< January 18	January 20 >

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

The result was Speedy keep as it was nominated by banned user. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar Romeo[edit]

non notable pro wrestler Jinglebellsjingle 05:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, according to the article is a two time WWC Junior Heavyweight Championship. Mathmo ^Talk 08:41, 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 speedy keep as it was nominated by a banned user. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 09:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livewire (pro-wrestler)[edit]

non notable pro wrestler Jinglebellsjingle 05:36, 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 per A7 TSO1D 03:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO. Almost certainly autobiographical. I have removed problematic unsourced info (details about mental illness, drug use, the "love of his life") several times and it just reappears. Same deal with the "autobiography" tag. The author/subject also removed a "speedy delete" tag placed by another editor at least once. The subject is an actor/artist of some sort, but other than a reference to a community theatre-type group, there are no details. Says he was mentioned once in "Wired." Even if it says, I think the personal info will have to go. janejellyroll 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Wasman[edit]

I am in the middle of trying to update the Wiki. I am using certain tags, references, and fillers until the data can be fully parsed and formatted. Historical references, reference links, and more WILL be provided in due time. As for removing 'speedy delete' tags, I have been in the process of pasting the article from a text file where I am formatting it so I haven't seen any tags as I have done a 'select all' from my menu and pasted in from the text file. Not sure why this is an issue. There are many Bios out there with less information than this one. Does no one here allow for time to collect data?therealduckie

Delete The issue is not the amount of information but the notability of the subject. The subject of this article is clearly not notable. Further, from the caption on the only photo included in the article, it can be inferred that the above user is the subject of the article in question. Therefore, this is not only a non-notable bio, but also a vanity article. It should be speedy deleted and protected from ever being recreated in the future. Further, in response to the poster's last comment, enough data to adhere to Wikipedia standards should be collected prior to article creation. Soltak | Talk 00:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI and WP:BIO problems. The Wired article doesn't count; David wasn't the primary subject of that article, he just had a few quotes. - Jhinman 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As much as I appreciate your candor due to the recent issues with Wikipedia's standards, not everyone is Paris Hilton and has a plethora of online data. Some of this data must be created, scanned, researched, and verified. That being said, the fact there there are numerous other bios that exist on Wikipedia which have little to no information, yet are not classified for deletion, leads me to believe this issue is less about merit and more about control. I, personally, would have no issues presenting any and all relevant data in any form necessary, but as with all issues regarding Wikipedia, it was better for this article to be created by those in the know than by an outside source who would seek to villify the content and individual. therealduckie

Speedy Delete No information as to notability, you would think that that information would be the first thing added to the article. Not everyone gets their own wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a webhosting service. WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, take your pick, this page does not warrant existence. - Ocatecir 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Conflict of interest also often lends itself to crummy articles. Let someone else decide if you are notable enough--if no one else has decided that, that might be saying something like some non-notable person posting his CV on Wikipedia in the guise of an "article." Please don't use Wikipedia as your word processor. KP Botany 00:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, Wikipedia does not allow the posting of data you have created. See WP:NOR KP Botany 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this not count as notable? David Wasman's IMDB page - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0913609/therealduckie

Comment Being on the IMDb is not a measure of notability. Being the primary subject of more than one non-trivial article written by third parties which are completely and totally unrelated to the subject constitutes notability. --Charlene 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all, that IMDB entry can't even be considered reliable because it lists projects that happened before the subject was even born and secondly, like Charlene said, no. - Ocatecir 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate guys have a job to do(and apparently a busy one), that's fine...I thought this Bio was noteworthy and of some general significance. All it would take is a simple Google search and you would see the number of relevant articles, which I had intended to include, about this individual. Right now, after spending 2 hours editting code, gathering info, and trying to format it appropriately...I am too tired to fight about it. Do what you want, but again--I think the subject has merit. And the date of that last entry on IMDb is wrong. Most of the actors in that production were born in early 1900. It would seem there was another David Wasman prior to the one in this article.therealduckie

Comment Thanks. That means it can simply be speedy deleted, as the author has withdrawn his protest of the speedy deletion. KP Botany 02:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as of now. Could be later in life, but not now. Gan fon 01:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notibility. Gives useless facts like 'interests' and 'awards' that look like high school level awards. Doesn't even say who or what this person is supposidly noteable for.--155.144.251.120 01:50, 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 redirect to The Last Dragonlord. If knowledge about the actual use of the terminology in the book is known by readers, then RFD may be an option.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weredragon[edit]

The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The article is about the type/race/species of the protagonist of the novel The Last Dragonlord, but gives only a basic definition. No information is provided about the characteristics of "weredragons" (as presented in the book) or about other characters who may be such. Moreover, there is a conflict with the article for The Last Dragonlord, according to which the correct name is "dragonlord" rather than "weredragon". Black Falcon 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article should be merged into the correct place and if not, then deleted. Tellyaddict 17:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fancruft Soltak | Talk 00:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the book actually uses the term (can someone check a copy?), then merge and redirect to The Last Dragonlord. If it turns out to be used elesewhere in fiction, we can disambiguate later. ~~If the term turns out not to be used in the novel, delete instead.~~ Serpent's Choice 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, now that I look at it: the title of the book suggests that the correct name is "dragonlord" and not "weredragon". However, as I am unfamiliar with the novel (and do not possess a copy), I can't say whether the term "weredragon" is used in it. Black Falcon 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Was able to look over a copy of the book. It does indeed use the term, starting as early as page 4. Serpent's Choice 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Last Dragonlord if that's where this is primarily from. Redirects are cheap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Gan fon 01:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not noteable on its own outside of the book.--155.144.251.120 01:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book per above. JIP | Talk 10:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Terence Ong 11:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite or Redirect to Shapeshifting without prejudice to future recreation. This article started out as a generic description of weredragons, but has been hijacked to refer to a single example. Google/Amazon shows that weredragons are a well spread, if fairly low-level, concept in fiction. See (eg) this exerpt from the work of MaryJanice Davidson . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Stephen (talk • contribs) 11:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to the fiction itself. There is no tradition of lycanthropy to dragon state. Substubs like this tell us nothing. Utgard Loki 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and of course redirect, per above Johnbod 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to its correct article like the rest above. It would be better. --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 04:25, 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. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Malays[edit]

This article consists of original research using a definition of Malay which is extremely broad, which has been shown in Talk:Malays (ethnic group) to be false and misleading. Caniago 00:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Tellyaddict 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per Nom. (Caniago 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. I was leaning towards keep on this one, but after review of Caniago's comment about Malays...I'm going to have to go the delete route. Gan fon 01:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the external references corroborate the existence of a such an entity as "Turkish Malays" (fails WP:V). To defend the article by claiming that it's just about a mixed heritage would mean that it fails WP:Notability as there are no sources to claim such an identity exists or is adopted by any notable persons. Black Falcon 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not assert notibility of even correctness of facts through any sources nor references--155.144.251.120 01:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited don't appear to be genuinely independent or meet WP:RS and hence WP:V not established. Notability not asserted or discussed. --Shirahadasha 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These kind of articles are getting out of hand. --Chris S. 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per other X Malays (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_19#Malay_diaspora that I assume there will be similar article like this). This is not a notable reason, only to state one person get married with a Malay person and you then created WP article for that? What about Turkish Malays married with Arab Malays, would you want to create Turkish Arab Malays Malays article? There are thousands of combination if you want to create this similar article. Come on! Please be reasonable. These X Malays articles are baseless. They are not supported by academic terminologies. Tell me if there are reliable sources from anthropologists saying these kind of race definition. — Indon (reply) — 09:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources, non-notable, this is getting worse. So we have articles on British Malays or Arab Chinese? Original research and unverifiable, this type of articles are not encyclopedic. Terence Ong 11:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I believe that people of Turkish-Malay descent in SE Asia is relatively unnotable. However, I feel that the category counterpart of this article should be kept. (What's the point of interracial terminologies of Category:Mestizos and Category:Eurasians then? Mr Tan 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - and a whole list of other reasons down the page....SatuSuro 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ [change to Delete as per nom unless adequate sourcing could be provided; for reasons, see below] because I get the distinct impression from the article that there is something DISTINCT about people in Malaysia of Turkish descent, but I'm only in favor of keeping if the article has potential for expansion in describing that. I strongly suspect that it does. Compare with Italian American and Irish American. In both of those articles we see distinct patterns of behavior by these groups in America that differ from Americans as a whole -- and from the nations where they or their ancestors originally migrated. You can't understand either group by simply reading about America, Italy or Ireland. The Italian-American group, for instance, tends to be more religious than Italians back in Italy. Can this be done with Turkish Malays? With most immigrant ethnic groups I strongly suspect that it can. ShivaDaDestroyer 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to be confused - Malay does not equal Malaysian. Instead of your analogy of Italian American, a better analogy would be Eskimo-Africans. It is of course nonsense to have such non-notable articles. (Caniago 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I've been reading a bit more since I posted, that and I'll accept your point about misunderstanding what was meant by "Malay." My broader point is about what criteria we should be thinking about: I think that to define the group, distinct cultural characteristics are what should count, which is harder to do when the group is spread across nations, but often not impossible. Behavior is the yardstick for definition, and it can be demonstrated or not. As to notability, you're right, that needs to be demonstrated. Some criteria for that would be size of the group, it's influence on the larger society (dominating some industries is a common for ethnic groups, and cultural characteristics that the larger culture takes from the group). Eskimo-Africans? Of course not, but that's probably just a function of numbers. Yet Indians and Pakistanis in Africa definitely could, as could Japanese Brazilians, Korean Americans, Indian Guyanans (and maybe there are already articles on these, I'll have to check). One good, readable and reliable source (but not deep for minor groups) are the many books by Thomas Sowell (see the books in the last third or so of the list in his Wikipedia article). Not all sourcing for this needs to be academic. Would you agree that these kinds of criteria, if they could be met, would make a good article on an ethnic group (especially a migrant one)? ShivaDaDestroyer 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Korean Americans are an ethnic group combined with a nationality. The number of people in such groups can be measured for example if ethnicity questions are asked on a population census. The example we are talking about here is a mix of two ethnic groups, without regard to nationality. Can you cite any precedent for this type of inter-ethnic article on Wikipedia? It is hard enough to define and measure the number of people who are Malays (the term in itself has many alternate and wide ranging definitions), let alone scope the mix of two ethnic groups. Would people who have Arab+Malay+X blood or Arab+Malay+Y blood be included or excluded in this group? Unless there is evidence that this is a notable population group (which there doesn't seem to be, based on google results), any notable information contained in this article should be moved into a broader article such as a List of notable Malays, or List of notable Malaysians Caniago 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks for your patience. I commented too soon. Yes, I see your point and agree. (By the way, I took a look at Scots-Irish Americans, but that ethnic group had already formed and doesn't really seem to have ever had ethnic Irish in it.)ShivaDaDestroyer 22:41, 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. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Malays[edit]

This article consists of original research using a definition of Malay which is extremely broad, which has been shown in Talk:Malays (ethnic group) to be false and misleading. Caniago 00:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per Nom. (Caniago 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom, per Turkish Malays. Gan fon 01:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Turish Malays reason.--155.144.251.120 01:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources cited, personal home pages and the like, appear not to meet WP:RS. --Shirahadasha 03:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These kind of articles are getting out of hand. --Chris S. 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect and expand

I have observed that there are categories such as Category:Eurasians and so on--categories and articles of people like this describing people of mixed descent. Malays with Arab, European and other racial blood lines are abundant throughout Malaysia and Singapore, and Arab-Malays means people of these two races stated above.

People with Arab bloodlines, and in fact there are a significant number of Malays with Arab bloodlines (see Category:Arab-Malays, of which many have made it up to the top ranks of society. Also, check out the article of Arab Singaporeans. Arab contribution to the SE Asian region is very significant. This fact should not be belittled.

Furthermore, much of the content here are provided with proper references. And unless there are policies and guidelines that explicitely point that such articles are prohibited, I see that there is no point in deleting these categories. I have noted that all of you people are of American or European background who lacked the understanding of Southeast-asian topics. Please read more about the Arab history of Singapore and Malaysia before reconsidering their notability. I believe that the Arab and European prescence in Malay Muslim SE Asia is as notable, if not more that the notability of Category:British Hongkongers, Indo (Eurasian) and the Principalía. Why didn't you all vote for deletion of that cat then? If you still think so otheriwse, please explain why. All of you might also want to take a look of my opinion at User talk:Fantastic4boy.

Still, I feel that it's best to ask the opinions of the Malays themselves. Being a non-Malay myself, I think it is the best that such issues are up to the Malays to decide. Mr Tan 06:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tan, who exactly are the Malay? There are a multitude of varying definitions ranging from everyone in South East Asia (the definition used by these articles), to more precise and academically correct definitions. The use of term Malay as a race was a misnomer first proposed in British colonial times. Its use is no longer relevant and it is factually incorrect. As others have mentioned above, any ethnic group articles which are created need to be supported by reliable sources. When one racial or ethnic group breeds with another this does not necessarily constitute a new ethnic group. Please supply reliable sources that the ethnic group European Malays exists and is notable. (Caniago 07:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Likewise, an Eurasian or a Mestizo does not necessarily constitute an ethnic group. The word Malay can mean the people of the Malay Archipelago or the Malay ethnic group used in Malaysia and Singapore, but the intrebreeding between a Malay and European/Arab is just like the interbreeeding of an Asian+European=Eurasian.

Look up the book sources on the Eurasians in Malaysia/Singapore/Indonesia (see also Papia Kristang.) You might want to take a look at some of the book sources: [1][2]. The book lists out many notable Eurasians with Malay parentage.

If you are here to ask for a change of a new term, say Arab-Indoensian or whatever, a redirect to the article from Arab Malay is more than enough, not a deletion. Mr Tan 07:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat again. These articles are about ethnic groups, as defined ethnologists. Just because one ethnic groups mates with another does not mean a new independent ethnic group is formed. Eurasian seems a commonly used and accepted term, but is European Malays? Please supply reliable sources that the ethnic group European Malays exists and is notable. Wikipedia does not allow original research. (Caniago 07:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

BTW, I put the term "european malays" -wikipedia into Google and got 12 hits. This article certainly seems like original research to me. (Caniago 08:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For your information, this article is edited in parallel to Eurasian (mixed ancestry), Kristang people and Halvsie. Both Eurasian and Arab-Malays are not ethnic groups. There is no rule that we cannot write about articles of terminologies on interracial affairs. And if you want to know the notablity of arab malays in SE Asia, check out the Syed Alsagoff family in Singapore (Check the History of Singapore).

Nor is there any original research. The sources are directly found in Arab malays, [3]. The references at Arab Singaporeans are equally reliable sources. Also, there is no need for you to be so rigid as to type in the exact terminology of "european malays". On the contary, there are also a lot of articles on this topic--eg:[4].

Or, otherwise, we could perhaps redirect this article to Arabs in Southeast Asia, Arabs in Malaysia or something like that. I can accept something like Category:British Hongkongers instead of category:Arab-Malays where all notable of part or full British decsnet are being classified into here, or Arab Singaporeans which people of part or full arab descent are being discussed.

However, I must note that deleting content totally like this is destabilising the consistency and all of you are contesting the validity of articles on interracial affairs like Macanese people, halvise and so on. I can't get it, if you mean that these content are really deleted. Mr Tan 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have an issue with any notable information being rolled into a more general article such as a list of notable Malay people, or notable Malaysian people [[Caniago 20:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Strong Delete - per other X Malays (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_19#Malay_diaspora that I assume there will be similar article like this). This is not a notable reason, only to state one person get married with a Malay person and you then created WP article for that? What about Turkish Malays married with Arab Malays, would you want to create Turkish Arab Malays Malays article? There are thousands of combination if you want to create this similar article. Come on! Please be reasonable. These X Malays articles are baseless. They are not supported by academic terminologies. Tell me if there are reliable sources from anthropologists saying these kind of race definition. — Indon (reply) — 09:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Turkish Malays reasoning. Terence Ong 11:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR definition of a nationality.14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom SatuSuro 15:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N Topar 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd like to compliment the author (correction: authors) on the work done, but I think the subject is too broad and undersourced. But this could be broken up into separate articles, with each one not only more specific but with more content. European Malays in either Southeast Asia or Malaysia, for instance. The criteria should be: Is there a definable set of characteristics that distinguishes these people from people in general in the nation where they live. If Austrian-Malays and Italian-Malays together have an important set of characteristics that they share and that distinguish them, and if it can be sourced, it's an article. If the important distinctions are not shared but nevertheless present in each group (distinguishing them from the general population), then we've got two articles. Of course, each article needs to be substantiated, first off by proving that others believe the specified ethnic group exists and by specifying what cultural characteristics make it distinct. I especially disagree with Indon's comments above: It's not the actual combination of ancestors that counts, it's the cultural distinctiveness.ShivaDaDestroyer 20:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. There are a multiple number of references in this article, which proves the existence of the variants of this mixed racial community. Secondly, this article is elaborated and expanded relatively well, comparable to the standard of Arab Singaporeans. I have checked the references on this article, and nonetheless variants of communities of euromalays do exist. One example is trying the yahoo hits [5] on the euromalay papia kristang commune in Melaka. This article is nonetheless serves something like a conclusion of the variants of mixed euro"malay" communities-between mixed marriages of the european and various groups on the malay archipelago. Look at the sections of this article, which links of to a main article. I still harbor some doubts as to why this article should be deleted, for I need an explanation on this point. Even if we create a category linking the articles of Spanish Filipinos, Filipino Mestizos and Indo into a category , say something like a name of "Mixed communities in SE Asia" or something like that, ultimately all these articles are brought together like in one umbrella. The content of this article here are derived from the properly cited articles (stated above). However, as with Arab malays, I do agree that an article like European Malaysians could be created on grounds of sufficient notability and references.

(Oh, forget it. I think all of you will think I am uttering some baseless rubbish). Mr Tan 03:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {[:Arab Singaporeans]] maybe a problem - the article is expanded but there is a real problem with the sources/references.... It is not a good example of an article that can be compared with for a 'standard' SatuSuro 03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but revise -- User:Matthewprc14:26, 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. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Malays[edit]

This article consists of original research using a definition of Malay which is extremely broad, which has been shown in Talk:Malays (ethnic group) to be false and misleading. Caniago 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per Nom. (Caniago 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom., per Turkish, European Malays. Gan fon 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Turish Malays reason.--155.144.251.120 01:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS, hence no WP:V. --Shirahadasha 03:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These kind of articles are getting out of hand. --Chris S. 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect and expand

I have observed that there are categories such as Category:Eurasians and so on--categories and articles of people like this describing people of mixed descent. Malays with Arab, European and other racial blood lines are abundant throughout Malaysia and Singapore, and Arab-Malays means people of these two races stated above.

People with Arab bloodlines, and in fact there are a significant number of Malays with Arab bloodlines (see Category:Arab-Malays, of which many have made it up to the top ranks of society. Also, check out the article of Arab Singaporeans. Arab contribution to the SE Asian region is very significant. This fact should not be belittled.

Furthermore, much of the content here are provided with proper references. And unless there are policies and guidelines that explicitely point that such articles are prohibited, I see that there is no point in deleting these categories. I have noted that all of you people are of American or European background who lacked the understanding of Southeast-asian topics. Please read more about the Arab history of Singapore and Malaysia before reconsidering their notability. I believe that the Arab and European prescence in Malay Muslim SE Asia is as notable, if not more that the notability of Category:British Hongkongers and the Japanese Halvsie. Why didn't you all vote for deletion of that cat then? If you still think so otheriwse, please explain why. All of you might also want to take a look of my opinion at User talk:Fantastic4boy.

Still, I feel that it's best to ask the opinions of the Malays themselves. Being a non-Malay myself, I think it is the best that such issues are up to the Malays to decide. Mr Tan 06:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tan, who exactly are the Malay? There are a multitude of varying definitions ranging from everyone in South East Asia (the definition used by these articles), to more precise and academically correct definitions. The use of term Malay as a race was a misnomer first proposed in British colonial times. Its use is no longer relevant and it is factually incorrect. As others have mentioned above, any ethnic group articles which are created need to be supported by reliable sources. When one racial or ethnic group breeds with another this does not necessarily constitute a new ethnic group. Please supply reliable sources that the ethnic group Arab Malays exists and is notable. (Caniago 07:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Look up books on the general history of Singapore/Malaysia, and take note of notabel Arab-Malay families like Alsagoff, Alkaff and so on. Some books include [6]. Check the internet, or your library for the books on the history of these two countries. Lee Kuan Yew's biography also noted that Syed Jaafar Albar is part Arab. I can't list out all now, and use your mental flexibility to find these sources, everyone involved. I have given the starting hints. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Malays. Mr Tan 07:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat again. These articles are about ethnic groups, as defined ethnologists. Just because one ethnic groups mates with another does not mean a new independent ethnic group is formed. Please supply reliable sources that the ethnic group Arab Malays exists and is notable. Wikipedia does not allow original research. (Caniago 07:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

BTW, I put the term "arab malays" -wikipedia into Google and got 45 hits. This article certainly seems like original research to me. (Caniago 08:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For your information, this article is edited in parallel to Eurasian (mixed ancestry), Kristang people and Halvise. Both Eurasian and Arab-Malays are not ethnic groups. There is no rule that we cannot write about articles of terminologies on interracial affairs. And if you want to know the notablity of arab malays in SE Asia, check out the Syed Alsagoff family in Singapore (Check the History of Singapore).

Nor is there any original research. The sources are directly found in Arab malays, [7]. The references at Arab Singaporeans are equally reliable sources. Also, there is no need for you to be so rigid as to type in the exact terminology of "Arab malays". On the contary, there are also a lot of articles on this topic--eg:[8].

Or, otherwise, we could perhaps redirect this article to Arabs in Southeast Asia, Arabs in Malaysia or something like that. I can accept something like Category:British Hongkongers instead of category:Arab-Malays where all notable of part or full British decsnet are being classified into here, or Arab Singaporeans which people of part or full arab descent are being discussed.

However, I must note that deleting content totally like this is destabilising the consistency and all of you are contesting the validity of articles on interracial affairs like Macanese people, Halvsie and so on. I can't get it, if you mean that these content are really deleted. Mr Tan 15:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have less of an issue with an article called Arab Malaysians given its more precise focus. However, the article would still have to pass notability requirements. If it doesn't, then any notable information could be rolled into a more general article such as a list of notable Malay people, or notable Malaysian people [[Caniago 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Strong Delete - per other X Malays (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_19#Malay_diaspora that I assume there will be similar article like this). This is not a notable reason, only to state one person get married with a Malay person and you then created WP article for that? What about Turkish Malays married with Arab Malays, would you want to create Turkish Arab Malays Malays article? There are thousands of combination if you want to create this similar article. Come on! Please be reasonable. Theses X Malays articles are baseless. They are not supported by academic terminologies. Tell me if there are reliable sources from anthropologists saying these kind of race definition. — Indon (reply) — 09:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Turkish Malays reason. Terence Ong 11:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and unsourced definition of an ethnic group.-- danntm ^T _C 14:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom SatuSuro 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N Topar 17:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ [change to Delete as per nom, unless adequate sourcing could be provided] although the article needs beefing up in sources, it's a good start. All this business about racial groups and intermarriage is balderdash. Think culture and behavior and whether certain people perceive themselves as part of a group — those are the criteria for whether the group exists or not. This article shows that this distinct ethnic group exists and has particular characteristics. That is an important contribution to understanding Malaysia and therefore an important addition to Wikipedia. The "Malay" part of this refers to the nation or state in which this cultural group is located. Anyone supporting deletion of this article should support deletion of Italian American and Irish American (which would be ridiculous because lack of knowledge about these ethnic groups would hobble anyone's understanding of the modern U.S.) or be able to say what the difference is. This article needs improvement with more information and sourcing, but it's the strongest of the three ethnic Malay articles now under discussion for deletion. ShivaDaDestroyer 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thank you for your comments ShivaDaDestroy. I salute you for joining Wikipedia and directly goes to AfD at your first edits. However, you are wrong to say that the "Malay" part refers to nation/state. It clearly states you don't understand about the issue. — Indon (reply) — 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to be confused - Malay does not equal Malaysian. Instead of your analogy of Italian American, a better analogy would be Eskimo-Africans. It is of course nonsense to have such non-notable articles. (Caniago 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Response Thanks for your patience, Indon and Michael. I didn't read the discussion carefully enough. Apologies. ShivaDaDestroyer 22:46, 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 Speedy delete g10, unsourced attack page. NawlinWiki 03:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neopets Bankruptcy[edit]

Wouldn't even pass notability on WikiNews. —Cuiviénen 00:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a news source - Ocatecir 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as deliberate misinformation. Neopets is owned by Viacom, and could not "go bankrupt" unless Viacom itself did, which is unlikely in the extreme. This looks to me like a trolling attempt to rile Neopets fans. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy ~~Strong~~ delete. Fails WP:V in a very serious way -- NO sources -- despite inclusion of quotations. In fact, I would go so far as to say this is a probable hoax. Neopets is owned by Viacom and therefore cannot be about to "go bankrupt," unless Viacom is. A closure of that division of the company would not be described as "real financial trouble" or "bankruptcy" by an "insider" (see this prodded article, created by the same user who created Neopets Bankruptcy for more so-called info on the alleged "insider"). Google search for "neopets bankruptcy" returns a massive 2 hits. Removing the quotes results in many more hits but the first few are unrelated and I haven't checked the rest. --N Shar 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to speedy per Bwithh. If speedy is denied, the original opinion stands. --N Shar 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This seems to be a hoax. See above comments by N Shar and Andrew Lenahan. Gan fon 01:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neopets cannot go "bankrupt" because there is NO CURRENCY SYSTEM! It is an online game that happens to just be programmed into servers...how can the GAME run out of money? It should be deleted because it seems to be nonsense. --Root2 01:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article means the business operation behind the game, not literally the game world itself. Even so, Neopets cannot really go bankrupt itself unless Viacom, its massive parent, does so too. Bwithh 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as attack page Basically a stupid hoax attack page created by a vandal which can potentially cause legal problems with Viacom. (why are hoaxers so often allowed to get away unpunished?) Bwithh 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G10. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 03:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia isn't a place for rumors, either. No opinion on creator's intentions. --Shirahadasha 03:25, 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. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ffx runner[edit]

Non-notable flash internet game. No sources of any kind, no pages linking to it. Ocatecir 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a common flash game, however it does not assert any notability, has anyone written anything about this game? --Daniel J. Leivick 01:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the holy trinity: WP:WEB/V/RS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the One True Way of A7. I don't see any assertion of notability.... --N Shar 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good game, but obviously not notable. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced, no WP:N, WP:V. --Shirahadasha 03:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising a non-notable game. It doesn't even provide a link to the game! JIP | Talk 10:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising, non-notable game, unverifiable. Where's the external link, how do we get to play it (if you are advertising, you should at least give us the place to download the game). Terence Ong 11:15, 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 Keep Eluchil404 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Alexis de Rédé[edit]

Delete: I can see no clear indication of his notability in this article. I searched Google and it just throws up this site and mirrors. Fails WP:Notability----Vintagekits 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You searched for the wrong thing! He's Alexis von Rosenberg, Baron de Rede, not Baron Alexis de Rede. So the article should be renamed, as had been discussed some time ago. --Couter-revolutionary 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Baron de Rede, although not famous to the public at large was very well known in certain circles of society in London, New York and Europe in general, he was famous for his ball at the Hotel Lambert. As an aesthete (art collector &c.) he is of enough renown for inclusion but, further to this, he is a prominent diarist, his collections have been published and are available to purchase. --Couter-revolutionary 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I too searched Google, this is what I got [9]...pages from the DT, the New York Social Diary and from Sotheby's--Couter-revolutionary 01:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not as important as Tony Hawke, needless to say. May I add that in 2003 Baron de Redé was appointed a commandeur of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres: recipients must have "significantly contributed to the enrichment of the French cultural inheritance", according to the Order's guidelines. Wikipedians may not agree. Someone has plastered the article with ^{[citation needed]}.--Wetman 02:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not clear notability has been established, obituaries typically cover a broader swath of people than those who get coverage while living. But there's enough to suggest notability could be established with a little more digging. --Shirahadasha 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really notable people who are subjects of Recent Articles are mentioned in "did you know". ...such as Rebecca Twigley.
Must keep: Notability is easily proven e.g. (from my quick search) mainly by A, B, C, D (French educational TV emission about him and one other figure); and also by e Financial magazine translated excerpt: ..."the take-over of the London bank Leopold Joseph & Sons, with Alexis de Rede, a bizarre figure of the trans-Atlantic jetset, as companion."), f, g, h — and I didn't even try looking for sources with his proper name.
Suggest using some of the provided links as sources in the article (partially already done by several others) and remove the ((unreferenced|date=November 2006))-tag, to prevent further criticism. Still, I wish someone going through the 'trouble' of putting up an AfD would first do the most elementary verification: improving the article is then about as little trouble and saves other peoples' time. — SomeHuman 19 Jan2007 05:04 (UTC)
KeepThe article is about an important self important man in European social circles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isaac Crumm (talk • contribs) 05:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, I do see some sources here and I hope to see even more with a possible expansion. This person meets notability slightly, but still deserves an article on Wikipedia. Notability can be established even further if article is further expanded. Terence Ong 11:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "She's in parties" is not the same as "she's in film," and this fellow, so far, is only in parties. The article is long on celebration and short on effect. Being a scenester is not enough by itself. Utgard Loki 15:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His memoirs really are quite famous. They are regarded as being of a very high quality.--Couter-revolutionary 15:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would be WP-notable merely by his appearances at parties, he might be a greater artist than many appearing in films ;-) — SomeHuman 21 Jan2007 09:08 (UTC)

Strong keep. As above. I question the motives behind the person who put this article up for deletion; he does not appreciate he is thoroughly POV. - Kittybrewster 17:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - question my motives? have a look at the article before I put it up for deletion! - enough said!--Vintagekits 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't matter why someone meets WP:V, only that they do. House of Scandal 12:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to appear in enough verifiable sources, could dowith more detail though Alci12 13:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just needs improving Weggie 20:57, 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 Speedy Redirect - hahnch e n 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure quest rpg[edit]

Less Information than Adventure_quest and about the EXACT same subject, with all of the information covered by the linked article as well. Root2 01:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter rubbish. No asserted notibility. No sources. Unvarifiable etc. etc.--155.144.251.120 02:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as purely redundant per the nomination. If there's any usable information, merge it. --Dennisthe2 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, no claim of notability. --Shirahadasha 03:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AdventureQuest. Duplication of information found there on same subject. -- Kesh 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, likewise should be redirect to AdventureQuest. Mathmo ^Talk 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. JIP | Talk 10:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AdventureQuest. Terence Ong 11:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect as simple duplicate. -Toptomcat 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, though at the time of this post, the article has already been redirected. Please keep in mind that you do not need to tag an article for Deletion when you only need to redirect it; discussion through the Talk page is sufficient. --Scottie theNerd 01:19, 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. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Brown (author)[edit]

No assertion of notability. Fails several notability criteria including WP:BIO. Axem Titanium 01:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - 71.232.29.141 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has merely published a book, fails WP:BIO based on no indepedantly noteable reviews that assert any notibility or awards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.144.251.120 (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as per nomination. ForrestLane42 02:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree no assertion or verification of notability. --Shirahadasha 03:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomUlysses Zagreb 10:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: very clear --BozMo talk 10:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unpublished in a peer reviewed or edited press. Utgard Loki 15:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent verifiable sources Alf photoman 19:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:28, 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 Keep --Kind Regards - Heligo land 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Jane[edit]

Nothing in Crazy Jane as it now stands justifies it as notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. ShivaDaDestroyer 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable comic character, a Grant Morrison creation, member of the Doom Patrol. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Andrew. Otto4711 03:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - What, exactly, is the argument for deletion here? It can't be WP:N, as the article and the comic from which it originates have asserted significant notability. Nominating this article for deletion because it's "not notable" is like calling the color red "too green". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:23, 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 Eluchil404 09:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guru.com[edit]

~~Fails WP:CORP. A search of Lexis-Nexis and Google News revealed only a few passing mentions, and I don't believe that they meet the other criteria either.~~ Sopoforic 02:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that my search was faulty. The article still needs sources to be added, but it does have sufficient coverage as noted by Dhartung. --Sopoforic 05:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of or sources verifying notability under any criterion of WP:CORP. --Shirahadasha 03:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Keep in light of additional sources. --Shirahadasha 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree in failure of WP:CORP. --155.144.251.120 04:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable freelance jobs website. I appreciate the fact that the nominator searched, but wonder how he failed to find these sources:[10][11][12][13][14] (and scores more found on Google News Archive). The relaunched site actually has higher Alexa rank than the older site ever did, and it's remained relatively stable in the 1000-2000 range most of the last several years (except for the brief shutdown after the older version went kaput). --Dhartung | Talk 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow, you're right. There's no indication on the results page for a usual google news search that it isn't searching all news, nor any link to search the archive. A search for "guru.com" on the usual news search yielded only four mentions, and a lexis-nexis search for the past two years yielded similar results. I assumed that any current company would have recent news articles written about them. --Sopoforic 05:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, indeed, as much Google love as I have, they have no simple interface to switch between News and News Archive searches, and many people don't even know about the latter (some publications have 1980s results!). They're not a big publicity hound under the current owners but seem to be surviving (FYI, under the former owners, I once made $150 via the site, but I don't even known if I have a current login). Thanks for being receptive. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after reliable sources have been cited, meets WP:CORP criteria. Needs more sources to be added though and needs expansion. Terence Ong 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight keep: It's not exactly ESPN.Com, but it's sort of ok. Utgard Loki 15:26, 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. —bbatsell ¿? 04:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMSCF Syndrome[edit]

This article consists entirely of original research. There are no reliable sources available for this term, only blogs and internet forums. Caniago 02:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom. (Caniago 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: WP:V, WP:RS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CB. Possible WP:HOAX violation. Possible violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (outtakes)#Wikipedia is not funny. I thought it was! Notice that if you follow the impressive-looking source links, they're either nonexistent or they map to an "article" mocked up on someone's personal site. Weak Delete, currently appears to be weakly sourced, may possibly meet criteria with additional sourcing. Of the four articles listed, the Sunday Times Manila link doesn't work, and the "Philipino Identity" article link appears to be going to a personal web site, but the other two links work. In the Phillipino Express link, the second article, not the one that appears first, appears to be the one intended. The American Chronicle link mentions mestizo envy but not the syndrome as named. I regret perceiving these links as not being in WP:Good faith. --Shirahadasha 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it is not an academic term, it (and similar terms) is an informal, cultural term that is used by some in the Filipino-American community. The phenomenon outlined in the article has gone by other names, most notably "Tia Carrere syndrome" during the 1990s. Whatever name it goes under, the fundamental concept involved is the denial of one's Filipino heritage and many articles have been written in Filipino-American publications. I would support a renaming, but under what title I do not know. --Chris S. 04:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reputable sources (newsletters, magazines, etc.) are presented. --Howard the Duck 04:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I found that these articles on PDI 1 2 mention the term. Michael Tan, the author of the articles, is a Filipino anthropologist with a regular column in the said newspaper. I saw the term here as well but I haven't read this paper yet and the article seems to be "tainted" with Internet sources.
- Comment My Google search yeilded forums that accuse Jasmine Trias with this syndrome. I don't know if this info would be useful for the AfD.Lenticel 05:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, the first article Michael Tan wrote didn't really delve into IMSCF Syndrome. This was explained in the second article (he didn't have enough space daw in the 1st). Interestingly, the 2nd article says:

IMSCF syndrome

Now the truth why I’m doing another column on origins. I had a subtitle in last Wednesday’s column that read “IMSCF syndrome,” but didn’t quite get to discuss the syndrome for lack of space.

So just what is this syndrome? One of my graduate students, Christine Ajoc, alerted me to this term in a paper she submitted for my biological anthropology class. It means “I am Spanish-Chinese-Filipino syndrome,” and it is common among overseas Filipinos living in North America. Among Filipinos in Hawaii, there’s another variation where they claim Hawaiian ancestry as well.

The term actually appears in a legal website, dictionary.laborlawtalk.com, and is described as “ethnic forgery” because that mixed ancestry is fabricated. The dictionary entry speculates that this falsified pedigree reflects the lack of a national identity among overseas Filipinos and the need to boost their social status by claiming to have Spanish and/or Chinese blood. Somehow, Filipino takes on connotations of being poor, of being inferior.

It seems even Michael Tan didn't know the existence of this "phenomenon" or term until it was introduced to him by a student. Which is not enough in my opinion to merit as a reference for this article. Had Michael Tan himself researched and verifiably proved the existence of the term through a survey or some anthropological study he conducted, this article would stand. But a paper from a graduate student? I don't think that's enough. And it is said it is common among overseas Filipinos living in North America but hey, if it was actually that common, wouldn't there be more reputable third-party sources?

As for the 3rd link, the word IMSCF Syndrome appears in a column (?) or opinion (like youngblood of PDI?) Juvenile Answers By: Tyrone Jay V. Samson. It seems to me that this article is based on this link, quoting:

Aside from colonial mentality, there’s also this IMSCF Syndrome. This is a non-academic term that relates to a unique form of institutionalized identity crisis phenomenon seen amongst overseas Filipinos. IMSCF Syndrome specifically refers to the tendency of many Filipinos, when questioned about their ancestry and nationality, to recite the phrase “I’m Spanish, Chinese, Filipino”. The name of the syndrome itself is an acronym formed from the first letters of this recited phrase.

If this is a reference, well, I find it laughable. All in all, this "syndrome" or "phenomenon" might really exist (in the minds and consciousness of Fil Ams abroad) but really, IMSCF Syndrome does not belong to Wikipedia until a more reputable and credible source crops up. Berserkerz Crit 12:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless something definitely convincing comes up as a source. --- Tito Pao 07:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge. This article is trivia (it's stated that it is a non-academic term) and it is informal term in Pilippines' society per Chris'. So it's better to be merged as one section in Ethnic groups in the Philippines provided with reliable sources. — Indon (reply) — 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Ok I must admit, this article is cleverly presented as reputable, verifiable and factual. In reality, this is a non-existent "phenomenon" and unverifiable term. It is disguised with supposed references and external links which will purportedly support the claim of the validity of this syndrome. I've checked the references, and nothing directly refers or talks about IMSCF Syndrome. The references are about facts alright, but facts about different topics like the percentage of Spanish/Chinese, the Catalogo for names, and American colonial mentality. I am really appalled but dazzled by the absurdity of this article, because to uncritical Wikipedians, it will really seem fit for Wikipedia. The External Links do not provide as well an answer to who coined the IMSCF Syndrome, or what it is, or why it has been said. If it is a common non-academic term, why do Google and Yahoo hits only show for the ten most related links http://en.wikipedia.org/IMSCF_Syndrome and mirror sites like answers.com copying Wikipedia?? And to even put as External Links forum discussions just goes to show the lack or want of references to support this article. Laugh out loud. IMSCF Syndrome??!! I've never heard that in my entire life as a Filipino who reads PDI and Phil. Star daily, watches TV Patrol and 24 Oras nightly, and follows up on news in the internet about any Filipino, including Jasmine Trias. No reputable third-party or even primary sources, original research, POV, weasel words, and so forth and so on. Berserkerz Crit 11:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needs independent sources to prove that this term is notable, unverifiable, non-notable. Terence Ong 12:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, informal term used by many and is anecdotally observed both within the Philippines and abroad. Needs references but is notable enough that a references needed tag is sufficient at this time.--Chicbicyclist 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reject the idea that "non-existant pheonomenons", or any other ideas which individual editors may disagree with, even ones proven false (ie hoaxes), are not allowed on WP, since it's been made abundantly clear in WP:DEL (with the support of WP:NPOV) that the threshold for inclusion is notability--especially when established with multiple independent reliable sources. Given that, I think from the cursory searches that the term is a neologism that might pass the threshold of WP:N in the future. But it's not there yet, and even if it were there it would require a rewrite because of WP:OR issues. hateless 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Berserkerz Crit. Anyone who is claiming this article is notable clearly doesn't understand the notability criterion : topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself Topar 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. The article is a clear violation of wikipedia's NPOV. This article shows how easy it is to write a biased article like this, cite references to opinions backing up the claim, and camouflage as a well-written, well-researched article that can standalone. With no scientific and academic basis, this is nothing but an opinionated article that needs to be deleted immediately. --Weekeejames 01:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think parts of thearticle can be used to further explain the Filipino (identity) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 23prootie (talk • contribs) 12:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
KEEP - and DEVELOP FURTHER. While it may be insignificant ratio wise in the Philippines vis-a-vis other countries, it still is a "culturally" significant "reality" or "possibility" that must be taken into consideration either for purely academic exercise or information dessimination, but mostly also for cultural consciousness and awareness. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO GIVE THIS ONE A CHANCE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinay06 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The issue is not insignificance, but verifiability. Wikipedia can only rely on secondary sources of research because its an encyclopedia, which can only be a summary of past research and cannot present new research. WP does not allow original research; WP is not a vehicle to further a cause. Once such research is found then we can then have an article. hateless 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still Weak Keep plus Major Cleanup. First of all, I only mentioned those articles because they contain the term. I am not saying that they are reliable sources, what I'm trying to say is that its existence is acknowledged even in the Philippines. The term is non-academic so its not surprising that nobody in the Social Science section of the academic world found time to seriously research about the subject. Do they have journal articles for every Internet meme out there? Surely it is a fertile field in the study of human social behavior. This term describes a behavior that exists in the minds of Filipinos around the world. As a Filipino, I know that this term is quite incensing but deleting the article would not make it go away.Lenticel 11:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are academic sources (i.e. articles in peer-reviewed journals) that have studied this. Another suggestion is to merge the content with an article that describes the wider psychological phenomenon of trying to dilute one's ethnicity in certain situations. I don't know what the proper psychological term for that is but I am sure this phenonomenon is not confined to Filipinos. Barring that, turning this into a section of Filipino people might also be ok. --Polaron | Talk 16:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Berserkerz Crit. Checking out the references supplied I see no direct references to the syndrome, or its name and origins. Warrants immediate deletion as it appears to be original research as defined per WP:OR. An informal non-academic term like this one has no place here. There is really only one source, and fails WP:NEO and WP:RS too. Ohconfucius 02:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As a Filipino-American, I find that this article pushes the personal beliefs of some Filipinos regarding their cultural heritage as fact, and belittles those who do not agree with them. Also, the links are of highly dubious quality (unencyclopedic sources) and much of the article is constituted as original research.--Folksong 06:46, 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. Sandstein 09:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's rationale:

Most opinions – please remember, this isn't a vote – to keep the article fail to address the issue of the sourcing that WP:N / WP:ORG require; this means they cannot be taken into account very substantially to assess consensus on this issue (see also WP:ILIKEIT).
The independent sources present, as noted by others here, are weak even after the rewrite. We have one newspaper blog and one article which only mentions the subject in passing.
Consensus as expressed in WP:N as well as in this discussion therefore is to delete the article pending more substantial coverage by reliable independent sources.

Spiritual Humanism[edit]

I had put up Spiritual Humanism as WP:Afd but it became speedily deleted instead causing the Afd to be closed. It was already recreated and rewritten with more links and some comments on the talk page. I think it is still just as much an Afd (see also arguments for earlier Afd):
After the recreation and rewriting, I can only find links that either don't work (e.g. claim of number of members on its own site, blank page from newspaper archive) or written by the organization or its clergy (even admitting to have paid for clergy attributes so as to marry his own daughter), besides announcements published in a (same as mentioned for its blank archive) newspaper of marriages in front of such clergyman. Not a word about 'Spiritual Humanism' having been noticed, let alone described and thereby giving a source, outside its own group of adherers. It remains uniquely self-promoting what I consider might be a commercial-religious sect.
The names-dropping in the article is not corroborated by the linked articles. It does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria for societies. Main problem: a complete lack of proper sources makes verification, besides the existence of some group trying to push people into paying for their 'ordination' attributes, utterly impossible.
Note: On the forementioned talk page, someone correctly states a link in the Humanism article to the group's website exists. If indeed it is found to be mainly (commercial) self-promotion as well, it should be removed. — SomeHuman 19 Jan2007 02:32 (UTC)

- Comment As a comparison, consider the Universal Life Church, a pioneer in the field, which is clearly notable. It was involved in a number of court fights and other public disputes in various states over whether its credentials would be recognized, and as a result a number of media articles specifically on it and its practices were published. These articles satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG. This church, on the other hand, doesn't seem have similar evidence that the church specifically is notable. Diploma mills, which supply education credentials on-line with little or no requried preparation, have been regularly deleted unless they show evidence that they are specifically notable diploma mills. See e.g. Colby Nolan. (When Trinity Southern University granted an Executive MBA to a house cat, the cat was deemed notable and has an article in Wikipedia, but the university only got a redirect to the cat.) From the sources supplied there doesn't seem to be any evidence anyone has written about this church's history, views, or activities, which don't seem to have any independent notability. The sources show people using it to get a credential enabling them to perform a wedding. But for all the sources establish, maybe they did this for no other reason than that it charges less for the credential than the next brand down in the Google search, or has a more prominent ad, or some other non-notable reason. There doesn't seem to be anything individually notable about this organization from the sources supplied so far. Also, as an example of the need for WP:Verifiability, the Universal Life Church#New York section shows New York State court cases suggesting there is a substantial question about the validity of a marriage resulting from this type of ordination in New York; we have no sources to enable people to address such basic questions as what this church does prior which might help people address these issues with respect to this church. --Shirahadasha 15:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article attempts to establish notability through various articles on weddings and the like in which it is mentioned that the minister belongs to the Church for Spiritual Humanism. WP:ORG requires, at its barest, independently published articles that say enough about the subject to permit verification and establish notability. A mere passing mention of the church that the minister performing a marriage happens to belong to surely does nothing to establish notability. Officiating at weddings simply isn't a notable activity for a church, it's a routine thing every church does. Delete. --Shirahadasha 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I found a few just-more-than-passing references[15][16][17], and the broken links are entirely the fault of a misplaced pipe character in the article links, which should work now (though they may be problematic for other reasons). --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your link #1 mentions "While clergy still perform most weddings, the ceremonies are straying ever farther from tradition, reflecting a "do-it-yourself" attitude toward religious nuptials. The minister may be an old friend, a professor or Dad, ordained online for the occasion." It only mentions this particular Church/sect/commerce as 10 or 20x smaller than an apparently similar one. It describes a practice in general (of what I also see this particular 'Church of Spiritual Humanism' to be mainly doing). There could be an interesting NPOV article about this new social practice in which it can be mentioned as an example —but no article on that still unnotable example— and not present it as if it were a noteworthy 'religious and philosophical movement'.
Your link #2 indeed mentions this "Church" by demonstrating it to lure people into an innocent rather funny wedding practice and then without their knowledge or consent abusing and possibly damaging their name for its own self-publicity; exactly what I see as a good reason for not to allow further abusing Wikipedia. [I already had removed the link from the Template:Humanism that occurs in a few dozen articles.]
Your link #3, from a relatively obscure source, depicts the story of an otherwise totally unnotable man who became a Church of Spiritual Humanism clergyman to feel a bit more important himself but neither takes it very serious nor performs clergy practices: good for him but it shows the 'clergyman' not be be specifically religious or philosophical and not even as participating in Church community practices - if such would exist, no sign of that or of a 'movement' so far.
Good research, and appreciating your current edits to the article, but if some of the content is to be kept or recreated, it must carry a more general title and describe this recent evolution in wedding practices etc, including criticism on dubious practices as false suggestions of a religious-philosophical movement and unadmitted usage of people's name. (Avoid WP:OR, e.g. by your above links). Only in case 'Spiritual Humanism' would succeed in becoming sufficiently notable (one way or another not unlikely seeing its efforts), its article content might rather compare with the one on as forementioned 10 to 20x larger but possibly equally sized Universal Life, which could be an Afd as well as it has no source except one untraceable "book" (though this lecture/same (cf.Switzerland) I think to be the real source) and the topic's own website; note that neither 'Church' is mentioned in NRM. — SomeHuman 19 Jan2007 06:28 (UTC)

Keep. No real reason for deletion, may require some cleanup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. SynergeticMaggot
Delete per nom - Does not show notability, fails WP:ORG. Maybe it will be notable later, but it's not now. -- Kesh 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course the article could use improvement, it is practically a stub. There is a bias on the part of some editors against religious humanist organizations and some of the movement to delete is motivated by their efforts to promote "propper" humanism (i.e. secular humanism). I have run into similar hostility on several occasions when editing artilces in the humanist subject area. Maintaining NPOV also means including articles on topics that represent all points of view. 2ct7 01:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to assume good faith. My vote was only on the notability of the subject. I've never heard of spiritual humanism before today, and have nothing against the organization. It's simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Kesh 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And precisely this kind of article and as I see it, this particular topic and its methods (which had caused an administrator to speedily delete upon my earlier proposal as normal AfD), do not do well for the reputation of proper religious humanism. Yes we've met on another talk page and I assume you kind of fell for Spiritual Humanism. So prove notability and try rewriting the article in a NPOV style providing decent sources from outside the topic's circles. And if it would really be about religious humanism, instead of for instance a society picking a wish-wash name that can attract as many people as possible without putting any demands regarding religion or humanism, hoping for the-more-the-merrier financial contributions for clergy 'attributes' and using Wikipedia for promotion, show so in that properly sourced and NPOV article; that goes for the claim of (already) being a 'movement' as well. — SomeHuman 20 Jan2007 04:22 (UTC)
    - ...and I'm going to point out to you that your comments are bordering on uncivil. 2ct7 made their own improper comments, but yours started out fine, and turned into name-calling. We're here to work together, not put each other down. -- Kesh 04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not name-calling, the derogatory depicting of the topic of the article is nicely formulated in my first AfD and whatever I could find before putting it up as such, could not at all take away the possibility. WP appearing to be used for self-promotion or for such purpose by adherers, makes it WP business. With that in mind, knowing 2ct7 to have spoken favorable about the topic before and to have recreated the article, saying that he 'fell for it' is WP:AGF and my true opinion. — SomeHuman 20 Jan2007 04:45 (UTC)
      - Sorry if my posts were uncivil. The overly aggressive nature of many of secular humanist editors has left me on the defensive, especially after the speedy delete of this article which allowed no discussion. Since the subject of financial contributions has come up, let me mention a few facts about the IHEU who's secular promotions and official opinions and positions are forever dominating the Humanism related articles. The IHEU is more of commercial business then the Church of Spiritual Humanism. "Votes" on their official positions are bought and paid for. The more money your organization pays for its membership the more votes you get. You cannot become an individual member of the IHEU without paying £33 / $60 / €50 a year. Since the Humanist individuals and organizations that cannot or refuse to pay are not allowed to vote the IHEU can never represent the opinions and positions of all and probably even most Humanist. The editors that are most aggressively promoting secular humanism over religious humanism also incorporate the IHEU's agenda when editing. The secular official positions of the IHEU are bought and paid for and should not be used as the standard by which judge what is Humanism and what is not. The general tone of the articles in the Humanism subject area unduly favors secularism over religious humanism. I have to wonder if Spiritual Humanism paid the IHEU to become a member organization if this article would be facing deletion.2ct7 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        2ct7, I have no idea what you're on about, but it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Please assume good faith unless you have evidence other than suspicion. --Dhartung | Talk 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update by original nominator

Nominator's update: The article including improvements by Dhartung (see his 'weak keep' above), and during the last few hours having been further improved by myself (follow [18] by consecutive 'Newer edit' to see what was done and why), appears to me now to have become sufficiently NPOV and reasonable to other WP guidelines, and it may be argued that one article by a Washington Post staff writer on the newspaper's web shortly mentioning the Church of Spiritual Humanism and one by a Chicago Tribune columnist on that newspaper's web log, demonstrate it to have become slightly noticed. Nevertheless, I have the clear impression that the Church has been noticed for its wedding ceremonies only, and not at all for its claimed 'religious and philosophical movement'. It appears best to maintain the article but to move it towards the title 'Church of Spiritual Humanism' at least until it could be shown that the claimed movement itself would have become WP:Notable. In fact, 'spiritual humanism' is not quite a coined term but the adjective and substantive have been associated in a much broader context, e.g. in [19].— SomeHuman 21 Jan2007 03:43 (UTC) — Meanwhile, 'Spiritual Humanism' appears to be a trademark, see article. — SomeHuman 22 Jan 2007 03:37 (UTC)
So please vote in one section hereunder (just an asterisk followed with optional comment and with four tildes will do):

Update votes to keep the article, by the title 'Church of Spiritual Humanism' (with redirect from 'Spiritual Humanism')

(nominator)— SomeHuman 21 Jan2007 03:43 (UTC) — though 'weak': Shirahadasha's comments below are to be taken most seriously. — SomeHuman 21 Jan2007 05:16 (UTC)

Update votes to keep the article, by the title 'Spiritual Humanism'

...

Update votes to delete the article altogether: next vote by Ohconfucius had been put in the immediately above subsection but clearly belongs here (though 'per nom' is not evident for either subsection) — nominator

Delete per nom. Despite the rewrite, the references are still too trivial to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. It appears that anyone can become an ordained minister to officiate weddings. Compared with Universal Life Church, which has the same business model, churns out some half a million free and instant ordinations a year on average, the Church of Spiritual Humanism which performs an estmated 20,000 ordinations per annum, doesn't even come close. Ohconfucius 03:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel quite happy about only a large outfit getting further attention on WP and thus putting a competing more recent and thus smaller but otherwise fully equivalent outfit in deeper and continued disadvantage. This could be a WP:N versus WP:NPOV issue, but Universal Life Church (not to be confounded with Universal Life) is not exactly as notable as Microsoft or as the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps an 'Ordination mill' article should be created (like Diploma mill) and all titles fitting that shoe should redirect to it; after all ULC appears only notable for its law-suits related to being an ordination mill, and in an anglo-saxon Law system their outcome create precedents with equal consequences for CoSH. I would change my 'weak keep' vote towards this, but am not a candidate to try moving ULC towards 'Ordination mill' (in which CoSH should be mentioned much more shortly, currently available sources easily allow this). — SomeHuman 22 Jan 2007 04:00-04:11 (UTC)

next vote by Shirahadasha had been put in the top subsection but clearly belongs here (though if reconsideraton requirement would be met, noting preference for the 'Church of S H' title) — nominator

Delete Open to reconsideration if independent sources covering the church as a principle subject are demonstrated per WP:ORG, but this just hasn't occurred so far. I don't believe articles casually mentioning the church as the place someone got an ordination credential is inherently notable, just as articles mentioning the institution where Colby Nolan obtained an educational credential were found not to make that institution notable. Other churches in the genre that have articles, like the Universal Life Church, have gotten substantial independent press coverage, court cases, etc. to bolster their claim to notability Nothing like that has been shown here. --Shirahadasha 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reservations are expressed in my comment on the earlier vote that was moved into this subsection. — SomeHuman 23 Jan2007 00:44 (UTC)

One article on the Chicago Tribune's weblog by a proper columnist of that newspaper specifically on this particular Church, and the article in the L.A. Times in the section 'Main news' (see the url in reference) by the ex-editor of a different newpaper (The Nation), supported by a minor mentioning in an article in the Washingon Post about the practices of a few institutions as this Church, might not make this Church the biggest thing since powdered milk [paraphrasing Budgie], still it has been noted nation-wide — well enough for a short WP article, as I see it. Though of course, one or two more strongly convincing sources couldn't hurt. — SomeHuman 24 Jan2007 22:23 (UTC)

Comments

Comment New sources have been added from articles reporting a trend in do-it-yourself weddings in which an individual receives a no-requirements ordination from an on-line ordination mill. The difficulty here is that the articles just don't appear to say anything much about the church (and don't seem to pay much attention to it); it just seems to be listed as the place a blogger happened to pick to get his on-line ordination or casually mentioned in discussing a trend. This church/movement needs an article or two in mainstream media specifically on it as at least a major if not primary subject. If they exist it's notable and Keep. Otherwise not and Delete. The standard is objective, it makes no difference whether one agrees or disagrees with its beliefs and practices. --Shirahadasha 04:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could supporters identify a couple of sources -- the best sources -- and explain why they demonstrate notability? There are a now a number of marginal-looking sources. Perhaps a direct approach would cut through the rough and help us see the diamond. --Shirahadasha 04:47, 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, user blocked as a vandalism-only account. Opabinia regalis 04:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Falconi[edit]

Delete and salt - User moved his user page to the artcle space with the explanation "There is no Johnny Falconi page right now so i feel that i have the right to be in it because I am Johnny Falconi." Not sure if this qualifies for speedy as patent nonsense but he's definitely not notable, not to mention a persistent vandal. Otto4711 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as no content. So tagged. Giving the author a vandal warning. --Dennisthe2 03:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just ban him? Is there a formal nominating process for banning vandals? Otto4711 03:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There sure is. --Dennisthe2 03:19, 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 post-transwiki. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In vino veritas[edit]

This dictionary article has already been transwiki'd; now it's time to delete it. --Адам12901 ^Talk 03:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper procedure here is a Speedy Delete A5 - see ((db-transwiki)) for this template. I'll verify and get it. --Dennisthe2 03:22, 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 10:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Rojas[edit]

-Autobiographical. No shred of verifiable notability. --Infrangible 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-Keep: "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." In addition to the article found at [www.csp.navy.mil/news/rel06024.html], a separate article (which is not availible online, therefore no link is availible) was published in the national newspaper: The Navy Times. Also, a local Hawaiian news channel included a story on the nightly news about Josiah Rojas, his brother, and the intergral part they played in a policy change of the United States Navy that, up until just recently, prohibeted immediate family members from serving together on the same sea going vessal...a policy that was established due to the tragic loss of the Sullivan brothers during the attack on Pearl Harbor. This is not an autobiography, this is an article that was written about someone that truly deserves recognition. I challenge anyone to review the requirements for publication and "What Wikipedia is not" , and prove that an article on Josiah Rojas has no grounds. I am sure that any arguments will be addressed and able to be corrected with little effort. --Bobsxe 05:03, 23 January 2007

But as Rojas works for the Navy, a Navy publication is not a source "independent of the subject itself." It could be considered an in-house source. Please look at coverage of other servicemen and women on Wiki: they are considered noteworthy because they have done significant things that have received national coverage in known and independent news outlets (CNN, the New York Times, etc.). Even if Rojas is known on his ship and is popular in his place of employment, it does not qualify him for an article on Wiki. It's not a mark on him or his character; it's just saying he's not considered notable under WP:BIO or the other guidelines set forth here. DanielEng 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree not even a pretense of notability. No sources either. --Shirahadasha 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably would qualify for a speedy deletion. --Park70 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though it is quite a good read. No notability of course. --BozMo talk 11:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no notability has been explained. Jyothisingh 14:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources or references Alf photoman 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is NOT autobiographical. As a member aboard the USS Santa Fe, I have seen Mr. Rojas' actions and have read his entry in The History of the USS Santa Fe, an official Naval publication. Just because you have not heard of someone does not mean that thousands of people have not. I dare any of you to contact the USS Santa Fe. Which one of you tried to look up the sources for this article like the rules for deletion say you should and on top of that is not a reason for deletion, which also applies to your notion of "notability". --tna531 20:48, 19 January 2007
Delete as unsourced bio that does not explain why tis servicemember is in any way notable from any other servicemember, and I strongly suggest A7 speedy deletion.-- danntm ^T _C 04:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no sources. Even if sources were provided the information in the article doesn't indicate that this individual is particularly notable. Also, Danntm, it is not the responsibility of those 'voting' for deletion to provide sources, rather the burden of proof is on those who wish to keep the article. If you can provide sources that firmly establish the notability of this individual I'm sure everyone here would gladly support keeping the article. --The Way 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this individual is notable on his ship or at his workplace, it does not not make the case for Wiki standards of notablility. A search of Google turns up no sources, other than a single Navy newsletter article. DanielEng 09:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no sources, no references, no notability. And what does it mean when it says he is an "expert at the Chevy Tahoe?" •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 17:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual is notable on his ship and for our great country. I also serve with him and if all of you don't believe that someone who has saved the lives of his crew members, a United States Warship and allowed missions vital to national security to completed, and defending your freedom to say these terrible things I might add, then all of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Cali411 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No results in a google news search, or a Google news archive search [20]. Best I found in regular google was this press release and an article in the Hawai'i Naval News PDF (page 8) but they don't come close to verifying the article, and aren't adequately independent to establish notability. GRBerry 05:29, 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 speedy close- the page was hijacked by User:Plus2007. I've listed him at WP:AIV after looking at his talk page. --Wafulz 04:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AP[edit]

Does not satisfy notability guidelines President David Palmer 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this company appears to have been involved with a lot of very famous productions. Mathmo ^Talk 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was also originally a dab page so it should be reverted back to that if the company is not notiable enough. No need for deletion either way. --70.48.108.100 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protect. Page hijack by self-publicist/vandal has been reverted. Ohconfucius 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, see the Anthony's Productions, its logs, and the contributions of its creator. --Wafulz 04:23, 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 10:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESDO[edit]

Appears to not meet the notability criteria guideline laid out in WP:CORP. Also only has a few dozen ghits [21], even worse seems to have just about zilch that are in english [22]. Which would make it difficulty to build up a decent article about this, if it is even possible. Mathmo ^Talk 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Without prejudice to coming back later with a properly sourced article, if possible. --Shirahadasha 04:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom: cannot find any English language refereence apart from WP clones. --BozMo talk 12:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article is hopeless. No sources, short, no information at all. Chickyfuzz123^{(user talk)} 00:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete bordering on speedy. No sources, no references, no notability. Though, commenting on Chickyfuzz's comment, a lot of articles start out short - •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Esdo. See w:de:Esdo. William Avery 22:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whoa, you are right! Very very long article there. Am tempted to change my vote to keep. But.... I fail to see any references to news articles (or books etc...) in the German article? And my German is so close to non-existent I can't tell from reading the article itself what is there that means it is worthwhile keeping. Perhaps I could get my German grandmother to read it out to me! lol More seriously, give us some more info (in English) please and perhaps it is worthwhile keeping after all? Mathmo ^Talk 11:53, 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 Keep and Cleanup. Cbrown1023 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon dalbey[edit]

The article as it stands is highly promotional for this author/speaker. A Google search suggests that he is not notable - almost all of the results are from sites selling his books, and a few are from places who have scheduled him to speak. Not a lot of outside coverage. So, it looks to me like it should probably be deleted, but it's not completely obvious. If reliable sources turn up demonstrating that he actually is a pioneer of the Christian men's movement (as claimed) or an influential speaker, that would change things. FreplySpang 10:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. if verifiable sources are added by end of this AfD it would also change my vote Alf photoman 16:01, 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, Nishkid 64 04:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at the very least the page name is not correctly capitalised. Mathmo ^Talk 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for sources. This seems to be a potentially notable figure -- about 13,000 Ghits, books sold by Amazon, seems to be mentioned in the usual websites for the genre, like Focus on the Family. Article is clearly promotional in tone but this could be corrected. Let it sit an extra week or so on AfD and Delete if sources haven't been drummed up by then. Should capitalize the last name. --Shirahadasha 04:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I edited out most of the promotional crap this morning and moved the article to "Gordon Dalbey" with a capitalized "D". Based on g-hits he seems likely to be notable, as he is being noticed and discussed, however, documenting this may be a challenge. --Kevin Murray 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve Per my note above --Kevin Murray 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see enough to believe that he is notable as an author. Someone with JSTOR access might check this scholarly article; he is at least mentioned therein but I can't see if it is a passing mention or a demonstration of notability. One of his books was cited as a source in this 1997 Questia article; while that is not notability to our standards, it makes me believe that he is notable to our standards. Someone with access to the 1994 editions of Christianity Today should look at the July 1, 1994 issue; he is mentioned therein, but free access doesn't reveal the extent of coverage. Someone with free access to the November 5, 1999 issue of The Dallas Morning News can check their religion briefs, but that might be just an announcement of a speaking engagement. His books are included in the libraries of seminaries; see [23] (results are sorted by distance from your address; I get Harvard's divinity school, and three others in Massachusetts as the closest ones for that particular book. All in all, I think he is a notable author. Sorting out the truly independent reviews from attempts to sell his books is more than I want to dive into, but the profusion of such sales attempts is an indicator of significance all by itself. GRBerry 06:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise to deal with the promotional tone. -- Strangelv

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Tech High- Point Loma[edit]

Non notable school. No claim to fame in the article. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It shouldn't have been de-proded, what is "see wikiproject schools" supposed to mean? Surely they see that most schools are non notable --⁪froth^T 13:38, 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, Nishkid 64 04:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See High Tech High. I am not sure whether all schools are notable (some people seem to think they are) but I think that this one, being really just a part of another school, is not. --N Shar 00:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd say merge and redirect to High Tech High but that article is already more complete; so just delete the title (I doubt anyone would get the odd hyphenation and add Point Loma, they're more likely to look for High Tech High). RJFJR 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content of the article is already better covered in High Tech High. No redirect, per RJFJR's reasoning on what people will look for. WMMartin 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You mean Gary and Jerri-Ann Jacobs High Tech High Charter School? I am very tempted to request a page move to High Tech High. And while it probably is notable, it reads like a promotional brochure. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:28, 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 10:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarsus Empire[edit]

Minor webgame with no reliable sources for verification. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Google brings up 13 unique hits. Wafulz 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as a non-notable web game. JIP | Talk 10:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, no awards or reviews apparent from homepage or google results, fails WP:WEB with style. WP is not a marketing tool for everyone's favourite MMOG/flash/Indie game, anyone building articles on these games should find secondary sources first. QuagmireDog 11:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, unverifiable, needs independent sources. Terence Ong 12:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the sources to pass WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 04:21, 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 (no consensus). TigerShark 13:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Holland[edit]

Article about a young entrepreneur and TV producer. While he has been listed as one of Business Week's top 25 entrepreneurs under the age of 25, there really isn't anything else that indicates that he is notable per WP:BIO. There's no interviews, articles or other coverage of this gentleman in reliable sources and his accomplishments don't seem to be verifiable. The article itself was originally a copyvio from his personal website (until it was licensed under the GDFL), is written somewhat like a resume and Mr. Holland himself appears to be the author of the article, presenting a conflict of interest problem. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep The Business Week thing puts him over the top with me.--Wehwalt 05:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vain autobiography. Delete and wait until someone with no COI writes him up. -- RHaworth 07:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & edit for NPOV The Business Week article is likely to ensure notability --Kevin Murray 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, problems with WP:NPOV and WP:COI do not help if the article is not properly referenced and sourced. If improvements are made meeting wiki standards by end of this AfD I could change my vote to keep Alf photoman 19:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think the Business Week mention to be sufficient non-trivial sourcing to pass WP:BIO, not to mention the noticeable WP:COI issues.-- danntm ^T _C 04:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Wehwalt that the Business Week article establishes notability - If Business Week, which is a major publication, considers you one of the most notable entrepeneurs in your age group then you are notable enough for Wikipedia. Certainly there must be other sources out there if Business Week considers him this notable. Please also keep in mind that NPOV and COI problems are not valid reasons for deletion, rather they are reasons for adding a cleanup tag and such to the article. --The Way 06:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. But for the citation in Business Week, I'd say "delete". However, that is one small reference in one publication, and this person was not the main topic of the article - he was one of 25. If this person garners more media attention and better meets WP:BIO in the future, no prejudice against recreation. Agent 86 21:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some research since I figured there had to be more articles about him if he's important enough to get attention from Business Week. Turns out this guys personal website has a whole section dedicated to media coverage of him and there are quite a number of notable sources. CNN Money, Business Week, The McClean Times, Gazette.net, the Sun Gazette... all of these articles focus either solely on Joel Holland or mention him several times. There are also links to articles from TIME Magazine and the Washington Post, though these links don't seem to work anymore. Given the number of sources found here: http://www.joelkentholland.com/presscoverage.htm I think that everyone should reconsider their votes to delete. These are legitimate sources and he does seem to be quite notable. --The Way 22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is updated with such sources, I'd reconsider and say "weak keep", but as for now the article remains the same. Agent 86 00:15, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Victory[edit]

A minor webgame's article. I couldn't find any reliable sources, so there's verifiability issues. I believe it doesn't meet WP:WEB. No relevant/related sources in a Google search. Wafulz 04:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as a non-notable web game. JIP | Talk 10:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable game and possibly advertising. TonyTheTiger 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources which could satisfy WP:WEB or, to a lesser extent, WP:SOFTWARE.-- danntm ^T _C 04:22, 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, linkfarm. Ral315 (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tools for static code analysis[edit]

This has really one huge issue, it is a link farm, disguised as a list. I don't see how any of that information is useful for building an encyclopedia. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 04:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild beasts (2nd nomination)[edit]

New English band. The article was deleted before for lack of notability but with the new attention from BBC6 the article was remodeled and recreated with consensus from deletion review. So it is now back here to decide whether the new information is sufficient for the band to meet WP:MUSIC. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst I was wavering on delete, on top of the Guardian review they've been signed to the same record label as Franz Ferdinand and the Arctic Monkeys as of this month. The signs are there that this band is going places and with music I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt - at least with musicians you can be fairly sure of secondary sources appearing as soon as they make a splash. QuagmireDog 12:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having signed with Domino Records would have pushed them into "keep" territory for me, but the label's official site makes no mention of it, nor can I find mention of it anywhere else. Delete until having been signed is verified. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as author - The major claims that the band meet WP:MUSIC is the article in the guardian newspaper and being put on the BBC 6Music [24] [25] playlist. Just being signed by domino records doesn't mean they meet WP:MUSIC, they would have to release 2 albums on their label to do this RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (1) All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Notability, 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 to ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. The article now has several cited works, at least two of which appear to be the required non-trivial published works. As a second reason for meeting Wikipedia:Notability, the article now appears to be a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Thus, the article appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability policy requirements. Since the article appears to meet this policy, I believe it inherently meets the WP:MUSIC guidance that depends from that policy. (2 AfD#1) AfD#1 concerns about not meeting WP:MUSIC have been addressed in the article. (3 DR#1) Deletion Review's concerns regarding actual present notability and WP:MUSIC have been addressed in the article. (4 DR#2) Deletion Review #2's request that actual citations to information be added to article have been addressed in the article. (5) As QuagmireDog points out, this band is going places and media interest in this topic seems more likely than not. I agree that signing with Domino Records needs to be verified or removed from the article, but I the topic appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability without it. (6) In view of the above, this article should be kept because it does comply with Wikipedia policy, there is foreseeable media interest in this topic, and Wikipedians do have enough interest in this article to address the concerns brought up in the AfD#1, DR#1, DR#2, and this AfD#2. -- Jreferee 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article in Guardian and presence on 6Music passes WP:MUSIC. Eludium-q36 09:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a good point about the Domino signing, I can't find any reference to it at all on the Domino site. I think it's an important point, not just in that particular nugget of info but also the wider perception of the article. I've just sent Domino an email asking whether this is the case. It's anybody's guess whether a reply will be received at all, let alone during the remainder of this AFD, regardless I'll post anything of interest here or on the talk page. QuagmireDog 20:42, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Munro[edit]

DeleteThe author is writting about himself which violates the WP:OR and WP:COI guidelines. Perhaps this is notable enough to keep but I have to say ninjutsu is notorious for inflated ranks - 12th Dan after 15 years? I also brought it here for opinions on what to do in general - ie other similar cases. I would say it should be a user page.Peter Rehse 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I do not dispute any of the Wikipedia guidelines (as they exist in part to protect the integrity of the information provided), I am unaware of what evidence exists for inflated ranks among Ninjutsu practitioners of the Bujinkan organization (Ninjutsu being only one of many fields of study taught and practiced within the Bujinkan). There certainly are martial arts practitioners throughout the world who misrepresent themselves, however, I am presently unaware of anyone doing so in the Bujinkan organization. In fact, I am unaware of any factual information supporting that this practice exists in any form within the Bujinkan. There are individuals throughout the world who have created their own martial arts (including those who claim to teach various forms of Ninjutsu), who have bestowed inflated ranks upon themselves. Perhaps this is where the source of your statement lies. However, I am unaware of any factual information suggesting that this practice exists in the Bujinkan. In terms of Dan grades, the Bujinkan divides its Dan ranks into 15 increments instead of the typical 10. Some might say that a 12th Dan in the Bujinkan organization may equate more to a 7th or 8th Dan in other martial systems. Furthermore, when awarding a rank, Masaaki Hatsumi takes much into account. In other organizations, ranks may be earned based on one or more of the following attributes: proficiency of skill, years of membership, loyalty, teaching, competition, judging, coaching, and other attributes. The Bujinkan is also unique in their approach to ranking, with one constant being the Sakki test performed by Masaaki Hatsumi, in order for the practitioner to attain the rank of 5th Dan. I am in fact a 12th Dan in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.
Delete vanity -- Samir धर्म 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:OR violation with WP:COI issues. WP:BIO is not met. Notibility not asserted.--155.144.251.120 05:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:OR. Terence Ong 12:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:OR and lacking neutral references Alf photoman 19:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The contents of the page have been copied to User:Donald Munro which I guess is how it should be. Actually it makes a very nice user page.Peter Rehse 08:05, 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 10:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Cohen[edit]

Convicted child molester in prison for the next several years. Original version of the article was a text dump from http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Cohen_James.html which I guess is a site to tell people about people like this. I don't see anything remotely distinctive or notable about him. Must be tens of thousands like him, in every prison. Fan-1967 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, nothing to make this person or case distinctive. GassyGuy 05:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails the "predator test", nothing to distinguish him from the average predator. (For an example of a notable molestor, see Michael Charles Glennon, whose case involved the highest court in Australia as well as a notable event in a leading broadcaster's career.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing too distinctive about this case, and wikipedia is not a directory of sexual offenses.-- danntm ^T _C 14:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems verifiable from the Chicago paper, and the other reference. That seems to make it notable based on the Wikipedia definition. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dhartung. We aren't a registry of crime descriptions. --DanielCD 18:53, 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 obvious spam. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Development Consultants Directory (EDCD)[edit]

The article reads like an advertisement, EDCD has only been around since 2006. There are barely a dozen ghits. [26] As such I fail to see how it meeting any notability guidelines. See WP:CORP etc... Mathmo ^Talk 04:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's tagged it for speedy deletion, which I wholeheartedly agree with. yandman 08:11, 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. I will make the article available to anyone who wants to work on adding sources, just ask on my talk page. W.marsh 19:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Legacy (computer game)[edit]

The game was orginally nominated to "no consensus" here. In the last several months, there has still only been one non-trivial source presented, though I'm nto sure how major strategyinformer.com is. I believe the subject does not present multiple non-trivial sources for verifiability, and that it doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB (take your pick). There are original research issues too seeing as the game's forum is cited as a source several times. Wafulz 05:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, yes the article has a few problems. But then again what article doesn't? In conclusion I do not see this being a bad enough example that we should give up hope on it and delete it away completely. Thus I support keep. Mathmo ^Talk 08:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having only one source (an interview with the creator, no less) is a problem. It's hard to build a neutral/comprehensive article from one source. --Wafulz 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've been the main editor of that page. Yes, sources are little, but the information is acurate, and little bit comes from the creator over the games creation period, not said specifically for this page to advertise it. I've also, if you review history of both the page and discussion, tried to implement or remove parts of the article to help save it. So please be generous and contribute yourself if you think the article needs work. --K776 08:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The best way to get this article kept is to present multiple reliable sources --Wafulz 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One non-trivial source is enough. -Toptomcat 14:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we need multiple sources. We still only have one pre-release interview. It even states in WP:WEB that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --Wafulz 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But then almost 50% of all pages relating to products and games would have to go. Not everything has multiple reliable sources, especially during its early development. A reliable source to me is something that can be seen by everyone. For example "3d graphics" can be seen, "amazing 3d graphics using a new graphics system in the backend" cannot. Thats all that should matter on articles like these. Facts that can be seen by others by simply opening the game, and they must be said without opinion. I've tried my best to do that. --K776 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hyperbole and made up statistics won't answer this article's problems. A reliable source is something that has gone through an editorial process, as noted in the reliable source guidelines. What you've described ("seeing") is actually original research, which is not allowed. The first couple of lines of WP:V sum it up:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

--Wafulz 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any sources independent of the game's creators. Most of the assertions made in the article, moreover, do not appear to be sourced at all. As I stated in the previous debate: this looks rather nifty, but it's not yet encyclopedia-article-worthy. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources and the article seems to consist primarily of original research. Also, in response to some of the above comments, one legitimate source is insufficient as policy requires at least two. Whether or not other existing articles fail to meet this requirement is of no relevance in this case; that's an argument supporting nominating those articles for deletion rather than an argument for keeping this article. If proper sources can't be supplied then this article needs to go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Way (talk • contribs) 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Minor nitpick: WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE are guidelines, not policy. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but they're just logical extensions of WP:V and WP:NOR, which are policies. --Wafulz 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've done some searching. Does http://pc.gamezone.com/gamesell/p28064.htm change anything? Or does that not count? GameZone is a popular place right? Or do I need to look for others? --K776 09:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd never heard of GameZone, actually. It looks like it's a reputable site, judging from the article; however, that page probably wouldn't be considered a "non-trivial" source, as all it has (as far as I can tell) is a description of the game's storyline and a couple of screenshots. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've heard of Gamezone and it is reputable, however we need to be careful when using gaming magazines to determine notability. Almost all games get attention in the bigger gaming magazines and websites; usually every game gets a preview and a review, this may not be sufficient for notability since these magazines are so indiscriminate. Just something to think about. --The Way 21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, regardless of the source, this isn't even a review- it's just a brief paragraph about the game, so it's not actually the subject of an article. --Wafulz 21:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Someone from QL found these links. Atleast one of them has to be useful? --K776 08:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.igf.com/php-bin/entries.php?entry_id=63

http://www.gamershell.com/download_11270.shtml

http://www.mpogd.com/games/game.asp?ID=1863

http://mmo.portalsnetwork.com/index.php?module=PortalGameDB&func=display&game=843

http://www.wickedsmallgames.com/games/q/quantum-legacy-initial-tactics/

http://www.sanitariumgames.com/strategy-games/quantum-legacy.html

http://pc.gamezone.com/gamesell/p28064.htm

http://www.ownage.nl/game/1619/

None of these appear to contain any substantial content which wasn't copied from the QL website, or any independent reviews more substantial than numerical user ratings. (MPOGD actually describes it as "massively multiplayer" for some reason, which is completely wrong.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats sad. But give it more time. More articles will be written and more reviews printed. Just because it doesn't have them now doesn't mean it wont have them in the near future. --K776 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately for this article we have a policy (WP:Crystal) that states that we can't keep something because we expect it to become notable in the future because it is not a definite thing. If additional reviews do come out in the future then this article can be recreated at that time. --The Way 22:00, 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 17:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machosexual[edit]

First afd was a decision to delete, but the amount of coverage for the term appears to have picked up. Still neologistic. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, term has WP:RS articles where it is the primary topic. [27][28](sorta) In fact, the Reader's Digest is so stodgy I think them devoting an article to a neologism is almost acceptance per se. My major problem with the term is dicdef. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, pretty much echoing Dhartung here. Needs to be fleshed out, I think, or transwiki it. --Dennisthe2 08:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has enough reason to stay as it is and I see strong potential for the article to be greatly improve in the future. Mathmo ^Talk 08:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Obvious WP:NEO failure. Also Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Dacium 11:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Reader's Digest source is sufficient to prove notability. -Toptomcat 14:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Machismo which is the exact same thing. Static Universe 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Transwiki to the Wiktionary. While the sources seem good enough, this is, as Dhartung has noted (despite his vote for keeping the article), nothing more than a dictionary definition and I doubt anything else can really be added to the article. --The Way 06:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Transwiki as per The Way. zadignose 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Transwiki. I agree with The Way. Verkhovensky 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after sources provided. Article cleanup encouraged. Non-admin closure per WP:CSK (and to mitigate backlog). Serpent's Choice 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popomundo (second nomination)[edit]

The game was deleted from an AfD in March 2006. No idea how similar the articles are now. Anyway, no reliable sources have been found or presented, there are issues with verifiability, and I don't think the game meets WP:WEB. No reliable sources found from Google either. Wafulz 05:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn on the presentation of multiple reliable secondary sources. Thanks for your hard work Morhange. --Wafulz 15:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have articles on something as insignificant as the Janesville Country Club, surely an article on a game with over 75000 (according to the main page) players worldwide merits an article. If necessary, as a player of the game, I can encourage some of the other players to expand the article, since the game has a lot of things that you wouldn't expect to find in a game based on musical careers. Some of the sources are from the game as well. Morhange 05:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The inclusion of other articles is not criteria for the inclusion of this one. This AfD deals with this article and this article's lack of independent sourcing. --Wafulz 05:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless reliable sources can be found to assert notability. GassyGuy 05:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Out of curiosity, does the fact that the game has 75,000 members worldwide not make it notable? Morhange 05:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that always ends up in an argument around "how many are active" and "this number isn't big enough". Notability is defined by WP:WEB standards. --Wafulz 05:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I know that that an article about the game appeared in the Spanish version of Rolling Stone, if that counts for anything. Morhange 06:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can find proof of significant RS mention. Google News Archive returns a grand total of 0 hits. yandman 08:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, total ghits are massive. From this initial simple analysis it appears to be widely known and popular to some, with other non-afilliated websites supporting the game such as this one. [29] Mathmo ^Talk 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it notable following our criteria. We've got to avoid a bias towards "internet notability", which is why we insist on more than GHits. yandman 10:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's the Rolling Stone article text [30], and a translated version [31] and the full article [32] It was in the July 2006 of the Spanish Rolling Stone. It was also mentioned here and here as well. Morhange 09:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly the sort of discussion that we want. Thank you. Please cite more sources. Uncle G 10:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A mention in the Spanish Rolling Stone, plus many, many Google hits, is enough for me. -Toptomcat 14:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popomundo is a pretty much closed society for those not a registered member. A wikipedia entry will be of use for those who have heard about it but don't want to register. The article could be shortened though, because there is no point in listing skills etc. --2GooD 15:19, 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. Cbrown1023 17:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Synge[edit]

Minor cartoon character. Should not have its own article. Fails WP:N. Wehwalt 05:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a list of minor Marvel Comics characters if there is one, otherwise delete. JIP | Talk 10:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per WP:FICT minor character not to have own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 11:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No such article for minor characters, I don't think it's worth the while to include as an entry on List of Marvel Comics characters. Agent 86 01:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-notable. Willing to reconsider if secondary source is provided showing real world relevancy. --maclean 05:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As explained by the nominator; those arguing otherwise fail to substantially address the issue of sourcing required by the consensually adopted guideline WP:N and its variants; see also WP:ILIKEIT. Sandstein 09:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Nation[edit]

I was originally going to prod this, but there are two "reviews" linked at the bottom, so technically it should be brought here. This review is not actually a review at all, and this is user submitted. Reliable sources should be non-trivial, independent, and should have to go through an editorial process. Verifiability issues, and doesn't meet WP:WEB. I could find no reliable sources on Google. Wafulz 05:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Kingdom of Loathing has an article and so should this one. Both are the same kind of thing. Mathmo ^Talk 08:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing to other articles is no reason to keep it.--Dacium 11:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB. One review is from non-notable site. Another is just a random user 10/10 review. Nothing else to assert notibility.--Dacium 11:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear it has any reliable published information about it. Wickethewok 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm confused as to why a review of a game some how makes the game worth being included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. This game currently has over 4,700 registered players and has been around for a couple years. That would seem to be enough to let it stay.

Additionally, if no one has looked, there are very few reviews - anywhere - for any type of browser-based online games. Does that mean that any browser-based game has to work uphill to be posted on Wikipedia?

As for "article comparisons," of course it matters if this article is identical to another that isn't deleted, as that Kingdom of Loathing article has no reviews connected to it either. If you don't compare articles, and some pass through via one set of rules, some others, you don't have a comprehensive set of standards. You just have the random whims of "editors," which isn't going to lend any credibility to Wikipedia... PseudoSherlock

We're looking for reliable sources to base the article upon- Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. If Kingdom of Loathing doesn't have any sources, I'll probably nominate it at some point too. And to answer your question: Does that mean that any browser-based game has to work uphill to be posted on Wikipedia? Yes, this is pretty much how it goes-articles are a reflection of the number of sources presented. We also have tons of rules for every topic- every article must meet WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Internet-based articles must meet WP:WEB, biographies must meet WP:BIO, and there are numerous requirements for other topics too. This nomination isn't based on a whim- it's based on policies and guidelines. --Wafulz 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dacium. Edison 15:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB 82.13.43.180 12:42, 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. DS 17:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artart[edit]

Blatant hoax. No references, no google hits supporting this use. May have been created specifically so it could be linked to from (and used as an inline reference for) Artard, currently on AFD. -- Vary | Talk 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, joke. yandman 08:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same arguments from the AFD for Artard. --Dennisthe2 08:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tried many different combinations in google to search with along with Artart, but nothing at all seems to be coming up that is referring to this other than the wikipedia article itself. Mathmo ^Talk 08:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO--Dacium 11:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very quickly. -Toptomcat 14:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Seems to be a joke. DanielEng 09:44, 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 and Redirect to Pride and Prejudice. Cbrown1023 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgiana Darcy[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), minor characters do not merit separate articles. Miss Darcy is a very minor character. Even major Pride and Prejudice characters, such as George Wickham, Jane Bennett and Lydia Bennett, do not have their own articles, much less other, more significant minor characters, such as Mr. Collins. Clarityfiend 06:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This character is only in one or two scenes (and referred to in one or two more) and has not been discussed by non-trivial third parties in her own right. She doesn't come close to meeting the requirements of the WP:FICT guideline. --Charlene 07:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor character as per WP:FICT--Dacium 07:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor character.--Wehwalt 09:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basis current content. --BozMo talk 09:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pride and Prejudice, as a credible search term. Eludium-q36 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep For this novel, perhaps all characters are notable. How notable the minor characters are depends on the status of the book. Children of Kings and Presidents are considered notable, tho not children of most others people. There is at least one specific reference, from the MLA bibliography; I added it. If one goes by sources, the younger Bennetts and Wickham don't have any, so there's a distinction. There are about 5 or so more dealing with her together with one or more of the other characters. --(Google Scholar ).DGG 04:43, 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 21:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelliana[edit]

The article's interesting, but basically just non-notable, unencyclopedic fancruft for Cornell (can there be fancruft for a University?) Some of this info probably has a place in the Cornell article, but much of it is ridiculously widespread and of no real interest--chalkings, traying: what university doesn't do this? Also, a lot of it is just random student gossip/legends that have no place in an encyclopedia. Velvet elvis81 07:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This is going to open a can of worms. I think it might be valid to have a culture page which this basically is. However I don't see how this meets notibility guidelines. This is of interest to no one except people who go there and it is mainly neoligisms and weird cruft. Its not really definable or verifiable since sources are mainly itself.--Dacium 07:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, plenty of the subsection have links to main articles about what the subsection is about. This article is basically a very convenient way of collecting all the cultural etc... aspects of Cornell together. Very handy. Mathmo ^Talk 08:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, keeps all cultural information about Cornell in one place. Many of the items have subpages or citations. --Xtreambar 12:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Could use some updating/organization, but it is certainly of interest to many people.2afterblue 15:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, I may have a bias here, but this article containts well-referenced facts and history about Cornell, its alumni and its unique culture, and it belongs in the encyclopedia. This information belongs in either its own article, or the Cornell article. Deleting this article will expand the Cornell main article with this informattion to a beyond cumbersome size; this article should be kept for that reason alone. Cornell Rockey 15:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't this be better titled as something like "Cornell University Traditions"? People researching Cornell University might be interested, and would be more inclined to look at the article if it had a more understandable title. Citicat 03:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not only is the title of the article inappropriate for the content, much of the article consists of Original Research (although some of it is sourced). I'm not convinced that an article on cultural aspects of a particular university are sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia and, if it is decided that this is the case, then we will need to be willing to accept similar articles for all universities. Indeed, if this is kept I may develop articles on cultural aspects of my alma mater, Millikin Univeristy, as well as my grad school. Overall this seems just a bit too trivial... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Way (talk • contribs) 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I've added a bunch of citations in response to the allegation of "original research". I hope these clarify a few things. --Xtreambar 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new citations help, though some sections still need them (or should be removed). Examples are the sections on traying and on Campbells Soup. I'm still not fully convinced that we should have articles on cultural aspects of individual universities, but I'm not strongly opposed either. Anyone else have any thoughts on the precedent that this would set? --The Way 21:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If there are people that find the information on this page useful and personally beneficial, then I say we definitely keep it. As one of those people, I know that we do exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.153.17 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 January 2007
Strong Keep University traditions are notable and generally well-referenced. Cornell is no exception. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my opinion from delete to Neutral. The article needs better sourcing, but the sources that do exist are notable enough. I am not 'voting' either way, however, because I remain unconvinced that the cultural traditions of any given university are notable enough for inclusion on the Wikipedia. It would be nice to see a guideline/policy developed specifically for universities about what aspects of a university are acceptable for articles. Overall, I still sort of agree Dacium's claim that "This is of interest to no one except people who go there and it is mainly neoligisms and weird cruft." --The Way 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some parts of this article are non-notable or undocumented, and have no place here. Other parts ( e.g. Dragon Day ) are notable and already covered. In any case, the correct place to put links to the notable items is in the main Cornell University article. If we accept Cornelliana we will have to add Oxoniana, Cantabriana, Yaliana, Harvania immediately. And then we'll have to add Mancastriana, Cantuarian, Sorbonniana, MITiana. And in due course we'll have Podunkiana and HicksvilleAlabamiana. And that's just the universities, because we'll have to add Trekiana ( already an established fan term ), Pokemoniana and GalaxyQuestiana ( or should that be Questorianiana ? ). And so on. Notable lore about an existing subject should either go in the appropriate existing article, or should be notable enough to stand in an article on its own, linked to from the main article. ( My suspicion is that this is ultimately a confusion of variable typing. ) WMMartin 15:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This deletion debate is really a debate about how we file things at least as much as it is about the content of the article. I suggest that in closing this debate the two aspects are treated separately. WMMartin 15:40, 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 both speedy deleted, the list as patent nonsense and Cahoots TV as author requested deletion via page blanking (G7).--Kchase T 10:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cahoots TV[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a purported episode guide for the same non-existent series:

Blatantly non-existent TV show that is claimed to have begun airing in 2013. Wikipedia is not for people's daydreams about the wonderful TV shows they will have on the air six years in the future. Antaeus Feldspar 07:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Ah, so now the author has radically moved the air dates twelve years back to eliminate the most glaring proof that this is purely a figment of imagination and not a real TV show. Sorry, the cat's already out of the bag. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day by a certain Mathew Tory. yandman 08:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. iMDB check indicates that Cahoots was a TV film produced/directed by Dirk Benedict. Certainly this show doesn't exist in this dimension, but since we can't verify contents and whatnot of alternate dimensions where Mathew Tory really is successful, this certainly doesn't belong here. --Dennisthe2 08:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse deletion. If this really is an "Emmy and Golden Globe" winning series there should be heaps upon heaps of ghits. Yet I fail to find any that say to me this is worth keeping. Mathmo ^Talk 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a figment of someone's imagination. The author has removed numerous deletion tags over the last few days, but now he's blanked both articles I guess they can be speedily deleted. PC78 01:59, 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 per WP:NOT#CBALL. Sandstein 09:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs[edit]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, WP:RS, apparently being used by some SOCOM forum as a "wish list" for a future game, see the talk page. Was prodded and speedy attempted. Tubezone 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Tubezone 18:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per just about every policy, guideline, and ounce of common sense we have. yandman 08:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, am curious if either of you two tried a quick google search first before gunning for this article to be deleted? (no pun intended... ;p) You will see that such a game is planned to come out for the PS3, and that is hardly surprising news either considering that this would be a squeal in an extremely successful franchise. Having said this though, the article could do with improvement. Mathmo ^Talk 08:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did Google this, only turned up WP and forum posts, which are not reliable sources per WP guidelines. There is no official release date or announcement, even the article is peppered with phrases like heavily rumored, etc. Rumors don't count as sources, either. Tubezone 13:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you didn't notice the reviews or interviews with developers where it was mentioned. Mathmo ^Talk 07:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Where? Put the references in the article, that's where they belong, readers shouldn't have to google references. Even if that kind of reference is provided, it still doesn't address WP:CRYSTAL problems. Why not just wait until the game is released for an article? Then there's no problem verifying anything. Tubezone 08:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With references it would meet WP:CRYSTAL, this is a major gaming series which we are talking about here. Mathmo ^Talk 09:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With references Ain't none. this is a major gaming series Which 99.7% of the population of the Earth doesn't give a flying shit about. About a kajillion people on this planet are out busting their culos trying to make enough money to buy a freaking tortilla for lunch. No article? Tough shit, suffer. Bite my shiny metal ass. Tubezone 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is going to be game but the list of weapons etc. is not verifiable and is not cited, none of the article is.--Dacium 11:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thus you accept this here can and even should be an article but the problem is rather the current page, in that it needs to be improved? Mathmo ^Talk 07:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. Wikipedia is not for guessing games. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can speculate to your heart's content: game forums, MySpace, personal web pages, take your pick. When this game is officially announced, there will be a WP page on it. This is not a permanent deletion. Get your knickers untwisted, keeping this article will not make SOCOM 4 magically appear, besides, they could f**k it up completely and you may be sorry you got your hopes up. 'Pooter programmers have been known to screw up once in a while. ;-) Tubezone 10:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense to the fact you are responding to me as if I'm some fanboy of the series, I've never even played a single game from the series. Am merely trying to put some degree of sanity back into the proceedings.Mathmo ^Talk 11:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the information can be verified and cited to trustworthy sources.-- danntm ^T _C 14:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information on this page cannot be found anywhere else. It is at best original research, but most likely all made up. In either case, it cannot be verified. Aside from that, it is dishonest in a number of ways, such as the "Zipper Interactive Project Revealed" headline, when no such project has been revealed. Tzepish 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*DO NOT DELETE, A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH WILL PROVE ITS COMING OUT!!! Randomoss

Already tried that. This 2 sentence IGN entry is the only thing I could find even close to a reliable source of info, and even that states that it's merely rumor, and NOTE: Although this game has been confirmed to be in development, it has not been officially announced. No list of features, release date, official name, or anything else that can be confirmed, has been announced. When there's something verifiable, this article can be restored with proper sourcing. Try to be patient, don't go Eric Cartman on us and run off and freeze yourself in a snowdrift, OK? ;-) Tubezone 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either Trim mercilessly and stubify until actual details are released, or (second grudging choice) Delete without any prejudice whatsoever. If a new part of a widely published game is coming out some time, that's notable - but fan rumours should be treated as they are, fan rumours of highly debatable merit. Analysis of the fanbase's reaction has to go - altogether too speculative. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim+stub or Delete per Wwwwolf. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to SOCOM 3: U.S. Navy SEALs. And by merge, I mean one sentence about the rumor using the IGN link Tubezone provided. There simply isn't enough information or enough reliable sources for this to warrant its own article. ShadowHalo 04:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without any kind of concrete info, it's hard to justify. Delete now and recreate closer to a release date.Korranus 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, can be recreated when game is officially announced. --Alan Au 23:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade 14:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime conventions[edit]

Article is being used as a SPAM mouthpiece for larger conventions and shutting out the inclusion of smaller conventions in the same state as the larger conventions. The requirements to be able to be listed in this article is haphazard, to say the least. List is semi-redundant to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anime_conventions and a far more informative site on this subject already exists at animecons.com Animesouth 08:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but hopefully make less America-centric. I don't see many problems with this list. JIP | Talk 11:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As a bad faith nomination. Nominator has a history of edit waring through and anonymous account to inserting his own convention, Anime South, onto the list, but was reverted because it doesn't meet criteria. Nominator has also failed to "broaden" the lists criteria to included all anime conventions so that his convention can be listed. But there is really nothing wrong with the list as is. Attendances figures are verified through AnimeCons.com or other sources on the main articles. The list is also annotated and sorted so that conventions in the area are grouped together instead of purely alphabetically. --Farix (Talk) 11:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 12:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Reason for nomination is invalid. -Toptomcat 14:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If it distresses anyone, they don't have to read it. The information seems encyclopedic and well documented. --TommyOliver 01:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for different reasons (I find the nominator's reasoning invalid). See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files item #2 (Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links). Articles consisting almost entirely of a list are inappropriate, and better handled by Categories. There is already an "Anime conventions" category; that should be sufficient. -Amatulic 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of major anime conventions. The article has criteria which exclude certain anime conventions (see its talk page) and as such this list is not congruent with the category. Other editors on the page seem to support the criteria (and in general I am in favor of filtered or prioritized lists of this kind). The reason for the nomination is controversy over the misleading title (which suggests an unfiltered list); correct the title and the problem goes away. Avt tor 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any spam on this article. You have to draw a line somewhere for what needs to be included and the requirements seem perfectly valid to me. If this list is redundant then every list that is also a subcategory of Category:Conventions is, List of science fiction conventions, et al would all have to go as well. --Squilibob 00:24, 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. Cbrown1023 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records[edit]

No long running game shows have record page, why should a newer popular show have one? All the other recent game show records pages were deleted, this shouldn't be any exception. Move to a gameshow wiki (if there is one

Original nomination here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records RobJ1981 08:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not because the article may set a precedent or be an exception to the norm (both these things are acceptable), simply because it's totally arbitary in places (relies on what editors think are significant wins rather than any published source), and is not referenced anywhere (and hence not readily verifiable). It also drifts way off topic in places. Finally, I'm just not sure that it's warranted, at least not in an encyclopaedia: noting the top and bottom wins might perhaps be justified in the main article, but otherwise there's nothing particularly encyclopaedic about the rest. --John24601 15:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, trivial, fancruft. Fails WP:NOT. Bwithh 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst a very thorough article, ~~Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information~~. Content seems very trivial and has little to no chance of gaining any reliable sources. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, nothing in the section [[Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information appears to apply to this article. That section is very limited in scope (ie the specific items listed in the section that have broader consensus for deletion).

It seems I have misinterpreted the policy somewhat, hence I have struck though this. To elaborate on the point I intended to make, I feel that the article could stand if it were drastically cut down. Winning a significantly large or small amount of money is notable and worthy of inclusion, but being one of 30ish people to win between 10p and £100 seems too insignificant to me. Likewise listing ~20 people to win £20,000 and ~10 to win £10. This is content for a fan site, not an encyclopedia. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move Perhaps this article could be moved to Wikia Scratchpad like the episode lists were? Although this isn't really the best article on Wikipedia, it is very useful for fans of the show, and there are an awful lot of them!

The fact that something is useful does not make it encyclopaedic or mean that it deserves mention on wikipedia - see WP:NOT --John24601 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (assuming article's references up to par) Reviewing the article and WP:NOT as cited above, I fail to see any parts of WP:NOT that apply to this article. The indiscriminate section cited is, as written, limited in scope primarily to the areas of consensus mentioned in the policy, none of which fit this article. Likewise, other sections of WP:NOT don't fit either. In fact, this would appear to be essentially an episodic-synopsis of the series. And since articles about television series episodes are generally acceptable, and this article actually accumulates multiple episode details within a single text, if anything this appears to be a better format for providing details for a weekly serial realty series. Just my opinion. Dugwiki 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR has several points which would disagree with you, as does indeed WP:V. First of all, all of the information on here is from a primary source (the show), which, as both policies say, is to be avoided if at all possible, due to the inherent bias and possibility of misinterpretation of these sources. As all of the information is from the show itself, there is also no notability to the subject: if you find secondary sources (e.g. newspaper articles) on specific wins, then those are notable: a list of what hapenned in a show is not. The bit I was pointing to in WP:NOT was "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". --John24601 10:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also the last item on the list Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas, which specifically makes my point above regarding OR. --John24601 11:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reply, WP:NOT is not WP:NOR or WP:V. The nomination and most of the comments above said that the article violates WP:NOT, which isn't true. If the article has a problem with verification and references, that is a violation of WP:NOR, which is a different policy. If you want to complain about the lack of verification, that's fine, but that is an entirely different subject from what I discussed above. Dugwiki 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way, the article doesn't violate WP:NOT, but it might violate WP:V or WP:NOR because of a lack of references. My keep recommendation is going to be contingent on the references being up to par (I'll alter my suggestion accordingly). Dugwiki 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" - I think we can assume that any "important" games mentioned on here (other than the highest & lowest wins) are probably somebody's own thoughts. It's also a news report of kinds, and opinion on current affairs. Also, whilst it's not fiction, I think it comes under the spirit (if not the letter) of the plot summaries section of WP:NOT (under wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). --John24601 06:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to each of those concerns -

1) "Not a publisher of original thought" The article does not obviously fit this section, which covers "publishing your own thoughts and analysis". It is listing data about the show, but is not (far as I know) an analysis by the author about what the data might mean in any social or scientific context. And anything that is disputably original opinion can be deleted from the article without deleting the entire thing. For example, if it appears that a comment about the significance of an event is a "weasel word" or the author's opinion, that can be deleted without removing the actual data. Note that there is, however, the issue of providing references to verify the facts.

2) "News reports" specifically covers the firsthand reporting on breaking stories. These are not breaking stories, but rather an accumulation of historical data from the show. It is not reporting on "current" events, but indexing historical ones.

3)"Plot summaries" Plot summaries is specifically for works of fiction, which this isn't, and says that an article should not solely provide a summary of a fictional plot. Since the show is neither fictional and is providing information outside of a simple plot summary, this section does not apply.

So, again, I am unconvinced that this article fails to meet WP:NOT standards. It might fail on standards regarding providing references, though, and like many articles could probably stand a cleanup on the writing. Dugwiki 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/else merge. Lots of good work in this, but it's still far too comprehensive and undeserving of an article in the first place when considering most game shows. Put the top wins and some smaller misc facts into the main article under 'UK Records and Facts'.
Keep My opinion has not altered one jot since the original nomination. All facts are verifiable against original transmissions; such source-based research meets WP:RS and WP:NOR. Lack of precedent is no ground to delete, nor are claims of "trivia". Eludium-q36 09:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the decision is to delete this, would the nominator please let me know about it as I will move it over to another wiki. However, I will only do this is the decision is delete. Cipher ^(Yell) 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're prepared to transwiki in the event of a delete, then surely that indicates that you know of another wiki where this would be appropriate. This being the case, why have you not already at least copied it there? --John24601 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. Verification has to be repeatable, and already-broadcast episodes of game shows are not, by and large, retrievable for anyone who wants to check the facts. The episodes of most fiction TV programmes can be used as primary sources because every episode is usually easily available on video, but episodes of daily gameshows are not. Verification is also not repeatable if verifying the record requires watching every single episode and looking for the highest/lowest bid etc, that would be original research, but as Noel makes a habit of comparing current games to previous records, I would guess that most of the records have been explicitly set out in one episode or another. However, that's the point, I have to guess - I cannot go back and watch previous episodes because it's a gameshow and unlike fictional series, there is no way for the average reader to confirm the facts. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, repeatability of verification is an interesting point that might be relevant to a related more general topic of how to handle episodic information for television series. Some television series have articles for each episode, but other series don't. The point you bring up regarding some shows not airing in syndicated or DVD reruns is a good one, and could apply not only to game shows but also soap operas and professional wrestling shows, etc. We might want to require that, if a show does not air reruns, the information be verifiable through a DVD, for example, or a published news article or review talking about that particular episode. I'll mention this on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television - it might help lead to a good guideline for handling these sorts of shows. Dugwiki 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really strong keeep This article is really good and hold records for a lot of records for deal or no deal and is generally an excellent article. definitely keep-- Tellyaddict 16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's wonderful - it houses a whole host of information. But, that information isn't necessarily encyclopaedic. As myself and others have pointed out, it's not verifiable (as if it were sourced, which it isn't, it would be to individual shows which the average reader has no way of getting hold of a copy of), and because we are taking it straight from a primary source, we have no way to establish notability (as we would if, say, we were to make reference to academic papers, newspaper articles etc.). I'm also not sure that it's particularly encyclopaedic to have such a list, regardless of its sources. Finally, going back to the notability issue - right now, a few editors are interested in it. In 12 months, nobody will remember the majority of these players and wins, and in 5-10 years, the entire show is likely to be a distant memory. So why should we keep it? "It holds alot of information" doesn't really cut the ice, IMHO. --John24601 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Secondary sources exist for all the transmissions, I've added dond.co.uk and Bother's Bar to the article. These are fansites, and may not individually meet WP:RS, but I submit that these sources, when taken together, are reliable for our purposes. As noted by other contributors to this discussion, the content is far less well-defined than it should be; I have a draft revision in userspace (still over 10K), which I shall submit for review by the article's regular editors, contributors here, and other concerned parties. Eludium-q36 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider that fan sites count as unbiased secondary sources, all they prove is that someone else has already written a list of what hapenned in every episode: that's no reason for us to do the same, or to pick out what we consider to be the most important ones. IMHO, the topic only becomes notable once it is talked about outside of the inner-core of fans (e.g. a newspaper article, and more than one at that). --John24601 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic, trivial fancruft. Merge actual records (as in, the actual highest and lowest amount won; the seconds through 30th highest are not "records" at all, IMO) into main page for the show and get rid of the rest. Geoffrey Spear 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, trivial fancruft. --SunStar Net^talk 20:12, 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 Speedy delete as reposted deleted material. This comes up on DRV under the name "Angry Nintendo Nerd" every couple of weeks or so, never with any convincing reason to undelete and always with a unanimous consensus to keep it deleted. There is no reason to go through this again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Video Game Nerd[edit]

The original article on this subject Angry Nintendo Nerd was deleted after an AfD. The Angry Video Game Nerd article was originally protected to prevent it being used to recreate Angry Nintendo Nerd. After AVGN was unprotected it was recreated on January 16 covering the material from the original ANN article, despite there being no deletion review to overturn the original AfD. So technically this article could be speedy deleted under WP:CSD:G4. However I'd rather open discussion to the community. There is a claim of notability, but the only reliable source cited is a brief mention of one of James Rolfe's online reviews being shown in the background of an MTV report on internet celebrities. This doesn't seem to reach the requirements of WP:BIO, so I believe unless further sources can be found this article should be deleted and salted to prevent further recreation as the subject is not notable and the article is not properly verifiable. Gwernol 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a repost. Still no coverage of this fellow by reliable sources. Make the namespace a protected redirect to Angry Nintendo Nerd. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person is probably the only thing on this planet mentioned in nine other languages including German [33], Japanese [34], Swedish [35], Dutch [36], French [37], and Hebrew [38] and still not be considered worthy enough to be on here.

He's been translated into Spanish[39] and Portugese[40].

He was even mentioned on MTV (youtube link is down) and Poland's largest gaming magazine [41]. You guys have to be doing this out of pure arrogant spite. Richard Cane 11:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Still fails WP:BIO--Dacium 11:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about explaining how it fails using more than three words. Seriously, this amounts to saying "me no like". That has been good enough in the past but maybe try explaining how it fails for those of us who actually need things to be explained.Richard Cane 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Etiquette

Don't ignore questions.

I asked a whole bunch of questions the people on here couldn't be bothered to answer so perhaps if you want to, you know, follow the rules of Wikipedia for once, you could answer them so this won't keep being brought up. Richard Cane 11:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO defines what kind of notability a person has to meet to warrant a Wikipedia article. What exactly has this person done that makes him qualify to be notable according to this guideline? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 11:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting really sick of repeating myself so just click and read the discussion here and explain how countless millions knowing about this guy doesn't make him notable. Everyone just says he isn't without explaining why those millions aren't good enough. WHO OR WHAT needs to mention him to make him good enough for people like you?

I'll quote a message JzG left on your talk page: As to sourcing etc., lists of Google hits don't amount to a hill of beans. What we need is evidence that this has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Articles in the tech press describing the site, stories in the newspapers about it, books which cover it in detail, that kind of thing. So has it been talked about in detail in notable printed publications? Have sites like Wired News or IGN covered it? For these topics, those are the kind of reliable sources we're looking for. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 12:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight.

If people from many different countries who speak nine different languages have noticed something it still isn't notable because IGN hasn't written an article about it?

If millions on youtube have been watching him, and Alexa confirms those millions, that isn't verifiable because they aren't "independent of the subject". What entity has taken control of Alexa and youtube to make them biased in favor of this character? Richard Cane 12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTV isn't enough obviously. This site is run by elitist, jealous idiots. 216.37.86.10 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if I didn't know better, I'd accuse the Wikipedia elitist society of taking kickbacks from IGN or Wired News or CNN. What does this guy have to do to get an article, shoot the president? He's been listed on legitimate media outlets, the people clearly want an article. So why is all this even an issue? PlayItBogart 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just pure jealousy, plain and simple.216.37.86.10 13:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldn't go that far. I have a follow-up question: Where in the heck would IGN cover the nerd, anyway? He's not doing anything with any current consoles, so why would they care? PlayItBogart 13:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to realize his notoriety wouldn't have come about without the advent of youtube which is an extremely recent technology. His popularity is due to people voluntarily viewing him and those people are the ones who give him all the things that are necessary for him to be on here. He doesn't need Wired News or IGN. Richard Cane 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to explain what's happening in detail because I think you people are really confused about all this newfangled technology.

Remember in the old days when people needed things to be mentioned in books, newspapers, and television for it to be famous?

Nowadays, we have this magical invention called the Internet. Through this amazing advancement in technology we can quantify something's popularity without the need of publications telling us something is famous, because we already know!

Have you heard of blogs? Notice how new they are and how they don't rely on the media to obtain information? That's the age we're living in.

Now, five years from now, gramps, you're going to look pretty silly when you look back at yourself insisting that something wasn't notable because a publication didn't make it official when millions upon millions already knew about it because they realized things had changed when you didn't. Richard Cane 14:26, 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. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia requires multiple, reliable non-trivial sources - these have not been provided. The evidence presented fails to prove, therefore, that Mr Nysted - at this time - meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC, therefore is at present not suitable for an article. This may change in the future. I will not protect this article from recreation, but will not hesitate to do so if it is without being substantially different (in spirit as well as in appearance), and asserting - within Wikipedia policy - why the article now assert Lee Nysted's notability. Proto::► 16:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record, the article was recreated in under an hour, and was subsequently protected against recreation.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lee Nysted Experience[edit]

Self-published Myspace artist, who has attempted to post about himself in several guises, namely: Lee Nysted (deleted and salt), Nysted Music (now subject of AfD), and now The Lee Nysted Experience. Ohconfucius 08:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the original deletion reason up above improperly placed keep opinions by SPAs. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment; nomination "reason" for deletion, and start to this discussion is patently false and misleading. See article "The Lee Nysted Experience" for sources such as AMG, that Wikipedia states are to considered as reliable.Huntress829 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors have not returned here since the revisions were started on the 21st of January.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the objectivity of this debate is horribly distorted at best. It appears that the Nysted guy has been met with the same criticism for each Wiki entry -- whether Lee Nysted, NystedMusic, or this current one. Reviewing the deletion discussion forums, it seems the central argument against deletion is that Nysted's group (in whatever form) lacks notoriety/credibility.

Let's look at this objectively. WP:MUSIC defines the following as "central criteria" for inclusion. I've bolded those which Nysted clearly meets:

1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.

2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources.

→4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

→5. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

→7. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award. (Ok, nominated with a Grammy, but I think that fits the bill)

8. Has won or placed in a major music competition.

9. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) →10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.

For composers and lyricists:

→1. The person has has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the person and reliable.

2. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.

3. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.

4. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.

→5. Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. (see Grammy nomin above)

6. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.

→7. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

While I'm not a Nysted fan -- all I've seen of him is from this article in question -- it's interesting enough that an open forum like Wikipedia would rather have NO information about this musician than SOME information. When I think of Wikipedia, i think of an "end all, be all" information forum. Why not let Nysted and his cohorts have their say? He may meet only the minimal requirements, but they should be sufficient; now, if there's something UNTRUE or DISHONEST about his entries, then we're on something different, but I don't see this being a dishonest quest.

While he's certainly not of Bob Dylan notoriety, I vote Keep -- his notable group members (some from my beloved Chicago) should easily qualify him.

Does anyone think Wikipedia is any less credible because his entry exists??!! --Chicago60607 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still no assertion of notability, failing WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man 11:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Artist has recorded with other famous musicians, has an album available on Amazon. Recognize the controversy surrounding the delete and salt of Lee Nysted, but this delete apparently was because of vandalism. I'll give this article a chance. —Brim 13:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A single album on Amazon rated by six people, some of whom know the artist, none of whom have rated any other albums ought not count as satisfying WP:MUSIC. But okay, the band apparently had two session artists from notable bands in an album released on Nysted's own label, so it might squeeze in. The AMG doesn't credit one of these musicians, Todd Sucherman, on the album, by the way. The Rambling Man 14:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep

To the administrators:

In receipt of e-mail on this issue:

I did not create the Lee Nysted Experience, or Nysted Music, although both articles should be allowed, or in the alternative, my name, and the Nysted Music articles should re-directed to The Lee Nysted Experience. (A legitimate and verified inclusion into the encyclopedia.)

I have asked the author of the re-direct of the Lee Nysted Experience (from Clear Channel) to simply list verifications of all claims, which he did, very kindly. He is the "dewart." He is no way related to me; does not work for NystedMusic. In fact, he works for one of the world's largest digital radio stations and media companies. I am grateful that he has come to my defense.

I have no self published anything here, save for this defense of my good name. (i.e., still frozen in time.)

He is quite aware of this whole issue and he cited AMG, my web site, THE ORCHARD (Label), and will give several other articles in support of the above. Anyone interested in the actual Wikipedia guidelines and criteria for inclusion of musicians and ensembles will see that all the necessary items for verification are here. Please help to make this encyclopedia what it is designed to be.

The vandals from MySpace that have tried to destroy any effort to get an article about me published, will ultimately lose due to obvious Wikipedia criteria, which have been met. ("any one of...")

Any one of the following can be used for "The Lee Nysted Experience"

.) AMG (World's largest source of music info.)
.) THE ORCHARD.com Largest digital label in the world signed Lee Nysted...see link.
.) 99% of all digital sites now carry Nysted Music, including parts of his second album with noted artist Todd Sucherman, drummer for STYX with Wikipedia page.
.) Retail outlets like BestBuy, and Starbucks are listed as having signed Lee Nysted (See THE ORCHARD.)
.) Matt Walker, (the drummer) verified musician in Lee Nysted band / ensemble. Same for Todd Sucherman, the drummer.(See Wikipedia.)
.) Lee Nysted web site verifies all digital sites as does Orchard.
.) Artistopia verifies the above
.) Google: Lee Nysted and you will find 15,000 sites that will verify the above.
.) Several of Lee's songs are played right now on the largest radio stations in the world. (See Orchard)

Criteria for inclusion have been met many times over. ("any one of...")

Truly yours,

Lee Nysted

Please note: I did not write the articles. I did not hire anyone to write the articles. I have no pending litigation with Wikipedia, nor do I intend on same. I pray for the vandals that have started this mess. Thank you, Lee Nysted 1-19-07 8:55 a.m. Chicago time.

Thank you for your time,

Lee Nysted

NystedMusic

~~Strong Keep~~Note: struck to avoid double counting. Ohconfucius 08:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ for the playing with other established and known artists as squeaking juuuuust under the wire for WP:MUSIC. I've said before that I have an issue with The Orchard (music label) being used to establish notability as a major label, because it appears to be nothing more than a distributor of digital music for other labels of varying sizes and importance. There's no indication they're involved in actually signing or developing artists. (Not to mention their article is unsourced.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed opinion to Delete; further arguments by established editors - specifically Dhartung - combined with the turning up of the "Grammy nominations" by Static Universe below, have made me change my mind. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question The only possible criterion of WP:MUSIC this subject could meet is Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Lee Nysted has used as studio musicians two drummers who are certainly notable, but is a studio musician in a band if he is a hired hand who does not otherwise tour or write music for the band (and according to the article, Lee writes his own music)? JChap2007 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lee Nysted now contains a copy of the page that is the subject of this AfD, set up with "From Wikipedia..." at the top and "Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lee_Nysted_Experience" at the bottom, so when the other websites scrap it, it will look like they took it from a Wikipedia article. <sigh> JChap2007 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If any mirror of Wikipedia is silly enough to also publicly mirror User: and any of the *Talk: namespaces, then they're probably Extremely Broken and/or Overly Meticulous. Granted, I've only been to a few mirrors anyway =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of them scrape everything, including AfD discussions. Google your username if you want to see what I'm talking about. JChap2007 14:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doing a news archive search, all I get is a press release posted on a bulletin board type section of a news site. NPOV, NN, and not much else Citicat 03:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Argument now fails after insertion of new data. Huntress829 05:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Delete as I believe the article does not support the assertion that the notable musicians are in a "band" or "ensemble", since the music is by Lee Nysted.

The authors and subject of the article have little experience with Wikipedia, so I forgive them their breaches of rules such as calling a legitimate nomination on Articles for Deletion "vandalism" or based in "wrong motives", a breach of our rule that we should always assume good faith. I must also insist that they stop claiming that people are making up rules when we are having a discussion about how to interpret them; this is disruptive.

To the question "Could anyone open a Wiki account and speak about this issue? Would the opinions matter?", in our guide to deletion, which I recommend you read, we state "Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process." Opinions that are phrased politely and properly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines are likely to be given greater weight. To the question, "Who is the decision making body?", we are it -- Articles for Deletion discussions are open to any Wikipedia editor and drawn from the entire community by intention. If there is a legitimate complaint about the procedures of a particular AFD, an appeal to deletion review may be made, but that will almost always simply result in a relisting and a new vote.

As for the article before us, there is a persistent argument for notability based on the projects of these other musicians, but notability is not associative; the individual must be independently notable. The WP:MUSIC loophole puts an article on shaky notability ground, and this one is a primary example of why. Articles still should meet WP:V and WP:RS above all, and "15,000 articles on Google" is not meeting that requirement. Google is not a source. Labels and companies that sell music are not independent sources, no matter how "reliable" they may be (presumably their information is accurate, but they have a conflict of interest). All Music Guide is occasionally used as proof of notability, but they don't actually write about Nysted, they just list one album and not the most recent. That would meet WP:V for information on that album, but it isn't really good enough per our notability guidelines. I strongly appreciate that Mr. Nysted is an accomplished musician, but the lack of sources which meet our policy is a difficult bar to step over. --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this guy was notable he wouldn't need to prop himself up with phony Grammy nominations, which has been posted on many web pages. Static Universe 08:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes my reasoning:

a) a google search of my own gives me the same suspicious as Static Universe. Mr. Nysted, you asked for a reliable source? One would be, oh, say, http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/49th_Show/list.aspx, from which Mr. Nysted is conspicuously absent.

Reply: Please see link to Grammy nominations...above. 1 of 3. song #264.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

b) multiple postings from him and his "friend" Christine Hunter, with shockingly similar writing styles.

Reply: That is not my fault. I did not write the articles and do not know why a stub should not have been left.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

c) Multiple articles written under differnet names and recreated multiple times Ahem, Ahem.

d) ensemble artists from Brian Wilson, Styx, Smashing Pumpkins, and Boston?

Reply: The truth as proven.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all, sir, to be extremely blunt, we are regulars, and we've seen hoaxes and liars before, and we've had many people spam us before, and we know what it looks like. Thus delete without prejudice. Patstuart^talk|edits 09:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: To be blunt, sir, your arguments do not make sense and they are not backed by anything reliable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this silly WP:VSCA exercise. Sandstein 10:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: A non-argument and not valid. Fails.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Lee_Nysted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Delete if there's really nothing that would indicate this is notable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Argument fails based on new data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the answer to my question above. The drummers are just hired hands and not "members" of the band for purposes of WP:MUSIC. JChap2007 13:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, salt per the history of article recreation about this topic. JChap2007 13:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:All artists in all bands directed by labels and production companies are "hired hands." The Back Street Boys were all hired hands. Billy Corgan's band were all hired hands. Double standards are not seemly. All members of established bands that are now back on the road, are hired talent. A band is a band. The Experience is a band/ensemble by definition. You have simply chosen to re-write the rules and criteria; definition of band/ensemble. Majority rules? Let's get a rope?

Comment

As I suspected all along, this is nothing more than a "witch hunt" (as seen by all the "new" posts from MySpace users.) The article meets the guidelines and Wikipedia criteria. I am in no way involved with any false or misleading information about Lee. Billy Corgan wrote all the material for the Pumpkins, yet it is a band/ensemble.

The Lee Nysted name and the name of his band should be available to the world as it is on thousands of sites. If that does not happen on Wikipedia; for the wrong reasons, then Wikipedia guidelines and criteria do not amount to more than the gang rape that is happening here.

This is the reason I asked the question above.

I resent the idea that Lee and his fans would add to this charade.

C.H. 1-20-07

— Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Comment to both "C.H" and Mr Nysted, please re-read the text added by User:Dhartung as it cuts through all the sentimentality and gets straight to the point. Verifiability of musical notability by reliable sources is the whole point. Comply with that and the article will stay. The Rambling Man 16:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, all but three of the people who have commented on this debate are established editors with thousands of edits. I'm not sure where the "new posts from Myspace users" are. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant promotion, fails WP:V and WP:RS, no reason to think this lot are notable. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT There is more negative evidence than positive, and the obvious need felt to push this article by the artist himself indicates to me that Nysted wishes to use WP as an advertising vehicle, which is against policy. MSJapan 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all the other great reasons. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, WP:COI, and various other policies and guidelines. SALT this page so this person doesn't make this article again. Wikipedia is not the same as the real world. In the real world, you may be rich, famous, talented, etc. But you come to Wikipedia broke, lacking the only thing of value. PTO 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's interesting that all of the Nysted reviews posted everywhere all seem to be written by Keith 'MuzikMan' Hannaleck, a press agent (scroll down). Static Universe 07:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Comment: Please read some of the links. There are more coming each day. There are approximately 1400 reviews out there.Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Every site has reviews, sometimes hundreds of reviews. Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Your claim is patently false and not to guidelines. There are hundreds of reviews, many on the article page. Please read and then verify your claims with facts. Please do not call the "kettle black." Verification.Huntress829 14:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

If this is true, then please link to one legitimate review. You'd think someone with the musical connections to get the drummer from Smashing Pumpkins and touring musicians with Brian Wilson, STYX, and Boston would get at least some press. Static Universe ^{talk|contribs} 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huntress829, it is always the responsibility of the editor making the claim to back that up with a verified source. So far I have read two "reviews" by this MusikMan person apparently on open-submission websites and no others. There are also numerous links that fail to prove the claim and fail WP:RS and external links policies. Again, I insist that you cease attacking other editors raising legitimate questions. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How on earth did Wikipedia suddenly get caught up in changing the rules to require reviews?Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC) "Wikipedia states: Resources recommended: AMG."Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Comment You need to understand something about how Grammy nominations work. On the first go around, MANY artists get nominated, by peers, by their labels, by the raidio stations, by just about anybody. Then there is a winnowing, by committee's I think, that reduces the nominees in each category to 3-5. THEN the full body votes on those reduced lists to arrive at winners. EVERYONE that was in that first grab-bag is a NOMINEE, but this first round is almost never listed anywhere. Simply the fact that Lee's nomination does not show on the Grammy's website is NOT proof that he was NOT a nominee. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 08:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Mr. Smith. There is a second tier to determine if the inclusions are actual and in the right genre. There are steps taken to verify the facts about artists. Not everyone can submit a "tape." The artist must then meet certain guidelines established by NARAS. The next tier goes to voting members only. Then there is a final tier, which is the one recently published.Huntress829 15:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bill W. Smith, jr. for shedding light on the false accusations (Above.)Huntress829 15:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Huntress829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

- Comment: Bill Smith, you cannot argue that we should include information precisely because it cannot be proven false. That is a blatant violation of WP:V, a core policy of Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never did, never would. Seems to me that by calling Mr. Nysted a liar, YOU are in violation of WP:FAITH. So, think about your glass house REAL hard before you throw that stone. I have NO connection with Mr. Nysted in ANY capacity, btw. I am just a fellow musician who happened to see an inaccuracy and wanted to set it straight. You cannot DISPROVE his claim by what you pointed to, though you were certainly within the right to request some kind of confirmation of the nomination status, which I believe his supporters have provided. SO, is there anything else you would like to accuse anyone of? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 17:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mr. Dhartung, I believe Mr. Smith was trying, and rightly so, to correct a remark that is considered against Wikipedia guidelines and that is to assume that Mr. Nysted is lying about his Grammy nominations. There is nothing phony about Mr. Nysted's claims; unless the author of that statement can prove otherwise, it must be withdrawn as not credible. The comment was made by someone that has no knowledge of the "Grammy" process, and thus committed an error in judgment, by "our" standards. I am a user here.Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply Mr. Smith committed no breach of process, but he is wrong if he is asserting that because it cannot be disproven, then we can use a person's claim that they were included in a private tier of Grammy nominations. This is exactly opposite to Wikipedia policy. We may only use the claim if it can be independently verified. Saying that is not saying that anyone is lying, and you are muddying the waters to portray it that way. We cannot use this claim, period. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to reply by Mr. Dhartung:

See above and below, and you will see the link to 1 of three "private" nomination ballots for Lee Nysted and hundreds of Grammy "hopefuls." The ballot was found in Google.

COMMENT: To dispel the rant of "phony Grammy nominations" here is a link to the 3rd tier for 1 of 3 Grammy awards I was nominated for: Song #264 Lee Nysted Song of the year#264http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song #264 was nominated in the second tier. There is nothing unusual about being a nominee. It happens all the time and it is the truth. Claims that is was a "phony" should be stricken as false and misleading, aside from being insulting to my name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fascinating. The document you point to is clearly marked Entry List, not "Nominations", "Nominees", or anything of the sort. According to the official website, "Entries are recordings submitted for GRAMMY consideration. Entries that meet all eligibility requirements are then voted on by The Academy's voting members and the results of that vote are the nominations." [42] While it is certainly possible that your entry was advanced to the nomination round, the document above proves nothing of the sort. --Dhartung | Talk 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Entry list are those that were nominated and made the list. If you go to the end of the list you will see verification that said list came from NARAS. As I said earlier, the nominations were done and I ended up in the third tier, after the voting members, including me, voted. I had 3 nominations, one of which was for Best Gospel performance? Go figure. End of Grammy story.

You sir, Mr. Dhartung, are not following your own guidelines of assuming that what I tell you is correct. I back it up with a document from NARAS and you still do not get it. Thank you Mr. Smith for your accurate depiction of what is happening here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ballot, you see, is very real. I cannot use it in the article, because that would be a copywrite violation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To: Mr. Dhartung I think it is imperative that "reviews" not be made a central issue here. If you want reviews, many of the links in the article will give you reviews. (Hundreds, in fact.)However, reviews literally have nothing to do with the reliablity, notability and verification issue, all of which have been met. If you want reviews, we will list dozens from the various sites out there. That is not seemly and it is not part of the issues that Rambling Man stressed as the keys to keeping my article about Lee's band. ~~Strong Keep.~~Huntress829 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

struck to avoid double counting Ohconfucius 08:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say reviews are part of the central criterion to establishing the beginnings of notability as defined in WP:MUSIC: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". It's the first sentence after "A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" Static Universe ^{talk|contribs} 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Huntress829: Reviews are, in fact, central to the establishment of an artist's notability. So are interviews and features. The existence of "hundreds" of reviews found via Google (an undetermined number being by the same person) is irrelevant, as none presented so far have been in credible, independent third-party sources. None. We are not making this a central issue because we don't like Mr. Nysted, we already have this as a central issue by longstanding consensus and confirmed policy. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dhartung reply: Mr. Dhartung, It is ironic that one of the reviews that was here, was deleted for copywrite infringement. On my web site, you will find a copy of it.(a pdf file.) I own the copywrite, now. Not a soul took the time to find that out. The link is out in the article. There are at least 90 reviews, if you want to go to the article?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews at AMG are listed in iTunes. The author of the AMG review signed his name on iTunes. AMG is listed as the source. AMG is one of 2 sources considered reliable by Wikipedia for albums. There are at least 5 additional reviews listed in the links provided. Independent networks around the globe. If you are now making reviews a central issue, we will be happy to provide hundreds of reviews and their links. CLEAR CHANNEL and the authors of this article will provide this page with additional notability sources, including the other key member of the band, Scott Bennett, who won a Grammy for his work on the SMILE album (Brian Wilson.) We never intended to make this a parade, but that is what we seem to have here. The unforunate part is that no one wants to help edit the truth, you seem to rather prevent the truth from coming out.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 14:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think anyone looking at the references in the article today, and the days ahead, will see very clearly that the "non-trivial works," reviews, and the notability issue is clear "as a bell." If the editors of Wikipedia want more I will provide more. I am prepared to add 1400 reviews, comments from over 10,000 sites worldwide, and the links to same.

"NON-Trivial works." That says nothing about reviews, by the way.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am prepared to offer up any and all information to satisfy any and all requirements for a legitimate article in this noble work, known as Wikipedia. I also stand ready to help make this institution more free of vandalism, which threatens us all to the core. Thank you, C.H.Huntress829 04:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: please do feel free to add references and reviews. Kindly ensure that these are reliable, just only a small handfull of high-quality reviews, such as from Q magazine, Mojo etc. Reviews posted by individuals on sites such as Amazon fail this test. You should, however, bear in mind WP:POINT and refrain from overlinking. The debate on Grammy nominations is moot, as nominations do not count for squat here: WP:MUSIC states: "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award": "nomination" does not equal "win". Also, it's a big stretch to call a session musician a band member, as there is no permanence at all, and certainly no sharing of royalties. Steve Gadd and Jeff Porcaro played on tens of thousands of tracks, and so that stretched (and fallacious) logic would enable every one of those artists who recorded with them "notable". Ohconfucius 07:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Since when do reviews on Amazon, or other established "non-trivial works" lose the credibility? Please leave us something to use as a reference to your "new rule." Mr. Ohconfucius. You seem to be able to pull rules out of a hat. I have been around for 6 months, and I do not read your rules anywhere in Wikipedia. Guidelines are not in "stone."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to supporter(s) of Nysted: You know pretty well I can't change my remarks : it's a lose/lose for me if I do. I will not be bullied or browbeaten to doing so either. If your claims have already been proven, you will not need me to withdraw any of my remarks. The arguments will speak for themselves. You should first refer to WP:VANDAL if you are contemplating changing my, or any other editors comments. I do not intend on making any further comments to this debate, and I will stick to my word, unlike Mr Nysted. Ohconfucius 06:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lee Nysted: Reply to Ohconfucius:

Please sir, "your word?" We are encouraged to discuss the issue at hand; change your posts and your mind, if you see evidence to do such a thing. That is stressed in the guidelines. You made a false accusation and you have a choice as to whether or not you can admit you were wrong. There is no bullying in this discussion. The discussion is supposed to lead to an article of truth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind and came back here to defend my name and my rights. I will salt this article and the arguments, because I find it absolutely astounding.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the assumption, Mr. Dhartung. The two journalists that wrote the article are to be commended for their works and the due diligence expended to get all the details in, so the article would qualify for publication according to Wikipedia guidelines and criteria. Rambling Man indicated what was needed and that has been supplied many times over. The basis for Wikipedia, as a resource of information, is getting to the truth rather than throwing it away. A good editor would help to write an article about an artist that works within the framework of this encyclopedia. My work is very real as is the band/ensemble. The Lee Nysted Experience is notable by every standard known to mankind, including Wikipedia. The idea of starting out this way on Wikipedia, is unfortunate. It is even more unfortunate that editors with less than 6 months of experience here, can and do, destroy the very framework of this organization. Journalists are not required to like the people they write about, nor do journalists have the right to censor the real truth from an encyclopedia.

"This page in a nutshell: Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."

Is that what you are doing Mr. Dhartung?

This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Is that what the rest of the editors are doing, Mr. Dhartung?

Now back on topic:

The article is in need of some polishing but clearly has what it takes to qualify for entry. I would like my name taken out of salt, and have it directed to this article, please.

Thank you, one and all for your time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors have not returned here since the revisions were started on the 21st of January.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your second delete vote below, Mr. Fox. You voted below and above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:29, 24 January 2007

I've been watching. Look, here's the deal, from where I sit. Here's a Google search for "The Lee Nysted Experience". About 60 hits. I see lots of copies of the same mini-blurb and no non-trivial independent third-party coverage. Here is a Google search for "Lee Nysted". About 505 hits. They include this press release in a number of places, identified here as a press release distributed by MuzicReviews.com. Other incidences are parts of artist lists or short blurbs posted by the artist or a rep. (I'm not sure what the deal with this one is, but hey.) Essentially, these are not reliable sources. That is the key problem here and, as stated in WP:MUSIC, multiple, non-trivial published works are the central criterion for inclusion. The album is distributed by Orchard Music, as are thousands of others by independent artists, but is (despite the strident comments at the top of the page and elsewhere) not produced by a notable record label. That is another issue under WP:MUSIC. Congratulations on the first-round Grammy nomination; the criteria states that awards must be won. I still, despite the substantial verbage brought into this article by the two proponents, see nothing at all that indicates the artist meets the inclusion criteria. Judging from the fact that only four editors, three of whom are single-purpose accounts, feel this article should be kept, the arguments have yet to sway anyone who has opined towards deletion. (To forestall the apparent need to claim everyone who's against this article is an attacker from MySpace, I should note that I've never had a MySpace page, I try to avoid going to MySpace pages, and so on.) At this point, I'm done with further comment on this, and I'll be looking back to see the decision of the administrator who closes this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't look like I'm blowing my own horn in this post...

Er, well, actually it does. Wikipedia strongly discourages people from writing articles about themselves and their projects - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Promotional articles like this one are subject to speedy deletion, because they don't demonstrate how the company/project/individual/group is notable.

Basically, if your project is well-known enough to merit a Wikipedia article, we expect that somebody other than you will want to write an article about it! Please take a look at our welcome page. You might find some of the information there helpful. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Nysted, Do NOT edit the discussion posts of others. If you continue, you WILL be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment:' Please read the sources of the article, Peter.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I did not write the articles. Your agument about that, Peter, fails.
Second, "Google hits" will never be a reliable guide to notability. Anyone can buy Google hits. The original article was in my name, and should have been left; edited. My web site is getting hundreds of thousands of google hits, partly because we use ad-words. The Lee Nysted name is the source. Your argument, Tony, fails at both ends. Further, you are only one editor to return, and I suspect that you have not gone through all of the links, or the new sources, judging by your comment about notability.
Third and most important, the article now meets all of the requirements as set forth in Wikipedia rules, guidelines and / or established sources for reliability/notability. Quite simply put, the discussion should be over and the article stays per the comment made by The Rambling Man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 14:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to encourage everyone here to "assume good faith" in what has become a rather heated discussion. It seems to me that while Ohconfucius has failed to note that not everything about Lee Nysted is self-published, he has broadly hit the nail on the head: there seems to be a determined claque that wants to see an article on this artist, and this claque is determined to cite any source it can to claim notability. I've taken a look at the references cited, and my own view is that at present notability is not proven: once I remove the various self-published sites and sites that simply mirror press releases ( see the Jazz Review link for a particularly egregious example of this - exactly the kind of thing that doesn't make a good source but has a superficial gloss of plausibility ) I do not find much more than for any other minor pub or club artist. This is not enough, and for that reason I feel that we should Delete this article. WMMartin 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that although they did not play a part in my decision, I was very unhappy about the small number of editors for this article, and in particular the fact that Huntress829 appears to have no existence other than as a member of the Lee Nysted fan-club. I also didn't care for the slightly intimidating comments that she (??) left on Ohconfucius's talk page: let's try to play nicely. Finally, I notice that Lee Nysted has made some contributions to this article and to various talk pages. Neglecting the similarities in posting style between Lee Nysted and Huntress829, which ( "assuming good faith" ) I am assuming is entirely coincidental, I would suggest that if Mr Nysted is really keen on getting an entry in Wikipedia he would be more likely to get it by concentrating on his music. The musicians we cover in this Encyclopedia tend to get their coverage because of their musical work, not because of their skill in quibbling in deletion debates. Notability arises from accomplishment, not from publicity. WMMartin 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Mr. Martin, Your reasons have no foundation and are simple every day "put downs." Clearly against everything this organization stands for. Arguments fail.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I cannot find anything out there that is not either trivial or emanating fomr the subject (a press release or whatever). Impassioned defence by involved parties is noted but unpersuasive: conflict of interest means you should be a bit less aggressive. Attacking other editors will get you precisely one thing: blocked from editing. My condolences to whoever has to close this mess. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Please keep your argument to the points at hand. It fails per guidelines and criteria being met. There is no conflict of interest. I am defending my good name and honor. When people lie about me or my family, I feel a great obligation to defend same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Out of 17,000 articles and listings by every media company on earth, I believe you are not looking. I will be as blunt as you are.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete had a look at the AMG review - it's not there, they merely show the album to have been released, as such, I don't think the subject is notable and there's no hard, reliable sources which prove otherwise. The press release is automatically disqualified from being a reliable source as it's affiliated with the subject, delete, salt and if recreation is attempted again, consider blocking those responsible in order to prevent dispruption. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AMG has the C.D. AMG is one of 2 sources WE require.

Delete. Not notable. There is nothing in the article which indicated notability. There are no links to reviews. The artist's own webpage links to only one non-anonymous review (the rest are "customer reviews" from Amazon, iTunes, etc.). FInding anything resembling even sales data on any of the sites referred to is improbable.Argyriou (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Argument fails. Asked and answered. No sales data is required and either are reviews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to comment[edit]

AMG lists the album. AMG is a reliable source, per Wikipedia. AMG lists at least one person, Matt Walker, that is notable. AMG has a review of the album up on iTunes.Huntress829 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Lee Nysted: Thank you for clearing the AMG thing up, C.H. AMG does not have to "review," but they did. Stewart Mason wrote a review and it is up all over the world. The most visible place is iTunes. I believe I am, by rights, an editor and user here, as is C. H., and anyone that uses Wikipedia. I am reviewing the article and making changes that should qualify the article for inclusion. That is what editors are supposed to do. This group seems more intent on not allowing information, than in trying to get at the truth. The truth is like water...it will come out and it will find a level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a review by Stewart Mason on either iTunes or AMG, and a google of "Stewart Mason Lee Nysted" doesn't turn up any reviews. Static Universe ^{talk|contribs} 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find this review either, is it possible to have a link please, Huntress829, and could you please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, I'm concerned that some of your comments are in violation of these vitally important policies. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Nysted, Wikipedia is not about truth, and especially not about The Truth^TM, it is about what is verifiable from reliable secondary sources and stated from a neutral point of view. Your point of view, by definition, is not neutral. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT:[edit]

Please refrain from deleting my replies and comments. I am an editor and after 6 months of being here, I have as much time as many of you. I will defend an article that was up long before many of you arrived here. (Not written by me.)Please refrain from being condescending and, please leave out the "I cannot find routine."

I have provided everything required of any article, per Wikipedia rules guidelines, reliability tests, criteria, etc. I will post dozens of links to sites all over the free world to show you that my music is out there.

1. Start with THE ORCHARD.com link. Go to "digital partners." There you will find 14,000+ partners that are carrying my C.D. Amazon is one of the dealers.

2. Go back to the article. I will start releasing threads. Most reviews are copywritten, so you may have to join sites. I will not post copywritten material, that I do not own. The main review on iTunes is copywritten and must be viewed there.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Nystedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Tomorrow, 1-24-07, I will request that Clear Channel / Stephen Dewart / C.H. ( the authors) take over. I do not have time for this. Lee.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. THE GOOD NEWS: We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. I believe all the editors here, including me, should be able to put an article out that will satisfy all of the requirements and guidelines essential to Wikipedia's role in the world as a source of reliable information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 05:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments weren't deleted, there were moved to the discussion page, which is the appropriate place for side discussion. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr. Dodge.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 05:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bill W. Smith ! For helping to edit and clean up links; for your help. I regret that only a couple of editors came back after the edits and additions, thus far. For those of you that have helped to clean up the article, I say, thank you. I would like the administrator that does the final clean-up for entry to please tell me what links he/she wants from foreign sources. "The Experience" is now getting picked up by CLEAR much more in Asia, as well as, Central Europe. Thanks. C.H. C.H.Huntress829 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Huntress829 15:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bolden[edit]

delete Not-notable. Peter Rehse 09:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be notable, but we could never know by the lack of links to outside sources. - Ocatecir 09:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any reliable sources and artist appears to lack notability. The Rambling Man 11:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No comment Minor player, added to WP to bolster the Jerome Barber entry (which was also considered for deletion). JJL 14:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of people found there own styles, an article on this might be notable if it is more than a couple of local schools/classes. --Nate1481 17:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press Start To Play[edit]

Offers no source for notability outside the webcomic world. Seems to be fairly new webcomic. Google search turns up no outside sources, failing WP:V Ocatecir 09:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only assertion of notability amounts to "this more important comic guy likes it", which has no citation and probably could never get one to satisfy WP:RS. —Dgies^t c 22:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamers Pair of Dice[edit]

NN. Page offers no sources for notability. The webcomics listed as members are not notable either. Ocatecir 09:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of the notability of Gamers Pair of Dice but the notability of the members is still up for debate. Fforde 09:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate is over, the pages have been deleted. - Ocatecir 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly merge with comic articles. A couple of these I would call not notable, and a couple I would call most certainly notable. It makes sense to me that in the case of a comics group the notability should be determined by all of the included comics put together. As such, this is definitely a keep. It seems a good middle-ground instead of each one having it's own article to combine them under the umbrella of their group. As for this particular case, I know there are some sources to look through. Too busy now, but hopefully I'll get some time later to hunt those down... --Nmaster64 10:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the webcomics listed on this page with wiki pages have been deleted as non-notable, with the last one soon to be deleted as the only defender conceding that it is not notable as well. This page also continues to lack ANY sources describing notability. - Ocatecir 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what Nmaster64 said. -- Strangelv 16:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vote. - Ocatecir 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claude and Eustace Wooster[edit]

Violation of WP:FICT. Minor fictional characters. No need for article. Merge useful content to one of the four articles on Wodehouse minor characters, and delete or redirect.Wehwalt 09:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I've just added the info to Minor_characters_in_the_Jeeves_stories (which needs much work) and corrected the link in List of P. G. Wodehouse characters. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep They are a running theme in many of the Jeeves stories, some of which are about them primarily. More could be said about them; I have put the expand template on that article. Minor character is a character not a leading plot element in any story, or a leading plot element in only 1. Perhaps numbers may help on this. DGG 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all intents and purposes, these are minor characters who have a walk on in a several stories, and a more significant role in one. The single story alone would not make them notable, in my view. How does being non notable in several stories make you notable?--Wehwalt 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have supported merging to Minor characters in the Jeeves stories, but Squiddy has already boldly done that. Their entry there (along with that of any other character without a separate article) can be expanded. If some enterprising editor adds enough content about them, we can always revisit whether they need a separate article. I think it's a better process to have one article about all the minor characters, then break out articles about individual subjects as needed.--Kubigula (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 17:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Anstruther[edit]

Violation of WP:FICT. Another Wodehouse minor character. There are four articles on the Wodehouse minor characters. Merge any useful content into one of those and delete or redirect this. Wehwalt 10:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very minor character, and article seems to exist only to allow one good line to be quoted. There is a Minor characters in the Jeeves stories page where he could go, but he's already in List_of_P._G._Wodehouse_characters which is adequate coverage IMHO. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is information here that is not available in other articles. -- Strangelv 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stiffy Byng[edit]

Another minor Wodehouse character failing WP:FICT. There's about forty of them that need to be gone through and see which are major characters and which are not. This is not. I'd appreciate other editors' advice as to whether I should bundle them. Again, delete after merging any useful content to one of the four articles devoted to the Wodehouse minor characters. Wehwalt 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor character, and she's already in List_of_P._G._Wodehouse_characters (twice, married and unmarried names) which is adequate coverage IMHO. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per WP:FICT, in list of characters, minor, not needed. Whilding87 23:18, 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 *. I'll just redirect for now in case anyone wants to merge some content, but there doesn't seem to be consensus to keep this as a standalone article. W.marsh 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Braves 1990's pitching rotation[edit]

lacks notability and is a stub with no potential to expand. also touches on topics covered already in other pages such as the one for the Atlanta Braves. President David Palmer 10:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge some content with Atlanta Braves. 129.98.212.60 16:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable , but malplaced. Merge with Atlanta Braves. TonyTheTiger 21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article wants to be an entry on Smoltz/Glavive/Maddox, unfortunately they are not really a defined entity. Citicat 03:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I don't say merge is that there is too much content in here that overlaps with the current discussion on this in the Atlanta Braves article, and that can just be partially expanded in a few words. President David Palmer 07:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shopping malls in Honduras[edit]

Nominated per reasoning and precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Malaysia. Punkmorten 10:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft. Terence Ong 11:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT, indiscriminate lists of info and all that. The Rambling Man 12:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment: Why should other countries get a List? I mean Wikipedia is a place for knowledge, why should you delete it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me-pawel (talk • contribs) 22:47, January 19, 2007
Keep Comment: I say it should be kept--I was doing a search on google for this type of information!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levihambrick (talk • contribs) 18:02, January 23, 2007
- — Levihambrick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete this list is trivial and indiscriminant in that the things it lists are only marginally notable at best and the criteria for inclusion are not a particularly important feature. Eluchil404 10:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unreferenced list, linking to several commercial entities that don't even have their own articles, is not what Wikipedia is for. There may be a case that some of the individual malls may be worth an article (that debate is ongoing at WP:MALL), but that's a separate question. --El on ka 01:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not really useful in current form, just a copy and paste of a mission statement. W.marsh 19:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pt. Baijnath Sharma Prachya Vidya Shodh Sansthan, Hathras[edit]

Non-notable private institute in Uttar Pradesh. Only assertion of notability is an international link with an organisation in Canada, but no useful Google hits. It appears that Baijnath Sharma was a respected academic (becoming Vice-Chancellor of Bhopal University[43]) and a published historian, so IMO deletion should be without prejudice to a future article on him. Mereda 10:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 11:04, 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 Transwiki to Wikiquote. Cbrown1023 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make it so.[edit]

It's a quote. Move to Wikiquote, if they want it. There's nothing here warrenting an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably just speedy delete that, as is the procedure when something is clearly, on sight, not worthy of being an article. President David Palmer 11:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the ((Prod)) was added by me and removed by another editor, it seems better that I not speedy-delete it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fair call on AFD'ing it if prod removed. Typical of what WP is not - WP is not a repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. Beam it up, Scotty. The Rambling Man 12:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote (if it's not already there). —Brim 13:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they've got it covered...! The Rambling Man 13:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Transwiki, redirect article in this namespace to Jean-Luc Picard in main Wikipdia articlespace. -Toptomcat 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make it go. Ha ha, I am so witty! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikiquote Compare this article to D'oh!. The "D'oh!" article doesn't simply say "An expression attributed to Homer Simpson". It delves in great detail with references into why the quote is notable and worth reading about. If "Make it so" has any cultural importance or notability, the article doesn't mention it. Dugwiki 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Dugwiki, redirect to Jean-Luc Picard. This is a character trademark rather than a catchphrase; compare Beam me up, Scotty. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trandwiki and Redirect as much as I like Trekcruft, this has no notability on its own. Eluchil404 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In case anyone thinks I'm anti-trek, it should be noted that I and my wife appear in Trekkies 2 at about 69 minutes in on the DVD (uncredited, of course). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:55, 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. Cbrown1023 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonzo Travers[edit]

Another minor Wodehouse characters (should I start bundling these?) Needs to be redirected to one of the four artices on minor Wodehouse characters, or else deleted. Fails WP:FICT Wehwalt 11:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, virtually empty article on very minor character. Bundle away, old bean. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This information is not available in the main article. -- Strangelv 16:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not establish notability. The article is only one sentence which I think is inconsequential (though I'm not opposed to it) to the main article. Leave a redirect if you feel it appropriate. --maclean 05:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Redirect to My Chemical Romance. Cbrown1023 18:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raygun Jones[edit]

Article is unsourced and remains persistently unsourced. The sole notability of Raygun Jones is the membership of Gerard Way and Mikey Way. V-Man737 12:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no individual notability established at all. Without verifiable sources, this must fail WP:BIO. The Rambling Man 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My Chemical Romance. I'm pretty sure that the band is real, or at least there are unreliable sources that say so, so it would be a reasonable search topic. However, there don't appear to be any reliable sources for the band. ShadowHalo 04:22, 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 speedy redirect to Smallville (season 5). "Merge and delete" is problematic because the history of the merged article would be lost, and that would be a GFDL violation. --Core desat 00:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville Places (Season 5)[edit]

Survived an AfD with concensus to merge, however article not empty since October 2006. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no real feeling either way, but it doesn't seem like a huge task to merge this into Smallville (season 5) where it more properly belongs. If anything, I'd advocate Merge and delete. The Rambling Man 13:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'll do the work if that helps![reply]
Merge and Delete per nom. 23skidoo 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem was that last AfD resulted in the Merge&Delete consensus but was not followed. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so shall I merge it now? The Rambling Man 14:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if you would... And then the article can be ((db-empty)) once you're done. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, done, tagged. The Rambling Man 14:25, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur writing[edit]

Amateur writing is writing by amateurs. And, er, that's a bout it. Apart form the occasional explosion of spam, obviously. Maybe redirect to self-publishing? Guy (Help!) 13:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing to be covered here that isn't done much better in Self-publishing, NaNoWriMo etc. The term "amateur writing" isn't even really a "thing", just a descriptive of something we already have articles about. Dina 13:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dina. Combine Amateur with Writing, et voila. The Rambling Man 13:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Brim 13:32, 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 merge. I will redirect to Graphviz for now. W.marsh 20:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisp2dot (2nd nomination)[edit]

Was going to propose for deletion, but it has already been up for deletion once. Quite non-notable, and the 3 delete !voters on the former seems to agree. The 5 keepers !vote keep per first keeper Tony Sidaway's "Nice little tool." argument. See former AfD for more arguing. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while only a guideline, not sure how this 'nice little tool' (note WP:ILIKEIT) meets WP:SOFTWARE or is notable in any sense. Besides the source code, where are any WP:RS for verifiability? The Rambling Man 13:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into S-expression. This is probably notable within a tiny domain, but it isnt universally notable, and the article wont grow much beyond its current size. Graphviz already contains a brief snippets about this tool, and that is all that the article could reasonably do, as this tool only creates DOT language files that can be used by Graphviz -- there is no direct relationship. Graphviz is extremely commonly used, so that article will eventually grow and list2dot would eventually become insignificant and more than likely eventually removed. OTOH, the S-expression is lacking in examples and even states that it hasnt been adopted widely. A long-winded explaination of this tool on that article would not be in danger of being dropped in favour of a better example. Unless the author himself comes here and tells us that this high ranking wikipedia article name is annoying him, I would prefer to keep a redirect from "lisp2dot" to the article where this info is moved to, as people will have bookmarks to this article as it has existed for 18 months. John Vandenberg 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Graphviz or DOT language. Merging this to S-expressions would make little sense in my opinion - kind of merging "William Shakespeare" to "English language", since the two are supposedly related. Anyway, there's no reason to keep this as a separate article; few bits and pieces that are part of the "unseen infrastructure" deserve such article, and are best discussed in some other article instead. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:16, 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. TigerShark 13:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merchants of Deception[edit]

Non-notable e-Book; was tagged for db-spam but the author removed the tag. Thought it would be better to have the discussion here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about what the criteria is for a book to be considered "notable." As for removing the tag, I have never used wikipedia before and am still learning the process. I read this book as part of my research for a book that I am writing. I was surprised that Eric Scheibeler was on Wikipedia, but his book was not. The book link is on his entry for Wikipedia, so I thought I would try to add to Wikipedia for the first time by making an entry for the book. It may be a disputable book, but so is something like the "loose change" conspiracy video about 911 and countless other entries on Wikipedia. Disputable does not mean disreputable. It doesn't really matter to me if you delete the entry, but I would just like to understand why so I don't waste my time in the future. What if I changed the entry to "A book written by Eric Scheibeler about Amway/Quixtar." I can't think of any other way to be more objective, although uninformative as well, about the subject. Tranquilize 17:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable (e-)book, and edits, links and sources all made by a WP:SPA who may have an agenda here. The Rambling Man 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I would be the last to defend the Amway/Quixtar industry, this is basically an attack book by a disgruntled former associate, heavily linkspammed all over the net. A lot of forum discussion, but I don't find any reviews from reliable sources. Fan-1967 14:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the author's article. -- Strangelv 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – Pea ceNT 11:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Labor Arbitrage[edit]

This article is mostly an attack on U.S. work visa programs. "Global Labor Arbitrage" is not a well known economic term, although it was used in a widely-circulated article on the anti-immigration site VDARE.com. [44] Rhobite 13:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google hits show that the phrase "Global Labor Arbitrage" is fairly common, not just on the VDARE.com site. Also 26 google scholar hits. AmitDeshwar 20:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above Johnbod 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid economic concept. --Infrangible 04:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The purpose of the article is to identify the different forms of Global Labor Arbitrage and to explain its underlying economic logic using the American labor market as an easy-to-comprehend example. The article is useful in that it ties together several individual subjects that are often treated separately and explains how they are all instances of a greater and more abstract economic concept. The article may be admittedly raw and unrefined, but every article has to start somewhere. I'm hoping that other people who are familiar with the concept will help to improve and to add to it and that I can work on it further the next time I have a day off. Regarding the reference to an op-ed where nationally syndicated columnist and economist Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D. (economics), makes use of the term, it should be noted that Dr. Roberts is not a mere unestablished two-bit commentator, but rather, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury of the United States (under the Reagan Administration). Moreover, a Google search for "global labor arbitrage" returned 11,000 hits. Furthermore, as the article revealed, the manifestations of global labor arbitrage are very well-known subjects, which means that people discuss the subject matter of global labor arbitrage profusely but often do not know to identify it as a component of a more abstract and lesser known economic concept. Likewise, people might discuss the merits of international trade without understanding or ever having heard of the concept of comparative advantage, but, as I understand it, that fact does not render "comparative advantage" as inappropriate subject matter for the Wikipedia. Rhobite, regarding the "attack on U.S. work visa programs", does merely describing the effects of an economic policy constitute a a hate-filled attack? Do you take issue with the truthfulness and accuracy of that content? What, specifically, did you find to be inaccurate or false? I'm pretty sure I can find references and examples, such as case of the Florida computer programmer who tried to run for Congress. WhipperSnapper 14:49, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poulomi Ghosh[edit]

The prod tag was removed by someone who argued that a mention in The Telegraph Newspaper makes her notable. However, the article talks about a minor school-level table tennis championship in Calcutta. Also, she is not the primary subject of the article. Nice player, but she has a way to go before she becomes notable enough for Wikipedia. Delete as non-notable player who has won few awards at school-level competitions. Fails WP:BIO. Less than 100 Google hits Jyothisingh 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice if she becomes notable table tennis player. At the moment, as per nom, fails WP:BIO. The Rambling Man 14:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. CrashingWave 04:49, 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 as WP:CSD#A7 - Biography with no assertion of notability of its subject Tonywalton | Talk 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijeet kute[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Not a single sentence in the article explains why is he is notable. Initially, I thought of moving it to user page: User:Abskuts177, but it doesn't look like a user page. It's more of as if somebody is trying to create a MySpace type page. Delete as non-notable. Jyothisingh 14:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7, db-bio. The Rambling Man 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. So tagged. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete obvious A7 case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 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 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1991 Weber State vs. Nevada football game[edit]

unreferenced, been in this state for 6 months, user who created is absent for 1 month (I was going to contact him first), needs a reference to at least state this game existed, and another reference to state it "will go down as one of the greatest combacks in the history of Division 1-AA college football" (should be I-AA). This has potential if the references can be found, but deleting this will not lose anything that can't be recreated in 3 minutes. MECU≈talk 14:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. It's not even mentioned in either the University of Nevada, Reno or Weber State articles. --Aude (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Aude and nom. NMajdan•talk 20:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single game is almost never notable unless it's something like the Superbowl, which this is not. Also, the article has POV problems and has no sources. --The Way 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per nom; though we'd have a lot of articles if we created an article for every (American) football game...oh well - •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 17:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DO we really need an article for every single meaningless football game ever? I think not. --21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Clear Delete - I don't think any single football game is notable, even in some exceptional cases. Also lacks sources. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 12:16, 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 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilots for 9/11 Truth[edit]

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

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

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

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is simply not notable. It's run by a member ("JohnDoeX") of the Loose Change Forum who deflected and started his own web forum. While I know about this "group", because I have followed the Loose Change forum, blogs, etc, there lack any reliable sources that mention this "group". --Aude (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks evidence of notability and lacks reliable independent sources. Edison 15:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Edison above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wondered about this article's appearance in the templates. No vote at this time, but I doubt there's any press coverage or members who are active pilots. One of the debunkers of the Journal of 9/11 Truth was a military and civilian pilot, and his comments may me wonder how any pilot whose license is current could believe the "no plane" theories or that the planes couldn't have been "stolen" and flown by terrorists in the sense of the mainstream account. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that is why you misunderstand the Truth Movement, you ally the fringe to the center. Kind of like saying Southern Baptists beliefs are all the normal Conservative beliefs as well. Try not to stereotype people and groups in the future. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize for saying there are no legitimate pilots in the organization, even though I still believe it's accurate. That has no place in Wikipedia. (My delete vote still stands, because it's just not WP:Notable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have felt concern about this group because it appears to focus only on the idea that a commercial jet didn't hit the Pentagon, while not even making a serious case that is definative or scientific. The group says "it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles." This implies that the lightpoles in front of the Pentagon came down in some other manner, which there is zero evidence for, or that their (NTSB) data is flawed. Many witnesses reported seeing a large jet and many analyses have shown that it indeed COULD have taken down the lightpoles, so I'm concerned about the poor quality of research this site is promoting while using the title "pilots" to suggest expertise. The most one can determine is that the data they used to reach their conclusions is wrong, but they don't even suggest this or any other conclusion from what I can tell. bov 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Regardless of what they stand for, or their methods, this is a non-notable group with no verifiable information in the article. Fails WP:WEB in addition to the rest. -- Kesh 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gets exactly "1" hit in Google News Search for the Free Market News Network in Florida, which means it fails our WP:NN tests. I have to thank Ombudsman for creating this one though, so that we could delete it -- I was beginning to lose interest in Wikipedia : ) Morton Devonshire^Yo 05:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, unverifiable, and looks like advertising. WarpstarRider 14:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this article and site should be viewed within the context of the 9/11 Truth movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movement Compare the core membership list below with the names listed within the wikipedia article above. Viewed within that context, Pilots for 9/11 Truth is new, yes, but hardly non notable, based on core membership, the forum which it has given birth to and sites which link to it. Here's a small hint for verification purposes: you can use the civil aviation registry https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/ to verify some of the information on the core members list (though not all, since not all of the core members are US pilots). Yes, it really is an international organization, and yes it does include pilots and other aviation professionals within its membership. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/ http://www.v911t.org/ http://patriotsquestion911.com/ http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/5157/33/ http://www.realradioarchives.com/sound-1.htm http://www.physics911.net/ http://911scholars.org/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nine eleven researcher (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).— Nine eleven researcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: None of the sites you mention meet the reliability requirements of Wikipedia, as they are pro-conspiracy advocacy sites, and David Icke is the Reptilian humanoid dude. Morton Devonshire^Yo 05:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN and not likely they ever will be.--MONGO 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the sites you mention meet the reliability requirements of Wikipedia, as they are pro-conspiracy advocacy sites, and David Icke is the Reptilian humanoid dude. Morton DevonshireYo 05:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Comment: yes, I'm sure that the official theory apologists sincerely hope that the entire 9/11_Truth_Movement dries up and blows away...

No way, we'd miss out on all of the mini-nukes blew-up the Towers crapola pumped-out for profit by dental materials engineers like Judy Wood and Distinguished Emeritus Blowhards like James Fetzer who believe that "space beams" were used. Wouldn't quash that for all of the tea in China -- too entertaining. Morton Devonshire 06:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why worry about Pilots for Truth, with honorary members Robert_M._Bowman, David_Ray_Griffin and Steven_E._Jones in addition to all of the aviation professionals and researchers associated with Pilots_for_9/11_Truth? It's all part of the fun, right?Nine Eleven Researcher 06:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary members are irrelevant. They may not even know they're "honorary members". (They're also not mentioned in the article, so that it's clear that you don't think they're relevant)— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Pilots For 9/11 Truth is in its infancy. So far they have analyzed the Flight Data Recorder as provided by the National Transportation Safety Board and have recorded calls to the NTSB and FBI trying to get answers. Its no wonder why some govt loyalists here would like to have this credible article/organization ripped from Wiki. Anyone interested in the credibility of the organization can look at their member list and cross check with the FAA database at faa.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep - "JohndoeX" is Robert Balsamo. He has flown over 20 years and is listed as the first member on their member list. It's obvious the original poster who created this article of deletion has not done his homework. Rob Balsamo and Glen Stanish (A current Continental Pilot) are the Founders of pilotsfor911truth.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs)

keep: Per above; no need to further suppress serious efforts to question authority. Ombudsman 07:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Ombudsman; the evidence above does not support any notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." National in scope should be verifiable using the FAA Civil Aviation Registry, if someone cares to do so. He or she could also contact the public figures listed as core members. If further proof of international scope is really needed, I suppose we pilots for truth forum members could all descend here with our different IP addresses, but you wouldn't really like that... in other words, just because "mainstream media" coverage is somewhat lacking on certain issues, that does not mean an organization cannot be considered notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nine eleven researcher (talk • contribs) 09:03, January 21, 2007 (UTC)

"National in scope" could clearly not be verified even by using the FAA Civil Aviation Registry, even if accurate. No information on any notable members now in the article, and I'm not going to research whether an organization is notable if you're not willing to give evidence of notability in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Efforts should be made to improve content, not outright deletion, give the article some time to develop. This can be notable in the context of the 911 truth movement. Killroy4 11:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Several webcomics we've deleted were notable within their fandoms. That's irrelevant. This is talking about notability outside that small community, which this group does not have. -- Kesh 16:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - Pilots For 9/11 Truth isn't notable?? There research on the flight data recorder of American 77 is flawed?? Are you kidding me? Have these people even bothered to look at the members list on the actual website or bothered to examine the Flight Data Recorder of American Airlines Flight 77 for more than five minutes? If so, they'd realize that not only is the NTSB's animation of American 77 too high during it’s approach to the Pentagon, it's also too far north to have taken out the light posts.

Question: If the NTSB's CSV file(hard data) on American 77 shows that hijacker Hani Hanjour reset the barometric pressure as he plummeted through 18,000, why does the altimeter on the NTSB animation not indicate this reset with a snapback of the altimeter hand? Question: Why did the NTSB release a flight data recorder showing that the yoke(steering wheel) was never pulled back on to level off the aircraft's final approach to the Pentagon in direct contradiction to what we've all been told(and shown through DoD pictures) for last five years that American 77 flew parallel to the ground just prior to impact? Question: Why is the vertical speed from the flight data recorder in total contradiction of the government’s account of American 77’s final approach?

This is NOT conspiracy theory as the mission statement of Pilots For 9/11 Truth specifically avoids theory. Instead, these are serious questions that are deliberately being ignored by the FBI and NTSB regarding a government-released piece of evidence from September 11, 2001. The burden of proof is NOT on Pilots For 9/11 Truth to explain what happened to American 77. The burden of proof is on the NTSB who released a contradictory piece of evidence that goes against the government's account of the fate of American 77 that the world has been spoon-fed for the last five year. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Check out their movie about American 77’s Flight Data Recorder here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en

-Gideon524 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.2.26 (talk • contribs)

Delete according to the article, "Pilots For 9/11 Truth is currently in its infancy" i.e. it's not yet notable. Derex 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not notable - considering anyone at anytime can edit anything they want on any article. Delete for Wikipedia in general. Anyone who references wiki on any forum is usually laughed at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs) 20:38, January 21, 2007 (UTC)

Sooooo... if Wikipedia's so not notable, why do the 9/11 Truth types fight so incredibly hard over everything here? Why are you here? Delete as per Derex and lack of reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilots For Truth sources the National Transportation Safety Board and FBI (as noted in the recorded calls on their site). Tony thinks those sources are unreliable. Many in the 9/11 Truth movement would agree. The Flight Data Recorder provided by the NTSB is unreliable to the govt story as it is in direct conflict with the 9/11 Commission Report. Pilots For Truth exposes these conflicts. It seems some people here want to sweep the facts under the rug. Then again, anyone who references wiki knows its a place for bias and editing at will. Better off to go to the source site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs) 19:07, January 22, 2007 (UTC)

... um, actually, by "reliable sources" I mean the complete lack of this kind of reliable sources, the verifiable kind. I could care less about the sources the *group* uses in relation to the article here. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ah yes, some people will believe anything put before them in writing. The Great Moon Hoax is a prime example of this. However, this subject fails WP:NN by several criteria, one of which that it doesn’t even attract enough audience to where it constitutes having an article here. Therefore, delete. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Another cracker jack researcher comparing the Flight Data Recorder provided by the National Transportation Safety board to the Moon Hoax (perhaps he wanted to compare it to Elvis or Bigfoot as well, but didnt want to disrespect the NTSB). Do your research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.105.229 (talk • contribs) 03:39, January 25, 2007

Delete As others have noted, article totally fails to demonstrate any notability. CWC(talk) 09:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources seem to be from self-published sources, violating WP:V. "You're all sheep" not a valid argument for keeping. - Ocatecir 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment - I see we have another cracker jack researcher calling for delete. Several articles on the site reference mainstream media, the FBI, the NTSB and the 9/11 Commission Report. The site and forums get over 300,000 hits per month in its short existence so far.. and growing. As the owner and co-founder of the site, I would prefer when people reference our site, they reference the site itself instead of Wiki as Wiki is open to any type of edit from anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.105.229 (talk • contribs) 03:50, January 25, 2007

First, stop with the insulting comments. You are violating WP:ATTACK as well as WP:CIVIL. Second, if you are involved in the site, there is a potential conflict of interest here. And finally, Wikipedia is made to be edited by anyone for a reason. If you refuse to cite anything but your own website, you are not following Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you do not wish Wikipedia to be referenced, it may be best to allow the article to be deleted. There is no ownership of these articles, and they will be edited by neutral third-parties. -- Kesh 15:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN per nom Tbeatty 04:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CLC bio[edit]

This is a procedural listing. This article was prodded back in November as "no evidence that co. meets the requirements of WP:CORP" and deleted on December 4. This deletion has now been contested. No opinion on the merits. Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here suggests that the WP:CORP guideline is met, or that this business's offerings would be of wide interest to any other than a small market of specialists. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I'm the one who contested the deletion) The software of this company is used in several scientific publications, e.g. http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/11/7311 or http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2006.05397.x?cookieSet=1 Rewireable 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company may not be a huge enterprise, but their software has changed the perception of bioinformatics software within this market. Furthermore the number of unique users shows a remarkable penetration within the scientific segment, suggesting it is a well-known brand within scientific circles. Another point why this article shouldn't be deleted is the fact that they have invented a highly unique and innovative product: CLC Bioinformatics Cube --Don G. 16:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable secondary sources are cited which would establish notability. It doesn't matter if everyone and his dog uses the software, or if it changed the perception of the Earth, Sun, and stars, it matters if there's nontrivial reliable source material that reports on that. Seraphimblade 09:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations for Dreamgirls (film)[edit]

No other movie has something like this. Any awards can be added to the main article, like every other movie. Plasma Twa 2 05:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. Anything of note should be moved to Dreamgirls (film) if it's not already there. The Rambling Man 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rambling Man. NMajdan•talk 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Contrary to the nominator's perception, there are other movies that have done this. This was done because Brokeback Mountain (film) did the same thing (see Critical reception of Brokeback Mountain). Dreamgirls (film) is already over the 32kb "limit", so something had to break out someplace. A website with articles such as Cultural impact of Star Wars, Philosophy and religion in Star Wars, and Star Wars opening crawl looks a little hypocritical nominating one sub-list of awards for deletion. --FuriousFreddy 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the problem here. It's very common for large articles to split off sections into subarticles. Provided the information is verifiable and the awards are notable, this seems to me to be a good idea for organizing movie articles that are growing too large. Dugwiki 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It might be a good idea to move the page and retool the information to be Critical reception of Dreamgirls, but even as it is, it's a perfectly normal split-off from the main article per WP:SS. This is how things are supposed to work. — BrianSmithson 01:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FuriousFreddy. The statement that no other movie has something like this directly contradicts reality. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: the fact that this has received the most Oscar nominations this year further increases the notability of the film's reception. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You completely missed the point. Wikipedia is not here to provide a database of records or lists of statistics like the Census Bureau or the Elias Bureau of Sports Statistics, especially when I as I have shown below they are readily available elsewhere at trustworthy sources. Quadzilla99 18:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment then move the page to Critical reception of Dreamgirls and expand to include all forms of criticism. Bada-bing, bada-boom, we're all happy. — BrianSmithson 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CanadianCaesar --Infrangible 04:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is no movie database but a place to store relevant informations on the articles. Some sentences to the most relevant awards should be enough. Otherwise we may end up in storing quotes from any single visitor, because it may be of partial interest for single individuals. --192.109.246.5 15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete all that has to be done to provide a list of the awards for the film is insert this link:[45] Quadzilla99 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Quadzilla99. Harvey100 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Furious Freddy. Separating the info into daughter articles helps the readability of the main article. That's what we are supposed to do! There is absulutely nothing wrong with this. And while WP is not a database, its also not a paper encyclopedia. The info here is comprehensive, not trivial. Orane (talk • cont.) 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to try to play devil's advocate here, and re-integrate the awards list into the main article (which will also require me to cut down the rest of the article content as well) --FuriousFreddy 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. How does Dreamgirls (film) look to everyone now? - FuriousFreddy 02:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson's House[edit]

Delete - An article has been created at Upper Canada College houses, which combines information on all ten houses at UCC, instead of ten stub articles. The article up for deletion has already been questioned for its notability. --G2bambino 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:55, 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeley Dorsey[edit]

non-notable player on minor team → R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

ONE touchdown all season, 68 yards all season...star players would see that as a bad game. Simply being a player on a third-rate college football team does not make someone notable or memorable or leave a lasting legacy. In addition, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Any time an article is created after the death, there must be a suspicion of that.

Further, it seems this is yet another case of the overvaluation of the input of young and immature editors, who often see the world only through their own lenses and don't seem able to distinguish between a current event and a lasting legacy.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (after ec) - Well I don't know W. Marsh's real life age, but he's been editing here as long as you and is an administrator...so I wouldn't be so quick to toss around 'immature'. I'd remind you to AGF if you hadn't been here so long. That said, I'm leaning in favor of keep. Herr Dorsey might not have been a star football player, but as in some other cases a bizarre death can make one notable. How many college football players have died ever during conditioning workouts? He has a cite (which most truly non-notable college football players would indeed lack), and Wikipedia is not paper. Syrthiss 13:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The death while it's rare it's not completely bizzare, there has been many cases of a college or pro player die after practice, mainly because of heart issues, etc, which this appears to be one. If it was an heat stroke death then the case maybe more notable but there is nothing a person can do with an heart defect afterworkout. Each college football player has their own college page as well and could be sourced as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This happens ALL the time, every year. If you watch the local news regularly...

782,000 for football+player+died+workout. Over 782,000 hits. Maybe the case-du-jour...until the next death. Hey, my grandmother died last week and she was the personal seamstress for Mrs. Steinbrenner (wife of George Steinbrenner). Does that make her notable? Oh wait Mrs. Steinbrenner doesn't have her own article, either.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about your grandmother. I wonder if Mrs. George Steinbrenner redirects to George Steinbrenner. Don't get me wrong, I tend to be a deletionist (ooo, all those fricken schools... *imagines my finger over the delete button*)...but I'm also willing to allow little stubby articles for questionably notable 3rd string athletes whose hearts a-splode just after football season ends. Syrthiss 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand our inclusion guidelines. They are intentionally not about subjective popularity, but rather about whether we can write a verifiable, NPOV article on a subject. See WP:N and WP:ILIKEIT. --W.marsh 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There has to be some standard of notability. What is the point of accomplishment if simply existing and dying is enough? Why bother to rush for 2,000 yards when 68 will do?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What the? I seriously doubt this kid's goal was to have a Wikipedia article about himself. --BigDT 23:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, newspaper articles are mainly about this person's death, and I don't see any source material that could be used to make this more than a few lines. It really is too bad what happened, but WP:NOT the obituary column. Seraphimblade 13:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say beyond what I said on the article's talk page? It's verifiable, he meets WP:BIO ("The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person"). Wikipedia is not paper and this article's main crime is being about a very, very minor person who got sufficient media coverage to meet our inclusion standards. The only reason to delete this article is WP:IAR, and I don't see how keeping around this article is harmful at all, let alone enough to warrant ignoring rules to get rid of it. As an aside, oddly enough out of hundreds of articles I've created this is the first one to come to AfD. --W.marsh 15:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is if he was alive then he wouldn't have an article, all college football players is verifiable, same with all college athletes, but do we have articles on them, no and there is conscious to delete non-notable college athletes so WP:IAR doesn't apply nither. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If articles that meet WP:BIO are being deleted, they still meet WP:BIO and people are just choosing to ignore it for a subjective reason. If there are multiple non-trivial articles being written about a college athlete, they are eligible for a Wikipedia article. There's no real reason to delete them after they've been created except to reduce the amount of accurate information in Wikipedia... obscure but accurate articles don't hurt the project at all. --W.marsh 21:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a college football player doesn't mean it meets WP:BIO, only proffesional athletes who make the highest level of their compitetion ,and very major college players who expect to be drafted or won major awards in college meets it, i don't see where it says any player who ever played college sports meets it, if that's the case then there will be millions of articles. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a closer look at how the current version reads... the only truly important part of modern WP:BIO is "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". --W.marsh 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea but it also says Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. The only claim of notablity is dying. Of cource a sudden death of an athlete makes local news and sometimes that is covered by the AP, my newspaper had only one sentence of his death so it only minor death that made the news for not very long. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't think you're reading WP:BIO closely enough, those planks are merely signs that the more important criterion of sufficient verifiability is met, a subject can easilly meet the main criterion without meeting the planks at the bottom. None of those planks have to be met before there can be an article, and that's explicitly said in the guideline. As I've said before the claim of playing for a Div. 1 sports program itself is a claim of notability. --W.marsh 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This really is less about Keeley Dorsey and more about W Marsh. Reading his profile he is an 'inclusionist' (i.e., an advocate for having an article on anything verifiable, forget the need for notability). Also, he tends to state half-truths, such as merely playing on a college football team meets WP:BIO when in fact it says something about "on a high level." Oop`s, let's just gloss over those words. Who needs performance, right?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You utterly miss my point about WP:BIO, he doesn't meet it for the subjective things like how he died or what level he played at, he meets it because he meets the only real qualification WP:BIO has: non-trivial coverage from independent sources. --W.marsh 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My uncle played baseball at University of Central Florida, my former baseball coach and science teacher was an All-American in University of Florida, several of my cousins also played college ball same with the local card store owner and several classmates are going to play Division 1, they don't deserve articles though, I'm read WP:BIO many times, if it's claims importance verifiability has to back it up, not verifiability first and notablity after. Almost everything is verifiable. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is verifiable, really, most articles that come to AfD can never produce a single published reference. If 150+ newspapers carried articles about your relatives, obviously there is some level of notability. --W.marsh 22:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the 150+ newspapers that carried the guy was only one sentence from the AP, ESPN spoke about it for 30 seconds, the death is now forgotten, many stuff makes the news and is forgotten after one day, we don't have articles on the amish girls who died in the school shooting recently or that kid who got stabbed in a New England school today or most tragic fires as they are carried by the same newspapers daily. Same with most American Idol contestants. What makes Dorsey different other then he died and was a college football player. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreal. if this guy really meets our notability guidelines I think that says more about our guidelines than his notability. WP:IAR and delete. Recury 16:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person's death was reported on by numerous reliable sources, including ones of national attention. On the same topic but a different vain, USF is a major football program in a major football conference in the top college football league in the US. He was a very highly recruited player out of high school and these deaths are fairly rare (though increasingly more common). --Thomas.macmillan 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a major college football program, Division 1 yes but in one of the more minor coferences Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not to get off topic, but the Big East is a major football conference. West Virginia and Louisville both had very realistic chances at the BCS title this year and USF beat Louisville in 2005 and West Virginia in 2006. Just throwing that out there.--Thomas.macmillan 21:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've never even been ranked... Recury 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dying in an odd way is not usually notable. Maybe if you're the first to do so or your case leads to some sort of reform or medical breakthrough or... you get the idea. Regardless, this is another case of someone who is newsworthy being mistaken for someone who is notable. GassyGuy 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this appears to meet one point of WP:BIO: The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Given the nature of this criterion, this would mean the article would clearly meet WP:BIO and should be kept. However, the only reason why this person was the subject of a non-trivial work is because he died in an unusual circumstance (heatstroke is common, nowadays; but it is still newsworthy when it involves sports players). We should ignore all rules as the criterion on WP:BIO only works for this article because of his death, and his article has no merit otherwise. Besides, since the person has not made a name for himself at the college level, I doubt there is much expansion that can be done to the article. Nishkid 64 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guidelines under Wikipedia:Notability (people) indicate that playing in a fully professional league is required except in primarily amateur sports (such as many college sports, but not football). I don't think signing a football letter of intent should automatically qualify someone for an article, and inevitably there will be a long spiral down as we debate whether benchwarmers at Division III or NAIA schools qualify. College football players who never play pro football should qaulify only if they achieve All-American status (as was often the case in the pre-NFL era and for some time afterward). There should be an article on mortality issues in college football, with substantial material on the pre-1910 era when dozens of players were dying annually. I don't think Dorsey is more notable than any of them. MisfitToys 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh no, WP:BIO explicitly says things like "playing in a fully professional league" are not required. That's literally what it says... "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted" and yet you claim the opposite. Meeting WP:N is what is required by WP:BIO. --W.marsh 01:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It says that playing in a fully professional league is not required IF the sport is primarily amateur; this was the case for the early years of college football. Exceptions are made (quoting the guidelines) if: "Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level." This specifically refers us to the first criteria, which is: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." That is clearly not the case with Dorsey; he falls short regarding the first criteria, so the one discussing sportspeople clearly applies. MisfitToys 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you seeing the bolded text before the entire list you're talking about? "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." The items on that list are just signs that it's likely that someone satisfies WP:N. --W.marsh 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - At any rate I think you also misunderstand what is meant by "[verification] should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level", that just means that in disputes over whether someone actually did perform in a professional/highest level situation, that an independent reliable source needs to be found to confirm that. --W.marsh 01:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but there are no such sources in this case, as he clearly didn't perform at that level. MisfitToys 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        They aren't needed though, my point is that the list is merely a list of types of people who're likely to satisfy the reliable coverage requirement, the list specifically says meeting various items is not required. Maybe a few years ago it was, but things have changed. --W.marsh 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. The sports clauses have absolutely nothing to do with whether this article meets the BIO criteria or not. There are probalby many other WP articles about people notable on their own right, who played college sports, and they aren't (nor should they be) held to the sports standard either. Just because the notability came as a result of the sport, it doesn't automatically void the first part of the BIO criteria. Neier 04:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how it meets WP:BIO just becuase it has reliable sources, David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy has realiable sources has well and it's close to being deleted, btw if articles on college football players that never reached the pros or All-Americans is created and kept I would see this project as completely hopeless and leave. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability came as a result of the player's death, not just the player. We're not discussing sports biographies, but whether or not the notability of this particular sports player warrants an article. The only reason his article was created was because he died of a heatstroke after football practice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nishkid64 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

He didn't die of heatstroke (which he would be a little more deserving of an article if he did), he rather died likely from an heart defect which is a very common death, the only thing is that he died after working out rather than at home, etc. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An event such as the Beckham trade is not a biography, but a news event. WP:BIO requires multiple non-trivial coverage, which has been met. If there were a notability criteria for whether a single news event was notable enough for an article, the Beckham trade would probably fail it. An article on the "death of Keeley Dorsey" would fail it as well. Remarkable as it seems, this article is about the person, and there are specific guidelines for dealing with people articles. The article has met those, in my opinion (and the opinion of many others). Neier 11:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad, but nn, fails WP:BIO. The line needs to be drawn somewhere.--Wizardman 20:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh it clearly doesn't fail WP:BIO, the argument for deletion is that we should ignore WP:BIO/WP:N here. --W.marsh 21:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does if you look at it from a broader perspective. In 50, even 25 years from now there would be no indication of notability based on the info we have. That being said though, because his sudden notability seems to come solely from his death, he isn't quite worthy of an article.--Wizardman 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of that is actually a part of meeting WP:BIO though, there's only one thing an article has to meet, the other stuff is specifically labeled as not required. You just said he failed WP:BIO is all, he clearly doesn't. --W.marsh 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. That is what I assume you're arguing. However, that means he passes WP:BIO solely because of his death, since that is why he has multiple non-trivial news articles. Yeah, I used a non-consesus verifiability test above that technically doens't count on WP:BIO. Anyway, if we allow him to have an article and his notability stems from his death, then that could be argued for everyone showing up on the Deaths in 2007 link. I'm hoping I have the policy right this time.--Wizardman 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if we had articles on all those people the project would be better for it. As I've said we want more accurate/neutral articles, not fewer. WP:BIO's core criterion doesn't specify a concern about why someone would get non-trivial media coverage, and exclude certain reasons for it, because to do so is subjective and leads to bias. We've included articles with much flimsier cases for meeting WP:BIO, such as Rob Levin. --W.marsh 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        True, accurate articles are good, I just feel that the line has to be drawn somewhere on what college athletes can be considered notable. I'm actually an inclusionist, so your convincing me to not delete the article is probably inevitable. I went and googled Keeley Dorsey minus died, death, etc. and actually got a lot of results. Of course I should've done that in the first place. I'll look over the webpages and reconsider my stance (wanted to say vote but AfD's not a vote).--Wizardman 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "A medical official said the official cause of Dorsey's death won't be known for four to six weeks." [46] His death canceled all on campus football visits during the height of the recruiting season and the team's end of season banquet as well. These are just more reasons to keep this artlce. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas.macmillan (talk • contribs) 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Something like that always happen when a sudden death happen, also his death has nothing with football looks like, he was just doing a normal workout Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Simply having being written about in a newspaper doesn't necessarily means a noteworthy achievement, under WP:BIO and "multiple independent non-trivial published works" such as a newspaper which circulated abou ta million copies, I would also qualify, and that would be for winning some science competitions in high school, and all sorts of people like car crash victims, assault victims, and small business owners in dispute with the city council, etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO says nothing about the "million copies" thing... I mean this does meet WP:BIO, there's no real argument against that. And if multiple newspapers want to write about someone who won a science competition, A) there must be a reason, e.g. notability and B) there's no harm in an article, since we have accurate and sourceable information to use. The only real policy-based reason to delete this article is WP:IAR, and it's really unclear how reducing the ammount of accurate/neutral in Wikipedia actually improves anything. --W.marsh 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable in the slightest. StuartDouglas 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textDeleteBold text Not very notable. The only thing notable is that he died young.

Keep - I would probably not have taken the time to write this article, but someone did. There are several other keep voters. That implies there may be even more people out there who may want to read about him. Also, some commentors have noted that his school is not one of the famous football schools. In a way, that may make him all the more notable as one of the few football players from that school to ever receive such wide-spread media attention. He passes WP:BIO and Wikipedia is not paper, so there is no harm in having the article and no compelling reason to delete. Johntex\^talk 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not nearly notable enough for what we should include. VegaDark 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's take a step back here - this is an argument about limiting the content in Wikipedia - something i am, within the Wikipedia policy lines, dead against - Quote from the Wikipedia 'What Wikipedia is not' page:

"Wikipedia is not a paper Encyclopaedia: This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page". Why not keep this article? In fact, i would like to see it expanded to include information about the dangers and history of sports workouts / practice - there are many angles this article could take.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.10.223 (talk • contribs) — 210.84.10.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Those are suitable issues for an article about college football safety, but not a bio article. MisfitToys 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - WP:BIO says that someone is notable if they are the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Google news [47] has over ten pages of news stories about this person's death and plenty of them give biographical information that can be used to write a good article. If we were talking about a high school player who got coverage from his local newspaper, that's one thing ... but this is a IA college football player from a BCS conference and it made national news. --BigDT 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the additional sources referred to above, subject appears to meet WP:BIO. Notability is in the subject's very peculiar manner of death. Said sources should be worked into article right away. CyberAnth 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's only famous because he died and no one will remember him five years from now but he technically satisifes WP:Bio. Quadzilla99 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just gave a reason for deleting, not keeping Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable player on a college team, who was getting press even before he died (which I might add, his death was covered by every major newspaper and television station in the Tampa Bay area, a major media market). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three 'sources' listed are all local Tampa area news coverage, and can hardly be said to be a 'published' work.

Elitist theory, including 'bread and circuses,' states that you can keep the people preoccupied with sports and food, and take their money while they're not paying attention. It worked for the ancient Roman empire and it is working for modern-day America. Simple transient news coverage hardly merits an 'encyclopedia' entry. Wikipedia's danger is the same as that of video games: it can become unobjectively time-consuming. For all those who think they might 'save' this article: what a waste of time. No wonder the education of America is in such trouble.

Also, I thought that "Wikipedia is not a memorial." Clearly, had this player not died, there wouldn't have been news coverage. I disagree that because something is in the news, it merits its own article. By that low, low standard, Wikipedia ceases to be an encylopedia and becomes simply a lowest-common denominator. Might as well have articles on oneself at this rate. Come to think of it, I've been in the newspaper on six continents, too many times to count. I guess I merit an article, too. Anyone for starters?

However, the worst part of having an article like this being included is that it makes a mockery of effort. If rushing for 68 yards and 1 touchdown, career, is notable, then dying early, while we ignore someone who might have rushed for 68 yards/game but dies at 76, then what we are doing is simply creating a system that overvalues itself, youth, and current events, while lowering the standards to simply attracting media coverage, transient or no. What is the purpose of trying if simply existing is the new standard? → R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix your signature - part of it points to User:Ryoung122 and part to User:Ryoung --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge

Comment While not commenting on the state of America's youth, nor being an expert Roman Historian like Ryoung, I would like to point out that a similar article on a deceased sportsperson, this time from Egypt. Mohamed Abdelwahab was an Egyptian footballer that died of unknown causes. While Abdelwahab might have had a more illustrous career, I believe that Dorsey also deserves to be kept.--Thomas.macmillan 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ahly is one of the biggest clubs in Africa. USF is probably the 4th or 5th biggest college football program in the state. Also that article has not passed an AFD so it isn't really relevant anyway (WP:INN). Recury 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a news story of local interets only. ArtW 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. As per Quadzilla99 and Thomas.macmillan. Dwain 00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why, AFD is not a vote? Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be cutting-and-pasting "Keep Notable." all over WP:AFD. I'm sensing some sort of point or something. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...he meets WP:BIO ("The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person"). No, the person's death has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. The person himself, I'm sorry to say, hasn't. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his death was covered well covered by major media including ESPN. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Walsh[edit]

Unverifiable article on a professional music clip artist. Fails WP:BIO -- Longhair\^talk 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:COI and bears an uncanny resemblance to his user page here. The Rambling Man 15:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rambling Man.--cj | talk 14:56, 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 and Redirect to Upper Canada College houses. Cbrown1023 18:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scadding's House[edit]

Delete - An article has been created at Upper Canada College houses, which combines information on all ten houses at UCC, instead of ten stub articles. The article up for deletion has already been questioned for its notability. --G2bambino 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a need for a delete or would a redirect not suffice? hateless 22:23, 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 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seaton's House[edit]

Delete - An article has been created at Upper Canada College houses, which combines information on all ten houses at UCC, instead of ten stub articles. The article up for deletion has already been questioned for its notability. --G2bambino 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Wilson[edit]

STRONG delete this was a VERY, VERY, VERY minor character who hasn't appeared for two years. Kogsquinge 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Neighbours or appropriate list as described in WP:FICT for minor character. The Rambling Man 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems that every character ever to have been in Neighbours has their own article at List of Neighbours characters. The Rambling Man 15:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder what poor Zac Willis and Sally Upton did. Anyway, I think this is a case where a whole lot of merging needs to occur. GassyGuy 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As pointed out above, all show characters have articles. TonyTheTiger 21:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but will require better citation Television show character articles are normally ok, even for minor characters (and I noticed this character was supposedly on the show for five years, which sounds like a pretty good run). There is a problem, though, in that the article seems to be weak on references for verification purposes. I would suggest improving the references and expanding the information about the character to make it more than just a stub. If after a reasonable time no additional references are added and the article is not expanded, I'd be more inclined to reconsider and suggestion deletion. Dugwiki 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It needs better sources. Might be better placed in List of Neighbours characters if not sufficient references. Capitalistroadster 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor characters in television shows are almost never notable enough for an article. Without any sources that show notability this stub definitely needs to go. And in response to an argument made above, the fact that articles exist for other minor characters of this show does not, in any way, imply that this should be kept. In fact, it implies that those articles should also be nominated for deletion. --The Way 06:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 17:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE There are very few "fictional characters" that should be listed in an encyclopedia and this isn't one of 'em! Dwain 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 makes sense W.marsh 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Maker[edit]

contested prod, dictionary definition, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Lightspeed Delete encouraged :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, dicdef only, what WP is not. The Rambling Man 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the original author has come back and expanded the article a bit. I left a note on his talk page to know if he have plan on expanding the article further (I fear I did not wait long enough before nominating (1 hour)) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even with additions, it's still a dictionary defintiion. JCO312 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you think it still even resembles a dictionary definition, one must conclude that you have not spent much time reading dictionaries. Furthermore, it is a phrase. Dictionaries are for words. An argument could be made that it might resemble an entry in a reference book on American idiom, if one wanted to be pedantic, but certainly not a dictionary definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amonk (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. It's not an Americanism, as the history of the term actually dates back to when the leaders in question were kings or their advisors — Merriam-Webster (as part of the 1995 Brittanica home edition) reports the date of origin as 1599. And the previous commentor is wrong, dictionaries are for noun phrases such as this, and "kingmaker" is normally one word, and not capitalized when it's two words. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fine. Delete it if you all want to. I didn't write that it was an Americanism, or even that it originated in the USA. I wrote of how it is used in the USA. Learn to read what is written rather than what you assume is written. Not doing so makes you look sloppy at best. Furthermore, only lousy dictionaries, such as Websters, and only recently, started including phrases too. Not long ago, dictionaries were for words, just as not long ago people could still write with punctuation and capitalization. Furthermore, since you seem to like Websters for some reason, it's own definition for the word dictionary says it is for words, and nothing more. [48] Moreover, even the Wikipedia dictionary page you cite says dictionaries are only for words. :-) Finally, regarding your last point, it is the only intelligent thing you wrote. Evidently, it is usually written as one syncopated word and there is even an entry for it as such in Wikipedia already. I therefore propose they be merged under the original. [Note: I tried to uncapitalise it too, but it broke the link and I didn't have enough time to look into resolving that before you all started jumping down my throat.] Amonk 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kingmaker - duplicates the same concept, but this article does have relevant information about American politics. If no one objects I will go ahead and merge. Walton monarchist89 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great. I was going to do it, but I'd be just as happy if you would. I'm a Wikipedia editing newbie and, as you all may have already noticed, not so adept as yet. Furthermore, I have gotten a little overwhelmed in my little effort to contribute, what with having to defend my life to Saint Peter and all in the process. :-) I'll change the link in Kucinich, for which I added the entry, to coincide. Amonk 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to close the discussion but Kingmaker appears to be a DAB page... So I'll wait for an admin to decide what to do instead of doing something wrong -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now merged the two articles under Kingmaker, but can't replace King Maker with a redirect until this AfD is closed. Walton monarchist89 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Merge. Make it an ((R from capitalization)) or misspelling or some other non-print-worthy redirect, as there's still no evidence it has ever been two words in actual usage. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as redirect to Kingmaker. The "information about U.S. politics" was unsourced material about matter that belongs elsewhere and had NPOV problems: George McGovern's role in setting up the current primary system, (2) the relevance or irrelevance of kingmakers to U.S. politics since then, (3) POV assertions that political contributors "buy" or "rent" politicians and that this is a change from previous systems. All of this may belong somewhere, but not in a dab page, and certainly not unsourced. I removed all except the restriction of usage to the United States, which seems likely and I do not challenge. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:31, 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 Speedy A7 by Doc glasgow. Tevildo 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benn Faris[edit]

vanity, not notable frymaster 15:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as db-bio, total rubbish, how can this have survived for six months? The Rambling Man 15:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability. JCO312 16:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom. (Topar 17:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. , no sources and no improvement in the last 6 months Alf photoman 19:09, 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 19:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Wolk[edit]

Proceedural listing; an anon apparently tried to AFD this by doing this, but they obviously couldn't create the subpage and didn't put the AFD notice on top of the article or ask anyone for help. I can only guess at their motivation; but the article has been tagged with the notability concerns and unreferenced templates for about a month. There are some notes and external links at the bottom. One is to a blog, two are to the internet movie database, one is to his official website, one is to youtube, one is to a newspaper, and one is to experts.about.com. Only one of those qualifies as a reliable source. Looking at the filmography section I would think he'd be notable; but the IMDB link does not confirm that he was in those movies. The only place that I can find where he is alleged to have been in those movies is this Wikipedia article. He is not listed in the Wikipedia articles for the movies, or in the IMDB as having been in those movies. However, none of those movies or tv shows are ones that I have watched or follow; and I have not done much research as I intend this to be simply a proceedural nom helping out the anon. Nonetheless, I'm wondering if this is a hoax article. Is this article verifiable from reliable sources or not? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not a single one of the interwiki's has an article associated with it. IMDB list him only as crew on Tom Green show, not in any of the movies listed. Feels wrong... The Rambling Man 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really does, doesn't it? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the sources seem to point at blogs and really assert no notability other than someone that happens to know Tom Green. Besides that, the factual inaccuracies undermine the whole article. The Rambling Man 16:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the IMDB doesn't support any of the roles in blockbuster movies. Is it possible that these were uncredited roles? Yes, it is, but we can't take chances. It's either WP:V by WP:RS or it goes in the bin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I just read the news article linked as a source. It's all about Tom Green's show; it only mentions Zack Wolk once. The exact sentence is, "His first guests were... and Zack Wolk, a 24-year-old longtime fan of Green's work." That's all it has to say about him. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even assuming any of this is verifiable, it seems inherently un-notable.--Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 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 – Pea ceNT 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Dettwyler[edit]

Delete Does not show evidence of passing WP:PROF. I.E., importance of publications is not established. Will change vote for such evidence. TonyTheTiger 16:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many solid citations in google scholar, some of which indicate broader notability. Should have been tagged with expand and cite before it was nominated for deletion, as simple improvements would likely satisfy the nominator's concerns.--Buridan 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Books, papers etc. Seems to pass WP:PROF per Buridan. The article needs to address the tags that have been added but AfD is not the answer. --Bduke 04:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF, contrary to Buridan, her h-index is 10, modest for a full professor. Note that the essence of notability isn't that the subject writes things, but that things are written about them. Pete.Hurd 04:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not making the argument on the basis of wp:prof proposed guidelines, i was making it on general notability. --Buridan 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.brics.dk/~mis/hnumber.html her h-number is 6, and 3 for the "Medicine, Pharmacology, and Veterinary Science" category alone, when using "Katherine Dettwyler" as the search term. It is 10 when using "K. Dettwyler". I think there are issues with the h-number calculator... Ciotog 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see my error... Ciotog 17:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My H number is 6 too.... heh, I'm not sure it well applied across all disciplines.--Buridan 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails WP:PROF but is a notable figure in the Breastfeeding advocacy community --Infrangible 04:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to change my opinion about notability if WP:RS to support her notability if that comes via breastfeeding advocacy, rather than being a professor. Pete.Hurd 04:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well according to her CV she has been given awards and grants relating to her breast feeding work. --Quirex 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to her CV she has won the 1989 Fulbright Scholar Award for Research. That's pretty good. For more information about the notability of the Fulbright scholarships checkout wikipedia:Fulbright_Program (I'm aware inclusion in Wikipedia is not notability but the article, the subject and references speak for itself). According to WP:PROF a notable award is enough. According to WP:BIO she might need another award for inclusion but she has some less interesting ones. Fulbright is pretty notable. --Quirex 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep On the basis of any guidelines, 3 books, one of which won the AmerAnthA's Margaret Mead Award as well as the Fulbright. Multiple awards. Right there in the article.

And h index is not relevant unless comparing people within the exact same field. Anthropologists do not publish many dozens of articles. See article on h index before using--and no, I did not write that article.DGG 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (though I should mention that the 3 listed are each one in the top journal in their respective specialties.)DGG 06:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her book "Dancing Skeletons: Life and Death in West Africa " is considered a textbook at many universities ([49]/[50], [51], [52], etc), passing WP:PROF. John Vandenberg 07:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW keep—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Habbo Hotel[edit]

Non-notable Random832^T 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, gets 377 overall hits at Factiva, 60 of which are articles containing "Habbo Hotel" in their headlines. As of right now, there are also ten Google News results and 80 (!) Google Scholar results. I'd say it meets WP:WEB #1 fairly easily. Zagalejo 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I concur with PresN. The nominator's claim has no base, might as well close this already. Just H 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's already been demonstrated that there are plenty of sources available to continue building the article, passing WP:WEB. I'd be looking for a bit more than "non-notable" as justification for deletion, particularly when that doesn't ring true. QuagmireDog 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; subject has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Muchness 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep massively notable, no deletion reason given. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I remember seeing a rather massive article in Wired or somewhere which discussed Habbo Hotel. Notability appears quite well established. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong keep, even speedy. Would you at least look at the article or do a little searching before claiming it's non-notable? — brighterorange (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is there some secret reason for this nominate I can't gather?WilyD 21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A keep with a moat around it and guard towers - There should be crocodiles in the moat, too. --Dch111 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very unconsidered nomation considering the huge popularity and previous hype around the subject. Whilding87 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per discussions above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as above. Seriously, this is a joke right? --Scottie theNerd 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope so, because the user doesn't even begin to describe why it's "non-notable." The user attempted this very weakly. And look, he's a Gaia Online user :P Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are millions of gaia online users (OK, fine, there are millions of accounts. There are almost certainly at least hundreds of thousands of users, though) - I've never said anything about Habbo Hotel or any nonexistent raids in the entire time I've been on gaia online, I've never seen any discussion of it on gaia the entire time I've been there, and this is an ad hominem attack anyway. I nominated this because I remembered repeated assertions in the past by others on the talk page that the only reason it was notable was something that was itself unverifiable. As for not explaining it; in VFD's I've seen in the past, it seemed to most common to say something like "non-notable", "fancruft", "original research", or whatever else and then disappear off with no further explanation, so I honestly thought this was standard practice and no further explanation was necessary. --Random832^T 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not an 'ad-homiem' attack, so please do not make statements such as that that cannot be verified. Note that I added a ':P' to the text, and as a user of Habbo Hotel, there are some nice gags that go on towards players of Gaia Online. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - :P isn't exactly clear in meaning among emoticons - i've always thought it implied derision [i.e. it would _enhance_ the perception that you're saying "since you're a gaia online user, you must be biased against habbo hotel" or whatever you were trying to imply] --Random832^T 06:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Stating a Wikipedia policy is not sufficient; a good argument (and therefore a good nomination) would outline why the article is against quoted policies. What may be obviously "non-notable" to you may not be clear to anyone else. --Scottie theNerd 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: baseless nomination. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly notable. Maxamegalon2000 06:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Zagalejo —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:04, 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. W.marsh 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outputmessage[edit]

This musician seems to have no claim to fame beyond appearing on two "idol tryout" CDs by a label whose notability seems to be established primarily by reference to the artists on these idol tryouts CDs. They are not official Idol products, just tryout CDs from this indie label. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "tryout" CDs, they are just compilations put out by the label that are called "Idol Tryouts" for whatever reason. As it says on Idol Tryouts, the artists on the compilations are all signed to the label. Recury 21:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree with Recury that the two CDs aren't actually tryout CDs, he doesn't come close to passing WP:BAND. A google search revealed a couple of blogs talking about him, but no major publications. The labels he's released albums with are non-notable indie labels. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 02:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the nomination was incomplete (no tag on page). I put it on. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep four albums and 'Outputmessage album' returns >20,000 Google hits. Definitely not insignificant. -- Strangelv 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father's Office[edit]

Non-notable bar/restaurant. Own website claims that they have been awarded best burger in LA by the New Times newspaper (I'm assuming the now-defunct New Times LA). I have struggled to find any references online for either the establisment itself - the only G-hits seems to be directory listings - or the award. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and reads like self-publicity. Walton monarchist89 17:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find refs, fails WP:CORP, reads like advert. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 02:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of dignitaries of mystical organisations[edit]

This page violates WP:NOT a collection of random information, and is furthermore non-notable and a does not meet the criteria for WP:BIO either. Most of the people on this list are not notable for any other reason save being the heads of the organizations they are associated with, and there is an inherent verifiability issue both with attribution and organizartional notability. MSJapan 17:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and especially per WP:V - I don't see that the internal structures of secret organisations can be verified. Walton monarchist89 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deltete mystical, occult, magical and similar organisations is in itself a POV statement -similar to the athiest is the Catholic church; It's a list, which can be accomplished with Category:s, if at; The respective pages these lists are from either do not exist, making this information irrelevant, or can accommodate their respective list; Most of the non-list txt is POV; agree: all points above. Grye 21:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT mostly. This list is incredibly POV in that it in no way represents what the title itself claims--it only represents organizations from the western mystical tradition. And, further, if this page were expanded to actually include all the dignitaries of mystical organizations, it would become so unwieldy as to be useless. --Jackhorkheimer 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per clear consensus and nominator withdrawal. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Orwin[edit]

I feel really guilty about AfDing this page, as it's really well written and the author said it was their first article (in the edit summary); but on detailed perusal of WP:PROF, Professor Orwin doesn't seem to qualify. My apologies to the creator of this page; nothing personal. Walton monarchist89 17:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sources showing the guy is anything special RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - two academic books by him on Amazon. Neither are in the top million titles. Average Earthman 18:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod • This article was only minutes old when nominated for deletion. Give it some time to mature, and if it isn't good by then, then we can delete it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but needs radical improvement). There is no question that Clifford Orwin is notable. Per the proposed guideline, he has published a significant and well-known academic work (The Humanity of Thucydides, Princeton University Press, 1994), which has been "the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews." (L'Année philologique lists 17 reviews in scholarly journals, plus a review in the Times Literary Supplement.) The problem with the article is that it's not an article on the notable scholar qua notable scholar, it's an article on a non-notable figure in political controversies. In such a case isn't policy to keep it but mark it for cleanup? Wareh 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has to be a reason to get a Guggenheim, I think. What is more, there seems to be plenty of interesting stuff about him (qua Canadian neocon/Straussian) that might be added. Charles Matthews 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Orwin is full professor at a major research university, the University of Toronto, and has been a Guggenheim Fellow. His book The Humanity of Thucydides is referenced in two of Wikipedia's articles (History of the Peloponnesian War and Thucydides; I just added links to this article there). I was about to add something about reviews I had found of that book, but after edit-conflicting, I see that this has already been done by Wareh above. up◦land 20:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following additional information as provided above. Average Earthman 22:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given above Johnbod 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF, notable cultural impact beyond academia documented in the article. Pete.Hurd 03:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems clear to me that he meets the notability guidelines for academics as detailed by others above. --Bduke 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination - article has been improved massively since I AfD'd it. Now provides more evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:20, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gank[edit]

Delete per WP:NEO and Wikipedia is not a dictionary Walton monarchist89 17:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Rambling Man 17:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a very clear dicdef. I seem to recall Gank was previously deleted for the same reason. -- Whpq 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one doesn't even pretend to be more than a dictionary definition. GassyGuy 21:29, 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. TigerShark 13:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Nabi Khan[edit]

Non-notable army officer from Bangladesh. His claims to fame seem to be a medal (third-level gallantry), imprisonment for a coup attempt (1-year sentence, so probably not a leader), and author (no verification & lots of retired officers write a book or two). Article has been tagged for notability since November. No relevant Google hits that I can see, so I say delete. Mereda 17:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of military affairs-related deletions. -- Mereda 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions. -- Mereda 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Doesn't look all that notable at the moment; however, if someone adds the titles of the books, together with assertions of their significance, I would change my view. Probably borderline for inclusion. Walton monarchist89 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's pretty clear an adequate article could be made about him. Do you have to lead a coup to be notable? I missed WP:COUP. Johnbod 23:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak deleteI don't think there would be sources to say much more. Find some.DGG 01:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources on google [53] - I can't even find proof that he exists. The coup wasn't successful, I can't find his books. Completely fails WP:BIO. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 03:04, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Polio[edit]

Non-notable band under WP:MUSIC; no context; borderline for speedy deletion, but better to do a formal AfD in case they're more notable than they look. Walton monarchist89 17:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definate Speedy delete - should be speedied for no content to the page, let alone drastically failing WP:MUSIC RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, tagged as db-blank. The Rambling Man 17:38, 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 19:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACT Productions[edit]

Doesn't really seem notable under WP:CORP; written in an advert-like style, although there's enough context not to speedy-delete. Walton monarchist89 17:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability, besides no chance of WP:V without WP:RS. And reads like an advert. The Rambling Man 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to delete. This seems like company information, not advertising. I am a resident of Brampton & think this company should be listed. — Woodyinbrampton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak delete - a lot of historic theaters would probably be good topics for Wikipedia articles, but as it is right now, this is just an advertisement and could really be speedied as G11 if someone felt so inclined. But a well-written, sourced, article on a historic theater (which this one appears to be from the description) would not be a bad thing. --BigDT 18:21, 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 (A7). TigerShark 13:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaito (wrestler)[edit]

Person does not exist. Vanity. ↪Lakes (Talk) 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't seem to prove this person's existence anywhere. Besides that, where is the notability in the article? With no WP:RS it's gotta go. The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete doesn't exist.192.204.106.2 15:53, 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 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Symphony for the Deaf[edit]

No evidence that they pass WP:MUSIC; also reads like self-publicity (WP:AUTO applies here). Walton monarchist89 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. ghits only produce myspace pages and pages for a band of a similar name which is not this one.--Tainter 18:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. No assertion of notability and ~186 ghits. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:12, 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 Patstuart^talk|edits 05:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Beckerman[edit]

AfD nominated by Newporting with reason: "Unremarkable person, self-promoting entry." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author of books published by a major publisher (Simon and Schuster) and wrote articles for major magazines like Playboy (yes, that's a major magazine!) and has been the primary subject of published works like in The Age newspaper - [54] and Salon.com - [55]. --Oakshade 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 want to recreate or have me undelete, find some evidence of meeting WP:N (multiple sources) W.marsh 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Kennecke[edit]

Non-notable local, small market newscaster. Mikeblas 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Fifteen years on one station is more than the vast majority of broadcasters will achieve, possibly meeting the spirit (though no specific clause) of WP:BIO Eludium-q36 09:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any notability criteria (WP:N or WP:BIO). Local news anchors need more than longevity to merit an article. Eluchil404 10:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eluchil404; I couldn't find any sources. Her biggest claim to "fame" appears to be that she once read a story about the death of President Bush's mother while the video showed people throwing dead coyotes in the back of a pickup.--Kubigula (talk) 23:21, 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 all including template. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy (All Seasons)[edit]

A page for this topic already exists List of Family Guy episodes. ZJH 18:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including the following articles in this AfD for the reason that these articles are also included in the already-existing List of Family Guy episodes:

Family Guy (Season 1)
Family Guy (Season 2)
Family Guy (Season 3)
Family Guy (Season 4)
Family Guy (Season 5)
Family Guy (Season 6)

The following template is used only on all of the articles in this AfD and should be deleted if the decision of this AfD is for the articles to be deleted:

Template:Infobox Family Guy Seasons

ZJH 18:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --John24601 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, it is a completely unnecessary due to the existing list. Darth griz⁹⁸ 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate sections of List of Family Guy episodes - Redirects are cheap, and these might be searched for or even linked to. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And if they are deleted, take the template to TfD. SynergeticMaggot 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User has just gone on a spree of useless content forking. Absolutely unnecessary. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for different articles to list episodes from different seasons.-- danntm ^T _C 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - another current AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All simpsons episodes seems to be proposing to do the opposite of this one (delete the longer article, and leave the individual seasons). One of those two methods is a good thing for WP. However, to have two AfDs going on in opposite directions seems like a bad idea. Voting Keep until a consistent approach is available. Neier 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - Confusion on the Simpsons article caused confusion here. These should be deleted as discussed by others above. Neier 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Recreation of the family guy LOE page under wrong names. - Peregrine Fisher 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (1) Spam spam spam eggs and spam (2) unreadeable (3) if this isn't pasted from another source then I'm an organgutang. Herostratus 05:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leadpile[edit]

This article appears to be an ad for an internet company of debatable notability. The only page that links to it is a term that the website "created". If it's determined to be notable enough to be kept, it needs to go through major organization and wikification. Tygartl1 18:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, advertisement --Cynicism addict 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; have you heard of the ((db-spam)) template ? So tagged. Yuser31415 03:46, 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 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thesauromania[edit]

Not notable enough on its own to be verified, and it's been waiting for about a year now. Just H 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits on Google Books and Amazon. Regular google throws up a bunch of wiki mirrors, spam sites and forums. Bwithh 18:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --John24601 18:59, 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 speedy redirect to 3rd Street (LYNX station). It's a plausible typo, and duplicate pages don't fall under G6. --Core desat 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Street(LYNX station)[edit]

Reason Patriarca12 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a duplicate of the 3rd Street (LYNX station) Patriarca12 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per g6 - have tagged. --John24601 18:56, 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 Speedy Deleted. Avi 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Financial[edit]

I want to see if there is a consensus to delete this. It appears to be a total advertsisement, and I could not establish notability. Google search Cynicism addict 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have purged much of the page which was non-encyclopedic and not really related to the company in any case. I will leave the community to decide whether the remaining stub is worth keeping. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even with most of the advertising purged it still reads like an advertisement and it doesn't establish notability at all - also, what is a 'dba'? --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN mortgage broker of which there are, well, vast tracts. (dba = doing business as, usually indicating a small firm such as a sole proprietorship or in this case an LLC) --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 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 for now. Cbrown1023 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Idiot (film)[edit]

This is an article about a film that is rumored to be in development. There is no imdb entry for this film that I can find. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball, nor is it a place to report rumors. GabrielF 19:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep The sources confirm from Green Day that the movie is going to happen. It's not a rumour.--Jude 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. icelandic hur ric ane #12 _(talk) 21:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one off-hand comment isn't quite enough. Otherwise, the only material available for this movie is speculation. hateless 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources show it's going to happen. There is more than one comment from Green Day about it. Five sources on the subject. PureSoldier 22:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is the best source when dealing with things related to film. They have a comprehensive database of movies past, present, and future. If this isn't there, chances are it's nothing more than a hope and a wish. Soltak | Talk 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is another source in the Green Day article that mentions the movie, a more recent one. Sources show it's going to happen. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 22:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The comments included are themselves contradictory. "this is definitely going to happen" and "every week there are more ideas about doing a film". Is it going to happen or isn't it? Let's know for sure before we allow an article. Wikipedia isn't a rumor mill. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this film is actually going to be launched. This is premature. Wait until there's actually pre-launch publicity about the film. At the moment, we have a one-line remark and a couple of speculative articles that prove nothing Bwithh 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, we don't even know that the proposed film is going to be called "American Idiot" Bwithh 23:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

green day authority has a "current projects" page, and I'm adding it as a source to the article. I've found one other article from billboard as well here where Mike Dirnt ( bassist ) states: "We're definitely working on a film based on the album," which I will add to the article now.--Jude 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The verifiable information is limited to the fact that they intend on making a film; we don't even know the title. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also note that IMDB is not a reliable source, as they accept information from virtually anyone. -- Kesh 02:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and a Comment Talk of a movie isn't enough, there isnt enough verifiable info to stand alone. Also: IMDB isn't a blog, the information comes from the studios. You can add comments and trivia, but not edit or add entries to their database. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kesh. As a rule of thumb movies should almost never have articles if they have not moved past D-hell, and even after that, rarely. --Dhartung | Talk 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kesh. ImDb is not a reliable source -- it's Web 2.0 (i.e. user-authored like Wikipedia), with no fact-checking, so it's just as unreliable as Wikipedia (Note: Ironically, Wikipedia itself would fail as a source under its own WP:RS rules). Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that isn't true. The process of getting a film added to IMDB is akin to anesthhesia free dentistry. Submissions ARE reviewed and often rejected. It is nowhere near as easy as Wikipedia. Not even close. I still think the article should be deleted, but for different reasons as stated below.nut-meg 07:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Green Day confirmed it. Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so it's not like there's no room for it. Mcr616 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day confirming it means nothing until there is ink on paper. The deletion process has nothing to do with space. It's a quality control thing.nut-meg 07:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Kesh. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Kesh. WereWolf 01:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PureSoldier. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This film is neither scheduled or expected. I searched for it through Lexis Nexis and found nothing other than there was an "idea". Billy Joe Armstrong said it was "definitely going to happen", but unless he's going to fund it himself, no deal has been inked. In Hollywood, rumors of a film do not a film make. It sounds like no script has been written either. To me, do deal in place + no script written = delete. Put it on the Green Day page if you have good citations. But it does not yet warrant its own page.nut-meg 07:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this does get deleted, which it looks like it will. I agree with Nut-meg and Richard about the merge. It's rather important in the Green Day fandom, so people will notice that it's missing.--Jude 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not green-lit. As other users said above anything could happen but nothing can be confirmed so it turns into crystal-balling. Eluchil404 10:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until it's under production or at least green lit, it's still just rumor and speculation, and qualify as WP:CRYSTAL -- The Bethling ^(Talk) 16:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and/or merge per nut-meg. Em-jay-es 03:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hospenthal[edit]

Violates WP:BIO, he's a regular guy married to a celebrity. Static Universe 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be a speedy. –RHolton ≡– 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is completely useless. Olego 18:06, 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 Speedy delete. Well investigated and thought out nom, which sums up the situation very accurately. I've just been through all the google results myself. No need to salt at the moment. This movement may become notable. User:Well1234567 has been indef blocked as a sock of User:Artopp. Tyrenius 04:18, 27 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)).

NeoPopRealism[edit]

The claims to a "world-wide" movement are suspect. There is only one artist listed as a neopoprealist, Nadia Russ, who already has a page. This is not a dispute over her notability as an artist, but the questionable importance of a one-person art movement started in 2003. The only other artist mentioned uses the term "neopoprealism" once on his personal website with no indication of affiliation with Ms. Russ. The references all lead back to Nadia Russ' webpage, wikipedia, or discussion groups in which Ms. Russ belongs, as do any google searches, or are ads purchased in art magazine classified sections. There is no evidence of any notablity in this movement. Perhaps this can be merged with Ms. Russ' page, but even then it should only be a brief sentence. Freshacconci 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the creation of the article on NeoPopRealism has been written exclusively by contribs, who has made no other wiki contributions, and who by her own words has established the "concept" of NeoPopRealism as a product. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising. Her words from the discussion page:

I was working in Art field for many years. I'm German. I know Nadia. I like NeoPR philosophy. I develope idea - "Be Beautiful". It is project "Nutrition for the Masses" We focus on non-animal meat. As I said NeoPR is wider, than just ARTs/painting. It's also health and beauty: We planning distribution by NYC license vendors with decorated hot carts-wagons on the streets & elegant casual dresses. I hired two such vendors to start selling crop meat in strategic popular special places in Manhattan. They'll be working from 9 am to 7 pm. The product purchased from important food US companies, who subsidiaries makes crop meat of all discriptions ready to go & prepared for the vendor and his grill. We'll charge no more than $1.99 for such "hefty minute meal" sandwich, for busy New Yorker. We'll include a fruit drink as well. . It's what we doing for humanity now. Health is beauty. Beauty is NeoPR.

Speedy delete and salt. Freshacconci 20:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the following B. Murphy website, who works in NeoPR style. It's mentioned on the buttom of the following page: http://billmurphy.com/Biography.htm Also many other people and companies accepted NeoPopR and its ideas worldwide. For example French psychologist Jean-pier Royol uses her, N. Russ art in his art therapy. Please check his website: http://www.mylinea.com/search3.php?mc=nadia+russ&dir_ident=artherapie&newsites=
NJ artists accepted NeoPR style/movement: http://www.webspawner.com/users/newjerseyarts
It's enough info. Well1234567 01.20.2007 — Well1234567 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please delete this article. There is nothing of substance said about art in the manifesto-like writing in this article, or, for that matter, in the article on Nadia Russ. There is no substantial citation for the entity being referred to as "NeoPopRealism." Bus stop 17:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only obfuscation is being employed to defend the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia. What do the referred to New York City licensed decorated vendor carts, elegant dresses, and crop meat products have to do with either art or art movements? The sole defender of the article claims to have worked in the art field for many years. If so, that person should be able to explain a point of view better than is seen in the above entry by User: Well1234567. Bus stop 21:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This "article" is nonsense. There is no justification for it being here. The gibberish being referred to is supposed to be "wider, than just ARTs/painting." Fine -- then what is it? This particular art movement is supposed to have been employed by the casino industry. How? If it can't even be described, and if it has no valid sources, it should be deleted right away. Bus stop 15:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called sources are trivial or self published. Bus stop 07:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Bus stop 07:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 r3, unlikely typo. NawlinWiki 12:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American University of Beiut[edit]

misspelled name, redundant youtensil 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Redirect - Common misspellings should be redirected to the actual page, not deleted. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7. Not really useful as a redirect. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the content of the page prior to blanking seems to have been copy/pasted from http://www.aub.edu.lb/ --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as a redirect, would qualify for speedy deletion under R3 (implausible typo). I'm having a hard time thinking of Beiut as a common misspelling of Beirut (a single letter is ommitted in the first case). If so, then we would have to create redirects of Beiru, Beirt, Birut, etc. Black Falcon 21:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to be bold and Redirect. Yeah, a simple typographical error, I know, but not that implausible. --Dennis The TIger 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Resist the temptation! There are thousands of different ways to mistype "American University of Beirut". --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems an unlikely typo. --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaboom Productions[edit]

Not noteable. The video on youtube only has 77 views. The "Jackbutt" videos on YouTube aren't even made by "Kaboom Productions". I found this article from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Fame_beyond_YouTube, and the link there should be removed if this article is deleted. richjkl 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN YouTube spam. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, only has ~100 views. Unicyclopedia 22:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, why was this even created? completely non notable Buyable 06:12, 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. But I will undelete if anyone has credible evidence this isn't a hoax at some point, come to my talk page. W.marsh 19:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stringbeans[edit]

Probable hoax article about a band from Zimbabwe. No mention of this band can be found on Google besides Wikipedia mirrors. The on-line sources provided do not actually mention the band or any of its members. I'm also nominating the articles about their singles: A Stupid Mistake, Its a Great Day for Cricket, Pick Up the Tempo. ... discospinster _talk 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Flyingtoaster1337 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you checked all of those sources? Bare in mind that the Google test isn't awfully relevent here, as this band was around before the Internet was used for anything through which this band might be referenced. J Milburn 23:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I have checked everything that comes up in Google for the search string Stringbeans+Zimbabwe-Wikipedia, as well as Stringbeans+Rhodesia-Wikipedia, and there is not a single mention. Of the sources provided in the article, the three that are accessible on-line do not have anything to do with the band, so I can't imagine that the print sources would either. The article is wholly unverifiable. ... discospinster _talk 17:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The more I look at it, the more I think it is a hoax. J Milburn 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was living in Salisbury in the period covered by the article. There certainly was a song called It's a Great Day for Cricket. I am whistling the tune while I write this. I have a vague memory that there was a group called the Four Stringbeans. Can we keep this one while it is checked out?. Sussexman 16.11, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Note: This comment was added by User:80.41.116.105.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamusement![edit]

Article makes no claims of notability that would satisfy WP:WEB. Contested prod. Brad Beattie (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN webcomic, Alexa rank 60K. --Dhartung | Talk 06:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 17:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability (WP:WEB). Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 12:10, 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. Sources would have helped here... no prejudice against recreation if they're found, or creating a redirect from this location. W.marsh 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legal Wall[edit]

A wall where graffitti is permitted is not notable Avalon 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is notable, (I can think of several examples here is Chicago) although this wall isn't. I would suggest a Redirect to Mural or Street art until someone comes along to expand on the subject beyond a single example in Rochester. Also, the title is a probable neologism. Tubezone 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, without redirect. The material that is relevant is or can be covered under Street art or Graffiti. --Bejnar 08:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the concept is notable but the article unsourced Alf photoman 15:43, 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, Nishkid 64 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Tubezone - as others have said, the concept is notable, but the particular wall isn't (at least not so far as the article makes clear: has there been any independent writing/research about it which could be used as references for the article? If so, this particular wall may merit its own section/paragraph in the main article, if not then it's probably best forgotten). --John24601 22:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, the term "legal wall" is a generic term for this type of thing and is used in places other than Rochester: [56] and creativecity.ca. Not sure either of these are reliable sources, though ... JChap2007 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Since there is no real doubt either about the existence or the name, I find the sources listed sufficient. DGG 01:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's only one source in the article, which is not related to the concept. Also, it seems that the idea of a legal wall for graffiti and a free wall for street art (which is what I was referring to) apparently are not the same thing. At least in my hood, gang graffiti is banned outright from street art exhibits (there's some nice ones), legitimate businesses that allow street art on their walls would never allow actual gang signs. I mean, you're practically asking for street fights and shootings if you let gangs sign. Even the St. John's so-called Legal Graffiti Wall in Newfoundland (like Newfies are notorious gangbangers??!) is an art project, not a chalkboard for People and Folks. Tubezone 02:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. If the author wants to argue the concept of a legal wall is notable, it might be better to create a new article about the topic in general rather than one specific wall. Even so, a quick Google search doesn't turn anything up but a localized wiki, which isn't a verifiable source. -- Kesh 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not strike me as notable in this particular instance. The concept is around here and there, of course, and that has article potential, but could probably suffice as a section in grafitti for the time being. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the wall is in Singapore. - Mailer Diablo 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Luţac[edit]

Non-notable. Being one of the best musicians in a county where he doesn't live is not enough.--Wehwalt 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT how you perform an AfD; please see WP:AfD for details. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We live and learn. This is the first time I've done one of these. I'll look and try again.--Wehwalt 11:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've followed the procedure this time. Forgive me and advise me if I have not. There doesn't seem to be any notability to this person. He's simply supposedly a prominent rural musician, like others who are mentioned in the article. The only link of substance to this article is in a list of people from his village.--Wehwalt 11:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it appears that creating this page as a subsection of the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_14 article has seriously borked things, at least how they normally work. Technically it's okay, since you've got a properly working notification on the page in question and that is the important part, but procedurally it's a nightmare. I'll try to get an experienced admin to help sort this out. In the meantime I've added the usual AfD links to the top of this section, along with a plea for help. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the responding Admin, the AfD is a-ok, and should work fine. We now return to your regularly scheduled AfD. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:MUSIC, and even Google provides very little hits. Jayden54 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable per above, also very sloppily written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Runningonbrains (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 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, Nishkid 64 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Eluchil404 10:46, 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 redirect. No sources were presented... really needs those for a standalone article. Undo the redirect when sources are found or better yet can be cited. W.marsh 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeviousMUD[edit]

First off, there seem to be few or no sources for this. After ignoring that, it really isn't notable enough. Runescape is, of course, but as the edit summary says, this is not Runescape. Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Runescape. I could not find sources that discussed DeviousMUD on its own terms, rather than as merely the forerunner to Runescape. Plus the article is so short that at the present time it makes more sense to discuss it as part of the development of Runescape. If the Runescape article's discussion of its predecessor grows to such a point that it is too big for that article, it can be split off at that time. JChap2007 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I found this on rogue subpage patrol. It passed the cruft and gameguide tests, but I wasn't sure about notability. It seems to assert some, by being the direct predecessor to RuneScape, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt and added it to the templates, lists, etc. to see if it could get some traffic and edits. Otherwise, I would have re-redirected it or prodded it like the clan vanispamcruftisment and non-notable bot I found aswell. To be fair, we could do with better coverage of DevMUD and RSC, if possible. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better coverage would be nice, but as the article indicates, we can't even source the coverage we have. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge. Everything that is/can be covered in this article is/could be in the RuneScape article. It could never be expanded to a good quality. Dtm142 16:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete last time I checked, some DeviousMUD info was already on the RS article. Unless we can get some sources or references, this needs to be deleted - •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge back or delete~~ Redirect to RS article Whilst Devious is an important part of RS' development history, if you guys can't find any sources then I'm sure I won't. Without them and without enough information this article has no hope of remaining or flowering, might as well deal with it now and save contributors' time. QuagmireDog 12:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, fails WP:WEB completely, no secondary sources, not even a primary source is available. A googling with WP removed results in under 1000 results [57], the foremost being the RS Wiki and RS fansites, others being either WP mirrors or similar sites and the rest appearing to be blog-posts - none of which are reliable, none of which present the information any better than the source used for DeviousMUD in the RS article. In order to stand up as a seperate subject, there needs to be sources demonstrating the fact. There is no new information in this article and sources, the net result of it being the creation of problems where there weren't any. That this article was created is not a problem, it becomes a problem when it is kept for secondary sources which do not exist. If circumstances change, this article can quickly spring back up, but nothing has changed and its creation was not necessary. QuagmireDog 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is/was a seperate game to RS, and deleting it because it is a stub is not good enough. Keep it so we can extend it and improve it. A google search comes up with over 1300 results, Im sure some of them can be of use when it comes to improving this article. Its not cruft because it is a seperate game, as opposed to a part of RuneScape. If it gets to a few months down the line and its still a stub, then reconsider nominating it then. It was only made into a seperate article on the 15th of January. You cant expect it to be a good article after just 4 days - • The Giant Puffin • 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seperate game to RS. A stub does not warrant deletion because it's a stub. Englishrose 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An unsourced stub, though... -Amark moo! 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Failing keep, merge with RuneScape, but this is an example of something that really deserves its own article even if it may have to stay a stub. Notability is provided by its relation to RuneScape. I'll try to find some more information to add, but I doubt anyone not involved with Jagex or who played RuneScape since the very early days will know much. Still, I think it should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alternator (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hang on a sec, it can't be a component of RS and a seperate entity, it either forms part of an article which does pass the policies and guidelines or stands on its own two feet and does the same. The creation of this article asserts that it is a seperate entity and therefore can be judged as such. It fails WP:WEB, further expansion is unverifiable and will be original research, since no further sources are forthcoming. Sources have been looked for before in order to reference the DeviousMUD entry in the RS page, the opportunity for them to manifest has been a lot longer than the lifespan of this article. Sorry but I don't see why this 'deserves' an article when it can never hope to be a full article and pass the afformentioned, especially when the information is all contained on the RS page and we stand to lose nothing from this article being redirected. QuagmireDog 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence. There is probably a way to get more info, yet it isn't overly notable, yet moving the info here could shorten RuneScape, yet... See? I can't make up my mind. → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKS ^C_RS 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Weak keep. It is a separate game, but it was only released as a beta for one week; I say keep by default because it is still useful for the RuneScape article. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 14:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You infant[edit]

Maybe this slang definition could go to Wikidictionary, but it doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia. MRoberts <> 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and don't transwiki to Wiktionary. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slang is not encyclopedic. I also object to a possible transwiki. This also should not be included in Wikionary. Soltak | Talk 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is neither slang, nor neologism, nor a dictionary article. It is no more than a juxtaposition of two words without notability , references or sources. Make it go away.--Anthony.bradbury 01:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but transwikification not needed. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 01:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping this would set a horrible precedent, leadying to articles for You turdmonkey, You asshat etc... Caknuck 01:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree wholeheartedly with Caknuck. Do not transwiki, or in addition to the above entries we could see "You cranberry", "You salivary gland", "You secondhand car", and "You unsourced Wikipedia article".--N Shar 02:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete image all the slang articles, yeah transwiki might not be a bad idea. Arjun 02:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Holzwarth[edit]

This article lacks credible sources and is not up to Wikipedia standards. Plus, the creator of this article has been vandalizing other pages and creating silly pages like You infant. MRoberts <> 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable professor; possible vanity article. Soltak | Talk 00:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, vandal-made, substandard article Pete.Hurd 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not a professor primarily--look at the article--he's a visual artist. and should be judged as such. I dont know enough about the criteria there to judge. --I though we discussed the articles & their subjects. DGG 06:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I cant find much about the building house university; unless that fact can be filled in, I see little hope. It may be called "university for organization"; see [58] John Vandenberg 08:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Holzwarth is almost certainly notable enough for an article (and the unsubstantiated claim by Soltak that this is a vanity article should be removed as defamatory, not least as it also implies that he also vandalized Wikipedia). But this is machine-translated from the German Wikipedia and cannot be cleaned up without making a real translation from the original. Please nuke it and let someone else start the article from scratch. (Oh, and "building house" is a literal, machine-translated version of "Bauhaus".) up◦land 14:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 04:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treps[edit]

Uses only it's homepage as a reference, does not meet WP:CORP. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Soltak | Talk 00:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (probably counts as a speedy, to be honest). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:09, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University Mock Trial[edit]

Delete. This page is about a school club. School clubs are not notable. What is "notable" you may ask? 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. This article fails to meet any of those requirements; it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. JasonCNJ 00:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I supported the proposed deletion of this article before the prod was contested. Just another school group, one of several I have seen recently from Columbia university. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable school club. If this endures afd, excuse me while I create University of Akron College Democrats and Wayne College Campus Crusade for Christ. Soltak | Talk 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments, non-notable club. JCO312 02:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per precedent on school clubs. As always, to keep requires a clear demonstration of notability, and we don't have one here. WMMartin 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This organization has been the subject of multiple sources, since their accomplishments have been chronicled online at www.perjuries.com as well as at www.collegemocktrial.org, a website run by the American Mock Trial Association - which has the largest membership of any college activity in the nation. Additionally, the 2006-2007 AMTA case, which was published and distributed to thousands of competitors, was authored by two Columbia Mock Trial students. Also, Columbia University Mock Trial has been featured repeatedly in front-page articles in the Columbia Spectator and in Columbia College Today. Unlike other student groups, Columbia Mock Trial is a nationally ranked team currently in the top ten in the nation and with national visibility.

Just to note, the above user, 151.204.106.178 is the primary contributor of the article in question. Further, if memory serves, anonymous users are not permitted to vote in AfD. Soltak | Talk 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anonymous users can vote in AfD, but I do know that sources cited for the topic must be "independent of the source itself." 151.204.106.178 cited www.collegemocktrial.org and www.perjuries.com. But www.collegemocktrial.org is the site for the umbrella organization for mock trial and is hardly independent. Even worse is www.perjuries.com, which is an online message board for students and coaches of mock trial and includes several Columbia Mock Trial students & coaches as regular contributors. Those sources do NOT count as they are not independent, reliable, or non-trival. I assume it goes without saying that articles in Columbia University publications (Columbia Spectator and Columbia College Today) are hardly independent, non-trivial, or reliable. JasonCNJ 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable club. Multiple independent mentions in print publications might justify its inclusion in WP, but I don't see any cited. EdJohnston 21:51, 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.