detail about it, but that doesn't make it any less notable or important to the people who do care about Pokemon. You don't see me going around calling people "geeky" because they are interested in reading Torchic, a previously featured article. Just because something seems silly or pop culture doesn't mean it isn't valuable for a large number of potential readers. Dugwiki 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Very usefull. DXRAW 14:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic value. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. One Night In Hackney 14:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Indiscriminate collection" section of WP:NOT does not delve into list articles such as this one. It has a very narrow set of consensus categories of problem articles, none of which seem to apply to this one. This would be an inappropriate use of that "indiscriminate collection" section. Dugwiki 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A very useful entry Kris Classic 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Fancrust/Listcruft is not a sufficent reason for deletion. "It is not a policy or guideline" as mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FANCRUFT "Purposeless" is in the eye of the beholder and doesn't seem to pass the Pokemon test. His remaining reason, WP:NOT, doesn't seem to contain a valid argument against this type of article.Vladamire Steelwolf 12:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly what I was looking for. Clashwho 08:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 11:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment, the article does appear to list some sources at the end. However, it doesn't do in-line citations, so it's very difficult to tell which information is referenced and which isn't. Therefore I think the references need to be cleaned up to make them more readable and useful, but I don't believe this would be a case where the article is impossible to verify or no references exist. Dugwiki 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely an indiscriminant collection of information. The clause has traditionally been given a fairly broad interpretation on AfD. Also pure listcruft, but commentators above are right that that is a weak deletion reason at best and fairly subjective. Eluchil404 11:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The clause has traditionally been given a broad interpretation" is an incorrect assumption, as evidenced by the current discussion at the WP:NOT talk page. Most of the editors who have replied in that discussion on this section of policy agree that there is a common misconception on how broadly that part applies. It is specifically written as to only indicate areas of broad consensus, and does not imply that other types of articles fall under the qualifier of "indiscriminate collection of information". Of course, policy can change, and an article can fail to meet other standards like notability guidelines or verifiability. But as written it is incorrect to say that an article violates the "indiscriminate collection of information" section of WP:NOT unless it falls under one of the types of information described there. Dugwiki 17:06, 24 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 (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season[edit]

Just a list of links, but I didn't want to speedy-delete in case there was a point to it that I hadn't understood. Walton monarchist89 13:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculative. While I have no doubt that there will be a 2007-08 Serie A season, Juventus may or may not be a part of it. Probably put in by a Juventus fan to assert that the team will be promoted (they were sent down to Serie B in the match fixing scandal).--Wehwalt 15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All news from uefa.com, they signed pre-contract agreement. [20] Juventus one can be removed. Matthew_hk t c 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a chrystal ball. – Elisson • T • C • 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Punkmorten 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the notable part to Serie A. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 23:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More appropriate would be to Merge to Serie A 2007-08 once it's created - this info is not appropriate for the page on the entire history of the league.... 11:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Comment: merging to the league article would just create a mess, as past year's histories are added. If anything, maybe a merge to the season page, but, it doesn't exist yet (due to no season info yet; unlike the contracts in the article which are sourced above) Neier 11:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball free agents. - Neier 04:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HornetMike 11:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- until such time as these transfers happen, this information is speculative. After all, these players could drop dead before the season starts. (Obviously I hope they don't, but still). Robotforaday 14:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should not be merged to anything, there's a List of transfers of Serie A - 2006/2007 season page so either delete or leave as is. Also, WP:CRYSTAL states only that "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable", it doesn't say that you can't write about future events. --Park70 05:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just speculation --Angelo 16:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. These transfers, as already signed, are no different than the Beckham transfer to LA. While there is a complete article about that (up for AFD), writing about transfers that will follow the 2006/2007 season is not speculation. There is no predicting here. The contracts are signed. Only the teams will be changing between seasons. Neier 23:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because (as said above) WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. As there is also a List of transfers of Serie A - 2006/2007 season, it should not be merged. This should have probably been created at a later date, probably the start of the summer transfer window, however, it's made, it may as well be kept. Cream147 13:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but get some references otherwise this fails WP:V. QmunkE 13:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of references. Neier 13:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above... Addhoc 17:11, 23 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 ST47Talk 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Mund[edit]

Not Notable, fancruft Center4499 13:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cleaned up and rewrote removing junk. I also looked at his imdb entry (which I added to the article) he has 85 entires on different Howard Stern television shows. I also added references from CNNSI and CNNMoney, where he is mentioned. All establish notability. KnightLago 15:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup, it looks much better. But I would still say that notability is questionable. His IMDB references are mostly the TV broadcast of Stern's radio show. And the articles just mention his name, they aren't about him. --Center4499 16:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete. The two mentions (which, by the way, are the only google news archive hits for him) are passing mentions, and there are dozens of guests on these types of shows. Could this be merged into "The Wack Pack"? I have no idea who any of these people are, but they seem to be regular guests, so he might fit in there? Informed opinions? yandman 15:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mund works there, so he isn't a guest. And as for the imdb references, I think those assert notability. Being on the show is notable. Just look at the list of people who have been on the show. I also give the CNNMoney piece more weight. It is mainly about, and involves him. KnightLago 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more references from CNNMoney regarding Mund being probed by the SEC, and the a profile of the show by MSNBC. So the references are there, and I have a feeling I could keep going. He is notable, the sources show it. KnightLago 17:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's as notable as Will Murray, Scott Salem and JD Harmeyer. He's a part of the crew and interacts with the show. TheWikiTruthIsOutThere
Strong Keep Strong keep he is part of the show, he had his own televised roast, revelation etc. He is head of security there and personal driver for Stern, but he is clearly notable based on the amount of air time he gets on the biggest radio show in the world, which is a lot. This also puts him to some extent into the radio performer category. Clearly notable person. Killroy4 15:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep search (per yandman) gives same references as cited in the article. Seems just about ok... Addhoc 17:29, 23 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 03:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nagpur PIN[edit]

I originally tagged this article for speedy deletion. It was since expanded, giving some context, and is therefore no longer nonsense - but I still don't think it's notable enough to merit its own article. Walton monarchist89 13:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for an entry, The list should link to other articles 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete definitely not notable enough for an entry or even merger. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information! Madmedea 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a directory Hut 8.5 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Category:Postal codes of India. utcursch | talk 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:46, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 15:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RevelAngels[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) as this band seem to have done nothing of note. Rainbowfanclub 14:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a band that has not released anything is by definition not notable (yet) - could always be recreated if they hit the big time Madmedea 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for a Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. yandman 15:42, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pugh[edit]

Nonnotable artist, short on sources. Contested speedy (see talk page) so moving here. NawlinWiki 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can find no mention of the Wired article on Nick the author talks about. Non-notable, unheard of in the media (apart from a passing mention in the "Fresno Bee"). OK, thanks for finding the sources. Weak Keep, just about slightly a bit maybe notable enough. yandman 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a link to the Wired article just mentioned, which helps to establish notability. --Eastmain 16:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, there seems to be something there ... but is it enough for WP:BIO? So far we have one verifiable source. Alf photoman 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pugh's page should remain. His book Luminair of his digital painting is outstanding and sits on my coffee table. I own one of his paintings with plans to purchase more. His concept car Xeno is in a completely different genre and shows Nick Pugh's versatility. He has been on several world tours with it. I believe he is on the faculty of the Art Center in LA. Why remove such a creative and productive artist? It would send such a negative message and for what gain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jenny Harrison (talk • contribs) 19:12, January 16, 2007 (UTC).
Keep. He's notable. In addition to the Wired article added by Eastmain, he was mentioned in another, briefer piece in Wired. Also, here's an article from the Robb Report and one from Car Design News. schi ^talk 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schi, but I don't like that the page was created by User:Dcpugh. Static Universe 00:16, 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 Redirect both to The Biggest Loser. ST47Talk 22:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Harper[edit]

A personal trainer who's only notability is an appearance on a single TV show does not fit the notability criteria for Wikipedia biographies (WP:BIO). I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:

Jillian Michaels (personal trainer)

A previous article on Kim Lyons was just turned into a redirect to the main article The Biggest Loser - this could happen for the other two personal trainers. Madmedea 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per precedent. yandman 15:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Biggest Loser... Addhoc 14:37, 22 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 03:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references on The Simpsons[edit]

I don't mean to disrespect the creator, but the idea of having *one* list for all cultural references ever shown on the Simpsons, is in my opinion not a good idea. Each episode must have at least five cultural referecens, so the list will quite simply get too long. It is a much better solution to add these to the episode articles. --Maitch 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Maitch 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Five? Fifty is closer. Each reference can be dealt with in its episode article. Having a list for them would be akin to "List of objects used to hit people in Martial Law ". yandman 15:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely, per nom. Madmedea 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were even remotely close to complete it would be huge and unwieldy, it's probably best to stop it here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is actually a much better solution not to try to document minutiae at all unless someone else has already commented on it. Since there appears to be no editorial will to do so in the individual articles, I cannot support trying to collate it here. This far and no further. -- nae'blis 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan. This is the sort of topic that could be its own wiki, not its own article. (See The Simpsons Archive at http://www.snpp.com for the kind of site I'm thinking of, although it's not a wiki.) --Metropolitan90 20:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded, these can be covered in their respective episodes. --Will Mak 050389 20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be unmanageable Dugwiki 22:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needless waste of bandwidth. As the creator of the page, I absolutely do not take offense to its being recommended for deletion. I agree that it would quickly become unmanageable, and that a better solution would be to not to try to document minutiae at all. I created this page as a as peaceful gesture, in response to what seemed to be an unreasonably large number of references to The Simpsons in articles (such as this one) which otherwise have nothing to do with series. Comme le Lapin 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same as Subject matter in South Park and it is a well constructed article. If it gets to that quality everyone will be satisfied. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violations of WP:V and WP:NOR would consist an overwhelming majority of the material if this was complete. This will also hardly beget good prose. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per everyone except Lajbi. JuJube 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are way too many in every episode to even begin thinking about putting them all together in an article like this. As it is, certainly, it is not providing much information, and any expansion of this will always result in something incomplete. It would be far better to drive up the standard of all of the article episodes by including this kind of information (if it is indeed encyclopaedic - would it not be original research, in many cases?) in them. --John24601 18:26, 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 both. No objection if this is taken to DRV. Luna Santin 04:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Valentine[edit]

Two major concerns with this article:

I feel that the subject cannot be considered inherently notable due to a limited range of success. In addition, there are not multiple nontrivial references. The onlineathens site is apparently the only non-personal source that actually links to any information at the moment (I'm assuming - I can't access it)
The current article was written over an already existing article on a fictional footballer, which several pages still link to. Rampart 15:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the consensus is that this rapper is not notable, then the article should be reverted to the version immediately prior to User:TommyValentine taking it upon himself to rewrite the page to be about himself (stating in the edit summary and on the talk page that he is the "best known" and "correct" Tommy Valentine) and the merits of the other Tommy considered separately, otherwise we'll essentially be losing two completely separate articles off the back of just one AfD. If the rapper is deemed notable then the article with this name should still be reverted and the rapper's article should be moved to a different name, say Tommy Valentine (rapper), as should have been done when it was first created. Hope all that made sense!!!! ChrisTheDude 11:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smite with great vengeance. One does not abuse one's editorial privileges by usurping an article about someone with the same (i.e. your) name. WP:COI is bad enough when you create the article. That said, the prior article is a bit dubious under WP:FICT, and the blue links on Dream Team Characters could probably use some culling. --Dhartung | Talk 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare, just for educational purposes, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kendall. Clinton's lawyer during impeachment should have an article, and did. It was overwritten with one about a negligibly notable academic by the same name, which was then AFD'd (until my WP:HEY). This is barely one step up (if that) from vandalism, because it deletes content. --Dhartung | Talk 16:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For curiosity's sake, this is the version of the aricle before it was "hijacked" (I use that word very loosely). No view on deletion of either topic. -- saberwyn 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. JuJube 04:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this search doesn't mention either of the rivals, accordingly I doubt either is sufficiently notable. Addhoc 18:23, 23 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 03:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brent D. Roper[edit]

Incomplete nomination by 70.231.230.172 per "non-notability delete or merge with Shirley Phelps-Roper". I have no opinion. --- RockMFR 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Nothing in the article indicates that he is notable. Herostratus 04:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:BIO, though I can see where someone would argue notability. Wizardman 18:47, 14 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, Majorly 15:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just one incidental mention ("daughter of Brent Roper", when his daughter almost drowned) in a Google News Archive search. Fails WP:BIO, as he's not even a notable (noted) member of the Westboro crew. This may constitute an attack page. --Dhartung | Talk 16:26, 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. --Core desat 07:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unmoored (band)[edit]

Delete Notablility not established for WP:NN, WP:MUSIC TonyTheTiger 15:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I found this and this, neither of those sites seem discriminating in what they include. There don't appear to be any independent sources, so not-notable. Trebor 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Official Swedish music chart page has no search results thus notability couldn't be verified [21]. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Sources :

http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=6369
http://www.unmoored.com/
http://www.pulverised.net/unmoored.htm/
http://myspace.com/unmoored/ --Dexter prog 23:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the qualify as independent or reliable unfortunately. The official website and myspace are obviously not independent, and link no.3 isn't working for me. The other site, from a brief perusal , appears to accept submissions from anyone and has only a cursory method of approval (it also says that the band are unsigned, which doesn't augur well). Most people will require better sources in order to !vote keep. Trebor 23:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metal-archives.com has a very hard criteria for bands, they check if the band exists, has records released and if it is metal. It is more than a reliable source, being the metal site with the biggest archive is notable to be mentioned. Anyway here you have more sources of this well-known band:

--Dexter prog 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but none of these links qualify as a reliable source. Merely being a band in existence with records selling does not indicate notability. These sources are either not independent or contain trivial mentions of them, so at present, there is still a lack of sourcing. Trebor 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all those sources are not reliable, then 80% of wikipedia underground/not very popular music banda's articles should be deleted... --Dexter prog 22:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you see other articles for which sources meeting WP:RS can't be found, feel free to prod them or bring them to AfD. ShadowHalo 10:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As he said, Wikipedia cannot always be consistent in its coverage, but existence of another similar article is not a reason to keep (see here). Trebor 16:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND, unverifiable. ShadowHalo 10:41, 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 delete. Majorly (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholastic Ball Report[edit]

Does not assert notability of this particular program, borders on WP:NOT a soapbox (with sponsors), borders on WP:NOT a directory (with credits) Amnewsboy 15:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever.--Hús ö nd 17:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have removed the "offending" material. As for it not being notable, it is one of the more popular television shows in Kentucky. It gives promotion to the states high schools and its athletes. It is also a forum for the KHSAA to address the people of Kentucky of changes to its policy through the Commissioner's Corner Segment.Jtford281 17:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, no reliable sources provided. ShadowHalo 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 17:32, 23 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 03:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna-Barbera laugh track[edit]

Original research and extreme, extreme minutiae. The "sources" provided provide no info on the subject at hand (and Answers.com does not count as a source in the first place). FuriousFreddy 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable and unencyclopaedic Madmedea 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourced information (which this article does not contain) may be added to the Hanna-Barbera article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources say anything about the article's topic, which is the laugh tracks on the subject cartoons. Edison 21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely as a redirect. JuJube 04:11, 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 Redirected to Death of Dale Earnhardt. Substantive content appears to have already been merged. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Earnhardt: Controversy over the cause(s) of his death[edit]

Goes into too much detail on a subject not deserving of its own article. A merge back into Dale Earnhardt was requested, but I feel that adding this much about this topic would unbalance that article. Dale Earnhardt already addresses the topic and, I would say, sufficiently. Recury 16:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC) The new article looks much better, nomination withdrawn. Recury 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning toward delete. I added a source about this controversy into the Dale Earnhardt article after seeing this, and now I think it's got roughly enough there. Editors should consider merging any points that would pass the hundred-year test, not just Wikinews-type content, to the parent article. I've mentioned this AfD on the WikiProject NASCAR talk page. Barno 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I probably should have mentioned it there myself. Recury 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed vote after Agne27's merge of content. Endorse history merge of the two AfD'd articles to Death of Dale Earnhardt. Parent article is being edited to trim death-related material and point to the new beakout article. Barno 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Dale Earnhart, only about half of this article is really needed and that would not unduly increase the size of the original article. As with the photograph this is not really a controversy as much as it is minor disagreements magnified by celebrity. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I respectfully disagree with Recury's assessment that the topic is well covered in the main article. Most of this article is encyclopedic IMHO. I would not call the disagreements minor, especially to Simpson Race Products. There was very much controversy over many months in my opinion (contrary to Dhartung's opinion). Keeping it in its own article serves to keep those ugly trivia sections out of Earnhardt's main article. Maybe it will help lessen the vandalism of that page too. This article can be refered to by the Bill Simpson and the yet to be written Simpson Race Products articles. This article needs to have references added if it survives AfD, and I recently added some at Bill_Simpson#Earnhardt_controversy that would work. Royalbroil^T : C 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support the proposed merge into Death of Dale Earnhardt as a reasonable compromise. My primary concern is to not see Earnhardt main article dominated by the controversies. There is enough to encyclopedic material about the events after his death to warrant its own article in my opinion. Royalbroil^T : C 02:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - change to Delete. The new Death of Dale Earnhardt article is very well written and covers both articles completely. Kudos to Agnes for such an excellent article! The old articles are no longer needed. I have left a message for Recury because I'm puzzled why he would stop this nomination when the deletion appears imminent now. Royalbroil^T : C 19:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, IIRC, this was split from the main Dale Earnhardt article in order to keep the focus of the latter article on Earnhardt himself. — Brother Flounder 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrotherFlounder. I would recommend changing the title to Controversy over the cause(s) of Dale Earnhardt's death or Dale Earnhardt cause of death controversy, to better fit naming conventions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Death of Dale Earnhardt per Agne and Dhartung. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How many articles do we need just forking away from his death? Is it not enough that lots of focus is already put on his death in his own article? Wikipedia is not Access Hollywood or Crime Library or American Justice, we don't need minutely, morbidly detailed accounts like this just because some people find it interesting.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (See below) but I think a more appropriate splinter article would be Death of Dale Earnhardt and include details of both the controversy but also the constructive changes that Nascar did in the aftermath. IF written to their full potential such details would be overbearing in the main Earnhardt article. Agne 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to move to Death of Dale Earnhardt per Agne, inclusive of the autopsy photos article and detailed information on the crash etc. rather than the overused label "controversy". --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update Since we essentially have three articles involved (This, the main Dale Earnhardt, and the autopsy photos), I was bold and went ahead and created the Death of Dale Earnhardt with relevant text from those three articles. I did a little content editing to try and address the OR and POV concerns. I guess the best route now would be to Merge for the histories since the content work has already been done. Agne 13:45, 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 Redirected to Death of Dale Earnhardt. Substantive content appears to have already been merged. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Earnhardt: Autopsy photographs controversy[edit]

Goes into too much detail on a subject not deserving of its own article. A merge back into Dale Earnhardt was requested, but I feel that adding this much about this topic would unbalance that article. Dale Earnhardt already addresses the topic and, I would say, sufficiently. Recury 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC) The new article looks much better, nomination withdrawn. Recury 14:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning toward delete, for similar reasons as the AfD above it. The Dale Earnhardt article has roughly enough there. Editors should consider merging any points that would pass the hundred-year test, not just Wikinews-type content, to the parent article. I've mentioned this AfD on the WikiProject NASCAR talk page. Barno 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote after Agne27's merge of content. Endorse history merge of the two AfD'd articles to Death of Dale Earnhardt. Parent article is being edited to trim death-related material and point to the new breakout article. This death really did influence the sport, the safety-equipment industry, and state (and possibly federal) laws about the confidentiality of autopsy information. Barno 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ this as original research from court documents. It was a very, very brief Big Deal, not historically notable outside of context. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to merge with Death of Dale Earnhardt per suggestion of Agne in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Earnhardt: Controversy over the cause(s) of his death. Better approach overall, avoids the "controversy" copout. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, There was very much controversy over many months in my opinion (contrary to Dhartung's opinion). Keeping it in its own article serves to keep those ugly trivia sections out of Earnhardt's main article. Maybe it will help lessen the vandalism of that page too. Royalbroil^T : C 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support the proposed merging of the two articles into an article called Death of Dale Earnhardt as a reasonable compromise. My primary concern is to not see Earnhardt main article dominated by the controversies. There is enough to encyclopedic material about the events after his death to warrant its own article in my opinion. I hope that next time an issue like this comes up that we can attempt to deal with it at Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR first. It's on my watchlist! Royalbroil^T : C 02:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - change to Delete. The new Death of Dale Earnhardt article is very well written and covers both articles completely. Kudos to Agnes for such an excellent article! The old articles are no longer needed. I have left a message for Recury because I'm puzzled why he would stop this nomination when the deletion appears imminent now. Royalbroil^T : C 19:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, IIRC, this was split from the main Dale Earnhardt article in order to keep the focus of the latter article on Earnhardt himself. — Brother Flounder 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per BrotherFlounder. I also would recommend changing the title of the article to Dale Earnhardt autopsy photographs controversy to better stay in line with Wikipedia naming conventions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Death of Dale Earnhardt per Dhartung. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both unnecessary detail into a topic that is not nearly as big a deal as some people apparently think, and as obvious original research and synthesis of primary sources.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral One reason to keep would be that the subsequent change in the law may be of interest to a somewhat different group of readersDGG 02:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dmz5. Static Universe 15:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Death of Dale Earnhardt. Hopefully there will be less POV and OR concerns Agne 13:46, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawsonitis[edit]

I went to revert some vandalism on this article, and kept going further and further back into last year trying to find a version that doesn't look like nonsense. Haven't found one yet. Original version here is at best an unsourced local urban legend, more likely total hoax, from an author with no other edits. Since then, various vandals have added all sorts of garbage. Can't believe this has been out there almost a year Fan-1967 16:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was checking this article myself. Looks like a hoax Rettetast 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete one of WP's major problems is that stuff like this can pass unnoticed and stay around for so long. It's the end of the line. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ::mikmt 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. JuJube 04:10, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceschi[edit]

Created by subject of the article - clear WP:COI. No evidence of notability from google search. Madmedea 16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - "...largely unheard..." Nuff said. This should have been a speedy CSD:A7 -- Robocoder (t|c) 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote I was just about to vote delete on this, but the last paragraph claims multiple performances with Little Wings, which if referenced might start this on the path to meeting WP:MUSIC. On the other hand, I reckon I enjoy Little Wings more than most people do, so maybe I'm weighing that more heavily than I really should. No vote from me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independently sourced (although that seems unlikely). Nothing verifiable at the moment. Trebor 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sentence 2006 may just be the year for Ceschi’s music to be heard looks a bit strange...--Aleph-4 11:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced per Trebor... Addhoc 16:47, 22 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.

Judd Bagley[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Deary[edit]

This actress has only two roles listed on IMDB. Admittedly, she was in the successful Lilo & Stitch, but that's her only major role (and she was a secondary character). The PROD was removed because "a google seac h seems like enough hit on her". She gets five results on Google. One of these is unique, the rest are clones of it. They all look like spam content. So I have my doubts as to whether or not this girl is notable enough to deserve an article. ♠P M C♠ 16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nomOo7565 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a voice actress in a single movie is not notable enough Madmedea 17:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the IMDB, Myrtle was actually played by someone named Miranda Paige Walls. There is an Alexandra Deary in the cast, but as an "additional voice". Not that having played Myrtle would have necessarily met WP:BIO anyway, but even that claim to notability is suspect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the (apparently quite thorough) Lilo & Stitch article doesn't find her sufficiently notable-within-context to mention at all. I also note that the nominated article was created by a new editor with no other edits outside this article. Delete per Starblind, with no verifiable claim to notability that might clearly meet WP:BIO. Barno 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~I notified the article's creator on his talk page.~~ Jayden54Bot did it while I was typing a manual note. Barno 18:21, 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 REDIRECT to KCET. TigerShark 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CA Stories[edit]

This article is a description of a sub-section of a television station's website - the topic is unencyclopeadic WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO Madmedea 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KCET. Doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB on its own, but redirects are cheap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if any useful information, and redirect per Andrew Lenahan. Trebor 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. EdJohnston 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced, no objection to redirect. Addhoc 14:41, 22 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, ST47Talk 11:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly notbale. if all sub-sections of news programs were on wikipedia it would just be a mess. --Tainter 14:22, 24 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. --Core desat 07:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Craft[edit]

This was tagged as a speedy deletion candidate as an anonymous user with the reason that Nikki Craft is "non notable" and that everything in the article is self-referenced and not reliable, outside sources. This had a previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Craft where there was no consensus. Also note that there is a User:Nikkicraft who has edited this article. No opinion from me, just a procedure nomination because I feel it is above speedyable but the opinion of the anonymous user is worth examining through AFD. Metros232 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as last time, really. The article did squeak by early last year, but we've really tightened up our policies since then regarding verifiability and reliable sources in particular. No reason to think another year would help things, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nikki Craft is a notable feminist anti-porn activist. She was probably better known in the 1980s and 1990s than she is today, but I still think she meets the criterion for notability. (Also, the person who nominated the article for speedy deletion was likely doing so in bad faith – this is an anonymous user who's done a string of hasty edits removing links to Nikki Craft's site, which in most cases amounted to removal of needed citations in various articles (I've reverted these edits.)) All that said, I do think there are serious problems with this article that need to be addressed. The article is maintained by someone who is an associate of Nikki Craft, some of the edits may have been made by Craft herself, and as a result there are real NPOV issues with the article. These problems need to be dealt with, but the article itself should stay. Peter G Werner 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough for inclusion in this project. --Tom 19:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:BIO. 18 Google Books results, 37 Google News Archive results. Nikkicraft (talk · contribs) has contributed but a brief scan indicates not disruptively (she appears to have strongly curtailed her activity on the project last August after an ANI issue). See also (possibly) the contributions of 68.122.118.161 (talk · contribs). --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable but loud activist. Jcuk 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete and rewrite The article is very poorly written with almost no sources outside of her own web site. I've been trying to improve that though, and that talk pages has a list of referencesTalk:Nikki_Craft#Sources_for_future_use_in_the_article that I have collected for someone to possibly integrate someday. I have added a few references, but it still needs considerable work to meet Wikipedia standards. What makes it challenging is that nearly every change to the article is challenged or reverted by a friend of the subject.

Facts cited that have no source:

born 1949) is an American political activist, artist and writer who is known for her provocative and controversial approaches to societal problems and political situations.
She is also known for radical feminism
has been arrested 50 times for acts of civil disobedience. (Can we say that in a BLP with no cite?)
Her work has been recognized by numerous academics considered experts on civil disobedience including Marge Frantz. (Perhaps, but dubious as there is no record of any published books by the subject)
She is perhaps best known for researching and publicizing cases of nudists/naturists who have been arrested or convicted of pedophilia and child molestation.

In 1976 she altered a billboard by changing it from "Miss America" to "Myth America," an action covered in the Dallas Morning News and Parade magazine[1]. (however, te reference is Nikki Craft. No reference from the Dallas Morning News, or Parade Magazine can be uncovered.

The same year, Craft founded Women Armed for Self Protection (WASP), which advocated armed self-defense for women and retaliation against rapists by their victims
she wrote and recorded the Rape Song about Inez Garcia and Joan Little. (only reference is her web site again)
In 1976, Craft co-founded the Kitty Genovese Women's Project (KGWP) when she and another activist posed as sociology students under the pretense of doing a "statistical study on violent crimes" and obtained the names of every indicted sex offender in Dallas County from 1959 to 1975 (Can we say that she broke the law in a BLP, without a cite?)
On 8 March, International Women's Day, the group read the names over local community radio KCHU for 13 hours.[3]
In 1979, Craft helped organize the first Myth California Anti-Pageant in Santa Cruz, California. In 1980 Craft joined other pageant protesters and over the next nine years conducted other actions, including throwing raw meat on the stage and pouring the blood of raped women across a pageant entryway.

I'll stop here, but there are at least 20 other statements uncited, or uncited except by the subjects web site.

I think most of these are true, even if not cited. Also, Duke University has a collection[22] described as "Nikki Craft Papers (1970-1992) — Activist who uses guerilla theater to protest the media's control of women's bodies, e.g. anti-beauty contest, anti-pornography. One small box of mostly flyers, photos, newsletters, newspaper accounts of her projects, more. .3 linear ft." Which seems to means she has/had some notability. Atom 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Brenneman's comments, I could support that the subject is notable, but the article needs a complete rewrite.Atom 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep, noticing in addition the attempted use of a speedy after a dispted AfD. A non-consensus AfD is clear eveidence that the deletion would be controversial, and the speedy thus out of order. DGG 02:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current sources (plus two in-line external links) in the article are :
1. ^ Myth America Billboard Enhancement. nostatusquo.com. Retrieved on 2006-03-01.
2. ^ War Stories: My Demo at Rockwell International. nostatusquo.com. Retrieved on 2006-02-23.
3. ^ Exposing the Rapist Next Door. nostatusquo.com. Retrieved on 2006-02-23.
4. ^ Nikki Craft's Pottery Pages. nikkicraft.com. Retrieved on 2006-03-02.
5. ^ Baxandall, Lee (1983). World Guide to Nude Beaches and Recreation, 1st edition, New York: Harmony Books, 23. ISBN 0-517-54983-2.
6. ^ Craft, Nikki. "Busting Mr. Short Eyes", On the Issues, Dec. 1995.
7. ^ Peckenpaugh, William D. (1996). Familial and Societal Attitudes Toward Nudity, and the Effects on Children’s Development. Lake Edun Foundation. Retrieved on 2006-11-03.
8. ^ Murez, Cara Roberts (2005-12-21). Man gets 30 years for sex abuse. Retrieved on 2006-11-03.
9. ^ Estimada, Abe (2004-12-02). Silverton man faces charges of videotaped sex with son. KGW.com TV. Retrieved on 2006-11-02.
10. ^ HB 158 Nudist camps for juveniles; prohibited.. State of Virginia (2004-04-26). Retrieved on 2006-11-03.
11. http://www.nostatusquo.com/audio/rapesong.html
12. http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=176328

Of these numbers 1,2,3,4, and 11 are self-published. 5 I don't have a copy of at hand, but it appears to be a simple claim that craft is in a photgraph in an otherwise non-notable book. Number 6 I am unable to evaluate, as every repository I tried in universities on-line women's issues collections returned a 404. Numbers 7,8,9, and 10 do not relate to this person. Number 11 is a dubious one, as the claim in the article "An award-winning documentary called Miss or Myth examines these protests and Craft's role in starting them" is not supported by the link. It's a precis only, but a more complete exposition on the film does not mention the subject of this article at all. Dhartung's links appear to show that there may be an article to be written on Craft, but this self-aggrandizing and reference-free work is not it. If I may quote myself from the previous deletion discussion, "This is a person who's made a lifetime out of getting publicity, let us recall, so as to not be used for the same end." Looking over the very long first debate, I see in-depth analysis of the sources provided, and identical conclusions that this had serious issues with verification and bias. There was a great deal of talk of cleaning it up and providing real sources, however this was not done. Delete without prejudice to a new, acurately sources sourced article, not written or "maintained" by anyone associated with Craft. In the event I (or anyone else) gets off thier arse and savagly trims back this article to a verifiable stub, wave a magic wand over that to become "keep."- brenneman 06:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the version of this article after the last close and current: [23]. Clean-up is not a realistic option here.
brenneman 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment If the article is biased, edit it. if there is no agreement over the edits, use dispute resolution. Doing as suggested above, deleting it and making a new one, is hardly likely to solve POV problems. Though I probably share the previous editor's opinion of the subject and her views, the suggestion above for a "new, accurately sourced article, not written or "maintained" by anyone associated with Craft. " is wholly against the principles of WP, and threats to delete material if the article is kept are wholly out of order. DGG 05:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: My personal experience has been one of battling any changes with a friend of the subject. Dispute resolution has not had any results, as no one responds to an RfC. I can't make even a minor change without a battle, much less delete and remove all unsourced statements, as is required. Regardless, the recommendation for deleting and starting over suggested by brenneman are not based on that. His rationale was that 1) The article has many occurences where there are no citations. Where there are citations, most of them rely on the subjects web site. A removal of all of the uncited and self-cited references would essentially leave an empty article. 2) In the previous discussion on AfD it survived on the premise that you suggest, that it would be rewritten. The diff[24] he offered shows that the changes from that time (mostly mine) are minor compared to the scope of work that needs to be done; And, in fact it has not been rewritten to meet Wikipedia standards. Atom 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nikki Craft is a well-known and influential (i.e., "notable") organizer and activist in feminist community. Problems with biographical article are not a reason to delete the article, but to fix it. --lquilter 22:22, 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral of the Black Goat[edit]

non-notable organization, no third-party sources, fails WP:V, appears to be intended to promote the organizations website, which is hosted on Angelfire. Has already been speedily deleted at least once for these reasons. Tunnels of Set 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, and I get just 63 unique Google hits (and only 48 hits with Wikipedia and mirrors removed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Starblind ::mikmt 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article does NOT fail WP:V, as independent verification can be found at [25] on the production poster for the SOTNCF VII, where the Cathedral logo appears in the top left sponsorship position. Interesting that Tunnels of Set seems intent on removing all organizations from the Satanism category other than the "big three", perhaps given his own outlook we may see a bias? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frater Iason Rex (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC). — Frater Iason Rex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comnent, no bias. Please read Wikipedia's notability requirements. A mention on a poster is not verifiability; what verifiability means is that all the facts in the article can be verified in third-party sources such as books, magazines, newpaper articles, etc. Any organization which does not have such media coverage is not considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Give it another twenty years, if your org still exists... Tunnels of Set 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan; no sources, no article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:15, 22 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. Any merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Core desat 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wet Nurse[edit]

does not say why this cartoon is noteabel enough to be on here Oo7565 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it was a poster in the roger rabbit movie and was in the guy office does not make it noteable enough to be on here article admits the wet nurse have no plot to it so no reason to keep on hereOo7565 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Madmedea 18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fictitious cartoon known only from a poster seen in the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is not notable. --Charlene 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maroon Cartoons, perhaps take a closer look at some of the others there. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maroon Cartoons, this is a minor character/near-prop in the cartoon. SkierRMH 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sounds fine. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:04, 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 No consensus. ST47Talk 19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bow tie wearers[edit]

Delete - unencyclopedic, indiscriminate, trivial, unverified, no assertion of notability. Otto4711 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - how did this get last so long on here Madmedea 18:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidered keep. Have to say since Noroton has done so much work and added a great deal of content and references it becomes much more than just list-cruft. I don't agree with merging it back into bow tie as I think it would overwhelm the article. It now works well as a sub-article of bow tie. Although I agree that changing the name of the list to something including 'notable' or 'famous' would be a good idea - and making the criteria for future inclusion very explicit. Madmedea 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ::mikmt 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The information added since my delete vote is interesting (although it seems borderline WP:OR). Rename or merge the article and keep only the most significant people in the list. ::mikmt 02:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom - how is this supposed to be helpful? Hut 8.5 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Considering the new information, merge new content into a related article (such as Bow tie), then delete. Hut 8.5 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not for a lack of being funny. --Tainter 18:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Also, no Les Nessman? Sacrilege. --Charlene 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is all been discussed before, as can be seen on both the discussion page of the list article as well as the discussion page of Bow tie. I see no indication in this discussion so far that anyone here looked at any of those discussions. I initiated a discussion there to get a consensus on whether to put the list at the bottom of that article or in its own article in large part because the list is more extensive than, say, Monacle or Top hat. Is there an objection to having articles on these subjects? Then nominate them all. If Bow tie is justified, then a list is justified and the only question is whether to put it all on one page or separate it out for convenience and considerations of article size.
unencyclopedic — Bow tie is not unencyclopedic, therefore the list isn't either. In fact, the list is closely linked to the Bow tie article (see "trivial" below).

indiscriminate — the list is meant to be made up of well-known people or fictional characters or other entities known for their bow ties. There is nothing indiscriminate about that. Please justify use of that word.

trivial — evidently not to the many famous people on that list or the millions of bow tie wearers. Incidentally, when a man is thinking about wearing a bow tie or other prominent fashion accessory (top hat, monocle, french cuffs, cigarette holder) he thinks about what associations the tie has. A very important consideration in that regard is what well-known people are strongly associated with it, therefore the list is important.

unverified — Cute. For every list on Wikipedia with a "verified" list, I can show you 1,000 without, and you all know it. The only verification I've ever seen on any list are the footnotes I've put on list items myself. Do you really want a footnote to confirm that Boo Boo the bear in the Hanna Barbera cartoon always wears a bow tie?

(I haven't worn a bow tie since about age 7, by the way.)Noroton 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that neither List of monocle wearers nor List of top hat wearers exists as a separate article. If they did, I would nominate them for deletion as well. Top hat contains a list within it, which itself lacks sourcing and so is subject to removal at any time. Monocle lists a few examples of monocle wearers and offers some context for their inclusion. This list article does none of that. Otto4711 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pure listcruft. Metrackle 20:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and trivial. Send the article title to WP:BJ. (YechielMan) 129.98.212.69 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete as unsourced~~ Even if you assume that wearing a bow tie is worth keeping track of, the article is entirely unsourced. Dugwiki 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- also tagged the article as unreferenced Dugwiki 22:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my previous deletion recommendation. Since my post above an editor has apparently painstakingly gone through and added a considerable number of references. Changing my recommendation to Keep.Dugwiki 17:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge into bow tie, there's enough work here not to lose it entirely. Possibly a category rather than a list would suit the topic better? Chris 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this list was crerated as a result of the CfD of a category, where it was decided that a category was a bad idea, but that a list might be far better. As such, I'd give it a weak keep. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly indiscriminate. List of people with split ends, List of people who enjoy pea soup, List of people who wear tri-corner hats, and so on. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How often does one have to wear a bowtie for it to be constantly? This list is trivial, indiscriminate and unmaintainable. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that bow ties are encyclopaedic, but this is not a list of bow ties (I'm not quite sure there's an encyclopaedic variation among bow ties that could be listed) - this is a list of bow tie wearers. Wearing a bow tie does not have encyclopaedic notability. GassyGuy 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to find sources --Alcuin 01:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back to bow tie.Previous wikipedia editors mandated this article as a fork from bow tie because they felt the content was important. Why not put a cite source tag on it and let it stay? If people can cite sources then it IS certainly encyclopedicMPS 02:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Can you draw some sort of scholarly connection among the people who wear bow ties? Or is it an arbitrary characteristic? If a person is known for his or her bow tie, it should go in that person's article. GassyGuy 02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's how: Some people are known for wearing bow ties. It is a part of their public image. Which public figures wear bow ties affects how men (and maybe women) view the wearing of bow ties. They think about this kind of thing if they're thinking about wearing a bow tie or monocle (or whatever) regularly. Use a cigarette holder regularly and you're going to bring up images of FDR (if you're a man) or Holly Golightly if you're a woman. Associations with famous wearers is the kind of thing that almost automatically comes to mind when people see somebody with any relatively rare fashion accessory. It's inherently part of the subject of bow tie. The justification for having the list on a separate page from Bow tie is simply because it's rather long. Noroton 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. JuJube 04:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, don't take my word for it. Take Joseph Epstein's word for it. Oh, I forgot, you guys don't indicate that you consider any other ideas before making condemnations. Here's a quote then (pay attention to the middle paragraph; emphasis added):
  In a long essay on American English usage in the current issue of Harper's, the novelist David Foster Wallace refers to linguistic pedants and their "snobbishness and bow-tied anality." Nicholson Baker, in "Double Fold," his recent book about the destruction of newspaper files in libraries, seems to have his villains neatly turned out in bow ties: A man named Verner Clapp is a "polymathic bowtie wearer," and the historian and former Librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstin is described as a "chronic bowtie wearer." As a terminal bow-tie wearer myself, what, I have to ask, is going on here?
  First, though, let me organize a lineup of bow-tie wearers to establish a variety. The most distinguished of all, of course, was Winston Churchill, whose favorite was a fine floppy blue job with white polka dots. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a tall man, often adds a giant butterfly to his getup, which gives his appearance a light and rakish air. Saul Bellow has taken to wearing bow ties late in life. Former Sen. Paul Simon is a habitual bow-tie wearer, though, oddly, he seems never to have learned to tie them properly, for the right side of his ties never quite make it to full bow form. For diversity's sake, it would be good to have an NFL linebacker instead of Louis Farrakhan to round off this roster, but Churchill, Moynihan, Bellow, Simon and Farrakhan (a clip-on man, I surmise) perhaps provide sufficient diversity in themselves.
  Is there something about bow-tie wearing that suggests temperament, point of view, gestalt, full-blown Weltanschauung? The bill of complaint against the bow-tie wearer includes, I believe, the following: He is overly precise, cold-blooded, unimaginative, pompous and, let us for good measure throw in, mean-spirited. That's a lot of negative qualities to attribute to a bit of colorful cloth tied around a fellow's neck, but there it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noroton (talk • contribs)
  - And this should mean what to me? JuJube 04:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It should mean you should be open to discussion. Did you read my previous points? And if you don't want to believe Epstein or me, you might want to believe Jennifer Sheehan that public figures who wear bow ties have a strong effect affect on whether people choose to wear them, making an individual article List of bow tie wearers a notable subject. This is how she writes about it:
      The demographics of men who wear bow ties are changing, owners of bow tie companies say.
      
      Bow ties are often thought of as an older man's fashion choice, but more and more younger men are turning to them thanks to some celebrities such as local NBC meteorologist Glenn "Hurricane" Schwartz, MSNBC talk show host and commentator Tucker Carlson and Eagles football star Dhani Jones. In fact, Jones, who's widely known for his unique fashion sense, has started a company to sell hand-crafted bow ties.
      
      Jones' image, particularly in an Eagles-frenzied area such as the Lehigh Valley and Berks County, has had an impact on the bow tie business, says Greg Weitzenkorn, co-owner of Weitzenkorn's men's clothing store in Pottstown.
      
      "We are not an ultra-traditional store," Weitzenkorn. says. "But we see bow ties coming on stronger in the mainstream."
      
      Celebrity-wearers of the bow tie have certainly helped businesses.
      
      Kirk Hinkley, owner of the Bow Tie Club, which sells bow ties on the Web, says his company got a big boost from Raj Bhatka, a young contestant on the second season of NBC's "The Apprentice." (sorry, forgot to sign this before) Noroton 04:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am once again unimpressed. JuJube 04:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame these academics didn't have this list handy so they could further their studies with the effects of Jose Zolliker's bow tie on his literary public... and as far as examples of hipper, less stodgy folks with bow ties, they'd need look no further than Magilla Gorilla. GassyGuy 04:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean academics like the ones at Academica Cravatica?? Noroton 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, don't believe me, Joseph Epstein, Jennifer Sheehan, Greg Weitzenkorn or Kirk Hinkley. How 'bout Bill Thompson?
I guess the greatest affirmation of my sartorial choice in regard to bow ties is related to my admiration for one of my favorite literary characters, who happens to be a lawyer. Atticus Finch, the heroic lawyer/father of To Kill a Mockingbird, wore a bow tie. I can’t think of a better character to emulate.
All right, don't believe me, Joseph Epstein, Jennifer Sheehan, Greg Weitzenkorn, Kirk Hinkley, Bill Thompson or even Atticus Finch. What about Jack Cutone], co-founder of Boston Bow Tie:

- Bow ties, once popular in earlier eras and again in the forties and fifties, are making a small but noticeable re-appearance as a fashionable item, [...] affluent professionals are adopting the wearing of bow ties for their ability to convey stature and enable the wearer to stand out from the crowd.
  
  Cutone noted that there is ample evidence to support the uniqueness and stature of those who wear bow ties. In the past, famous bow tie wearers included Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud, in addition to many other notable figures.
  
  Cutone seems to think it matters to potential customers that they associate bow tie wearing with admirable individuals. Noroton 04:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work. Could be interesting. --Xtreambar 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's add fashion blogger Ann Metz to the roster of people who believe citing those who wear bow ties is something important in considering them"
To be honest, the bow tie has always struck me as an unoriginal way of looking original. In the absence of any real imagination, it's an acceptable substitute. If you take a look at a few of the famous bow tie wearers in history, you'll see what I mean:
Tucker Carlson

C. Everett Koop

Orville Redenbacher

Boo-Boo Bear

And there's more out there. Noroton 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable topic for an encyclopedia. Also, AFD is not the right place to discuss the merits of wearing bow ties. Axem Titanium 20:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Titanium's comment is an excellent example of not bothering to even get the gist of the discussion, just voting in a hair-trigger way to delete. I was very clear about why I was including these examples and they had nothing to do with what Titanium says they are about. There's something deeply wrong with this process if the people who vote to delete don't listen to the people who actually care more about an article and have paid more attention to the subject. I've actually got something to say here and I see no evidence that more than a couple of people are actually listening, and I see no evidence that they are considering the point I'm making. This is not consensus, this is railroading. Does Titanium even have an argument? Noroton 21:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that not being swayed by your arguments is an indication that they're being discarded. As silly as I think this is, I will try to explain the point once more and then be done with this. Most of the people/characters on this list are famous and wear bow ties. Few of them are famous for wearing bow ties. It's that difference which changes a list from encyclopaedic to arbitrary, almost a collection of trivia. I admire your perseverance in finding this articles, but, in my opinion, most of them would at best support the idea that bow ties are notable and encyclopaedic rather than the people who wear them. GassyGuy 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - GassyGuy, as you well know, I was objecting to seeing evidence in Titanium's post that he hadn't even bothered to read the discussion, at least not well enough to understand a simple point I repeated again and again. That indicates something other than disagreement and, I repeat, I've seen no evidence that anyone else has looked at my arguments (which may mean they have and simply choose not to respond — but it's pretty suspicious that I haven't gotten much else by way of response). You're simply repeating your previous point, which is to say that someone needs to be famous for wearing bow ties to be on the list. (See? I'm reading what you say and responding to it.) I'm saying that doesn't matter. What matters is that a lot of people apparently believe, because they say so in writing, that when people decide to wear a bow tie, that decision in part is made on what they think about others who wear them. I repeat, that's a justification for the list. If you don't think this reasoning is good enough to keep the list, please explain why. In any event, I've demonstrated that there is A REASON to keep the list, which some people here have indicated didn't exist. We have articles on the Tom and Jerry cartoon show and you can think of a thousand other articles with less reason to exist than the justification I've just given. So tell me what's wrong with my reason, please. Noroton 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Axl 22:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with bow tie. A fascinating (and telling) list. -- Sethant 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the fact that wearing a bow-tie if not notable in itself, it just seems odd, plus the criteria would be too hard to enforce.--Wizardman 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've demonstrated why it's notable in the changes I've made to the article. Noroton 03:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a significant amount of information to the top of the article about the use of references to famous bow-tie wearers in commentary about fashion, in news reports and in commercial attempts to promote bow-tie wearing. I've also added footnotes for every single fictional character and for many of the real bow tie wearers. The article is now substantially different from what it was, which may call for a name change, but it's essentially about the same subject. Anyone who voted before should take another look and reassess their opinion. Noroton 03:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of the changes seem to consist of, 'sales of bow ties increase when celebrities wear them'. This could be said of almost any article of clothing. The rest of it seems like information that could and should be merged into bow tie. --Veesicle (Talk) 02:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with bow tie. Seems like an interesting subject.--Mike Selinker 03:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People who wear them are often noted as being bow tie wearers, and there are even theories about the wearers' personalities. This article is NPOV, verifiable, and interesting. Because it can be annotated, this is better as a list than a category. -Will Beback · † · 06:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless and vague, as per nom., Wizardman, Dmz5, WJBscribe, et al. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst most of this people in this list wear bow ties, they are not famous because they wear bow ties. Why not List of people who wear trousers? --Veesicle (Talk) 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into bow tie, then delete. Some useful information has been added but I feel that it is in the wrong place. --Veesicle (Talk) 02:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated -Doc^g 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good Lord! Don't you folks have anything else to talk about?? (YechielMan) 129.98.212.72 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes... the other 1.5 million + articles that exist on Wikipedia, for a start. Don't you have anything else to do other than make rude comments on a debate about an article that you have implied isn't worth our time? --Veesicle (Talk) 02:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above -Doc^g 10:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably without merge. While the article's defenders are clearly well-intentioned, this is an unmaintainable list. Veesicle's argument above convinces me that bow ties are not particularly significant or unique as articles of clothing or as a sales phenomenon. Rossami (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it has references! It's interesting in the same way as the comparable section of monocle, but unlike that list it should be kept as a separate article since its size outweighs the content of bow tie. Just rename with "notable" e.g. as List of notable wearers of bow ties. Fayenatic london 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It certainly has had a lot of work put into it, and the sources are cited nicely, though it could stand to be a bit cleaner-looking. Merging it with 'Bow Ties' sounds like a good idea I think. User:StantheGarbageMan 9:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, it is silly to think this article is unencyclopedic. See, wikipedia is not paper and as long as any valuable contribution can add an interesting fact about society i feel it should stay. Deleting content that other people have worked on does not encourage anyone to contribute to Wikipedia. Do not let your personal prejudices or intellectual snobbery persuade you that many other members' contributions are worthless.(citing Matt words).--HappyApple 03:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've made further, significant changes to the article that I think merit another look by anyone voting here. The article cannot be said to be unverified because it's now one of the most verified articles on Wikipedia. It can't be said to be indiscriminate, although I now favor changing the name to List of influential bow-tie wearers or List of notable bow-tie wearers because there's no use in listing anyone unless they're well-known. The reasons why this article is encyclopedic and on a notable subject are now clear from the paragraphs at the top of the article and the first sentences in the next three sections. This is no longer just a listing. Noroton 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is there any reason to explicitly say "notable" in the article title? Isn't it supposed to be true that being on wikipedia at all means it's notable, so any list should only be notable people anyway. Webrunner 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I discuss this at Talk:List of bow tie wearers. I think the lack of the word "famous" (which I now favor) or "notable" is one of the reasons we have an AfD right now: I think (could be wrong) a lot of editors look at the title alone and then believe they know what should be acceptable content for the article, or believe the article itself is unacceptable. Making one of the limits explicit may help. Again, I don't want to clutter this discussion up with comments better left elsewhere.Noroton 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at the very least merge per the valid arguments presented by MPS. Do not delete. RFerreira 04:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - Should not be deleted, however much editing is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.204.231 (talk • contribs)

Keep but I don't think that we should include people who may have worn a bow-tie once in their lives or wear bow-ties when wearing tuxedos. No, we need to keep it for trademark bowtie wearers, such as (formerly) Tucker Carlson or Peewee Herman. Valley2city 04:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This advice applies to all lists. An article should only be categorized using notable information included in the article itself. If the article never mentions that someone wore a necktie, then they shouldn't be included in this list. Requiring that the necktie be mentioned in the article implies that it should have been verified by an external published source, and it's unlikely that a publication would mention someone regularly wearing a necktie unless it was somehow a notable distinguishing feature (as opposed to the occasional tux wearer). Dugwiki 19:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd just like to note to anyone who finally closes this debate that Doc (above) has voted twice, I'm sure by mistake. Regarding Valley2city's and Dugwiki's comments: I've wrestled with whether or not someone should wear a bowtie all the time in order to be included. I think I'll discuss it more on the talk page of this article.Noroton 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could make a case that it's possible someone could be notable for wearing a necktie in a signifcant way but not on a regular basis. Hypothetically, you could have someone that made a significant, notable impression by wearing a necktie at an unusual time or place, perhaps to make a statement of some sort. I think I can safely say, though, that the great majority of famous people who are associated with neckties wore them regularly. Dugwiki 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I didnt think i would vote on this one, but its a good article. DGG 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP; A bow tie was indeed considered a significant part of the personalities of a number (but not all) of the individiuals mentioned.Alloco1 08:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ((Alloco1's vote was initially put at the top, but it was located right in the middle of Otto's nomination paragraph, so I took the liberty of moving it down here and putting "KEEP" in boldface, with a bullet to make it easier to read, of course making no other changes.Noroton 17:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)))[reply]
Keep as rewritten, with a tip of the hat (or is that a tug of the bow tie) to Noroton for improving the article.--Kubigula (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolute trivia, and quite a matter of personal opinion whether or not someone makes this list. The article is largely unverified, unsourced and constitutes original research as a synthesis of facts taken from various sources to prove the allegations made in the opening paragraph. That this trivia may be liked or interesting does not make the article encyclopedic. One would hope that consideration of the content policies and guidelines would prevail over those two criteria. Agent 86 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has over 60 citations for verification, so I'm not sure why you're saying it is "largely unsourced". It seems to have quite a large number of citations. Are you having an issue with the references provided? Dugwiki 23:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You linked "trivia" to WP:NOT, which is an incorrect usage of that policy. The word "trivia", in fact, appears nowhere in that policy, nor does it attempt to deal with "trivia". Dugwiki 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Sorry, I meant to link the trivia ref to Wikipedia:Five_pillars, my mistake. As for the "unsourced", I refer you to the introductory paragraph that forms the foundation of the article, that presents nothing but unverified, unsourced opinion. The rest of the article is simply lists isolated facts that one is supposed to conclude support the opinions or theories of the opening paragraph, which is original research. Despite everything else, I fail to see how this "article" is encyclopedic. Agent 86 01:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about the introductory paragraph being unreferenced. However, that would only require either cleaning up or deleting that first paragraph, not deleting the entire article. That also would alleviate your concern about other information in the article being used to support it as "original research". If the article sticks to the facts as referenced, then you remove any problem of having original editorial opinion slip in. Dugwiki 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, on an interesting tangent, thanks for correcting the link to Wikipedia:Five_pillars. "Five pillars" does say, in one sentence, that "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory". Oddly, though, while the other terms of "soapbox" and "vanity publisher" are discussed in either policy or guidelines, the word "trivia" doesn't seem to appear in policies or guidelines (at least not that I can find). The only item that discusses "trivia" is an essay Wikipedia:Trivia, which doesn't yet have consensus (as would a guideline). Personally I wouldn't mind seeing an actual trivia guideline of some sort, since at the moment it is a vague, subjective term that gets introduced in cfd and afd discussions with little consensus on what is or isn't trivia. Probably would be a good topic for discussion, if I can figure out a good page to post a thread. Dugwiki 17:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Let's go over Agent 86's objections:

Quite a matter of personal opinion whether or not someone makes this list Well, no. The article name shouldn't be taken literally, and I think it should be changed. That's what the extensive discussion on the article's talk page is about. I think the list should be about famous people who are known for wearing bow ties — this is not a matter of personal opinion, particularly if editors insist on sourcing. "Famous" could be a matter of dispute, but not beyond the abilities of Wikipedians to figure out ("famous" people are known beyond their local community and outside of a particular profession or avocation; I would include famous people of the past who are no longer well known and anyone famous across their nation, such as the Estonian president and the Belgian politician; this isn't rocket science and the gray area is not so wide that we can't live with it and come to consensus on specific cases). If we want to include, for instance, university presidents on the list, then perhaps we should call it a "List of notable bow tie wearers", if not, then a "List of famous bow tie wearers". Bow tie wearing is either sourced to good sources or it's not. Almost everyone on that list is sourced, and if I didn't remove them from the list then I think they can eventually be sourced (Chippendale dancers, for instance: I haven't found an adequate source that says they are known for their bow ties — yet). Even without any of these changes, this is not an indiscriminate list, and that second paragraph you object to helps to avoid it being an indiscriminate list. Note that good sourcing very often mentions "signature bow tie", "trademark bow tie" and other phrases or facts that back up the assertion. Some of the sourcing could be better, I think, but give it time.
Original research — here's the paragraph:

Well-known people who become associated in the public mind with wearing bow ties can have a powerful affect the popularity of this type of neckwear, according to numerous observers, including writers and bow-tie sellers. Bow tie wearing by well-known men is often noticed and commented upon, a phenomenon that differs from commonplace celebrity endorsements in that it includes historical figures, including some long-dead famous people, and the topic is often brought up by writers and observers with no financial interest in promoting bow ties.

It's an introductory paragraph (actually the second paragraph). It summarizes what's in the article and every statement in it is backed up by sourcing in the article. I can provide footnotes, but I thought the connection with the following paragraphs was obvious. Sentence 1 is backed up by the numerous statements taken from the Eastern Pennsylvania Business Journal and the Texas publication and ends with "according to ...". Sentence 2 is quite directly proven by every other source in the paragraphs before the listings start, involving no leaps of logic on my part. Please specify where you believe original research takes place. You might object to the use of the word "numerous" in the first sentence, and I could take that out, but I have no doubt I could eventually find enough articles to justify that word. Do you doubt it? Do you object to the word "powerful" in the first sentence? It seems to me that the sources back it up. Do you object to the word "often" used twice in the second sentence? In the first instance, the list footnotes offer pretty convincing evidence that it is "often"; in the second, ditto, although I might add "no apparent financial interest", but I think that's a little fussy.

Noroton 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the list now contains only the people who prominently wore bow ties and were associated with them enough to warrant sources. However, much (if not all) of the first half of the article has no part being in this "list" and should be merged into bow tie. Pomte 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed above. Performa62 13:18, 24 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 per author request below. -- nae'blis 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalist Party[edit]

Quote from the article: The Loyalist currently has no official candidates. The party officially started in November of 2006, and is attempting to have several candidates available for the 2008 election. I was going to speedy delete it, but preferred to get some feedback, as it seems to have some hits at Google, but most are mixed with Northern Ireland's Loyalist party and nothing about this one. ReyBrujo 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organization: the official website says local awareness is still a goal[26]. The official message board has only 24 members. ::mikmt 19:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest waiting before you delete this. I am a co-chair of this party, and we will be registering it shortly, with at least 2 to 3 states. Once this is done, we will gladly update our information to prove that we have been registered.

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and is not for advertising a non-notable political party. Only articles on subjects that are already notable should be kept. --Charlene 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. You get notability and coverage in other media, then you may be able to get someone to write you an article on Wikipedia. Please review our conflict of interest guideline, our autobiographical guideline (usually applied to individuals, but you get the idea), and our standards for notability. Delete until such criterion are satisfied (and then I'll be happy to write it myself). -- nae'blis 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is crystalballery and soapboxing for an unregistered wanna-be political party. Agent 86 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the unsigned comment above shows, this is WP:CRYSTAL; additional problems with WP:COI and WP:N - they can come back once they've reached some of these criteria! SkierRMH 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wilfully ignores Wikipedia's three core policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I take a dim view of COI, spam and general self-promotion at the best of times, but using Wikipedia to try to advance the cause of what I would politely call "fringe politics" is pretty reprehensible. -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Loyalist -Doc^g 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Understand your policies and I apologize for not following them. I will delete it, since it is not a legitamate party as of yet. Once we fullfill the criteria being of being a legitamate, registered party. I will repost it. Thanks for letting me know and understanding.

B. Nordval

How Do I delete from here????

I've just taken care of it for you (in the future, if you have a page you've written yourself that you'd like to get rid of you can tag it with ((db-author))). Good luck with your endeavour. -- nae'blis 01:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influential women[edit]

A list with no criteria for inclusion, and for which good criteria for inclusion probably don't exist. We already have Category:Women for women with articles, all of whom were presumably influential to some extent, and we also have List of the first female holders of political offices which is really the only neutral criterion that I can think of that this article could use. Sopoforic 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-worthy list (not the subjects though!) Madmedea 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom ::mikmt 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft - and I can just imagine the arguments as we try to define 'influential'. --Squeezeweasel ^talk 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate list. I have a sneaking suspicion that someone like Phyllis Schlafly might have a different opinion of what "influential" means than, say, Gloria Steinem, Larry Flynt, or a 19-year-old porn fan. --Charlene 19:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable, but I'm always amazed at how many people say "How do we define what's notable? Subjective!" Lists like these go by who has a Wikipedia biography, since having one owes to notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So wouldn't that make this equivalent to a fully expanded Category:Women? That'd be a pretty huge list. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it would be, hence my deletion rationale. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because as described will result in a massively huge article. Individual articles should be much more limited and specific in scope. --lquilter 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmanageable Dugwiki 22:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ill-defined and unmanageable listcruft. --OinkOink 04:50, 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. --Core desat 07:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shapiro[edit]

Section justifying "notability" - WP:OR and Misrepresented Sources

Note to new commentors and closing admin: Significant discussion has been moved to the talk page. I don't know if this is right or wrong, but since this is supposed to be a discussion and not a simple vote, it seems wrong to just shove it onto the talk page without at least a link. No one of consequence 01:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please read the articles WAS cited in the section "Used to Illustrate Legal Ethics and the Need for Reform" that WAS cited for this section he added to justify "notability".

The sourced articles were not "Used to Illustrate Legal Ethics and the Need for Reform"!! Please read the talk page (and the articles cited as sources). This is WP:OR. Jance 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable subject. A previous article was speedy deleted as an attack article. This article was the end result, after an editor attempted to find references, and an administrator tried to help create a useful article. Unfortunately, this subject is just not notable outside Rochester, and some of his 'colorful' ads.
Lack of Reliable sources -- the sources are not "Used to illustrate legal ethics and the need to reform" misrepresents the sources cited. (See talk page to this nom, and to Jim Shapiro). None of the articles the author added supports the claim that Shapiro "illustrates" "legal ethics and the need for reform." I have outlined this on the talk page of the article. Quite simply, all of those references only mentioned Shapiro peripherally, if at all. More importantly, the only individual "using" Shaprio to "illustrate legal ethics and the need to reform" is WAS - certainly not any of the authors of the articles cited as sources. Therefore, this entire section is WP:OR. I don't know what WP tag can be used for complete misrepresentation of sources (is there one?).
So, ultimately, the only purpose of this article on Jim Shapiro, as the original author admitted, was that it was "funny". Jance 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom.Jance 18:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-sourced by a number of independent reliable newspapers from all over the country. Obviously has had affect on case law, although perhaps not for the better, but still notable. I didn't see a "joke" in here nor anything all that "funny". This is an easy keep. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only ask that you actually read the articles used as references. They do not stand for what WAS claims they stand for.Jance 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wrote the biographical part of the current version of this article (minus the long section of cribbed-together-quotes on legal ethics and changes to the law) as an attempt at improving what was an absolute mess of an article that pretended to be a bio. In researching the article, reliable sources were very hard to come by. There are a few articles on Factiva that complain about Shapiro's annoying commercials, a few about his suspension from practice and a few about him donating money to education. But nothing significant and unfortunately, I don't think there is enough verifiable material available to make a case for notability. Since I wrote the article, that situation does not seem to have changed. Unless someone else feels they can make a verifiable case for notability, I think the article should be deleted as a not notable bio, and preferably salted. Sarah 18:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep"A few" articles is enough in the way of sources. If is he mentioned in general discussion of legal ethics he is notable.DGG 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It seems to me that a content dispute (Jance may want to use ((totallydisputed)) ...) that has not been resolved through channels is spilling over into AFD. Shapiro seems to turn up as an example in some national news stories about aggressive legal advertising practices, thin notability indeed, but potential to pass. The major problem seems to be a bunch of original research drawn from case documents that is unsupported by citations and that violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The nomination is not really drawing on policy but is more of a rant. I believe I'd vote weak keep on notability and insist that the editors solve the content issues some other way. --Dhartung | Talk 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)--Dhartung | Talk 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Shapiro is important as an example of the effects of changes in United States law regarding the advertisement of legal services, resulting in both false and misleading and Crazy Eddie style television commercials by Shapiro that have been used to illustrate issues of legal ethics, the need for the reform of those laws, and pending changes in New York state regulations regarding attorney advertising.

>>Moved to talk page.Jance 13:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WAS, if that's your goal, to illustrate legal ethics issues and legal reform, then please do this in an article under an appropriate title. To attempt to manipulate a biography on a living person into a dissertation on legal ethics is completely inappropriate. A biography on Jim Shapiro should be a rounded article about him and his life. It shouldn't be primarily about legal ethics with genuine biographical content playing second fiddle. You were told this back in August, but you don't seem to understand. What you are doing, by turning this into an article about ethical issues within the legal profession, but under the title of the name of a real man, is creating an attack article and a violation of WP:BLP. Sarah 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shapiro is at best only borderline notable and I might be inclined to say "weak keep" if WAS would allow it to be a biography, as it should be, and wasn't insisting on shifting it back to an attack page by pasting in long slabs of selective and misleading quotes one after the other from mostly dubious sources. This needs to be deleted under WP:BLP and re-salted. I might add that it was salted after the last AfD, but 2 days after it was closed (speedily) as an attack page, WAS created what amounted to another attack page masquerading as a bio and posted it at James J. Shapiro to get around the AFD and salting. Sarah 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agreed. It should be deleted and salted. Legal Ethics is an article itself, but could be expanded - for the US, and different countries. Advertising for both doctors and lawyers has changed. Shapiro was not a very relevant force in this, except possibly the NY bar (and I am not sure about that, based on one article). If something positive comes out of this, it would be to expand the ethics article. Advertising - on television and the internet - has been an issue in my state too, but not because of one lawyer. Jance 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shapiro and legal ethics has been created. It is not a "biography". See the talk page of WP:BLP for a discussion of the issues related to wikipedia articles named after living people that are not in fact "biographies". Wikipedia articles do not contain original research but instead only noteable sourced facts, thus many are not well rounded and not bios but encyclopedic nonetheless. Making them look like bios, as one editor noted, only makes things worse. Wikipedia definitely does not have all the bugs worked out in this regard. WAS 4.250 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now you have duplicated your original (and misleading) article and called it something different? Are you serious? The sources you cite here and in the duplicate article do not support the content you wrote - whether it is called a WP:BIO or anything else. I admit this is over my head as far as WIkipedia knowledge, so I will appeal to others more experienced. However, I have to say you are insistent, and it seems clear that your interest is not in a neutral Wikipedia article. Jance 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Jance 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous. This is a blatant attack; it is a biased, malicious attempt to disparage a living person. It doesn't matter if this new version is strictly a biography or not. BLP clearly states, "These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles." You must abide by BLP regardless of whether it is a biography and using Shapiro as the only example is giving undue weight to the POV you are pushing. You have also violated the terms of the GFDL. Sarah 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article reverted back to Sarah's version of 16 November 2006 This removes the material that the objections are directed at. There is obviously a consensus that this material should not be in the article. Tyrenius 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of my preceding comment as the subject has minor notability. Tyrenius 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, regardless of content dispute the current version of the article seems sufficiently referenced to qualify for notability. BLP says irrelevant and poorly sourced negative information doesn't belong; it doesn't mean that a guy who's gotten nailed for scamming shouldn't have the truth told about him. [Christ, Jance, could you stop editing for a second so I can get a word in edgewise without a conflict?] Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see. So anyone of any profession who has ever been caught "scamming" or disciplined by his profession should have a WIkipedia article? WOW. I can think of some medical doctors who have lost their license or been disciplined, although that is the sole reason for their "notability". According to Night Guy's standards, that would be fine. Maybe I will do that. I would also appreciate if profanity was not used, when talking to me. Jance 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If losing your license or being disciplined is a high profile event that gets major media attention, then yeah, I'd say that's notable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shapiro did not receive major media attention. I just "googled" doctor malpractice and came up with Washington Post articles about one doctor, and articles on other doctors, as well. None of those doctors have articles in Wikipedia (well, one now does). I hope that something the absurdity of an article on one individual who has been disicplined will eventually get users' attention, but maybe it won't. And THAT would be a sad commentary.Jance 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Sarah Ewart. Her point is well-made, and I agree with it. --SunStar Net^talk 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sarah Ewart stated that the article should be deleted and salted. So a "weak keep" hardly is consistent.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jance (talk • contribs).

Since Sarah made that comment the article has been reverted back to the version she wrote. Tyrenius 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, she would not have said the article should be "salted" had she thought it should be saved, in any version. Maybe we can ask her. Jance 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smash with hammer I think the case cited against Shapiro (persuaded client to accept less than the insurance company was offering, has never tried a case) needs more awareness in Rochester; no one else should care. Relatively isolated cases of misconduct don't make one important enough for an encyclopedia. We had an ER doc here who was caught with child pron on his PC, time for an article about him? How about the chinese restaurant that was closed for 6 months for health violations? It was in the newspaper. How about the financial planner whose mismanagement screwed a bunch of Kodak employees out of their early retirement buyouts?. No one of consequence 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm just about to go back to my (attempted) break and I thought I should clarify my position because I seem to have confused some people. I don't believe the version I wrote is an attack article. I do think that Shapiro's notability is borderline and I find WAS's behaviour offensive. He seems to have an obsession with creating Shapiro attack pages, as evidenced by the various pages he's created in the namespace and his userspace. His attempts to justify it by characterising the article as "named after living [person] but not really [a] biography" is outrageous. This is a biography. There's no other way to define it and even if it's put under a different name, it's still covered by BLP. I am neutral on deleting my version of the article, but WAS's insistence on turning it into an attack page tips me over into the delete side of the debate. If this can be maintained as a general biography, free of WAS's attacks, my !vote is neutral. Otherwise, delete it, salt the earth and let's be done with it. Shapiro's notability isn't worth this much angst and this much arguing. Sarah 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So is it neutral or delete? The original AfD was WAS's version. And I am not sure how one can deter anyone from turning it into a more disparaging article... I honestly don't know why this person is notable except for sleazy ads and that notability is local to his area. If major newspapers or radio stations picked it up and reported it, then I would say Shapiro is a notable subject. Otherwise, he is not. This article may not technically be an attack article per Wiki policy, I don't know. But it is clear that the original intent was as an attack article, which WAS abundantly demonstrated. After sanitation, the article is merely disparaging and there are a few actual sources (99% local). Is that the distinction? Jance 01:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia has a fairly long article on Cal Worthington, a used car dealer who would be unrecognizable outside the airwaves of Southern California broadcast television. Regardless of whether Jim Shapiro is notable for other reasons, he's notable for the same reason as Worthington. There's even an article on Angelyne the local billboard spammer whose billboards became such a regular feature of the SoCal landscape that the billboards got into several films (the billboards but not her - she appeared to have a wealthy patron and a desire to break into the entertainment business). Electrons are inexpensive. Cleanup if necessary and keep. Durova^Charge! 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Cal Worthington warrants an "encyclopedia" article, I suppose Shapiro does as well. I do not think either is notable. But maybe the Wikipedia standard is not, in actuality, what is posted in policy or what is typical of an encyclopedia. I concede and agree with Sarah - it isn't worth the ugliness. I still wonder about those who fought like hell to keep a marginal article - and this article is far more disparaging than either article Durova mentioned. There is no way to make it any better than it is. [User:Jance|Jance]] 02:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, notable subject, well-written and well-sourced article. --Guinnog 14:56, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary teacher uk[edit]

Does not meet WP:WEB and possible WP:COI. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom ::mikmt 18:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable blog--Tainter 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to have garnered any independent coverage so unverifiable. Probable conflict of interest (author was Rossa, creator of site was Andrew Ross). Trebor 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once prodded by me, contested by anonymous user 82.0.177.117 and subsequently put up for AfD by Shinmawa. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:25, 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Sandras[edit]

Single-purpose biography: no reasonable expectation to grow beyond a stub. I suggest a redirect to Ekiga. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. all the ghits seem to be blogs and wikipedia mirrors. --Tainter 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mid-level open-source movement personality, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable work - if it hasn't expanded in 6 months, then redirect. Trenwith 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:N... Addhoc 18:16, 22 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 03:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tubes (Filesharing)[edit]

Seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE, possibly spam ::mikmt 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources. If it's only in beta, it might be crystalballery too. Trebor 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for above resaons. JoshHolloway 09:58, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La bobia[edit]

Non-notable neologism ::mikmt 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFT--Tainter 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom. Madmedea 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trenwith (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non-patent nonsense. JuJube 04:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it get deleted? You have no real reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.12.73 (talk • contribs)
- Other than it fails WP:NFT, WP:NEO and WP:RS? Yeah, we just have a vendetta against you and your pal's made up universe. JuJube 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. pretty obviously something made up at school one day. I'll tag it Speedy as db-nonsense. Ohconfucius 10:27, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plankfamine[edit]

Appears to be amateur (?) video of some Welsh skateboarders. Despite claims of a DVD release, no indication of any actual professional distribution, or review in any notable source. Google search on the name comes up with myspace and youtube (as well as someone who uses this as an EBay profile name). Edit history appears to have a lot of updates by the subjects of the video. No remote indication of notability. Fan-1967 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 61 Google results, none to any notable source. ::mikmt 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. -- RHaworth 04:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, apparent conflict of interest. ShadowHalo 18:08, 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 Delete; salt Earth: unverified garbage. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keas Bees[edit]

Fails, WP:V, looks like some kind of satire by an editor who thinks Streetlight Manifesto and Third wave ska is mumbo-jumbo, also see article's talk page. I don't care one way or another about ska, but I don't like hoax articles. Admin declined speedy, anon IP removed prod. Tubezone 19:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been moved to Streetlight Manifesto Untitled Album, but it is still the same article with a new title --FiveIron 07:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been moved back to the original page, but both articles still exist --FiveIron 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, the article is completely fake, the creator doesn't even have any information to back it up and if you search 'Keas Bees' on Victory Record's site, The RISC Group's site, Streetlight Manifesto's site, Google, Yahoo or Dogpile, you get nothing. GhostBoy66 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Tubezone 23:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, I would bet something made up in school one day--FiveIron 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I suspect the majority of the keep votes are a single person using a proxy since they are all unsigned and from unregistered users. Yes there is a new album in the works, but the name and the article are completely fake.--FiveIron 19:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously a hoax. Release date for next album is 20010, the Genre is stupid + insulting and the track titles, although it is well known that Streetlight Manifesto often create satirical names (see their tour names for proof), are completely ridiculous. I agree with FiveIron, someone just thought they were funny and thought they would add it.- Nic the Man 08:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- OK I just changed my mind completely. Now that it's been edited and references, this article should be kept as it is legitimate, just completely reworked. I will put a current event tag up. Nic the Man 11:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Hoax article. Messwemade 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Most of this is obviously a joke, but I did read an interview with tomas about a new album where he mentioned a few of the things in this article, but it will clearly have to be heavily edited —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.156.248 (talk • contribs). — 130.126.156.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. While some of this article might be a bit of a jib, this album is coming out. I'm close friends with Tomas and Sergio and the both told me. Obvioulsy Kearby mid-to-late afternoons isn't coming out in 20010. Tomas said around 2010. So I'd guess 2030 roughly. Everything else is pretty damn true. That dog in the bee costume has a real future. Sexy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.141.21.65 (talk • contribs). — 140.141.21.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep -- I agree with the above poster, although some details are obviously fake (the cover is, of course, not actually modelled by a dog in a bee costume), Keas Bees is a legitimate album and shouldn't be deleted simply because the editors think it's too bizzare to be true. Streetlight Manifesto has always been a unique band, and a concept album about the lives of bee breeders and treadmill salesmen should come as no surprise to their fans. They also have a history of not announcing their releases except through fan buzz (KNAPBSM, for example), which would be why information on the internet as of yet. However there was quite a buzz at their shows, everyone was really pumped when Tomas announced it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IAMED 2 (talk • contribs). — IAMED 2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. At a recent BOTAR show Tomas did tell the crowd his grandpa once told him that his last wish was for Tomas to make an album about bee sellers, because he was a bee worker himself, and Tomas agreed. Also Kristina Berh says this is true.Ghostboy you really are making a fool of yourself by question this obviously true article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.86.42 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Hoax article as previously stated. Note all of the keep votes so far have been from unsigned IP addresses. --GVOLTT 00:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP We are working on sourcing an interview to verify this information. I'm currently trying to find out if a recent interview done by a journalist at the Diamondback newspaper can confirm the info. So I must vote for keep, even though I know this is breaking info MPerdomo 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tomas told me he doesn't jk anyone. This is factual. I have his cell number, he plays shows in my venue. I'll call him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.176.47 (talk • contribs). — 67.189.176.47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Thomas hasn't said in an interview that this ISN'T coming out, so I have no choice but to believe it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.225.198 (talk • contribs). — 65.110.225.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP i saw the streetlamps and they totally played some of teh songs listed!!1! coincidence?! i think not! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.28.25 (talk • contribs). — 68.38.28.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Also, as an addendum to those below me (I wrote the one directly below this), you folks say there is no verifiability. I see nothing disproving this article, leading me to believe that you cannot verify that it is false. and Streetlight fans genuinely know about the band and follow it- the quality of the Streetlight article itself is proof of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.236.216.90 (talk • contribs).

Keep. Tomas Kalnoky has only recently started to reveal details about the album, that's why references are lacking on the internet. As if any website would be a credible reference. On tours and interviews he has confirmed these things. I know lots of the people who helped write this article and they definitely know more about Streetlight than any of you ... so take our word for it. Plus, it has cover art. It's real.

Keep. To be honest, the argument has several merits. Tomas has been known to be "eccentric" at times. He also is known for not publishing any information about his albums till right before their release. and the tracklist looks convincing based off the songs available on youtube that have been recorded from many streetlight shows. I have even attended one where i heard them playing "mercy me" The negatives really only seem to indicate that is is disbelief at the eccentricity of the article, and i don't believe that it should be removed based on that alone. It will probably need editing (the whole 20010 peice is obviously a 2010 typo) but perhaps we can leave it with the statement that the validity has been questioned and actually do some investigation instead of just saying how unlikely it is.12.226.120.192 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC) — 12.226.120.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and ban the sockpuppets. No sources to suggest that's the name of the album, let alone that track listing. The sources are awful and they don't explain anything.++aviper2k7++ 03:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I put this up and forgot to vote.... Delete, still misses verifiability by a long shot. The only references that would even remotely pass WP:RS, don't really say much other than vague statements that, well, at some point they'll put out an album, which could be said about a lot of bands. Not enough to do anything but speculate, even the keep vote above says He also is known for not publishing any information about his albums till right before their release, which is patent admission that not enough info is likely to be available for an article. If and when there's something to verify, and new article can be put up under the verifiable name of the album. Tubezone 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because Tomas told me to There are no reliable sources, but it would be reasonable for someone to do a search for the album title, so redirect to Streetlight Manifesto. And because I have Tomas's cellphone number and he said we should definitely redirect. ShadowHalo 10:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is referenced. Also, I have a feeling that Tomas Kalnoky, being his usual self, is trying to keep us second guessing and has probably posted this information on the internet somewhere. Then again I could be completely wrong. — Daniel Kalnoky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to Streetlight Manifesto. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this album has not been officially announced, at least, from the information I gather. I do support the attempt to bold redirect, but it appears that the consensus is against that atm. --Afluent Rider 10:31, 21 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atreides Empire[edit]

The material in this stub itself is an unnecessary rehash of a minor "term" discussed in many other Dune universe articles, mainly House Atreides. TAnthony 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House Atreides. Recury 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House Atreides ::mikmt 20:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above... Addhoc 14:27, 22 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. --Core desat 07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1980s retro movement[edit]

God know why this list should be allow to exist as this article seem to have been taken over by this pointless lists, therefore nominated for deletion. Well if this page don't go, then the list must go. This list is rather tedious and retro should be left for other TV shows or whatever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Tobias Funke (talk • contribs).

Delete: Now why don't we have a 1918 to 1945 retro movement for Germans, that will make a great article. Oh yeah, meaning this have bacome another stupid pointless list194.82.139.5 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, original judgment (as to whether certain trends are really 80s retro or just awful in their own right), no references to reliable sources. --Charlene 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note prior nominations in 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980s retro movement, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980s retro movement (second nomination) --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite. Is this an article or a list, the list is bigger than the article itself and needs watering down to make it look like an proper article as is isn't a "List of" page. Willirennen 21:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not rewrite unless a notable social historian writes a book about it. This is just OR about what some editors perceive as a phenomenon (and the article states much the same.)-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but CLEAN UP. This is a valid social fad, but the article needs better sourcing in order to remain in Wikipedia. -- Davidkevin 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, herein lies the problem. It sure seems like this is a social fad, doesn't it? I totally agree! But without sources it can't go anywhere. I agree that if reliable sources can be found that demonstrates it really is an identifiable fad and doesn't just feel like one, the article can probably stay with heavy cleanup.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of this list have been ongoing through the 1990s, so how can you all this a revival. (different user to above)194.82.139.5 16:33, 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 regular delete. Article is not nonsense by the definition at WP:PN. However, it does fail WP:NFT. --Core desat 07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pubology[edit]

Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. Puellanivis 19:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT ::mikmt 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per above. --- Tito Pao 20:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's nonsense Trenwith 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom - Something college kids made up when imbibing too much. SkierRMH 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete, could it be speedied for A7? Trebor 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy delete for patent nonsense was already removed.[27] Someone anonymous (and thus potentially also the author himself) marked the page with a ((hangon)), and thus created a situation where a dispute of a Speedy Deletion would be contested. I certainly agree that it should be speedily deleted, but I don't see any proper criterion for doing so. --Puellanivis 21:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPEED

Y DELETE. The speedy delete tag ((db-nonsense)) was improperly removed by the article's creator; improper because no reason was given when ((hangon)) was added. Also, the article clearly violates the policy WP:OR, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought item 2, as well as the guideline WP:NFT. -Axlq 05:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The summary of the deletion of the ((db-nonsense)) section specifically stated that the article was not nonsense (as I am in agreement to). It is not patent nonsense, this should be patently clear. The content contains essentially no useful information, but that is only because it is not notable, and is OR. As per section stated above, the article does not meet any proper criteria for Speedy Deletion. If people could just settle down and wait about five days, then the article will be removed. Also, the edit removing the speedy delete was not by the author, but by User:Tonywalton, who returned it to a Proposal for Deletion, on the grounds that it was not nonsense (which it is not), but it did qualify as a neologism. In looking into the issue, I found that the article meets at least one criterion for AfD, and thus, I took steps to mark it for AfD. In the process of investigating what criterion it meets, I did consider Speedy Deletion, and found no criteria suitable to list it as a Speedy Delete. Patience is usually considered a virtue. --Puellanivis 09:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the tag was improperly removed by the author User:Darxer in this edit. That is the earliest edit showing removal of ((db-nonsense)) in the edit history. At that point, the article certainly looked like patent nonsense to me, and likely would have been speedily deleted if the author had complied with the instructions in the tag. =Axlq 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will accept that he did indeed remove the nonsense tag at the time in the edit that you indicated. The page how ever does not match either criterion of WP:PN: "Total nonsense - i.e. text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all." (The article very obviously does not match this criterion, as it is grammatical English.) "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." (The fact that we understand that this article is both OR and non-notable, this criterion is obviously not met, as many intelligent people are having no problem making sense of the article.) So, again, no the article does not match the criteria for patent nonsense; it does however match numerous AfD criteria which have been expressed above. Now, please can we stop arguing about what kind of delete this article deserves, and just work towards getting it deleted? On AfD criteria alone, we can have this removed. --Puellanivis 16:29, 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 keep, though there seems to be some support to revisit this at a later date. Luna Santin 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackiey Budden[edit]

She's a complete nobody. Other than being the mother of Jade Goody, a gameshow contestant, she is of little note. imho delete Jackiey_Budden and redirect it to the daughter.. AfD made by User:Trenwith.

Keep - The fact that she made national news suggests notability. ::mikmt 20:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Disagree' making the news for being on TV is hardly notable. Most past Big Brother contestants have their pages axed and linked to the series. Trenwith 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable – only famous through her daughter's fame. Possibly redirect and merge into Jade Goody. --Majorly 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And yet you created THIS article. Cheadle Hulme High School Triangle e 21:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's fabulous. Go and AfD it then, again, and look through all the other articles I started and see if any of them can be. What I created doesn't matter, so please don't mention it. --Majorly 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what you mean by "again". I didn't AfD it in the first place! I was highlighting the double standards that you have employed. I can't believe that we're giving wikipedia pages to a completely non-notable school! Triangle e 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mean it was nominated before. Go ahead and AfD it if you're so concerned, I don't care. --Majorly 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fame is not the same as notability". Merge and redirect to Jade Goody. Sam Blacketer 20:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I write in thinking that you wrote this article? Edwin Taylor. If so, I have no idea how you can make comments about Jackiey's notablity over some politician of absolutely little notablilty whatsoever. Triangle e 21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I politely encourage you to play the ball and not the man? Yes, I wrote about Edwin Taylor. He is notable as a Member of Parliament (all Members of Parliament are considered notable). The question I asked myself was whether Jackiey Budden has done something which makes her notable. She is not notable merely for being the mother of a notable person. She is not notable for her appearance in a television series. She is not notable for appearing in the newspapers quite often. I cannot find any reason why she is notable. If you can find one, then I will change my vote. Sam Blacketer 22:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Triangle E, please confine your comments to the article before us. This is verging on a violation of WP:POINT. Sam Blacketer is not required to answer to the notability of other articles, and you should not be deamnding that he do so. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A statement such as "all Members of Parliament are considered notable" is about as absurd as someone claiming that all Big Brother contestants are. Something that I would not advocate myself. However, in line with people such as Makosi, Nikki Grahame and Jon Tickle all having their own pages due to having done other stuff outside of the Big Brother house, Jackiey should ALSO have her own webpage for exactly the same reasons. Triangle e 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is absurd to say all MPs are notable, but it is Wikipedia policy: see Wikipedia:Notability (people) where it says that "members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" is included in the class of notable people. In any case it is irrelevant - see the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#What about article x? page! I would distinguish Jackiey Budden from the three examples you cite as they all have media careers developed independently after their appearance in Big Brother. Jackiey Budden has only a few scattered appearances on television before. If she becomes a more important personality, then we can reconsider, but based on what we know now, she is not notable for an entry in an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep She is notable in her own right. We have an article on Makosi, for example. Less of the intellectual snobbery, please. Triangle e 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Makosi has managed a (sort of) career in the media, though her article is far to large imho. It's not snobbery - if there was an article for everyone who had ever been on TV game shows, it would all get silly. I was on a TV quiz once, and had my pictures in a few papers because of being in quiz teams - I'm not notable though. btw- Triangle E - you seem to be the only one making a serious case for the article to stay- most of the Keep comments are yours. Trenwith 17:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1. Jackiey's media appearances are about as numerous and notable as Makosi's. 2. I am NOT advocating that every gameshow contestant should get their own wikipedia page, I am saying that THIS wikipedia page satisfies guidelines for notability. 3. The votes to keep this article are not predominantly mine - I made one vote to keep the article and the others were comments highlighting the ridiculous nature of the votes for deletion. 4. I wrote the original article way back when and have put a lot of effort into it - of course my case for it staying would be stronger than that of the others. Triangle e 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep It looks like she's been a contestant or notable guest on multiple reality shows. If she had only appeared on one show, I might suggest simply redirecting to that show. But as is we have someone that has appeared on multiple television series and no one article to place that information in. Maintaining this article seems to be the best way to preserve the information for anyone interested. Dugwiki 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree - the article suggests one game show, with most other TV appearances being on her daughter's series. Trenwith 17:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. Also, merging with Jade Goody is stupid since that article is about Jade Goody, not Jackiey Budden. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment shows you are not familiar with the subject. Jackiey is Jade's mother. Jade got famous on a UK Gameshow (Big Brother). Jackiey is sort-of known because of the daughter and because she too, was on the same game show. The vast majority of people who are on that game show had their articles deleted and redirected to Big Brother once they left, as apart from being on TV, they had achieved nothing of note. The same applies to Ms Budden. Trenwith 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although I am unable to speak for him personally, with all the edits that AnemoneProj has done to the Big Brother pages over the last few series, I can assure you that he is very familiar with the subkect matter. Since I have been following how wikipedia operates with regards to BB - the articles for each individual contestant were redirected to the BB page straight away and were only given their OWN pages if they did something notable outside the house - something that Jackiey has already done. Triangle e 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though the article is in poor shape (for instance, where's the autobiography she was promoting?), there is an arguable claim to notability. Subject is involved in a significant row involving Shilpa Shetty; it's not clear at this point whether this will turn out to be a nine-day wonder, or something with lasting ramifications. My WP:CRYSTALBALL is cloudy; until things become clearer, I would advocate keep, but revisit in a month. Eludium-q36 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- sensible suggestion Trenwith 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information could be merged into the Celebrity Big Brother 2007 article. If not, keep.--HisSpaceResearch 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild delete, possibly merge with either Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) or Jade Goody. According to WP:NN, "[n]otability is generally permanent", and I doubt the subject will be notable in her own right in a year's time. And Wikipedia is not a directory. Railwayman 15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK), the paragraph devoted to her there is already far more than she warrants. Would you expect to see this in an encyclopedia? I think not. It hardly seems appropriate for an encyclopedia to be perpetuating the cult of celebrity. She'll be forgotten in a month. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.177.81 (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep - I agree that this woman is a nobody and is quite possibly the most annoying person I've ever seen on TV. However, there are articles on a plethora of extremely obscure musical artists that very few people will ever have heard of, and they are not up for deletion. This woman has appeared on Big Brother and has instantly become known to several million people. That alone should be enough to warrant the inclusion of this article, not to mention the infamy she will gain from her part in the whole racism row. --Ukdan999 16:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She may have started out as just 'Jade's mum', but she has more recently developed minor celebrity status in her own right, which none of the other BB parents have. Witness an increasing number of TV and magazine appearances. She is also an interesting character, who could probably do with a fuller article than has so far been written. Ray Ellis 18:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think her involvement in her own right in reality TV shows leads to her notability. -- Roleplayer 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. Unfortunately her behaviour on Celebrity Big Brother has made her notable. Axl 20:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, increasingly infamous. --Turbothy 00:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is notable not only for her appearance on CBBUK5 but also because she provided entertainment that singled her out from the crowd - she is also involved in the racism debacle with Shilpa Shetty. Bigdaddyhame 00:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- disagree the above strengthens the cae to delete and redirect to the show's page. Only if she goes onto have a worthwhile career, as others have suggested, would this article be useful. Trenwith 13:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination William Avery 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK). She is only notable in the capacity of having been a contestant on that show, so a mention there should be enough. Jon Harald Søby 09:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to her daughter's page. I don't care if media brought up that she's a lesbian and only has one functioning arm, that doesn't make her notable. Mackan 10:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to her daughter's page. she hasn't met any notability criteria- people like jon tickle and nikki grahame have pages because they've gone on and done other work, presenting shows etc. jackiey has never done a day's work in her life, from what i can see. she's mildy famous at the moment- in a month or so it will pass. she does not warrant her own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.47.121 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 20 January 2007
Delete and redirect to her daughter's page. She hasn't met any notability criteria. Rgds, - Trident13 17:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect' the relevant bits with Jade Goody - Seems to me that she has just made various one-off appearances on television shows, which doesnt make her notable. Neither does her participation in Big Brother apparently. All BB contestants make many appearances on televison after the series ends, but they are not allowed pages merely for this reason so I don't see why Jackiey is any different.Gungadin 17:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I had heard of her more than some of the other contestants who have their own page. Plus she only has one arm. Astrotrain 11:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth has her number of arms have to do with her notability? Jon Harald Søby 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another contributor to this debate that has not read the article? She has one functioning arm, but both arms are still attached to her body. Trenwith 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, BUT do not delete. She is now definately more popular(or infamous)than many other BB contestants. Preetikapoor0 04:16, 22 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gods of all Media[edit]

This article is about a high school gaming club which makes no assertion of it's notability. Specifically, I cannot imagine anyone not involved or a friend of someone involved being interested in reading the article. No offense intended. I tried to create the same kind of multi-school group back when I was in high school, but it's still not encyclopedic. Habap 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be verifiably proven (through the use of reliable, third party sources) that this 2006-created gaming clan has some claim to notability (i.e. shooting to the top of the Counter-Strike tournament circuit), then they stand a chance. However, when a Googling for "Gods of all Media" returns 9 total hits, I think deletion as non-notable is appropriate at this point in time. -- saberwyn 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May possibly be a recreation. Gods of All Media was deleted on 12 October 2006 by Lucky 6.9 [28]. No opinion on the deletion nomination. Agent 86 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would ike to point out that numerous other articles exist in Wikipedia that show little if any more visibility than Gods of all Media. (ex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmara%2C_Bal%C4%B1kesir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keratin_17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olopa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilam%2C_Nepal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takao_Kisugi ) I'm saying that it is impossible to point out where a topic becomes notable. Shouldn't just having an active forum with members all across the USA as well as in Canada in addition to a large school organization that spreads across two schools be considered notable? One also couldn't predict that Bill Gates would be as famous as he is today 30 years ago. I just want the members of Wikipedia to give Gods of all Media a chance. If Gods of all Media isn't any more recognized in a year, I would be happy to personally submit the article for deletion. --User:Flashstar 00:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not here to accumulate coal in the hope that they'll become diamonds. Call us when your school club is a diamond, then we'll talk. Otherwise, I might as well have an article on the basis that I'd probably become the President of the United States. Furthermore, please stop using "What about X???" arguments.' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another clan. JuJube 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons". If it's true that it's hard to draw comparisons. How could one compare Gods of all Media to any other club/ clan? By the way, isn't even coal listed on Wikipedia?--Flashstar 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really understanding your point. You do realize my use of a metaphor? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 04:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One man's trash is another man's treasure. Knowledge shouldn't be veiled. Isn't that one of the main goals of Wikipedia? To provide a medium through which anyone can contribute his or her ideas. Is Gods of all Media not a valid idea?--Flashstar 06:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. No. No. And no. We are here to record verifiable and notable information. We are not here for your school club or whatever ideas you deem clever to get attention on the Internet. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 09:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia shouldn't be responsible for deciding which knowledge in the world is notable and which isn't. --Flashstar 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. We decide what information is verifiable through the use of external sources. If the information hasn't been printed by somebody else (prefereably somebody with a fact-checking sysytem in place; like a newspaper or magazine), nobody can prove that the information in the article is correct, let alone important. -- saberwyn 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can just check the website to verify that it's there! How could it not be correct? As for importance, what you think is important depends on who your preferences.--Flashstar 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on verifiability requires that the source be a "third party":

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

So, unless someone else has written a book or article, or written about GOAM on their website, there is no reliable source for your information. Encyclopedias rely on the verifiability of information. --Habap 13:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GOAM is not dependent upon the listed schools, if that's what you meant by "non-notable." GOAM is an independently functional organization that only utilizes the priviliges provided by the schools to help further publicize itself. Once they have accomplished their goals with the schools, they will no longer have any use for them and will discard all remaining business with them. You see, GOAM has a very strong will and motivation to become something much greater and renowned than simply a club or clan, I speak of it as an organization because, essentially, that is what it is. It involves people from various parts of the globe, which I'm sure is not much of a surprise as an online clan, and various people of all ages, both genders, and all ethnicities. I don't say that GOAM will "probably" become something greater, I say that it will. Because of their driving motivation and progress, I am assured, and you should be as well, that GOAM will become a larger, much more renowned organization. The only Leny 02:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has nothing to do with how the group is funded or supported. Ask yourself, "Would anyone who is not involved in GOAM search Wikipedia for the information?" See the guideline Wikipedia:Notability to find out more. To quote:

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic.

Please just point us to the multiple, non-trivial published works that discuss GOAM and we'll agree that it is notable. --Habap 13:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources? Anywhere? --- RockMFR 00:52, 24 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 with iPod. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Universal Dock[edit]

Delete Advertising plain and simple. What next, a whole article on iPod socks??? Oh. AlistairMcMillan 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or smerge/redirect to iPod. Seraphimblade 20:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with iPod - this item is an accessory to the iPod. Big top 20:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Already has a brief mention in iPod and doesn't really need/deserve its own article. Trebor 20:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge - Half user manual, 40% advertising. Keep the 10% of useful information, put it in the iPod article and lose the rest. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Too small to deserve its own article. 142.151.133.170 08:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with iPod. Noticket 22:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with iPod then redirect Madmedea 13:37, 24 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA Skate Camp[edit]

Yet another non-notable, non-encyclopedic summer camp. Nothing distinguishes it from any other summer camp. Previously ((prod))ed, but prod was removed without any encyclopedic content being added. Also unverified and unsourced. Agent 86 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, unless it can be verified to meet Wikipedia:Notability RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if verifiable (through the use of reliable, third party sources), I doubt that this camp can distinguish itself from the thousands of summer camps scattered across the Continental United States, not to mention those in other countries. -- saberwyn 22:06, 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. DS 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Movie (Music from the Motion Picture)[edit]

Unsourced. Google doesn't come up with nothing. IMDb has no info on the soundtrack. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only sure fact that Danny Elfman will be involved (because of composing the main theme). The rest is hugely hoax-like. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The movie isn't even out yet, right? I doubt that unsourced soundtrack information for an unreleased movie can be anything but crystalballing. If there is some evidence to the contrary, I will reconsider. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia isn't a Crystal Ball; possible hoax - no sources, and the movie is expected out in around half a year...I doubt the soundtrack will consist of a full twenty-five tracks yet. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal balling, with no reservation about re-creating the material when its verified, and minimal reservation about recreating it as an individual article. -- saberwyn 22:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Protect - Per WP:CSD #4: recreation of recently deleted material. Just another step in an ongoing vandalism effort via sockpuppets. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:18, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub genu[edit]

The article begins: "Sub Genu is a norwegian martial art, started by Stig Brattfjord and Carl Mollen in Oslo, december 2006." Was ((prod))'d by me, untagged. Appears not to be setting the world on fire: zero gnews hits for "sub genu", zero ghits for "sub genu" + sport. Thus WP:N], WP:V and WP:COI concerns, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is not for things made up in the dojo one day. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with All Manner of Haste and Fortitute Herin Prescribed - I'm not completely sure, but I think this techincally falls under WP:CSD #11. (Advertising) At the very least it's a form of self-promotion, definitely not notable. They can recreate it when CNN does a story on it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or since it apparently means "below knees" redirect to tibia. Maybe not) Tonywalton | Talk 22:57, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badges of the Royal Australian Navy[edit]

Nominating this for deletion as it is a gallery of fair-use images, which may not be covered by Royal Australian Navy copyright or the ((symbol)) image tag use to justify most of the images in this article. There is little chance of expanding many of these out with encyclopedic commentary, as these images are being used to represent the ships and divisions; the crests themselves are not the subject of this article.

The main reason I can see for keeping this is so that we have access to all the crests, but I believe that such a taks is better handled by the navy itself. Also, I have spent the past few weeks adding these images to the articles on the various ships/organisations (or to the appropriate disambiguation page if such articles do not exist: see HMAS Bunbury). I will state that not all images have found a home elsewhere, as I cannot find an appropriate location for some in the "Commands", "Force Element Groups" and "Other Badges" sections. For organisational purposes, I set up a visual category at Category:Royal Australian Navy badges. -- saberwyn 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If these images are fair use images, you can not show them in the Category:Royal Australian Navy badges but you can have a category that does not show them. I think that is the best solution and delete the article. --Bduke 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the category so the images are listed, not in a gallery. --Bduke 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- saberwyn 23:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- -- saberwyn 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of military affairs-related deletions. -- -- saberwyn 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - gallery of FU images; no content. --Peta 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is some content, the article is mainly a collection of badges. Capitalistroadster 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 14:29, 22 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. TigerShark 20:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer's Mirror[edit]

Unverifiable [29]. So to say. Tizio 22:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I have added Lucifer’s Mirror to this nomination as the same material under a different title: the apostrophes are done differently. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and if necessary create an article about the story Appears to be a description of something from a story of the same name (Lucifer’s Mirror, the novel by J.J. San Martín. ISBN 142510191). I don't know anything about this work of fiction, but if it is notable enough for its own Wiki article then I'd suggest doing that instead and merging this article's information into it. Either way, the nominated article should be deleted. Dugwiki 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears the ISBN is missing a number. However, a google search found this: Barbelo's blood though. --maclean 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like WP:BOLLOCKS and patent nonsense. The article would seem to suggest that the stuff in the article is true. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UNSURE- came across this article searching alternative creation myths and it was very useful. The latter half was useful. While I agree the upper half of the article is perhaps far fetched I would consider revision rather than deletion. User: Sally Lydon
Delete. The source of the article is a novel... If someone wants to rewrite the article as an article about the novel, fine, but best to start over from scratch. Herostratus 17:04, 24 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. ST47Talk 11:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zygo, Zygo Energy Vodka[edit]

Note; there are two separate articles being nominated:

Zygo - and - Zygo Energy Vodka SkierRMH 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

del Nonnotable brand of vodka. Only 100 unique google hits. No independent references. `'mikka 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I didn't get it. It exists. What makes a vodka more notable. Consumption? Alcohol volume? The extent of negative effects on human brain? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the external coverage of, for example, Skyy vodka with the external coverage of Zygo. I have no opinion as of now, but the whole third-party coverage thing would certainly be helpful. GassyGuy 00:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, independent refs are easy to find on Google. Here's two links that offer decent coverage: [30] [31] It however seems to be one product and thus the articles should be merged. hateless 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but merge the product into the company article) I'm satisfied there is plenty of external coverage of this brand, for example: The New York Times, the Boston Phoenix, and over 9,600 Google hits. Plus, the nominator does not appear to have listed any rationale or reason for deletion. --Canley 08:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to the nominator, I thought your deletion rationale was one of the suggestions. There's no need to put "delete" in the reasoning, it's kind of assumed that is your suggestion. --Canley 05:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge per Canley. Obviously notable and verifiable. Could certainly use cleanup, but why would we delete this? schi ^talk 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you are going to keep each and every brand of candies, bagels, pizzas, toys, then what the heck, keep it. Still, IMO it is garbage. `'mikka 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two, and rewrite to avoid the wording that makes it borderline advertising. Radagast83 22:40, 20 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Ridge High School[edit]

School does not yet exist; it will be opened later this year. Article is basically an "Under construction" type page. When there is something to say about the school, then the article can be recreated. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is an Under expansion template for the purpose, but in this case it is impossible to tell anything notable (!) about a non-existing building. If it gets opened it still doesn't necessarely has to automaticly get a place in Wiki. Get notable first. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, and the article reads like an advertisement. Metrackle 22:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet's at wait for the school to open before writing articles, alternatively, merge salvageable content to the community's article per WP:LOCAL.-- danntm ^T _C 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allegany County, Maryland for now, the article can be expanded later. RFerreira 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allegany County, Maryland. bbx 10:19, 21 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPG Unit[edit]

Highly non-notable. No singles, no albums to stand their own article. It is most unlikely they will ever regroup again. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They formed a collective for a one time occasion (one song). The chance is minimal to get them in one studio once again (they recorded songs on tour together, but this will probably not happen in the foreseeable future). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - would even support a speedy. Completely fails WP:N and WP:V... Addhoc 18:14, 22 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. --Core desat 07:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andras M. Nagy[edit]

Article written by the subject himself as the user page for Andrasnm attests. Obviously, a serious conflict of interest. Beyond that, there is nothing notable here. The books are published by "Murine Press" which is owned by Andras M. Nagy [32]. The books have no sales rank at amazon.com. IrishGuy ^talk 22:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BozMo talk 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of independent coverage of this person. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination (WP:COI, non-notable). S .D. ¿п? § 23:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - speedy per ((db-bio)) and conflict of interest. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if everyone on Wiki must be a famous person (and already dead) then by all means, delete my entry. My books, however DO have a sales rank and I publish my own works and others (reprint editions). Is it the policy of Wiki to have someone else write this? and does it assure anything? is this a reason for deleting? How do you know that I will not get independent coverage soon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrasnm talk • contribs) 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, it is a reason for deleting. It doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion. As to what may happen in the future, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. IrishGuy ^talk 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to be dead, though I'm told it can help in certain fields. What is required is independent coverage by multiple reliable sources, to ensure verifiability and neutrality. Without independent coverage it's just a list of books. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy that indirectly addresses this is neutral point of view. It is nearly impossible to be neutral about oneself. The autobiography guideline is more specific, saying You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. Indeed, for these reasons it is preferable that the article is deleted and if notability can be established to fullfill the guidelines, recreated by a neutral editor. You are encouraged to contribute to articles that you do not have such direct ties or to suggest changes on the talk pages of articles where there is a conflict of interest. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy unless verifiable proof of meeting the relevant section of WP:BIO is shown. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:AUTO and WP:COI. I think we would need third-party printed sources commenting on the value of his work in order to justify keeping the article. It would also need to be rewritten for neutrality by someone other than the author. EdJohnston 03:52, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamips[edit]

The majority of this article consists of a "how to" guide. Not noteworthy/encyclopedic. fraggle 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a user's manual. Soltak | Talk 00:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks (Computer software bookshelf section). -- MarcoTolo 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 18:22, 22 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Charboneau[edit]

Appears to be non-notable, as his only claim to fame is being in a band who appear to be non-notable. J Milburn 22:52, 16 January (*2007 (UTC)

Comment:Sorry, the band DOES appear to be notable, but that does not automatically make its members so. This drummer does not seem to be notable to me. J Milburn 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I was originally right, there are two bands named 'Void'. J Milburn 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article self-describes the band as a semi-popular and having no hit songs. Notability is not conferred to the drummer simply by virture of his being a member of such a band. Soltak | Talk

Comment: In addition, this article fails WP:NMG. Soltak | Talk 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Soltak (non-notable) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Void (band). Newyorkbrad 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Isn't this a different band? Void (band) says that band was formed in 1979 and disbanded in 1983. Bret Charboneau was apparently born in 1988 and his band formed in 1999. It's not clear if there is some connection between the two Voids (boy does that sound metaphysical).--Kubigula (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You appear to be right about that.... Newyorkbrad 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither he nor this Void band appear to meet WP:NMG--Kubigula (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kubigula. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 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. --Core desat 07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cruis'n Games by genre[edit]

Nonsensical article; no distinctions in genre are made, nor do they exist (all are racing games, so the title is useless even as a redirect). All information covered in greater detail at Cruis'n and subpages. Unint 22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Horrible rewrite of an already existing article. Whoever wrote this didn't even get his/her facts straight. Every Cruis'n game developed by Sega but licensed by Nintendo? Sega had absolutely nothing to do with that series. Metrackle 23:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Unint. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article contains redundant information and its title is incorrect. Mitaphane _talk 06:31, 20 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. --Core desat 07:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conformed to love[edit]

I find it hard to believe that even unknown, non-iconic songs merit their own articles. Furthermore, this song was not released on an album and seems only to be circulating around the murky reaches of the internet. Only about 7,000 google hits, many are myspace pages or wikipedia mirrors. No evidence that this song is particularly notable; nothing about the song, even its existence, can be comfortably verified per wikipedia policy at this time. PLEASE do not !vote keep just because you are pretty sure the song exists, or because you looooove Lauryn Hill - provide some kind of verifiable source! Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could have prodded this but I assumed there would be some argument.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Soltak | Talk 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a rule, unreleased songs are not notable. GassyGuy 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album it's on, or if it's not on an album, then delete. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. ShadowHalo 10:59, 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nineties Poets of Jordan[edit]

No sources qualifies as original research, no indication that this distinction is apparent to anyone other than the author of this page Daniel J. Leivick 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Farside6 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 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 as nn-band. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravel Bath[edit]

seems to fail on notability Lars T. 23:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Soltak | Talk 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMG -- MarcoTolo 00:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 06:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COI. Metrackle 09:00, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarathi International[edit]

doesn't meet WP:CORP, appear to be intended to promote the company, their products, and their website. A Ramachandran 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with All Manner of Haste and Fortitude Herin Prescribed - Fails CSD #11 as far as I'm concerned, and beyond that fails WP:N hard. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I prodded this article in Oct 2006 and changed my mind then because of export awards + brand recognition. (I don't know why the occasional editor User:Singhyuk later removed the mention of export awards from the article.) It's a traditional manufacturing business and there's not much non-advertising internet coverage, although for example there is 1-line verification of a recent award[33]. What do others think? --Mereda 08:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per WP:CORP Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 11:01, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington Mall (Canada)[edit]

Originally tagged with ((prod)) as "nn mall; fails WP:CORP; wikipedia is not a directory". Prod tag removed without explanation or addition of encyclopedic content. Those same reasons for deletion still apply. Agent 86 23:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- MarcoTolo 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no indication that this passes WP:CORP. So tagged. Seraphimblade 02:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the tag. I don't have an opinion either way on the merit of the article, but if there's already an AfD up, just let it run its course — speedy deletions are best when there's no debate whatsoever on whether an article belongs, and somebody must've thought enough of it to remove the prod. If it's deletion material, it'll get there just as well through AfD. Tijuana Brass 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least as notable as Mahon Point and several other such centres. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is fairly notable. It's Wikipedia's job to have articles for people to find out information on things. FellowWikipedian 00:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this mall notable, other than your assurance it is? How does the article comply with the content policies and guidelines and meet "Wikipedia's job"? How does the existence of another article on a non-encyclopedic topic show that this article is or is not encyclopedic? Agent 86 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can somebody make a good ARTICLE without it being DELETED, by you guys?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.146.24 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete It's your typical mall, nothing special or noteworthy enough to deserve mention in an encyclopedia of this scale. I also agree with the nomination. James Duggan 07:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How are large, two-story malls not notable? How are they any less notable than train stations or our 1,000,000th article? RFerreira 21:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's put your rhetorical questions the correct-way around: how is this two-story mall notable? How is it as notable, or moreso, than other articles? How does comparing this article to others prove anything? Agent 86 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't a rhetorical question, but thanks for dodging it anyhow. RFerreira 10:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable to the local community as an important social arena. bbx 10:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Zanta can stay ... this mall can, its got about equal importance to canada. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Invalid reason to keep, WP:INN. Seraphimblade 10:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wrong, WP:INN has no foundation in policy, nor is it even a guideline. Its just an essay written by an extremely small handful of people. Bobix makes a reasonable argument to keep, which is backed up by a LexisNexis search which shows 76 articles written about this mall in the last two years alone. RFerreira 10:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment First, I was responding to Alkivar, so Bobix has little to do with it. As to sources-great, if there are some nontrivial mentions, add away, and I'll happily consider changing my position! However, in my experience, most of the time these "tons of sources" regarding malls are reprinted press releases, construction timetables, or reports about events which happened or are slated to happen at the mall-trivial mentions. As to WP:INN, it most certainly has a foundation in the notability guidelines. Why? Because WP:N says one and only one thing satisfies notability-and "something else like it is here" is not that thing. It would be entirely possible for one large mall to meet the notability standards and another to fail to do so, even if they're generally relatively similar. Of course, if someone has found multiple non-trivial reliable source mentions, they should be added to the article at once, so we can settle this whole thing! Seraphimblade 10:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Several things. First, WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. Second, there are multiple "non-trivial" articles about this mall; feel free to verify this for yourself on LexisNexis if you would like. Then again, non-trivial is a subjective term, but I hold the position that a good portion of these are indeed notable and non-passing mentions of the mall. Third, Alkivar's point is valid; if we are to cover a minor Canadian street performer, I would expect an equal amount of interest in a neighboring mall — this interest is confirmed by the 76 odd articles about the mall. Feel free to disagree. RFerreira 11:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In practice, WP:N is very widely followed, even to the point of being an integral part of the speedy deletion policy, so the "it's just a guideline" bit holds little water. I see four articles cited within the article, not seventy-six. One of those is about UPS, one of those is about produce, and two of them are about controversy over older drivers. I presume they mention the mall somehow, but from their titles, they certainly are not about the mall. I don't currently have Lexis-Nexis access, but I'm able to find plenty of stories just on Google News. Unfortunately, they're the exact types of stories I discussed previously-they're not about the mall. They're about events in or near the mall, and just mention it in passing as the place where something happened or will happen. Trivial mentions, certainly nothing a comprehensive article could be written from. Seraphimblade 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that you have never even read the source articles in question, the closing administrator may safely disregard your illinformed commentary. The third-party sources which have been cited thus far are perfectly relevant. The first compares the differences in size between the UPS headquarters and the Burlington Mall, and serves as a reference for the square footage of the mall; make a note of the context in which the cite is used. The second is a reference about the Burlington Mall Farmers' Market, and the last two are about a death that occured at the mall. More will be added as time permits, as there are plenty to choose from. RFerreira 04:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I've not read them, granted, but they're exactly what I figured they'd be. One is a single fact about that mall (and that one could easily enough be verified through primary sources). That's hardly enough to write a paragraph, let alone an article, and is a trivial "mention in passing". The second is about a store at the mall, not about the mall itself-the mall is simply "where it is", a mention in passing. Finally, the third is about an event at the mall-the article is primarily about the death, the mall is just where it "happened to happen". Again, a trivial mention. What kind of article is possible from these sources? "Burlington Mall is X square feet large, it has a farmer's market, and someone died there once?" Seraphimblade 04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Excuse me if I find it notable that this mall was once the largest business center in the metro area, according to one of these so-called "trivial" sources you've never laid eyes on. ;-) RFerreira 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The polar opposite of speedy deletion material. Not only is this a decent article as-is, the Burlington Mall was the largest business site within the entire Halton Region throughout the 1960s up until the mid 1990s. Silensor 12:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prominent and verifiable. - SimonP 18:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RFerreira, notable to the community it serves, verifiable through multiple third party sources. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor, etc. --Myles Long 05:34, 22 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, article contains no assertion of encyclopedic notability ~ trialsanderrors 08:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Sackett[edit]

AfD nominated by 152.3.76.161 with reason: "Evan Sackett often adds that he is a fan of this film (Poor Little Rich Girl) and makes short films himself, which is irrelevant and spamming. I have deleted these statements (though he reinstates them), and have recommended his own personal Wikipedia page (which he created himself and edits) for deletion." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 21:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite unorthodox nomination. He is not notable by any stretch of policy, his books are self-published, and the text of the article is self-aggrandizing and unsourced.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the page was created by the subject, and his user page redirects to this article.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper references and cites are included by end of this AfD, a little de-spamming would not hurt either Alf photoman 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This afd has been blanked twice by an anon IP who seems to be engaging in complex vandalism of Sackett-related pages, and claims to be Sackett on a related talk page. I left a notice on WP:ANI.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:C. Evan Sackett is just one of a number of users (3 at my count) claiming to be Evan Sackett, and all three users have been creating AND vandalising articles about or related to him. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Naconkantari 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, while full of puffery, makes no claim of notabilty. Pete.Hurd 07:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D): All of the above.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Pure self-promotion. Gan fon 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI am David, the author of this page. Evan Sackett IS NOT the author of this page. Yes, my screename is User:Evan Sackett. This is because I was trying to make the page and I incorrectly labeled it. If feel Mr. Sackett deserves this page. He is currently being published and I worked hard on this page. I shouldn't have added the material I did to Andy Warhol's page, even though it was true. There is a strange occurance happening with me. There is another user claiming to be Evan Sackett and all this. It's a mess we're getting straightened out. But give me time to work on this article. I'll fix it, please don't delete it. Review article I have severely edited my article. I have removed all of what you call "spam". I hope it suits you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.251.89 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visual Circle (talk • contribs)

Delete Per all above. Note also that the abusive IP that Dmz5 referred to and reported was used by "David," the "author" of the Evan Sackett page and of the nomination above. The above comment was then added to by the user Visual Circle (check the logs). Something fishy is going on. Rockstar915 02:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Info: Please Observe My user account is C. Evan Sackett. I am Evan sAckett, NOT DAVID. His account is under Evan Sackett (I don't know why he did that) but my account is C. Evan sAckett. I don't know David personally, but he wrote me an e-mail. I am a member of Wikopeida, and he didn't know. I sent him some references which he added to my boigraphy page. I hope this will help. If not, I will stay out of this matter. I am not interested in self-promotion. 02:14 15 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Evan Sackett (talk • contribs)
Comment The page was created by C. Evan Sackett. CiaranG 20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apart from Evan Sackett's Visual Circle's own website, the two other references are a) the Knoxville News-Sentinal and b) Authorhouse Publishing. The Knoxville News-Sentinal yields no results to a search of Evan Sackett, and Authorhouse Publishing is a self-publshing website. No suitable other references are given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rockstar915 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete - this is (some witty Elaragirl (talk · contribs) descriptor) ... nonsense, and non-notable as well as containing no reliable sources. Tagged with "db-bio". Yuser31415 05:58, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Consider giving the page some time to improve (or attempting to improve it yourself) before reconsidering this decision -- that's my recommendation based on this discussion, anyway. Luna Santin 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Thomas[edit]

Subject is not notable. He does not meet the criteria of notability for Wikipedia. The two sentences which claim notoriety are unsourced. Netuser500 15:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He appears to be notable in his field (that field being conspiracy theorists). You may (or may not) consider him to be a nut-job, but that doesn't make him non-notable. Important nut-jobs are notable. He gets 43,000 google hits [34], which for some things isn't much but for a conspiracy theorist seems like a lot. A lot of those hits are on Amazon and such advertising his book and his magazine; but some like this [35] are interviews that he's given on various topics. The article is unsourced and that needs to be fixed, but just a cusory google search leads me to think he is notable and should be kept. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Notability (people) page states "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." If anyone finds awards for or multiple independent reviews of his work, I'll change my mind. (Netuser500)

KEEP: He has written several books from several publishers, none of which are vanity presses, contributed to books by other authors, publishes a magazine, writes for other magazines (including Fortean Times), makes occasional appearances on AM and Internet radio as well as broadcast television, and lectures both in the United States and Europe on a frequent basis -- and he is not a "nut-job" (whatever that phrase may mean to you), but a serious, sober researcher. -- Davidkevin 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for notable is whether there are things published about him, not whether he has published his own works. I've quoted the criteria for authors in my remark above. Serious researchers usually have PhDs and experience as hired researchers at one or more universities. There are more than 1.4 million Google hits for "Anthony French" who is a notable professor. Mr. Thomas does not seem to me to meet any criteria of notable. BTW, I don't believe you should have removed my earlier signature from this page. Netuser500 20:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I did that, it was an accident, and I offer an apology.

Check the bibliography at the bottom of the article: none of the books therein were published by him, they were published by other people who paid him for the works -- again, these are not vanity press books.

Mr. Thomas has professional research qualifications through his "day job" as an archivist at the Western Historical Manuscripts Collection in the Thomas Jefferson Library at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, which I mention only to show those qualifications, with no endorsement by the university of his opinions or conclusions implied.

Without meaning to get overly personal, I have to confess that I wonder if this possibly has to do with you're not personally being familiar with Mr. Thomas' work? I've never heard of Anthony French, but I wouldn't make a similar claim for that reason as I don't know everything or everybody in every field. However, I do know that in his field, Mr. Thomas is regarded as a rigorous scholar.

As far as "notable", while it isn't academic, he has been a guest on the nationally-syndicated Art Bell radio program at least twice that I'm personally aware, as well as on nationally-cablecast television and smaller-market radio programs. He writes regularly for the Fortean Times, an internationally-published magazine about which there is a Wikipedia article, and lectures across the United States and in Europe. How much more of a public presence do you require of him?

-- Davidkevin 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, one of the primary notability requirements is that the subject of the article have things written about him. His books were written by him, not about him. Obviously you are familiar with him and his work. Can you point us to anything written about him? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving

I haven't done any particular searches on what other people think or say about him -- I never knew it was a requirement in order to write or edit an article about a person who is prominent in his field, even if that field tends to be beneath the notice of the mainstream press. I'll get to doing something like that presently. -- Davidkevin 09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what I wrote is ambiguous. I am not accusing Mr. Thomas of using a vanity press. I am saying that to be notable, other people must have written about him. How many biographies of Mr. Thomas are available at your local library? A separate criterion for notability is the winning of awards for his works. Another is multiple independent reviews of his works. He fails all of these criteria. As for "professional research qualifications," he is not a professor who performs research for his university. He is an archivist, and his job has nothing whatsoever to do with the topics in his published work.

Here's another official criterion "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included." Anthony French meets this one. Mr. Thomas does not. Netuser500 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability established from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davidkevin, but clean up should be included. DrWho42 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But can you find any criteria at the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page which Davidkevin has addressed? Although that page lists several criteria, any one of which is sufficient to be "notable," Davidkevin cannot name one which Kenn Thomas meets. To the best of my understanding notable is supposed to be objective, and not just one individual saying the subject seems to be important. As a matter of fact, that seems to be an example in the guidelines of an invalid reason to keep an article. Have you noticed that Davidkevin has not addressed ONUnicorn's question? Netuser500 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse Me For Having A Life. I don't spend all my time on Wikipedia or in research for it, so I hadn't answered his question of me until now -- I remind you of WP:NPA. -- Davidkevin 09:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a personal attack. It was simply a statement of fact. When one side leaves a debate, it could be because they've run out of things to say. Netuser500 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no one has provided an argument that meets the notability standards (Wikipedia:Notability (people)), let alone with evidence from reliable sources. Netuser500 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that somewhere in the rules there's one against voting twice on the same issue (this and your initial vote at the top). Even if there isn't, it's certainly a tacky thing to do. I respectfully request that you please play fair. -- Davidkevin 09:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm new at this, and I was afraid that initiating the AfD might not count as voting, so I wanted to make a formal vote. I do believe there is a rule against vanity pages, which is what this one looks like to me. Netuser500 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEUTRAL A couple of short New York Times articles directly address Kenn as a notable person. The first article is directly about him and his work:

Section 6; Page 19 (256 words) SUNDAY, JUNE 4, 1995; CONSPIRACIES: Not All the Same Nuts

. . . Some folks on the political margins are feeling more maligned than usual these days. "When people talk about conspiracy theorists since Oklahoma City, they're talking about these militia types," says Kenn Thomas, editor and publisher of Steamshovel Press, a small St. Louis magazine. But there are many kinds of political paranoia. "We may all be nuts," Thomas says, "but we're not all the same nuts."

Thomas thinks of himself as part of the "marginals press," which includes a variety of small magazines and publishers with names like Paranoia and Feral House. He says he is "uniquely tolerant of the gun-toting right," and will publish "the rant" of one of the two Michigan Militia leaders who suggested that the Japanese could be responsible for the Oklahoma bombing. But he himself is nonviolent. . . .

Section 6; Page 36; (207 words) SUNDAY, September 11, 1994; Who Killed the Calendar?

. . . . The calendar comes from Thomas's Steam shovel Press, a magazine devoted to making people aware of conspiracies and secret truths of all sorts, including those involving U.F.O.s, the AIDS virus as an escaped weapon of biological warfare, the Shroud of Turin, the eerie similarity of Jesus and Dracula and the role of immortal bloodsuckers through history. . . .

Kenn may be "small 'n' " notable, but you should consider these cites. I haven't tried to look in other magazines and journals, so this probably isn't a comprehensive list of cites. -- Quartermaster 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete I'm on the edge on this one... Apearing on coast to coast, bylines and books are nice, but I don't see much out there to base an article on - and thats why WP:BIO and other notability guidlines exist. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources and fails WP:BIO. --Aude (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable in his field of interest. ^^James^^ 23:53, 22 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.