< January 24	January 26 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a recreation of deleted content. Canadian-Bacon 05:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waterman (Flash)[edit]

Delete, non-notable web flash cartoon, with no available sources except for its host website, which is not ranked on Alexa, and has only about 18 sites linking to it. This was previously speedy deleted as spam, and again deleted after an uncontested prod, so I'd recommend salting to keep it from popping up again.
Also included in this AFD is Thunder Quest, a non-notable, non-complete, non-pitched, and non-purchased television pilot by the same people. Postdlf 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4 (and salt) for Waterman per the nom, simply Delete Thunder Quest. TQ is a series that is in production yet not even pitched at this point, which means that the article is pure crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally wouldn't mind speedy deletion either... ; ) Postdlf 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cartoon, possible crystalballery as stated above. ~ Arjun 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable cartoon. --Simonkoldyk 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waterman_(flash) --Simonkoldyk 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt per CSD G4. --Sable232 02:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons Shaundakulbara 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Sources are an absolute must to revive an article after a prior delete --Shirahadasha 04:35, 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. Nishkid 64 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoso Te[edit]

delete Non-notable school, advertisement Peter Rehse 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons Shaundakulbara 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No Sources, no WP:V, no assertion or evidence of notability. --Shirahadasha 04:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any sources are added to assert its notability. ← ANAS ^Talk? 06:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Sources, and non-notable school. Daniel5127 <Talk> 06:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable school and no sources. S .D. ¿п? § 12:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. JCO312 15:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of normal schools have their own articles, never being nominated for deletion. Perhaps a complete rewrite or changing of the article could do the trick. Retiono Virginian 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't any evidence that this martial art is practiced widely anywhere outside one dojo, and that only for five years. Non-notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be relevant to Wikipedia. Tellyaddict 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to know this guy who put this here. This is a blantant promotional piece. His school is highly questionable in its legitimacy. In fact, from what I understand, the IRS may be looking into him soon for witholding income. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecord (talk • contribs)
Delete Ghits come up with no articles related to the topic besides wikipedia. Floria L 00:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. NN, fails WP:ORG. Ronbo76 14:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my ignorance on what is a "notable" school of style. I was under the impression that I could put a small DESCRIPTIVE page for the use of anyone who may be interested in learning about my life devotion to martial arts. Furthermore, whoever that was that claimed I am being investigated by the IRS, you have no grounds to make such a false notion. I pay my taxes on every dollar I have ever earned AND I donate to charity when I can. I wrote this page not for advertisement, but to give a brief explanation of what I do, since it is not world renown. I carry a Federal business license as well as all necessary tax identities. I have partnerships with several other instructors of different systems and no one has yet questioned what I do, but rather they are curious of what will progress for me in the future. Yes the art has only been spoken of for 5 years. Everything has a beginning. But like I have written, the practice has been around much longer. What I do and teach is not some made-up farce chucked together to make a buck. This is something that I decided 12 years ago that I wanted to devote myself to and consider it my life's work.

If this is an unacceptable rebuttal in the name of my page, then, so sorry to have wasted all of your time in trying to do something that I thought was perfectly fine and INFORMATIVE and in no way had I attempted to make this some manner of commercial enterprise. I have a day job that pays my bills. I don't need to propagate a hoax or scheme to cripple our ever wary society. If this was a commercial enterprise, would I not have given precise information about how much I charge or my class schedule? Or how about a detailed account of my belt progression? Or my phone number so folks could call me and ask questions about how to join? I don't recall placing any of these or any other promotional items on this with any intent of compelling the masses to join my program. Oh, one more thing... whoever you are that accused me of being hunted by the IRS, I invite you to provide proof. And if you really know who I am, then why don't you accuse me to my face or call the police on me or whatever you feel is the necessary course of action to deal with someone of my incompetent or dubious nature. Talonado0013 03:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The policy on notability that applies to this article is available at WP:ORG if you'd like to look at it. If this article does meet the notability standards, you might be able to point us toward the sources that would verify it. The policy on conflicts of interest, which might also be relevant for you to read, is at WP:COI. Don't worry about the IRS thing too much. Just as we expect to see sources to verify notability, we'd expect to see sources to verify that before anyone here would take it seriously. -FisherQueen (Talk) 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment As I wrote this page, I had not cited myself well, I know. I thought I could get the page up and add necessary citations and/ or have others who know about me, but not necessarily involved, provide some manner of backing to support my descriptions. Given time, I will provided all that I can in the way of official documentation, as I am quite new to Wikipedia. Actually, this page was the first thing I have ever written for it, although I have read probably over 1000 articles.Talonado0013 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate references. WMMartin 13:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LAX (group)[edit]

Possible non-notable band --adavidw 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally nominated this article for a speedy delete, but it clearly does qualify. However it does fails WP:BAND, I couldn't find any third party sources whatsoever. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I did find a few third party mentions on Google, but not non-trivial treatment in multiple reliable sources. Their one single does not appear to have made it onto any national charts. They do have a page at allmusic but notably, no discography, charts or awards listed. Willing to consider further information of course.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons Shaundakulbara 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 03:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a search in Google, I can see that this band is not really notable, and, kind of, in the making. ← ANAS ^Talk? 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable band. S .D. ¿п? § 12:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notablity concerns. JCO312 15:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Johnbod 17:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This group does not appear to meet the established criteria for musicians and ensembles, and a Google search does not provide any confidence that sources exist that would rectify this. Seventypercent 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability, does not meet WP:MUSIC requirements.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above reasons, and although the creator contests speedy deletion, she doesn't offer any further evidence to demonstrate notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is about a band which is not known worldwide and therefore has no notability on Wikipedia. Tellyaddict 19:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not notable. I doubt it even exsists. Retiono Virginian 19:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It exists, actually, and it is involved with a notable label, Blackground Records. They seem to be getting some attention, judging from this piece] on Radio Disney that claims one of their songs is moving up the charts (Radio 1 had it at #73 in December but I can't find it otherwise), but beyond that, I see a bunch of blogs and little other coverage. Weak delete unless something turns up during this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the band exsists, with evidence to back it up. It obviously is notable and could be kept for wikipedia. Retiono Virginian 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Existence is not notability, evidence must support notablity. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fail most of WP:BAND; does not merit inclusion at this time. Ronbo76 14:08, 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. Nishkid 64 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Ltd., Inc.[edit]

Midwestern jewellery chain, speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review, sending it here for further discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement. No sources given. - Ocatecir 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons Shaundakulbara 02:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. No assertion or evidence of notability. No attempt to comply with WP:CORP. --Shirahadasha 04:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable local company. Montco 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 06:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and advertisement. Daniel5127 <Talk> 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an advert that fails to assert notability which qualifies the articles for speedy deletion under A7 and G11. Would be happy to reconsider if issues were addressed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasons. S .D. ¿п? § 12:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP JCO312 15:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've expanded the article to include more information on company size (which I think makes it notable),including an external reference. I don't know if this will make the article more up to standard, but I appreciate you taking a second look User:Jh75
Delete still does not meet notability criteria in my view Johnbod 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What this article needs is sources. Writing about the store in multiple nontrivial sources. The external reference added doesn't seem to qualify. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not relevant to Wikipedia, it would be if it was more of a widely known company. Tellyaddict 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I am familiar with this chain because of its local ads, there is no assertion of notability in the article. Recommend exclusion as per WP:NOT#DIR. Ronbo76 14:15, 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 speedy delete - A7. --Core desat 04:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie_Davies[edit]

Sort of figured somebody would have made an article on this. Anyway, fails WP:V and WP:N, and I recommend that the article should be deleted until it gets some legitimate media coverage, or at least until somebody can figure out who "Donnie Davies" is and whether or not he's "for real". Thunderbunny 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to Davies today on Instant Messenger using the screen name he gives on his myspace profile. He appears to be legitimate. Please keep his page up and running. He is a compelling figure and I am pretty sure that this is not a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.213.55 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is not a webhosting or webpage hosting service. --Dennisthe2 03:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And there are lots of things wrong with using an IM conversation as a source. Thunderbunny 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - MySpace is not a reliable source, it is a social networking site. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Soltak | Talk 02:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scottmsg 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons Shaundakulbara 02:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (db-bio). Regardless of whether he's "for real" and contactable through IM, I, too, am "for real" and contactable through IM - and don't have a page beyond my user page. Then again, I am only slightly more notable than this cup of coffee on my desk. That said, the subject fails WP:BIO and WP:N, and any notability fails WP:V. Per commentary, Myspace is not a reliable source. --Dennisthe2 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If page is deleted, I recommend it be protected against recreation, since it is one of those "Internet memes" that you know somebody out there is hell-bent on having a Wikipedia page on. Thunderbunny 03:29, 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 Redirect to List of characters in the Banjo-Kazooie series. Nishkid 64 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nabnut[edit]

non notable video game character Daniel J. Leivick 00:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor characters from videogames (often major too) are rarely the subject of non-trivial treatment in multiple reliable sources. The game this fictitous squirrel purportedly appears in, Banjo-Kazooie, already has a list of major characters; appears not to warrant even a mention there, much less needing an autonomous article.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons Shaundakulbara 02:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Banjo-Kazooie series. It's mentioned there. --- RockMFR 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RockMFR. No evidence of notability of individual characters. --Shirahadasha 04:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above comment. ← ANAS ^Talk? 06:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RockMFR. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. =- Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just like a paragraph in a story for children. Causesobad --> Talk) 13:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RockMFR JCO312 16:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, looks pretty clear-cut. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Banjo-Kazooie series and remove article as non-notable minor character. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and article lacks notability. Tellyaddict 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. VegaDark 06:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hector band[edit]

The article fails WP:MUSIC: the band has not been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the band. The article does, however, seem to make a significant claim for the notability of the band (as pioneers of "loose rock"). A Google search yields about 133 hits, many of which are irrelevant. - Black Falcon 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons Shaundakulbara 02:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 60s/70s era band shown on the website http://www.hector-band.co.uk/ appears to be a different band of the same name located in the UK. Not clear that most of these Google hits belong to the Australian Hector Band --Shirahadasha 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. I can't buy the claim that the band is a pioneer of "loose rock" without some more specific assertion of what exactly the band did that made it pioneering, and one 2006 album seems to contradict that claim, unless "loose rock" is a movement a year old or less, or their pioneering activities didn't include making albums. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 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 such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. The article should be created using multiple non-trivial published works that discuss the Hector band (which the article does not). I was unable to locate any usable published works on the Hector band or on the Patriots of Loose Rock EP mentioned in the Hector article. Also, as applied to music, the term "loose rock" does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability and I was not able to find a reference to loose rock music that would permit adding it to Rock music. The appropriate course of action here appears to be delete per the above reasoning, including the reasoning in the nomination. -- Jreferee 19:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that loose rock is anything more than a protologism and no evidence of the band's passing WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 23:13, 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 all. - Daniel.Bryant 09:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Pickens[edit]

Walled Garden all created by JohnFUSE (talk · contribs), two NN bands and the NN label that they've signed to. Declined speedies all around, because I think we need to evaluate the label: if it is good, they all meet WP:MUSIC. Mango juice^talk 01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Earl Pickens for copyvio at http://www.killbuffalo.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=earl+bio+6.0.doc&tabid=56&mid=376. Cleanup and/or Delete The Roadside Graves and Kill buffalo - in these cases, the notability assertion is unclear or absent. --Sigma 7 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In its last line The Roadside Graves states a CD has yet to be released. Notability not established makes it a speedy deletion candidate. Especially if it fails WP:MUSIC like this. Kill buffalo is filled with external link spam and written in a non-encyclopedic tone. There's not much we can do to fix it as this too doesn't appear to be notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They appear to be advertisements for this label consisting of two musicians, neither of which have established notability, and one of which hasn't even completed its first album. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:09, 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. Arguments to keep are very unconvincing. Proto::► 13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boson (computer game)[edit]

Re-listing after a botched bundled nomination on my part. I can't find any evidence of this game being notable as Wikipedia defines it, so I request deletion. ♠P M C♠ 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SkierRMH 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC) -- SkierRMH 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB WP:N--Dacium 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Adverisement - Shaundakulbara 02:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete hobbyist game. — brighterorange (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Google search for boson strategy game review yielded 9,860 ghits, but a quick check at the first several didn't seem to show reviews by any recognizable strategy gaming websites or publications that might meet WP:RS. It's possible there are legit sources buried in there, so this definitely shouldn't be speedy deleted, but right now no sources have been produced. --Shirahadasha 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right now it reads like an ad unless some content is added to the article, I agree with its deletion. Someone should still go through the google links to see if proper reviews exist, though. Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: exciting game. Why not improve the article? Causesobad --> Talk) 14:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can see by the screenshot it is a real game, and somewhere in the world it will have notability. Just because one person hasn't heard of it. Doesn't mean it isn't famous. Retiono Virginian 16:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Retiono's reason. Shrumster 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V, WP:RS. Being an "exciting game" isn't exactly a rationale for keeping. See also WP:ILIKEIT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable sources or evidence of notability, and the discussion page's argument for keeping is not an assertion of notability but an assertion that the notability requirement should be dropped from Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. JCO312 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB, no assertion of notability, no sources (let alone reliable secondary ones), couldn't find any mention of an award or outside coverage from the website. QuagmireDog 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does a piece of software need to meet WP:WEB? It doesn't meet WP:BIO either... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is web content and is only listed as such within the article, which makes the application of WP:WEB perfectly acceptable. WP:SOFTWARE is just a proposal and not something I would have considered since there was no mention of it being bundled with a linux distribution - my psychic abilities are somewhat diminished today. I would be looking for a pair of reliable secondary sources any which way, so the article isn't a simple recreation of information available from the source without any critical review. A popcorn ranking of blah out of blah doesn't convince me otherwise, a couple of good reviews would, I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation for a game article. QuagmireDog 14:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where it says it is web content? "Boson is an open source OpenGL real-time strategy computer game programmed in C++" ... I challenge you to find a web site that uses OpenGL and is written in C++. This isn't an article about Boson's website, this is about a computer game, as indicated in the article title, in case you missed it. The package dependencies sure don't seem to indicate a web browser is required to play. And it's "popcon", not "popcorn", and that condition has been listed unchallenged in the WP:SOFTWARE proposal as an reasonable way to measure the popularity of a software package for quite a while now, we can't expect that to change drastically when WP:SOFTWARE becomes a real content guideline. I'm not expecting you to be a psychic, just use a little bit of common sense and a little bit of diligence, as in reading and understanding what the article covers. This isn't a vote (in a poll, everyone's generally expected to give a completely random inconsequential, misinformation-based vote that won't affect the end result anyway =), This is a discussion where you're supposed to actually examine the case at hand. If you're rejecting WP:SOFTWARE (which is practically being applied every day despite of its status), please at least provide a content guideline that has anything at all to do with the article. We're also not supposed to be concerned about the state of the article; what we have here is the fact that the bit of software is actually somewhat notable and we, thus, may have an article about it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense would dictate that using WP:WEB for material that was unsourced, has a website with a 'download' option (and not just a demo version) and which didn't label itself as part of a 'major distribution of Linux' is a request for notability for a game obtainable on the web, not a random policy or guideline or innability to distinguish between a piece of software and a living person. Trying to make me out as thick as two short planks is not negated by a smiley. WP:WEB is not ideal for software but the notability aspect fits well enough, it's used quite happily on casual games (even to 'keep' ones that have had a boxed version released for retail). "A content guideline that has anything at all to do with the article" it is, that's what I've used it for in the past, unchallenged. I have not seen WP:SOFTWARE used unchallenged in this way as sole reason for keeping an article, nor this popcorn rating being used either, so your say so isn't enough to change my view of this. I should have been more open-minded towards WP:SOFTWARE but being called thick doesn't exactly put me in the best frame of mind. No, AFD isn't a vote, but that's not news to me and wasn't the intention of my input - but why say that to me when I'm at least trying to use notability guidelines? I will look at WP:SOFTWARE in detail for future reference, but some of your comments were unwarranted. QuagmireDog 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/realign Some of my own comments were entirely unwarranted, starting with my response to your first post Wolf. I should have explained my reasoning instead of going off on one, coming back and looking at my first reply, that was out of order. Looking back now, what I thought I saw and what I actually saw are two different things. I sat back a few minutes ago and thought "God, I don't feel so hot", then had a one-sided conversation on the telephone with someone, my head emptier than.. a very empty thing. Please accept my apologies. QuagmireDog 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I absolutely have to apologise for my own thickness, too. I tried to hint that maybe you should have just reassessed the article as what it is, instead of creatively applying a seemingly unrelated notability criterion, but I suppose in this case, I only could bring forth ill will with my extremely boneheaded language. I'm sorry if I'm not as clear as I used to be. It is I who should have just rethought the whole thing before hitting save. Anyway, here's a hopefully clear recap of what I think: 1) While WP:SOFTWARE is just a proposed guideline, it's on a solid ground, has stood a long time, and will likely one day be accepted as a content guideline without much controversy. It is already a de-facto rule for many. 2) About the "unchallenged" bit: I was only referring to the criterion on free/open source software that's included in Linux distributions or like. It has been around for a long time; one might surmise it would have been scrapped earlier if it doesn't work. 3) Yes, the current article sucks and has little sources, and could use some expansion that's based on the game itself and other sources, not just a brief blurb that you can find on any Linux game site. However, if Boson appears to be included in Linux dists, it's a notable software and we should have an article about it, so even if we delete the article now, it should be without further prejudice in case someone else decides to write an article that isn't quite this stub-like. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had a quick look for references; the nearest I could find was a passing mention at Slashdot. Although the programmer of Boson, Andreas Beckermann could possibly be notable as an author of a related book. Marasmusine 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - boson has a popcon rank of #8085 out of 63089 packages. Easily meets WP:SOFTWARE (included in a major Linux distro and is among the most popular packages). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Linux Journal mention, though it's a bit of a weak one (okay, given it was in 1999). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For whatever it's worth, I'm only saying Weak Keep now. While inclusion in a Linux dist may make it marginally notable, I guess it's one of the less-known games - I can't really find any bigger articles these days either. So unless there's bigger commendations around, the case for keeping this thing is pretty weak. And if deleted, without any prejudice if there's something more solid to show the notability. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to its appropriate Linux distribution. Since the subject's main claim of notability hinges on its inclusion in a Linux distribution (needs sources), I recommend just redirecting there. If the game can't establish notability on its own merits, then I don't see why it should have its own article. --Alan Au 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the game is most likely in at least 5 linux distros. BJ^Talk 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wwwolf, I wouldn't say that the free software notability sections of WP:SOFTWARE aren't challenged - just look at the discussion page. :) I'm one of those who disagrees that inclusion in a Linux distribution is an indicator of notability, especially with community supported distributions - any project maintainer with a bit of dedication a can create a tarball or a .deb or a RPM and get it included in a distribution. In a similar fashion, ratings like popcon are misleading because there is a certain number of packages that everybody uses, and then tons of packages each compete for a tiny number of installs. Boson had 180 installs at #8085. If they had had 10 more installs, they would have come in at #7871, and 10 less installs, they would have topped out at #8335. If I came and tried to push a binary shareware package that only had 180 downloads, I would be laughed off the wiki - this is really no different, except that the numbers can be sorted and put on a list. That said, its definitely verifiable, and since there is no official software policy, I can't argue against something that passes WP:V, so I remain Neutral. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, and that's why it should be important to explain what I think is notable in relation to popcon rating. These days, I interpret it simply like this: Anything higher than 10000 is (often debatably) notable. Anything below is probably not. Anything lower than 15000-20000 is probably chaff. I would not look too much at the install numbers, though - they're meaningless in itself and only tell how many of popcon users installed the package. We also have to remember that not all of Debian users participate in the popcon, we can only assume it's enough to form a representative sample (if it were not, Debian would scrap the whole thing as a completely unreliable costly system). FreeCiv at #7662 and has 200 or so installs - and has been featured in a number of magazines and everyone knows about it. And by "challenged the criterion", I mean "propose something better than we already have and see if it sticks". We need something to gauge the popularity of free software that doesn't depend on marketing budget. I agree this rule is fuzzy can lead to excess leniency, but we've got to have something to go by now. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Retiono. qwm 14:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~700 Ghits when searching Boson "Computer game".--Jusjih 13:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Retiono also it has been tagged as needing sources. That is how it should be done, give it a chance. Has only been tagged since the same time this AfD started. After a little while longer if it still hasn't improved much then maybe delete. Mathmo ^Talk 14:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayana Angel[edit]

NN porn star per WP:PORNBIO and generall WP:BIO standards, significance as a porn star not explained. Around 40 or so films according to IMDB. Very minor link to a scandal is not enough IMO. Contested PROD. Delete. Mango juice^talk 01:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with above. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons; only reference provided is the actor's blog Shaundakulbara 02:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 06:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The 40 film level is light of the criteria for automatic inclusion; however, the football scandal and the TV interview add some degree of notability. We don't seem to have a criterion which clearly defines the synergy between multiple independent claims to notability, so what's the harm of includng her? --Kevin Murray 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). I also agree that the link to the Vikings scandel doesnt appear to be enough to satisfy WP:N generally. JCO312 20:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN and fails. SynergeticMaggot 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:40, 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. Nishkid 64 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheech (wrestler)[edit]

Person does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 17:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Dennisthe2 03:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article appears to make an assertion of notability, although claims aren't independently sourced. Some possible sources: [1], [2], [3]. Not a great deal of notability so far, but it's possible adequate verification could be found. Delete otherwise. --Shirahadasha 05:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: #2 is definitely not about this person. This one debuted in 2004 and that radio transcript is from 2003 and is about something completely different. #1 and #3 are about this person, but don't make him notable. Just working for CZW is not an indication of notability. ↪Lakes (Talk) 06:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:41, 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 Keep. Nishkid 64 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mills[edit]

Not a notable person. Pinkkeith 20:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable physician, and this is not a notable award. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. I'm just noting that the award, International Mister Leather, has a wikipedia article that has gone uncontested as to its notability. Sancho McCann 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I don't often vote keep). The award is notable and several of the references satisfy WP:V. Mr. Leather is not a notable documentary but Beyond Vanilla does have an IMDB entry. Between the leather title, a mention in The Advocate and the documentary appearance, satisfies WP:N. Shaundakulbara 03:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reason that we might keep an article about any person who has won an international beauty contest -- The Anome 08:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the award is clearly useless, like any beauty pageant in my opinion, the award is clearly notable, so its winners are too. Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, while the subject seems to be up to standard the article is not Alf photoman 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It seems silly, but if the award is notable then it leads toward the winners being notable. The stature of being a physician contrasts with the seediness of the leather contest, makes it interesting enough to include. Where is the harm? --Kevin Murray 19:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the award is notable, but it's the only the award and related coverage that makes this guy notable. That's adequately covered on the awards page. This page doesn't add additional worthwhile information. JCO312 20:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete There are no other winners of the award in WP. The refs refer to two different things: one clinical trial and two lay press mentions as a physician--which would never be enough for N as an MD,

and the others incidental to the award.DGG 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable award winner and member of the Leather subculture. Should we add that his predecessor was Kevin Cwayna and his successor was Bruce Chopnik? User:Dimadick
Delete Traces of notability via the award aren't enough. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:42, 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 Deleted. An assertion of existence is not an assertion of notability, and this article barely has the former.. yandman 09:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windward High School[edit]

non notable high school Daniel J. Leivick 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; non-notable Soltak | Talk 02:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in theory may satisfy WP:N but doesn't satisfy WP:V. Shaundakulbara 03:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't know how notable it is to be started by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but if you consider that notable, it's verifiable per at least a few pages in this google search. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd propose merging this information to Ferndale, Washington, as the significance of the school is intrinsically local. If the section could be sufficiently expanded with useful information in the future (theoretically possible as it is a new school), then it could later be made into a separate article Average Earthman 11:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt could be expanded a lot more, as many high schools have an article. If someone bothers to do some research. Retiono Virginian 18:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this school is notable. Unless of something significant occurred there, or if it’s well known for something, it shouldn't belong on Wikipedia. RiseRobotRise 20:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit. Few high schools are nationally notable, but many are regionally notable. What's the harm in allowing other editors to take a shot at improving?Caliwiki123 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The school is probably notable enough to be included however the article itself contains almost no information worth keeping and currently it is difficult to verify. Could keep as a stub or delete and let someone who wants to put some more info into it have a go at it in the future. Caper13 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools are harmless. Besides, keeping the article means that we have a stub to start with if the school suddenly finds itself in the news. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 78 year old grandmother is harmless, too. Should I write an article about her? Soltak | Talk 22:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your grandmother, like Windward High, meets WP:N, then an article may be merited, but you probably shouldn't write it, per WP:COI. schi ^talk 17:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is probably regionally notable.If page is kept be sure to watch the page though because high school pages seem to be prone to vandalism.Cylonhunter 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete "High schools are harmless" harmless is not the standard for W, but N. "so we have a stub ...if the school finds itself in the news" can be said about every person in the world, and every corporation, and every building. II hope it is not on criteria such as this that we are accepting HSs

DGG 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:N: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Note this quick Google News archive search turns up 20 hits; some of these are certainly trivial, but others are definitely not (for example: [4] [5] [6]). schi ^talk 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Look, you can do a online news search about ANY school, and it would yield the same results. Please tell me why exactly is this school notable? What is this school especially known for? What significant event happened at this school? I'm sorry, those links you provided don't really say anything. You have one talking about the school opening its doors of the first say, One talking about a construction company building a new building for the school, and another one in the school acquiring a name. Nothing really that out-of-the-ordinary. RiseRobotRise 11:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this high school has nothing famous or special. Wooyi 01:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequately referenced, and notability not proven. WMMartin 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 03:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to parent community, no showing why this school is especially notable. Seraphimblade 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here. If the school is interesting someone at some point will come along and start an article which explains the school's significance. This entry merely asserts that the school exists. SilkTork 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tisserie[edit]

Not notable, non-neutral, ad-tagged... Metao 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no attempt to establish WP:N through WP:V. Shaundakulbara 03:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources evidencing notability per WP:CORP. The principle claim of notability -- inclusion in the "Union Square Chocolate Lovers Tour" -- appears not to fall within one of the WP:CORP notability criteria. --Shirahadasha 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very limited coverage in published sources. All I see are one New York Times and one New York Sun article when it opened basically just announcing that fact. -SpuriousQ 14:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I started all of this and I appreciate your input. I am more interested in bringing to WP notable architectural developements around Union Square, including those related to gentrification of the areas and also to David Rockwell and his firm The Rockwell Group. He is based in Union Square, is highly respected in the field, and has done now both North corners of Union Square (the high-end bakery, Tisserie, and the W Union Square hotel.) I have brought the article back to a short stub stage. It is, from the beginning, an architecture-stub. I agree that background info on the business behind Tisserie should not be allowed, but the project is an outstanding piece of Rockwelliana. I am reposting the picture Rockwell interior design.--Gkklein 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know almost nothing about architecture, but it sounds like you want an article about David Rockwell or the Rockwell Group instead. I'd suggest working on such an article, and possibly redirecting Tisserie there, if you intend the content here to be primarily about the architecture and not the bakery Tisserie. Currently though the David Rockwell article's notability is also questionable since there are no cited reliable sources. -SpuriousQ 23:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploitation Now[edit]

Delete Non-notable, defunct subject. Page offers no sources of notability, no sources to verify, failing WP:V Ocatecir 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Michael Gorbatsjov is no longer the president of Russia, but that doesn't affect his notability. The same goes for every subject that has at some point been notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But being non-notable is. There is a difference between has-been and never-was. - Ocatecir 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won the 2001 WCCA for best supporting character, 2002 WCCA for best female lead. If not kept, merge to Michael Poe's bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.138.44.220 (talk • contribs)

No links are given to prove this or let editors investigate the notability of such an award. - Ocatecir 03:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Okay, I can help you with that. The two results listed are here and here. As to the notability, the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are at least notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. (Though currently being AfD'd, so that may change) I believe this satisfies point #2 of WP:WEB quite nicely, which combined with the publication of two books (one non-self-published, meeting WP:WEB #3) makes this comic sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no attempt to establish WP:N through WP:V. Shaundakulbara 03:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge and Redirect to Michael Poe. --Dennisthe2 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Failing that, Merge and Redirect to Michael Poe. Montco 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stubby, but the content meets notability requirements of WP:WEB; specifically, it is both hosted by KeenSpot/ComicsGenesis and has been published as at least one book by an independent publisher. It's just sad that the article is so short. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keenspot does not meet the criteria of WP:V because it is self-published. As far as the book, perhaps more information could be added to the article to satisfy WP:V. - Ocatecir 18:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "You keep using WP:V. I do not think it means what you think it means." I think you're talking about WP:N, at least for KeenSpot, and you're getting it confused with KeenSpace. KeenSpace is (was) where anybody could sign up for a website to host their webcomic. KeenSpot is (was) for specific comics which the company felt were good enough to qualify for additional considerations and goodies, such as publishing a book, marketing, etc. There are several thousands of KeenSpace comics, but under one hundred (last I checked) KeenSpot comics. Or were. Whatever. As to finding sources for the book, it's a little difficult. There's plenty of places that sell it, but most of the sites that had articles about the release of the book are since gone. (Or have deleted the news archive) Several articles on how the book is going to be published, however. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am using WP:V, specifically in the case of Keenspot WP:V#SELF. WP:V and WP:RS exist to ensure that articles are sourced by sources that are reliable and have reputations for fact-checking. This is why self-published sources cannot be considered. Also for the book, please read the first line from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." - Ocatecir 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ooooookay, you obviously haven't read WP:FICT then. The information here is cited from the primary source, which is perfectly acceptable for a work of fiction. If anything, the primary source is the most reliable source for works of fiction. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, WP:FICT is ok for citing sources about the Webcomic itself, but as for finding outside sources to establish notability it does not fly. We aren't searching for information about the Webcomic, we are searching for reason why we should care about it. If the only information lending notability is not from a verifiable source, then the article cannot be included in wikipedia. - Ocatecir 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then, again, your issue is with WP:N, not WP:V. (Or rather, WP:WEB) The article subject meets the notability requirements laid out there just fine. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - The only issue with the book is finding a better source for it; linking to the Amazon page for it, while kind of sparse, would nonetheless successfully assert notability. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to an amazon page is not sufficient to satisfy notability. Amazon carries plenty of non-notable books. An outside source is needed to establish why that book is notable. Also please note the word "multiple" from "multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" from WP:N. - Ocatecir 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This isn't an article on the book, this is an article on the comic. All WP:WEB asks for is proof that the comic has been published somewhere independent of the creators. The Amazon link would satisfy that requirement, thereby asserting notability of the comic. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author of that publication is the author of the subject himself and the publisher is Keenspot, a self-publishing publisher, thus landing us right back at WP:V. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." - Ocatecir 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is one thing to argue that KeenSpot is a self-publisher when it comes to the website. (Highly questionable even then, since KeenSpot does not indiscriminately let anybody publish their work via their website) The book, however, is another matter entirely. KeenSpot is not an indiscriminate publisher of whatever someone pays them to publish, which is what the above text is attempting to address. It clearly does not fall into the category of self-published, as an entity separate from the creator is responsible for the publishing of the book. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:WEB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another webcomic. Ho hum. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a little confused as to what your argument is. Is it that because this is a webcomic, it should be deleted? That's probably not a particularly valid reason for deletion. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. There is enough suggestion of notability as indicated above to give pause to pushing the Nuke button. SilkTork 23:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Inc.[edit]

Delete Non-notable, offers no sources, violating WP:V Ocatecir 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:WEB. -- Kesh 02:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no attempt to establish notability through verifiable sourcs. Shaundakulbara 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable by association. Produced by same writer as Greystone Inn and Courting Disaster. TonyTheTiger 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability by assocication is not a valid argument for notability. - Ocatecir 00:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verifiable info from reputable third-party sources showing any notability. WP:NOT an internet directory. -- Dragonfiend 04:17, 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. Nishkid 64 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Building block theory[edit]

Development neologism, no verification of origin or relevance, delete --Peta 02:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no attempt to establish notability through verifiable sourcs. The author of the webpage uses this term, this is no indication that the subjects of the article use it. Shaundakulbara 03:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bare minimum requirement for notability is multiple published sources. A catchy phrase dropped in a single paper can't become the subject of a Wikipedia article unless there's evidence it's been picked up and circulated elsewhere. See WP:NEO --Shirahadasha 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it's an intriguing notion. Give the editor or some editors a chance to flesh it out. It's a term that comes up in academia frequently.Caliwiki123 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never encountered this term even though I'm earning an MA in international studies and development. However, this doesn't necessarily mean its not a valid concept so I did a quick search. At first glance the term seems quite common when googled, however virtually all the links that come up apply to the "Building Block Theory" of genetics, the "Building Block Theory" of language and a Building Block Theory of psychology. I, however, did not find anything referring to a Building Block Theory in the areas of international development or nation building, which is what this article discusses. The only 'source' I found was the one cited in the article. The source is a brief paper by the UN, however it doesn't explicity refer to this theory. It does mention the concept of "building blocks" as a relatively new and novel policy approach and, at one point, menionts "Building Block" theory, with the quotations around 'building block,' but not theory, which implies that it was a neologism coined to encompass this new way of thinking. However, I would wager that this neologism never caught on seeing as there are no other sources. I, of course, may be wrong but unless someone can provide proper sources this really needs to go. --The Way 09:06, 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. Nishkid 64 01:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hats up[edit]

Unencyclopedic, no references, not notable Matchups 02:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Cynicism addict 03:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no attempt to establish notability through verifiable sourcs. Shaundakulbara 03:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - teh phrase is either an NN neologism or made up nonsense. For great justice, delete. --djrobgordon 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism possibly made up in study hall. Montco 06:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like nn neologism. ← ANAS ^Talk? 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and total junk. JuJube 06:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:18, 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. From the discussion here it looks like there is some serious skepticism that this can be made into a viable article, but enough people willing to give it some more time to be worked into an encyclopedic article to stay the delete button for now. The current article is already clearly further developed than the previously deleted article. I suspect this article will be back on AfD in the relatively near future if it doesn't progress soon, but for now it gets to stay. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of physics formulae[edit]

The Wikibook High school physics has a page on the topic of: Index of physics equations

The Wikibook A-level Physics has a page on the topic of: Forces, Fields and Energy/Appendix of Formulae

Article is marked in-use, but now it got prodded, deprodded by creator, then reprodded, so here we are in AfD. The two prods were "Unmaintainable. What constitutes a "physics" formula? What are the variables used the formulas below? What's their significance? This is just an indiscriminate list. Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." and "How can this ever contain every physics formulae?". I concur: delete as indiscriminate list with no real unifying topic and no context. DMacks 03:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous decision: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics equations ~ trialsanderrors 00:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the first prod-er. This is not a useful article. eaolson 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crib sheet. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I'm still writing it, it'll be awesome trust me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs).
Delete. Looks like a study sheet. Wikipedia is not PhysicsFAQs. --- RockMFR 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How can you have a "list of formulae" as an encyclopaedia article? How would you define a formula as worthy of inclusion anyway? If a+b=c is a formula, is c-b=a a formula too? --Sumple (Talk) 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Weak keep.~~ In its current state, the list has some problems. ~~In particular, the second formula directly contradicts the third formula.~~ In principle, however, there's no reason this couldn't work. It would take some careful planning as to what would be in and what would be out. This is not listcruft -- there's almost nothing more fundamental than physics. I'll work on the article a bit; let's see what happens. --N Shar 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- whoops, read them incorrectly. --N Shar 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - changed vote. I'm liking the article more and more. --N Shar 04:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the second prod-er. Unmaintainable list with no context. enochlau (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cmon guys..Yeah, it needs improvement so it's more encyclopedic. However, this article is EXTREMELY useful, and I don't think your reasons are sufficient to delete. Worthiness of inclusion is not the issue, that will be edited over time, and thats what wikipedia is all about. This isn't a study sheet, although it works as one I guess. Why can there be so many lists on this site but not this one? How do you sign your name on this? Im the guy who wrote the thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ --N Shar 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment Before you all say "delete," please look at the top of the article. If you still don't like it after my changes, then go ahead and delete, but I think there's a niche for this article. I don't pretend to be doing a perfect job improving it, but I have addressed some of the issues. --N Shar 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The top of the article states that "Visualizing multiple formulae on one page may be helpful [...] after one has completed at least a basic course in physics.". In other words, this is coursework revision material, suitable for a physics course textbook. That is standard Wikibooks fare, and Wikibooks already has this. Please consider contributing to the right project if you want to write textbook material for physics courses. Uncle G 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until finished. It makes a good navigation page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I still say this list is unmaintainable, listcruft, and unencyclopedic. What constitutes "physics"? You seem to be including only classical mechanics. Does it include Raoult's Law, which is generally considered part of chemistry? What about Ohm's Law? Quantum mechanics? Fluid mechanics? Bragg's Law? String theory? Astrophysics? You've included things like the ideal gas law without stating it only holds reasonably true for noble gases at low temperatures. eaolson 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. That's cause it's not done yet. I'm sure that eventually it will have to be cut down greatly, to include only the most important equations from each area. As for the ideal gas law, it'll be marked as only holding for ideal gasses when I get to it. --N Shar 04:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as stated by N Shar, I think it could be extremely useful, but not in its current form. Links to existing pages should be used instead of reiterating where applicable. Metao 04:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject matter is ill-defined. Physics isn't that simple. --AtD 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... for now. As it is, it's a little jumbled and difficult to read, and therefore not a good quick reference. But formatting isn't a reason to delete; let the physics-lovers work on it and if it can't get better, the someone can renominate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. This is probably more useful on Wikibooks, as part of a physics textbook, or perhaps on Wiktionary, as an appendix. I just can't see this as being an encyclopedia article. enochlau (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. putting something on wikibooks or wikiwhatever will make it difficult to research. It's a nice convenient, (eventually) organized list, wikipedia accepts lists. Nickmanning214 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rubbish. It's just as easy for researchers to read a Wikibooks page as it is to read a Wikipedia page. The act of reading a web page does not vary from project to project. Uncle G 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know we're not supposed to bring other articles into the discussion, but consider List of formulas involving pi. This is another very broad topic, and one might easily say "Math is not that simple." (I'm a mathie.) But I think it's still a reasonable article. Perhaps not as deadly serious in tone as other articles -- more a collection of interesting, related facts -- but still a decent list. One might say: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," but that article is not indiscriminate, and while this one might be now, it just needs time to be pared down. --N Shar 04:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment For a better example of what (I hope) this article may eventually look like, see Trigonometric identities. Obviously, there are an infinite number, but this page handles the issue excellently. --N Shar 05:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom/ above comments. Trigonometric identities are a very specific topic. You wouldn't make a "list of mathematics formulas" page would you? This list is grossly incomplete, has no context, and is useless for people who want to learn physics. However, with a little work, I do agree that it might make a nice appendix in an introductory mechanics textbook on wikibooks. Danski14 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I can see this being a good quick reference, although it would need to be cleaned up first - both formatting-wise and have a clear description of what does/doesn't belong in the list. mikm_t 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - perhaps this might be a good reference for kids taking the regents exam (even though it doesn't have electricity & magnetism, waves & sound, optics, or modern physics), but are such laundry lists encyclopedic? I agree that this page would be very hard to maintain/ organize and standardize. Should Newton's second law be in differential form? Is "Momentum is the amount of mass moving" a good definition? These issues can be fixed, but there will be more. Even with a lot of work, trying to achieve the goal of "quick reference", will this page ever be useful? For me, if I want to know a formula, I will search for that specific topic, so I can understand the formula, and not just see it. Danski14 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment I can't speak to the rest, but the definition of momentum I added is (unfortunately) also the one used in the Momentum article. However, this isn't the place for that kind of dispute. --N Shar 06:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment Or the AP and SAT IIs for that matter. mikm_t 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Physics formulae are what make the world go round. A list like this is what makes the student get his homework done. The quibbles expressed about a particular formula argue for editing, not deletion. Edison 07:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Educational textbooks for students are basic Wikibooks territory. Uncle G 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment on present heading: that's not an introduction to the subject matter, its a justification for the existence of this page: "Visualizing multiple formulae on one page may be helpful in understanding all relationships between the variables, after one has completed at least a basic course in physics." Perhaps this sentence can be reworded or deleted? --Sumple (Talk) 09:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "good reference for children taking an examination" is standard Wikibooks territory, and Wikibooks already has several such formulae sheets, such as b:High school physics/Index of physics equations and b:A-level Physics/Forces, Fields and Energy/Appendix of Formulae. There's no reason to believe that the arguments in this discussion will be any different to those for Physics equations (AfD discussion), moreover, which was exactly the same idea, and whose content resembles the content of this article so closely that this article is very close to being a speedy deletion candidate. Uncle G 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful page, which puts it in a comically small percentile of pages in wikipedia. Colon el Tom 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While of course this could use further wikification, and editors may disagree as to which formulas are important enough to feature, this strikes me as a valuable list serving an index function, and the sort of material you'd expect to find in standard reference books like the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. It belongs in the encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a reason that other Wikiprojects exist: Wikipedia does not and should not contain everything, that's not what it was meant for. This is textbook material pure and simple and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Since it is already in the Foundation's book project (Wikibooks) there is no transwiki needed. Slap a few wikibooks templates on the relevant physics articles and you're done. Readers will find the formulae they're looking for. Zun aid ©® 15:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As-is, this list is reasonably comprehensive and maintainable. To be encyclopedic it must be restricted to important physics formulae and it may even wise to restrict it to important classical physics formulae (or at least keep anything involving relativity and quantum mechanics to the bare bones.) However, this page can get much bigger without being unweildy, and should.
On Wikibooks: It seems to me that this material is also amenable to it, bot not in quite the same form. It is interesting to note the this article is already superior to the lists in Wikibooks. --EMS | Talk 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's merely a strong argument for encouraging the editors writing here to go and write textbooks in the correct project. Uncle G 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have seen lists of equations in print encyclopedias. So it makes some sense to me for this page to exist here. At the least, I find the argument that similar pages exists in Wikibooks to be most inadequate due to those lists being nowhere hear as cmoprehensive as this one already is. IMO, if this page can be referenced from other pages, then it belongs here. --EMS | Talk 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those lists are almost certainly not the same as this list. Their contents almost certainly have more in common with one another than just being formulae used somewhere in the field of physics. Furthermore: Your reason for finding the argument inadequate is spurious. Firstly, that someone can link to an article is not exclusive to Wikipedia. We have interwiki links in many articles. Indeed, there are two right at the top of this very page, and two more further down. Secondly, as pointed out above, this list isn't comprehensive, contrary to your assertion. A comprehensive list would be so broad as to be useless. The idea that one can keep it to just "important" formulae is founded entirely upon sand, since the only workable definitions of "important" are either "important to physics topic X", in which case the mathematics actually belong in the encyclopaedia article that deals with that physics topic, or "part of the crib sheet in school curriculum Y", in which case they belong in the relevant textbook for that curriculum on Wikibooks. If you think that the textbooks in Wikibooks can be improved, then improve them, and encourage any other editors who want to write textbook content to do the same. Wikibooks is a wiki. Uncle G 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I find the demand that this article contain every physics equation to be both unfair and unrealistic. It seems to me that as this article grows, it can be split itnto sublists as needed, which only the most important entries from the sublist maintained here. IMO, this particular article is off to a very good start, which is why the deletion request is being strongly contested. Given that it seems to be headed in a good direction, I say that we should keep it and see how it develops. --EMS | Talk 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The "demand" is inherent in the list's scope, as given by its title and introduction. You find that scope, when it is pointed out to you, to be "unrealistic". Therefore I suggest that you think about the article again in light of that. As I've already pointed out, any constraints (such as the "importance" criterion that you vaguely mentioned before, but didn't define) to "realistic" lists lead either to content that belongs in an article about a specific physics topic, or in an examination crib sheet. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- New opinion - Weak keep if not transwiki. This article has not been improved on in a week. An energetic and ongoing attempt to catalog the important equations of physics is one thing. The current article as the best that can be created at this time is another. It is a good list, and should at least be transwikied if it is not retained in Wikipedia. I will support keeping the article at this time to permit it to be built up more and prosified somewhat. If nothing of the sort happens soon, then I will support its being tranwikied. --EMS | Talk 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't we just go through a discussion about deleting Physics equations? I think the arguments made then are just as applicable now. Anville 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now) The article has no references, which in and of itself can be sufficient reason to delete. It also appears at the moment to be still ambiguous as to the scope of the "list" and/or if it will even be a list in the long run. My advice is for the article's author to complete his article in user space, not here. Once he has completed his article to his satisfication on his user space, including references to verify the information, then recreate it as a Wiki article. At that point I'll be happy to reconsider the new, complete and referenced article. Dugwiki 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs referencing and cleanup. Dugwiki said, The article has no references, which in and of itself can be sufficient reason to delete. But our deletion policy page says Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations) is a problem where deletion may not be needed -- and recommends editors do that footwork first, and failing that, using ((cleanup-verify)). --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've missed the forest for the trees. Verifiability is not the sole policy that we have. Wikipedia articles are not textbooks is another. Also see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists for a discussion of lists that are overbroad in scope, such as a list of all of the formulae in physics. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a textbook. These formulas belong in the articles about the individual subfields of physics, not all bundled together into one big crib sheet. Argyriou (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very useful page. Especially if you haven't ever heard of Wikibook. It's just a nice page to have on Wikipedia. I've seen plenty of other lists on Wikipedia, this one being more helpful than any of them.
Weak keep Lists are pretty common on Wikipedia; what's wrong with another, especially since it's not finished yet and we can't tell how good it'll be. Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic, but not well wikified. TonyTheTiger 00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikibooks and Wikipedia may be separate projects, but they will overlap sometimes. This is one of those times. Raffles mk 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some Wikimedia project, whether Wikipedia or another. It is useful to have an article (or book or whatever) with a large, useful set of formulas in a consistent notation and with a useful organization. Earlier objections: "Unmaintainable." Why do you say that? What about a list of formulas makes it unmaintainable? There are books with formulas inside their covers; their publishers can and do maintain them, and in fact, little change from edition to edition to edition establishes that nearly no maintaining is needed. "What constitutes a "physics" formula?" The authors are answering that by editing the article, which they could do a lot more efficiently if they didn't have to face two deletion proposals and an Articles for Deletion debate. "What are the variables used the formulas below?" They're explained in the article. "What's their significance?" That's explained in articles to which this list links. "This is just an indiscriminate list." No, it discriminates very carefully: to be an entry in the list, an item must be a physics formula. "Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." Is that policy? Wikipedia is not an article on any topic, so how is this an argument against an article? "How can this ever contain every physics formulae?" Must it? Does or must the article on physics contain every fact about physics? This information belongs in a Wikimedia project. A link to it from Physics, Mechanics, and other major articles will let readers get to it just as easily whether it is on Wikipedia or Wikibooks. The authors are doing good work and I congratulate and encourage them. Fg2 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." Is that policy? — Wikipedia articles are not textbooks is, yes.
  it discriminates very carefully: to be an entry in the list, an item must be a physics formula. — That argument is clearly based upon the false premise that there are only a few formulae in physics. That is untrue. There is a large number of such formulae, and many of them have nothing in common apart from being "in physics". "In physics" is almost as indiscriminate a criterion as "written down".
  A discriminate criterion would be topic specific. But then the formulae would be (and, indeed, for many topics already are) in the encyclopedia article related to that topic. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable list of indiscrimate, random formulas. linas 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What could be more important? --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let it develop and see what it looks like. Give the editor a chance, good heavens. --Filll 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Physics equations developed for 2 months. It looked little different to this. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could potentially contain every equation ever written in a physics book. It is not maintainable in the long term, as endless numbers of equations from every subfield of physics can be added. The arguments about usefulness will no longer be valid if this simply becomes a gigantic, unreadable list of every physics equation that someone found "useful". If desired, the individual sections should be turned into individual articles (like Maxwell's equations). This article should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup crew, nor is it for deleting articles that aren't even finished. Calm down. -Ryanbomber 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics is the cleanup crew, and has a hell of a time trying to straighten out the crud, half-baked ideas, basic misunderstandings and raw untruths contained in the elementary/introductory/pop physics articles on WP. The best way to not have to clean up a mess is to keep one from happening, which is why this artcle should be nuked. linas 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said, calm down. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you're acting like I just shot your dog. It's text on the internet. Consider calming down a bit. -Ryanbomber 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is Wikibooks material. Flyingtoaster1337 05:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And optionally soft redirect to Wikibooks wikibooks:High school physics/Index of physics equations because something like this already went through AfD, so we can gently tell students to look in the correct places for this material in future. Flyingtoaster1337 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Several problems here. Foremost, as noted above, this is Wikibooks material, and already exists there (at least in some form). Wikipedia is not the CRC Handbook (we also don't keep trig tables, for example). Second, it lacks limitations that are not going to be easily resolved. There are entire textbooks about the math behind fluid dynamics, for example, not to mention quantum physics or anything more esoteric. What about derived forms? Variants with differing sets of assumptions? This article does not set boundaries, and efforts to ascribe limitations after the fact strike of original research. Similarly, third, we cannot "wait for it to be finished". In a very real sense, Wikipedia articles are never finished ... especially those that approach limitlessness. Finally, I'm not sure exactly what the content of the previously deleted article was, but haven't we had this discussion before? Serpent's Choice 09:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Perhaps you should see Trigonometry#Common_formulae and reconsider what you have to say about trig tables. As for this list: It is already far superior to anything in Wikibooks. Maybe this article should be transwikied. Maybe it should be "prosified" a ways and made into a genuine Wikipedia article. Maybe it should be allowed to be the main file of a tree of such lists (possible in addition to one of the other two possibilities). However, it should not be unceremoniously deleted! This list is an asset, and it should be present somewhere. --EMS | Talk 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The advent of calculators has rendered the trig table a rarity. Our article discusses trigonometric functions and their interrelationships. This on the other hand, is a trig table. I view a long list of formulae without context to be more like the latter than the former. As a possible suggestion, however, a list of formulae by name that provides some context for each and that links to the articles in which they are discussed might be of value as a navigation tool (assuming no such list exists at current). Serpent's Choice 04:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As I mentioned above, trigonometric identities are a very specific topic, but still there is a huge page dealing with them. (List of trigonometric identities) But, you wouldn't make a page called "List of mathematics equations" would you? That is basically what this page is like right now. A better title for this page would be "physics equations in elementary Newtonian mechanics" (basically regents and AP level). The only use for this page is as a crib sheet, and it isn't even very good for that, as it has numerous technical difficulties and does not include Electricity & Magnetism, waves, optics, or any modern physics (which is most of physics). Over all, it has no context, little or no educational value or practical use. When people forget an equation and need to look it up, they will search for that specific topic. When people want to learn about an equation, they need something that relates it to nature; something with context and an explanation of the conceptual ideas involved and how the equation is used, etc. Just having the equation thrown out there leads one to a "plug and chug" mentality which gives little understanding of the underlying physical phenomena. Currently, I see two possible futures for this page: 1. delete it and merge into wikibooks or 2. Somehow reduce this page in it's size and scope (perhaps to elementary Newtonian mechanics?), and then assuming there are people who know physics willing to work on it, they will fight the ensuing edit wars, and hope that is turns out ok and is not a big confusing mess (or conversely, a pitifully incomplete indiscriminate list). Right now I am opting for 1, because I think most people involved in Wikiproject Physics have a lot of other more important things to do then deal with this. (it seems some people involved in wikiproject phyics project have also voted delete). Danski14 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suggestion - Rename this article to List of important classical physics formulae: Your complaint seems to be more agaimst the name than the content. Beyond that, I am amenable to the possibility of transwikiing this article, but I don't think that a good case for that has been made yet. I for one want to see how this article develops before lowering the boom on it. If it integrates itself into this project readily over the next few months, then obviously it will deserve to stay. If it instead stagnates I may prefer to see it transwikied later. BTW - I also think that it would be nice if the folks who think that material belongs in Wikibooks would have as their vote "transwiki" instead of "delete". The later is a call for the total removal of this material without even trying to put it in a better place, and I totally disapprove of that. --EMS | Talk 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Although it needs work, it is a useful list that is very encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Build it and they will come. This should be given time to develop and grow. There is evidence that there is considerable interest in this sort of thing. It has been attempted several times before by different editors. There is clearly some sort of need for this. Let it grow. SilkTork 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is indeed useful but belongs at wikibooks. Formulae should be (and generally are) listed within the articles on specific topics rather than grouped into a massive category like "physics". Eluchil404 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A vote for wikibooks should really be a Keep or transwiki, as per EMS . --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopediae should be reference tools. This entry will prove to be very popular amongst those using the internet to research the subject. Is not Wiki for the benefit of all?Hogan 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Is anyone reading the above comments? Anyone who has tried to learn physics knowns that lists of equations are not helpful for anything except crib sheets for tests. We here at wiki should want to increase public understanding of physics, not deprive them of it. Therefore, if we are going to create this page, it's going to take a lot of work. And for reasons above, many had said it would be unmaintainable, unless it is downgraded, and even then I am not sure how it might turn out. Danski14 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna deny that a lot of people would use it to bone up for tests, but there's a lot of these equasions, and I get them mixed up all the time. If I ever needed a random physics equasion in everyday life (Don't ask for an example, PLEASE) then I would love to come here and just look it up. If you're really that concerned, then we can add an explanation to each equasion, although that may just bloat it a bit too much. We'll burn that bridge when we cross it. And besides, Physics books generally have tables of formulae in the back, so why not have one in the Wiki for people without physics books? -Ryanbomber 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If were going to add explanations, that would be a waste of time. Everything is already covered in other articles. (Maxwell's Equations was mentioned before as a good example. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics equations Danski14 00:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again Wikipedia is not for things written down two hours before the midterm. That's what Wikiversity is for. ~ trialsanderrors 00:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. wikipedic. --Vsion 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nishkid 64 01:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ardsley High School[edit]

Completely unremarkable high school, fails WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:SCHOOL (for what little it it is worth). ~~Passes WP:N~~ see [7], [8], [9], [10], and a bunch of archived NYTimes articles [11]. BJ^Talk 05:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The school is merely mentioned in these articles, the articles are not about the school, and in fact nothing is said about the school beyond being part of a list. I feel Neutral about this AFD, but if it stays, it's either on the strength of it's alumni or on the basis that all high schools should be included. Citicat 05:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, this HS has more press than lots of others (again, not a good keep reason). I still think that deleting all school articles but one liners should wait till a school notability guideline passes. BJ^Talk 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOL. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the notable alumni, but more of those should have citations. Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOL. More citations are needed, however. Tom H 17:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some citations have been added. --24fan24 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a lot of people quoting WP:SCHOOL. However, note that this was a rejected guideline, so we should not be using this in afd debate one way or another. Stick to actual policies, or at least to active guidelines. Dugwiki 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It was only tagged rejected on January 19, though, so many editors may not have noticed. Thanks for the heads-up. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) guidelines, whereas it is the subject of a vast number of Newspaper articles. Its notability is also established by its Alumni. Furthermore various citations have been added to the article. --24fan24 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School is notable in the community and as far as school articles go, is reasonably well cited. Definately keep.Caper13 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools are harmless. And the school has already been in the news and seems notable in that regard. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The controversy does it for me. (Though I very much dislike the inclusion of secondary schools) Shenme 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated. The alumni argument doesn't make sense: everyone goes to school somewhere, and there's no evidence that being at this school is what made these alumni notable. If it could be shown that the school had some special ability to bring out the best in its students, this would be notable - but this is not demonstrated. WMMartin 13:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --BigDT 03:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZZZAPDOS![edit]

vanity under WP:VAIN and non notablity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.58.69.13 (talk) 208.58.69.13 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per ((db-bio)), marked as such. --Wafulz 03:48, 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. Nishkid 64 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchir Punjabi[edit]

Delete due to lack of evidence from WP:RS that this individual meets WP:BIO. Appears to be a student politician of some sort. None of the links/references provided do anything more than simply stating that this individual exists, and consist only of a media release and some internal CCCC/USyd material. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Citicat 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 78 hits for "Ruchir Punjabi". John Vandenberg 08:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although presidents of the USYD SRC and the like have been found to be notable in the past, someone just involved with it that didn't have a major role to play in anything doesn't really need an article. JROBBO 12:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiln Creek[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability of WP:LOCAL. It reads like an advertisement. Nv8200p talk 03:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOV. There might be sources for WP:V, but, as is, the article needs a complete rewrite to not look like a listing in a real estate guide. If someone is willing to rewrite a neutral article with a source signifying its importance, I will change my vote. Mitaphane _talk 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not in the right style, most of the info not needed in a rewrite. Don't forget to kill the images too. Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The article doesnt demonstrate notability. John Vandenberg 08:21, 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. Nishkid 64 01:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route to Destiny[edit]

Game was previously deleted per ((db-web)) and restored pending a rewrite that asserted notability. About two weeks ago I mentioned that the article would require reliable sources for verification, or I would have to bring it here to AfD. So far, nothing has been presented, and I couldn't find anything. The game doesn't meet WP:WEB either. Google turns up no reliable sources. Wafulz 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom... not every video game is encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:V. You'd think the article would at least have one source acknowleding its existance. I can see why it doesn't, they don't really exist: "Route to Destiny" online game Mitaphane _talk 05:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mitaphane. JuJube 00:27, 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 Speedy Delete. Robdurbar 16:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TopDentistsUSA[edit]

Non notable, no sources, reads like an ad, etc. Prod removed, though it might even be speedy material. --- RockMFR 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, its an ad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metao (talk • contribs) 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No treatment in multiple reliable sources (14 Google hits; Alexa rank of "No Data"); no major award, not distributed through well known independent third party—fails WP:WEB.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Grutness...wha? 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. --Candy-Panda 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per Metao, I have tagged it as such. Meets CSD:G11, and won't survive this AFD vote anyway.--inks ^T 10:18, 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. Nishkid 64 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porch collapse[edit]

Tagged for AfD by 82.152.127.69 (talk · contribs), but nomination was never completed. No opinion from me. Chick Bowen 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable phenomenon especially as noted in Chicago (for various reasons). Deck collapses happen everywhere. There are engineering issues such as weight-per-area and how well they are anchored to the building. They tend to happen only when there are a lot of people on the porch/deck, leading to many injuries in individual incidents. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung above. --Candy-Panda 07:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Madmedea 08:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what the article needs is references that this is a common notable phenomenon. At the moment it has one link to a collapse that makes no mention of whether it has happened before. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is what ((unreferenced)) is for. --Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provided source is enough to prove phenomenon exists. While other sources are indeed needed, lack of them is not a good enough reason for immediate deletion. Send to the Cleanup taskforce if need be. Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to happen often enough that some politicians use it as an electoral issue [12]. Average Earthman 11:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Do we also need articles on burst pipes, slates falling from roof, broken windows, ??? If this phenomenon is common, is it also notable? Why the 'phenomenon' should be particularly associated with Chicago is beyond me; the description of Chicago's building stock could be just about any city worldwide. This article has been previously categorised as a possible hoax - I inline to that view. Delete Emeraude 12:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Possible hoax" on what possible basis? Please explain this inexplicable comment. 18 current Google News results for the 2003 incident alone (wire stories reprinted nationally). 332 Google News Archive results about porch collapses generally. 176 more for deck collapses. 100+ hurt, 52 hurt, the Chicago collapse which killed 13 was the deadliest in US history.[13] --Dhartung | Talk 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Emeraude. Shit happens, guys. If there is a specific porch/balcony collapse that is notable then have an article on that. Recury 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Emeraude. While an over-arching article on component failure (with solid interwiki links to articles such as mechanical stress, force, weight, torque, torsion, etc etc you get the idea...) is probably meritable and can be academically presented, we don't need specific articles on things like burst pipes. My other concern is notability. Is there a so-named thing as a porch collapse? That porches collapse is true, but does it translate into an actual phenomenon? "Sign-spotting" (or something close) was recently deleted because it could not be shown anywhere (despite being a popular search term) that the thing was a so-named phenomenon in and of itself. Zun aid ©® 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not paper. Why shouldn't we have an article on specific engineering failure types? --Dhartung | Talk 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other delete votes above. Neutral: article has improved. →Ed Gl 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A porch collapse is an event that happens to a porch, and thus should be included as a minor section (if proven to be notable at all per WP:N) of Porch or Balcony. It is not sourced (WP:RS) and thus can be deemed not notable. → JARED ^(t) 18:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided published references available about the problem If there are verifiable, published articles specifically about this problem, then keep and make sure they're included in the article. If the article's references don't check out, then delete. All that is required for Wiki inclusion here is that it is a problem which is discussed in multiple (more than one) publications. Dugwiki 19:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung: how many reliable, verifiable, independent sources with this as the primary subject does it take for a real world hazard to get an article, when most Wikipedia articles have no sources beside a dependent website? Meets WP:RS, WP:N and ((WP:V]]. The delete votes appeaar to be a case of "WP:IGNORETHERULES." and "WP:IDONTLIKEIT."Edison 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any structure subject to a sufficient amount of pressure will collapse. Porches are no different. This topic isnt worthy of a specific article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caper13 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Emeraude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzykhan (talk • contribs)
~~Delete~~ for reasons described by Emeraude and Zunaid. There have been notable cases of people spilling coffee, and coffee really does spill quite frequently, but does that mean we should have an article on coffee spills? PubliusFL 23:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The phrase "Porch collapse" shows up 16 times in the New York Times alone, and many times in the Chicago Tribune, as well as USATODAY and an Indianapolis paper. The phrase gets 11,600 Google hits. I added references, so now there are 12 references to stories from major newspapers where the peculiarities of porch construction, or the circumstances which have led them to deteriorate, or the circumstances which have led people to collapse them by overloading were the primary subject. These are accounts of different incidents. I left out more than are in the article where it just noted that people were killed or injured by a porch collapse without further discussion of the root causes, or how they could be prevented. Any Delete votes made before the addition of the references and the revision of the text does not really apply to the revised article, and those calling for deletion should take another look. As for strawman arguments for deletion, not too many people have been killed by coffee spills. And as for "any structure will collapse" porches are more prone to collapse and kill or injure people than, say floor of houses, for reaasons outlined in the article. If "deck collapse" were added to the article, there would be a great manmy more sources discussing the problem in depth, beside merely reporting the occurrences. Edison 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You were apparently in the process of adding a number of sources while I was reading through the AfD comments and adding my own. For my part, I'm now willing to give the article the benefit of the doubt that incidents are considered to be part of a broader phenomenon outside of Wikipedia. By all means, incorporate deck collapse if you have sources -- porch/deck/balcony are close enough, and including is as part of the same article now (with one term redirecting to the other or both terms redirecting to a combined title) will avoid a merger in the future. PubliusFL 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. schi ^talk 17:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so I've looked at the article again as suggested by Edison and I still say delete. My original objection stands; citing 12 news articles on the topic is easy (I'm sure I could find more) but equally it does not make this "phenomonen" out of the ordinary. Do it for "burst pipes", which incidentally gets 92,100 Google hits and, no doubt, hundreds of news stories. So what? Emeraude 17:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The key difference is that a porch collapse is a potentially tragic occurrence in and of itself. A burst pipe merely precedes a flood. —David Levy 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In its current state, the article documents a notable phenomenon in an encyclopedic manner. —David Levy 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep porch collapses in Chicago attain wide coverage in the American media, believe it or not. - Gilliam 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. I think it just needs a lot of work. --Wafulz 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield University - Notable Alumni[edit]

This is an enormous list of people from Fairfield University with relatively vague criteria. I would assume when "notable" is in the title, the creator meant people who have met criteria in WP:BIO. However, the vast, vast majority of these people don't have a Wikipedia articles. I'd suggest a redirect, but the title is unlikely to be searched at any point. I suggest listing the few here with articles in the main article (there are only 20ish roughly). Wafulz 04:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename for harmonization. See: List of Rutgers University people and List of Harvard University people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep lists of "notable" people are prone to bloat, but the list there seems okay. Metao 04:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you all think about the people actually in the list? As I pointed out earlier, there are roughly 20 actual articles linked, which I think could fit into the original article (I counted 15). If it were a much larger list, I would just opt for renaming. --Wafulz 04:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be from some uni website. Larry Bossidy is undoubtedly notable but isn't wikilinked. I'd say cut the promo lingo from the intro, wikilink all names, move redlinked ones to the talk page and depending on length merge back into main article or keep as stand-alone. There is certainly no reason to delete this, unless it's word-for-word copyvio. ~ trialsanderrors 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I spent an enormous amount of time researching and creating this list. This is entirely my work. Please do not delete. Renaming to List of Fairfield University people is an acceptable solution. If you wish to reduce the size, then I can go through and ween out some of the name. --Stagophile 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh I'm withdrawing seeing as my decision might've been a bit hasty. I'll post on the talk page of the article. --Wafulz 04:52, 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. Nishkid 64 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve bars of xmas[edit]

Non notable, original research, unencyclopedic, per WP:NOT AtD 04:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & WP:V: "Twelve Bars of Xmas" Mitaphane _talk 05:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardly notable and not sourced (WP:N, WP:V). It seems that it has remained almost the same throughout its article history. Twelve bars of xmas gets only 41 google hits. → JARED ^(t) 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to fathom any pub-crawl as being encyclopedic. Agent 86 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. NN, fails WP:ORG. Ronbo76 14:22, 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. Nishkid 64 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd shepherd[edit]

Autobiographical entry - no assertion of notability by WP:BIO Patstuart^talk|edits 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is pretty clearly WP:AB by someone directing traffic to his blog (which contains quite a similar biography).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs) 04:52, 25 January 2007
Delete per nom. Fails "I breathe so I should be on WP" --Richhoncho 11:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no neutral sources Alf photoman 15:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Now Since his position appers to be influential in determining the news content for a major medium, I feel that there may be potential for notablility if we can get some sources. I've posted a note at his talk page. Unfortunately there are several people with the same name which are recognized in Google, so research will be tedious. --Kevin Murray 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Markdsgraham; the article was created by a WP:SPA Lloydshep that is likely a WP:COI. The two people mentioned as senior to Lloyd (Jon Gisby and Simon Waldman) dont have articles, so why should Lloyd. John Vandenberg 22:24, 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 07:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of formulae involving π[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list is completely indiscriminate. There's no significance to this collection of equations. Yes, they all contain pi. So what? There are literally millions of equations that contain pi. There is no reason for including any of these equations, or excluding countless other equations, other than individual whimsy. Should we have List of formulae involving cosine or List of forumlae involving division, as well? Delete as indiscriminate information. eaolson 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: yes, there are literally millions of formula involving pi, but this page only lists historically notable or mathematically significant ones. This list is thus not indiscriminate. I would not place

{\displaystyle \cos \left({\frac {9583\pi }{4))\right)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2))))

on it, and I would delete it from the article if I found it. Gracenotes ^T § 05:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What's "mathmatically significant" about:

12\sum _{k=0}^{\infty }{\frac {(-1)^{k}(6k)!(13591409+545140134k)}{(3k)!(k!)^{3}640320^{3k+3/2))}={\frac {1}{\pi ))

eaolson 05:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of numerical approximations of π#Other classical formulae Gracenotes ^T § 05:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, point taken. But still, without a coherent reason for this article, it's all just pi-related trivia. eaolson 06:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is "a coherent reason" a requirement? Sorry to be a bit confrontational, but many of the arguments on this (and on the physics formulae afd above) can be resolved by a simple move, or even a sentence in the intro. In this case, the article could be moved to "List of formulas used to calculate pi," or the intro could be adjusted to make it more clear what the criteria for inclusion were. I definitely understand the impulse to delete, but I think it's very important to keep Wikipedia indexed. --N Shar 06:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the connection between this formula and the Heegner numbers. DavidCBryant 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw damnit - but WP:ILIKEIT. But, no, seriously, it's informative, so keep. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Gracenotes. I can't think of any possible use for this article, but uselessness is no reason for deletion. --N Shar 06:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I could use this for my math assignments... --Candy-Panda 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The deletion arguments above could be resolved for the most part by editing. Notable, encyclopedic, and useful formulae belong in an encyclopedia. Edison 07:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split/merge most into some other page(s). Mathematical numerical methods for approximating π are one category; physics and geometry are distinct. The former is clearly important per Gracenotes and relates (and partially restates) that section of the History page. That is a focused topic with clear inclusion criteria (or at least it could be if the intro described it as such). Maybe those parts of this page and the other one should be merged together into their own Numerical methods of approximating pi page? The physics/geometry parts of the page here see, weaker keep...more indiscriminate list-like. Area/volume/surface-area of many curvy-things involve π, what are the inclusion criteria? Appearance in relations among physical constants is a controlled class of equations, but geometry and "physics equations using it" (Coulomb's law, etc) gets less discriminating. No limit on what geometric shapes or physical relationships are included here. Coulomb's law is just a special case of inverse-squares that happens to have a constant involving π...that constant would be included in the "relations among physical constants". DMacks 09:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the more interesting things about π is that it figures in so many places, and equations which on their surface seem to have little to do with circles. This is a worthwhile supplement to the article on π itself, and could not be merged with it without detracting from the article in chief's readability. In fact, my recommendation would be to move more equations out of the article in chief to this page. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change the name to formulae involving π or formulas involving π or identities involving π or the like. And certainly (obviously) there are possible uses for this article; one can easily imagine (after the article is expanded far beyond its current size) a mathematician finding some odd identity here that they didn't know before and that proves useful in their research. Michael Hardy 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's just a call to open up Wikipedia to articles about anything. If the criteria for keeping an article is that someone, somewhere might find some tidbit of information useful, we could never delete an article at all. Like, List of books with an elephant on the cover. I don't think there are a lot of mathematicians doing pi-related research, anyway. As it stands, this article is just a bunch of mathematical pi-related trivia. eaolson 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I understand that the article contains only historically significant formulas, but grouping formulas because they contain pi seems rather arbitrary. I like the idea of having lists of significant formulas, but it would be much more useful to group them by use (chemistry, classical physics, quantum physics, topology, etc.) rather than by what constants they use. mikm_t 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many reasons above (most ILIKEIT :D). If this list was "completely indiscriminate", it would certainly include more elephants and burritos. Therefore, it is not "completely indiscriminate". --- RockMFR 17:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge content from the "Formulae" section of the main π article. There are formulae in π (and names and references for formulae) that are not in this page, and should be, and the "Formulae" section of π is rather cluttered. One of the uses I see for the article under discussion here is to offload content from π and thereby make it easier to read. But also ILIKEIT because all those formulas together in one place are pretty — they convey well a sense of wonder at the beauty of mathematics. —David Eppstein 18:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pi is arguably the most historically significant real number in all of mathematics, and almost all these formulae are of interest to students of analysis. DavidCBryant 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination is a misapplication of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. That section of policy does not deal with whether or not information is "important". Rather, it specifies certain types of articles which present problems for inclusion (and thus are discriminated against for inclusion). It has nothing to do with "trivia" or "significance". If the nominator wishes to argue those points, then he should refer instead to with WP:V or Wikipedia:Notability and attempt to claim that the article is either unreferenced or not notable. Dugwiki 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the editors can delete the unimportant formulae. Some physics formulae simply depend on how the fundamental constants are defined. So if ℏ is used instead of h, a π disappears. Stephen B Streater 20:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Formulas *for* π are included in π, Computing π, and other articles. Physical formulas using π should be kept in articles about the specific branches of physics and engineering which they are used in. There are too many formulas with π to keep in one indiscriminate list. Argyriou (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about formulas not used for computing π and not physical formulas? For example,

\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }e^{-x^{2}/2}\,dx={\sqrt {2\pi \,))

or

\Gamma \left({1 \over 2}\right)={\sqrt {\pi )),

or

\lim _{n\to \infty }{n!e^{n} \over n^{n+1/2)){\sqrt {2\pi \,))=1,

etc. Michael Hardy 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Wikipedia is not a textbook. There are lists of integrals and other mathematical formulæ here, grouping them together just because they include π makes about as much sense as grouping all formulas which include the number 9. Argyriou (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fg2 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The problem of computing pi is so central to much of mathematics and now computer science over the centuries that this article is useful, and N, and of course V. Bu the nature of the topic, the list is not indiscriminate. DGG 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I agree that methods for computing pi is important, and an article exists on that already. I do not think that formulas should be listed together merely because they contain pi (imagine having an article on "list of formulas containing 0.5"). Whether or not a formula contains pi is trivial - it is dubious that somebody will actually need to find formulas that contain pi just because they contain pi. mikm_t 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But 0.5 isn't pi. Pi is a special number, and it's absolutely facinating (to me at least) how it keeps appearing all over mathematics where you might least expect it.
Keep This list is not indiscriminate. It meets none of the deletion criteria and doesn't violate any policies, so there's no rule-based reason for deletion, and it's interesting and mathematically significant. —Mets501 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful index list of significant examples, mostly linked to related articles. Not indiscriminate. Will meet WP:LISTV if the inclusion criteria are made a little tighter. Gandalf61 13:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-chosen and well-linked list. The physics formulas are maybe a bit dubious, since the appearance of π is generally a matter of choice of units or purely mathematical, but there are only a few of those anyway.--OinkOink 20:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If a whole section is dubious, how "well-chosen" is it really? Maybe needs a narrower scope? Scrapping the physics ones would us the list of numerical-approximation recipes, which is already covered elsewhere (though could be consolidated or shuffled if it deserves its own page). DMacks 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a small section and not inherently invalid. In fact, it's instructive to compare formulas of electromagnetism in SI and Gaussian units, to see how eliminating π in one place makes it pop up in another, like playing whack-a-mole. It could be helped by links leading to context. For example, the connection between the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the relevant theorem giving a similar relation between a function and its Fourier transform (thus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle follows automatically once you say that momentum is essentially the Fourier transform of position).--OinkOink 04:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete; the mathematical formulas are (all or almost all) in pi and related articles; the appearances of π in the physical formulas are all choices of unit, and side effects of the fact that the volume of 3-spheres and 4-spheres both contain π. Eaolson is right. Wikibooks may be willing to take this, but it doesn't belong here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Incredibly useful and encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Useful" in what way? I can understand how an article on pi, or even an article on the different ways to derive pi might be useful in understanding the constant and it's study through history. I've been trying, and I can't think of any circumstances where I'd have a use for a list of equations that included pi, just because they included pi. Unless it's doing a term paper of some sort on pi. eaolson 03:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list is the epitome of indiscriminate information per Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria. As it is now, I can just make up A = 4 π²/G³ and it qualifies for the list, since it involves π. ~ trialsanderrors 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. I added an unambiguous criterion: The list contains only formulae whose significance is established either in the article on the formula itself, or in the articles on π or Computing π. ~ trialsanderrors 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above and the evident consensus. Newyorkbrad 03:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By way of addendum, since challenges have been made to a prior closing as an obvious consensus Keep, in further reviewing the article, I see useful references and links to articles about several of the formulas, a reference (more can be added), and a collection of equations that does not appear in the other pi-related articles. I also endorse the keep comments of Mets501 and DGG. Newyorkbrad 04:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Barber (2nd nomination)[edit]

delete Non-notable. The person is a teacher at a minor community college that happened to get the martial art he practiced accepted as a credit course. That is not exceptional or notable in the least. Its done all the time. Peter Rehse 05:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the second afd discussion - the first one can be found here. The result was no consensus but since then there has been no effort to address the issues raised.Peter Rehse 00:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. You didn't address if he could be notable for his writing and if he's the only one teaching this at a high school in the US, that's notable too. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As mentioned at the Talk page, there are others (e.g. at Norwich University). I'm not familiar with his writings, though the claim is that they are in martial arts magazines, not scholarly journals, it seems. The article was originally made by his students while they were vandalizing the Tim Hartman page (a martial artist near him with whom he is feuding) as part of a flamewar that spilled over from MartialTalk and ended at Bullshido; see the Tim Hartman page around the time of the creation date of the Jerome Barber one. I know the principals in real life so I'll abstain. JJL 12:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN community college teacher, writings far below standard of notability (even a book would not be sufficient without notable coverage of the book), and being the only person to teach a relatively obscure topic at a minor post-secondard institution just isn't the sort of thing that amounts to encyclopedia notability. Pete.Hurd 14:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced and cited showing accordance with WP:BIO Alf photoman 15:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite some conjecture above, there is nothing to indicate any notability for this person or what encyclopedic value there is in this article. Seems to be no more than any other junior college teacher. Agent 86 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see three independent sources cited at the article. After reading the information at the sources, I think that Barber is being noticed, and that is the definition of Notability. We have sufficient references and we have notability - he qualifies. I think the nomination here is strictly the opinion of the nominator and the reasons given are irrelevant to an AfD. Clearly he is not yet famous nor probably important, but those thresholds are not required for inclusion at WP. --Kevin Murray 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Ozzykhan 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surviving one AFD makes him notable enough for me. Would nominators please place a link to previous AFD's when doing a subsequent one, it makes it easier to make a proper judgement. Jcuk 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well actually it was no-consensus which doesn't exactly translate into notability. I relisted it mainly because the original nomination was just too close to the situation mentioned by JJL above. Point taken about the link to the original discussion. I put it in near the top.Peter Rehse 00:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified claim to notability unless someone can establish (with idendependent sources) that this "first" is actually a notable "first". Community college professors are borderline non-notable ex officio, and professors create new classes all the time, although in most cases the "first" is also the "last". ~ trialsanderrors 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My dad use to work at this College. I am a martial artist. Am I suppose to recuse myself? TonyTheTiger 00:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not at all - go for it.Peter Rehse 00:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete This is the singlemost heartwrenching XfD I have been involved with. I want to cast a keep vote, but I have trouble convincing myself that this survives WP:RS/WP:V. I believe this man has done something notable. I just don't think the sources used to document it achieve the thresholds WP should maintain. P.S. I could vote to keep with a redesign of the page that emphasizes recognized rank in addition to this seminar. TonyTheTiger 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO completely. Fails WP:RS and WP:V as far as his so called "first" goes. Until someone can come up with some reliable, independent sourcing from notable publications and make the article fit WP:BIO, it needs to go. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 09:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails pretty much every guideline there is. Eusebeus 14:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barber doesn't inherit the notability of his style of martial arts. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elara, none of the sources look anywhere near major enough for him to qualify for inclusion. WP:V and WP:RS not satisfied. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Deal[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable person; in addition, I cannot find any information about him on Google. Anthony Rupert 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and consider bundling Nick Treble in there as well for precisely the same reasons (although Mr Treble has two external links, they're both his own). The fact that he hasn't got a record deal - regardless of capitals - clinches it for me. Note further, although it's relatively clear even without language abilities, that the German Wikipedia article being linked to is about an unrelated band. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the fact that the only external link is to a myspace account, it has no notability. And as the nominater stated, Google doesn't offer any real information on him. A one time edit, too, so chances are no one knows who the guy is. → JARED ^(t) 18:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and reconsider when a record deal or similar is struck. Stephen B Streater 20:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability, possibly speedy as A7. I previously deleted this article as an A7. --Core desat 21:32, 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. Nishkid 64 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AR15.com[edit]

Requested sources almost 3 months ago, but none have been provided. As it is, the article is highly original research and has shown no improvement. The "Further reading" section and "external links" sections link to a couple brief (and trivial, imo) media mentions. This website doesn't seem to satisfy WP:WEB or have any extraordinary claims of notability. Fyi, there was a previous but uneventful AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AR15.com. Delete as failing WP:OR, WP:WEB, and WP:V.

Delete, non notable community website. BJ^Talk 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Alexa rank >20,000, no obvious major coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete as BBS has sufficient number of members to qualify for notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.3.103.17 (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by Rmky87 due to it's chances of being deleted. Rmky87 03:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes cover[edit]

Self nomination Fails WP:N in my opinion. "Hermes cover" retrieves 742 results on Google. It looked like astroturfing to me; however I wanted to reach consensus here because there is indeed an article called Euler Hermes. Tuxide 07:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hmm, this seems to be something that requires a bit of expert attention. Euler Hermes seems to be a notable company, and it is possible this term is in common parlance, but the company itself is involved in a bit of an esoteric division of the insurance field, so they're not as well known as say Geico or Progressive Corporation. I certainly don't feel I can even figure out what this article is talking about, so it certainly needs to be rewritten. FrozenPurpleCube 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The purpose of AfD is for us to evaluate the worthiness of the best attempts of authors to create contributions to the encyclopedia. It is not a place where we are suppose to present poorly formatted half-baked things for consideration of worthiness. They may get canned for their half-bakedness. I think you should do your best to wikify it. In so doing you will have to attempt to link it to other articles so it is not ((orphan))ed and categorize it. After doing so we can see how it compares to things it is categorized with and things that it is related to. I would have voted to delete this if it were not a self nomination. It may need an ((expert-subject)) in the end. However, right now if I were on WP:NPP I would tag this with ((cleanup)), ((wikify)), ((orphan)), and ((Uncategorized)). I don't think a self nomination should appear here that is so poorly formatted. It would stand a better chance at surviving AfD with modest improvements. TonyTheTiger 01:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've attempted to wikify it on my own, and added most of the templates you suggested. Prominently, I added ((advertisement)) because it still reads like an ad (although not obvious enough that I would mark it as ((db-spam))). Tuxide 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator It looked like astroturfing to me because it was written by Eulerhermes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single purpose account that uses the same name as the company. Tuxide 01:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This WP:SPA is one of the least offensive that I have seen in a while; no changes to Euler Hermes; Im guessing the intent of the article was to inform about a term that is being used in official documents. But it could fail WP:NEO, especially because "Export Credit Guarantee" is only a redirect to Export Credit Agencies. Note that 13 articles mention "Export credit guarantee". If there was an existing article about "export Credit Guarantee", I would say merge there, but at the moment, I think this article is worth keeping, minus some flowery wordage. John Vandenberg 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There should be an Interwiki link to de:Hermes-Bürgschaft. Hermes-Bürgschaft gets over 15,000 ghits. There should also be a redirect from "Hermes guarantee", though I can well imagine that "Hermes cover" is the more common English term, Hermes guarantees are definitely notable, in my opinion. I would have to do more research but, if I recall correctly, they were a major factor in post-war German foreign trade policy and used to be managed directly by the German government, until their management was "privatized". I believe the actual guarantee itself is still backed (directly or indirectly, perhaps in the form of re-insurance) by the German government. According to the German Wikipedia article, the volume of exports covered is over EUR 19 billion (USD 25 billion ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boson (talk • contribs) 08:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Nomination withdrawn The best way to clean it up, it appears, is to request a translation from de:Hermes-Bürgschaft to English since the German article is more mature. Until then, I have no reason to question its notability. Regards, Tuxide 19:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in good shape, and in the hands of the translation team. Rmky87 has already removed the Afd header from the article, and according to "non-administrators closing discussions" can also close this Afd as WP:SNOWBALL or similar. John Vandenberg 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackblood Alliance[edit]

Does not meet WP:WEB. There are only 784 Ghits for this article (Wikipedia is #4 after the official links), and all of them are forum links and/or the official creator pages. Cannot find any multiple, independant, non-trivial sources to back this subject up. Hbdragon88 07:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources offered other than website of article name. Trivial subject. Not encyclopaedic. Pewtercollector 17:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V & above. See google result (-wikipedia hits) here: "Blackblood Alliance" -wikipedia Mitaphane _talk 00:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Richhoncho 10:53, 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. Nishkid 64 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't You Know Who I Think I Am"[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, editor says himself: "It is currently debated whether or not the song will end up in the final tracklisting" Yonatanh 07:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT and nom. I like the phrase, though. --Charlene 09:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and per Charlene's remark (including the phrase being nice) --Goochelaar 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystalballing. though we'll have to wait and see it it is infact crystalballing.--Tainter 15:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article. It's ok to have articles about future albums, but they need verifiable references for their information. Dugwiki 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JuJube 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would keep this with a verifiable leakage reference because the (2xPlatinum) band is quite notable. A verifiable leakage would override WP:Crystal in my mind. TonyTheTiger 01:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's verifiable, then doesn't WP:CRYSTAL not apply? ShadowHalo 06:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is possibly the hottest band in the entire world at the moment (#1 Digital single as per [14]). They had the highest debut on another list since 1998 in an article I read yesterday. That changes the standards of Crystal. A verifiable leakage of a song by such a band is extremely notable. TonyTheTiger 18:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait, so this song may or may not be in the tracklisting? Even if it were, it probably shouldn't have its own article, only if it's released as a single or has a substantial amount of information that warrants a separate article. ShadowHalo 06:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and also currently unverifiable. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 07:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Nishkid 64 01:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Something Beautiful[edit]

Non-notable band. The First Doll 07:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not notable. not sourced. spam and an advert for help wanted. Pewtercollector 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Second the speedy. Caper13 22:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. ShadowHalo 08:21, 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 KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 22:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Blass[edit]

This page has a relatively tortured history on Wikipedia, namely two AfD's and a DRV, as well as other discussions regarding behaviour linked to it.

This is a procedural nomination, stemming from Trialsanderrors' desalting of this article with the concensus of deletion review. This was done so a draft, written by Jreferee and now located in the articlespace at this article name, could be moved into the articlespace. It gathered a concensus to relist pending possible further notability discussion at this AfD. As this is purely procedural, I abstain presently, not withstanding the fact I may give further opinion if I feel it is merited.

Quick links

Articles for deletion discussion I - August 2, 2006; closed as delete by Sam Blanning.
Articles for deletion discussion II - January 15, 2007; closed as speedy delete per G4 by Will Beback.
Deletion review - January 25, 2007; closed as unsalted by Trialsanderrors, moved and relisted by Daniel.Bryant.

Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: there was a not-quite-as-strong-as-the-unsalt-concensus-but-still-strong concensus that this probably passes WP:BIO, and hence relisting may be moot. Whether it is or not, I felt that there is adequate reasoning to relist, as some pointed out that they purely wanted it "relisted" to get a definitive answer at DRV, and that others were wondering about potential NPOV problems in addition to a discussion about notability. I have no opinion on the validity of either view presently, but they should be discussed, and here is a better medium than any other given what this article has been through, and how it has resurfaced (as a rewrite via DRV). If this turns into a snowball-style keep after a couple of days, I would encourage closing this early, given the rewrite is so dramatic. Daniel.Bryant 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet-another-note I've also unsalted Piotr blass following a request and following the assumption of article retention and that the deletion review would apply to any redirects. --Robdurbar 22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete I can't access the provided links to the sources, but titles like "7 also-rans in governor's race chase elusive spotlight" and "PBCC president list final at 76" and sources like "Local section, page 3B" always make me suspicious, so I had to rely on my own Lexis-Nexis/Newsbank search. There's quite a few scraps (45 hits total), but if I restrict the search to "Piotr Blass" in headline or first paragraph, I'm down to three. They are:
- "GOVERNOR WRITE-IN SEES EINSTEIN SOLUTION" ← Full portrait. (Palm Beach Post, The (FL) - August 27, 2006 length: 838 words)
- "Saying he wanted to be a voice for the common people, write-in gubernatorial candidate Piotr Blass on Thursday appealed to a Palm Beach County judge to set the stage for him to participate in Monday's debate between his two more well-known opponents. " ← passing mention
- "The candidates include Edward J. Foley, principal at South Area High School, a Lake Worth school for potential dropouts; Piotr Blass, a math professor at Palm Beach Atlantic College" ← passing mention

Blass's career as academic certainly doesn't pass WP:PROF. His best-cited contribution gets 8 cites (all by either Blass or Lang), the rest get 4 or less. One article does not WP:BIO pass, a handfull of self-cites does not WP:PROF pass, and the puffery doesn't help either. ~ trialsanderrors 10:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rewrite appears to establish "notability." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Badlydrawnjeff; article clearly establishes notability and cites a range of sources; result of previous AfDs does not constitute a reason for deletion. Judge each article on its own merits. Walton monarchist89 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe anyone said as such (the last AfD applies), because this is a totally new article, hence the DRV decision. If I inadvertently said so in nomination, please allow me to correct it; I'm merely (trying to) apply consensus and common sense on a hot topic (at least, I hope it's common...). Of course, your statement could have been made in advance for anyone who uses the argument, but you never know over the internet :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 13:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His candidacies seem to be the heart of the notability claims. A perennial marginal/write-in candidate for various offices, with the trivial news coverage that such candidates usually get, does not look notable to me. In an open democracy, anyone can declare themselves a candidate. Being taken seriously, or even getting serious coverage, is something else. Fan-1967 15:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, there seems to be a weak assertion of WP:BIO Alf photoman 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan1967. The claims to notability are extremely weak. As mentioned, anyone in the street can declare candidacy, and it is a matter of course that these get minor news coverage. As an analogy, we don't have articles for every minor political party that runs in every election, since it is such a trivial matter to get a party registered. Zun aid ©® 16:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the third time I am writing this. Blass is not notable as a mathematician. His math papers have low citation, including his pride thesis which has a total of four (on Google Scholar). His politics is even less notable, although I am not an expert. The warning is the long-long-long section about his gubernatorial campaign which ended with his getting "eighteen votes". That's about one line per vote. Not notable by any stretch. Mhym 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blass received only eighteen votes and yet more than twenty independent, non-trivial published works felt Blass important enough to include in their publication. That is more than one publication per vote. -- Jreferee 17:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, is this saying how many papers cared to list him or how few votes he received? I once wrote-in my boss in mayoral elections. By your logic, this makes his "publication per vote" ratio in the thousands. Mhym 17:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 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 such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. (1) The present article is a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, which is the purpose of Wikipedia:Notability. (2) Since Blass has been the subject of numerous published works the topic meets Wikipedia:Notability. There presently are 28 non-trivial published works footnoted in the article. These three published works were mainly about Blass and by themselves meet Wikipedia:Notability: (a) Vash, Will. (August 27, 2006) The Palm Beach Post. Governor write-in sees Einstein solution. (b) Cerabino, Frank. (November 3, 2006) The Palm Beach Post. Fringe choices for governor want your vote. Local section, page 1C. (c) Ellman, Steve. (August 27, 2004) Palm Beach Daily Business Review. Case of divorced couple and their troubled teenager gives backers of Unified Family Courts plenty of ammunition. (3) I did review the AfDs and other items that went into the relatively tortured history of the topic. Blass' efforts appear to have been to get an article about himself on Wikipedia with little clue of how to do it. I think the present article will help reduce any behaviour issues. (4) It is not reasonable to expect the article to meet guidelines for which there is not enought non-trivial published works. There are no published works about Blass being a great fisherman or a great footballer; is that a reason to delete the article? Please keep in mind that the topic does not create the article; rather, it is the non-trivial published works that create the article and it is those non-trivial published works which are judge under Wikipedia:Notability. -- Jreferee 16:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles on people need a claim to notability to avoid being speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. This article doesn't even make clear what this claim is. Mathematician? Clearly he's nowhere near what our standards for academics are, per above. An "early proponent of the Internet who formulated in 1987 what is believed to be one of the first high-level online math journals"? It seems the sole source for this statement is Blass himself, as conveyed to a sympathetic Palm Beach Post. The vagueness of this comment (which "high-level" journal? Why 1987 when the internet goes back to the 1970's? Who are the prominent adherents who confirm Blass's involvement?) puts this almost outside WP:V and certainly outside WP:NPOV. A perennial minor candidate for various elections? There is a consensus that minor candidates who haven't established notability for themselves otherwise are at best mentioned in the campaign article per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Clearly all articles minus one have the election as their focus and portrait minor candidates in a cluster ("Fringe candidates") for the sake of comprehensiveness. ~ trialsanderrors 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The math journal claim is a bit odd. Certainly Ulam exists and existed, the earliest reference I can find is this USENET posting from 1993[15] which doesn't mention Blass. Per my knowledge of such things (yes, I go back to the bang path days), it's entirely possible that it was the first journal in mathematics available strictly online, but I would expect he would turn up in the electronic record somewhere if he were a significant part of bringing it to life. Given other odd claims in the article, I'm not inclined to give this claim the benefit of the doubt. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't so much doubt his involvement than that the founding of the journal was a significant event. ISI Journal Report doesn't have a listing of it, JSTOR and ScienceDirect have one cite each to an Ulam Quarterly paper, Newsbank comes up with nothing. Factiva has two passing mentions in 1994, neither backing the claim that it was "the first" or even "early", and it's certainly not "high-level". The article is still 90% puffery, 10% substance. ~ trialsanderrors 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trialsanderrors and Fan-1967. Local publications and passing mentions don't seem to convey substantial enough notability to make it. There are lots of fringe candidates who get mentions in election campaigns, and sometimes whole articles about them in the local papers, but usually on slow news days. The published works, as Trialsanderrors mentions, don't do much to meet WP:PROF, either; to me, this just doesn't quite make it. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really nothing more than a perpetually failing political candidate. While the litigation he is involved in might be notable, or have produced case law of significant precedential value in Florida, the parties to the litigation itself are not automatically notable themselves. There are thousands of important family law cases when one considers the number of jurisdictions. While there may be articles on those cases, unless the participants in those cases are notable for other reasons, there is no need for an article on the parties. If the case is notable, then there should be an article about the case, but we don't need an article on only one of the parties in the case. Agent 86 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per verifiability problems with the few claims to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serial nuisance political candidates are notable provided that they get media attention, and this one has. Ballot box results are not needed to establish notability when we already have non-trivial media sources. Raffles mk 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline notability at best plus a huge headache trying to police the article to prevent the subject from inserting his vanity adds up (no pun intended) to delete. JChap2007 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"borderline should default to keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete unsuccessful candidate for office, non-notable. Pete.Hurd 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I am inclined to vote down losing candidates. But crackpot candidates do somehow develop some notability by virtue of their perennial crusades like Lyndon Larouche and locally for me Tom Lingenfelter. I guess if I lived in Fla, I would miss him if he wasn't on the ballot for something. Montco 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Change vote to delete. I have thought about it and 16 and 18 votes doesn't really do it for notability. Heck, I won a race in a lot smaller constituency than Florida with 22 votes, and that doesn't make me notable. I must admit that the subject's email blast leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well. Montco 02:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trialsanderrors and Fan-1967. This article is much better written that previous autobiographies, however, I'm still not seeing notability as an academic or a political candidate. Delete and re-salt. Sarah 11:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep List of publications augmented see also discussion page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.46.64.179 (talk • contribs). ← IP hosted in Maitland, Florida. ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my votes in the previous AfDs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*:What does this mean? Pete.Hurd 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because A and B have never heard of C doesn't mean that C is not notable. This seems one of the basic misconceptions here. <KF> 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable nutjob, I'd heard of him up here in Maine because of family in Florida. Guy has extensive media coverage (almost all of it is negative). Sure he fails WP:PROF, but his extensive media coverage makes him pass WP:BIO. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Is Newsbank censoring its negative coverage? I can't find anything but one article plus assorted pm's. ~ trialsanderrors 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Current biography does not describe Blass' career, only one of the very recent events in it. It is not a biography. Mathsci 01:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:Notability. This guy gets a ton of press. Look him up on Google! Look through Google News. Just because you guys haven't heard of him doesn't mean he exists. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is doubting that he exists, but his accomplishments as a mathematician are very, very far below accepted standards of notability, and his status as a notable politician is remarkably weak. Pete.Hurd 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear and obvious delete. The article itself is evidence of the man's non-notability. So much trivia. To write so much boring vanity with the end result of the plain evidence of the man's non-achievement in life. I could write a much fuller article on myself. I at least achieve a google hit of 25,500 compared to this guy's 620. Delete the vanity and spank the editor's bottoms hard. SilkTork 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notablity is rather weak for a biography article. I would think he needs to run for several more elections before becoming a notable perennial candidate. --Vsion 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite appears to pass WP:BIO based on this and this... Addhoc 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus --Durin 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Shaw Brown[edit]

Work through this with me and let's see if we can figure this one out. Here we have a person with two careers, neither of which seem notable enough for an article. First, some metainfo:

An article on this subject was speedied as nonnotable bio, recreated, speedied as repost (which was wrong, repost only applies to AfD-deleted articles), recreated. So clearly deletion of this article via speedy is contested, thus we are here.
It appears that the subject of the article is also the author of the article, for whatever that's worth.

Moving on the content:

Brown was the singer/songwriter for The Misunderstood, who have an article, and per their entry in allmusic.com certainly should, notwithstanding that Brown appears to be a major contributor and perhaps creator of the article.
- But, are The Misunderstood notable enough so that any of the members deserve their own articles? They are not really a very notable band, so I do not think that they are. There is nothing useful in Brown's article that isn't in The Misunderstood article. Sky Saxon has an article (which I personally think he shouldn't), but then The Seeds are a lot more notable than The Misunderstood.
Then, there is material on Brown's later career, as a jewelry maker.
- It seems clear that this material is vanity/spam, which doesn't prove that Brown is not notable, but is seldom a good sign. We have this article on a piece of jewelry he made (same author), and we have this: Planetary Gemologist (same author). It is as a Planetry Gemologist that Brown claims notability - but he himself wrote the Planetary Gemologist article, and recently too.
- But then, on his website, he claims several books (but the only one on Amazon is listed as "self-published", and at least some of the others appear to be just catalogs of his jewelry) and several interviews etc. on Thai television, which ought to count for something, I suppose.
- And as an aside, claims to have founded several schools, which if true would in my opinion be the main thread on which to hang his notability - but no information beyond the bare name of the schools are given, which seems odd. Certainly founding several schools would get a bigger place in his CV, you'd think.
- And this is all on his website. I didn't find any useful third-party material, although I could have missed it.

It all seems a bit fishy to me. I do not think this person is notable, what do you think? Herostratus 08:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, there is hardly a quarrel with notability, certainly though with WP:NPOV. Unless somebody cleans it up by end of this AfD it should be deleted Alf photoman 15:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not find anything notable in a member of a minor band turned artisan. He is surely great at doing what he does, but so are billions of people. --Goochelaar 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not cleaned - I have been in comms. with User:Rsbj66 (A.k.a. Richard Shaw Brown) for a few weeks and either he does not understand what is stated on WP:V or is ignoring my suggestions/warnings. The Misunderstood is notable enough of a band for draft-dodgers during the Vietnam War, and several articles about them have been published by third party sources. They even appear in one book titled "100 Greatest Psychedellic Bands", but the selection process for this list is unclear. Since RSB is the center of the draft-doging history of the band, RSB on this subject alone, is notable. The fact that RSB escaped to India, like many other hippies, is part of his notability, and being baptized a Hindu is very important to his character - but his notability stops there. His later life as a "gemologist", a spiritual profession, is worth only a blurb in his biography. Readers, may they be fans of the band or not, would probably find the story more fantastic if he doesn't bring himself down to earth with awards and accomplishments. As for the other articles of his, I have also tagged them for speedy deletion, as it only adds fluff to his own self. Rsbj66 has no need to infect Wikipedia when he has so many of his own sites at his disposal. -- Emana 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be well referenced and I'm not seeing a lot of promotional hype etc. The award is not prominent in the article and demonstrates that he has minor notability beyond the music. I think that there is more interesting information here than can be practically merged to the article about the band. An autobio is not prohibited, although it should be a red-flag for closer scrutiny --Kevin Murray 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with those references are that they are mostly original research by Brown himself. Also, they lack information on how to get a hold of the source material (URL, publisher, ISBN, etc.). I know they are not there, because I asked Rsbj66 for the info when I was reformatting the page. It could be all made up. Just listing names of books don't mean that the article is well sourced and well cited. I agree that Brown does have an interesting story to tell, and doing so without following good Wikipedian practices does himself a disservice. -- Emana 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What award? The only awards I see are here, and these are the kind of awards anyone should be able to pick up in return for a ride to the airport. Finalist (not winner) in one small category, by a marketing association that only exists to give out awards and do other marketing-type stuff, I assume. Who doesn't have a plaque like this in their cubicle? And that's the best one. Unless I'm missing a more notable award? Herostratus 04:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as an unconvential lead singer of a band with an article. Has published books at the Institute of Oriental Philosophy. [16] and was Asssitant editor of a quartely journal. --Mallarme 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, so he can be mentioned as the central figure in the The Misunderstood. But publishing books doesn't make one notable... unless the book has become part of some large scale phenomena, like Harry Potter or Grapes of Wrath. -- Emana 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. by Mallarme at 21:19, 26 January 2007. (John Vandenberg 11:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - There seem to be enough refs in the article to cement notability.Baka man 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Notability satisfied, listed reasons are not criteria for deletion. Cleanup where necessary. Rumpelstiltskin223 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I dont see obvious notability, and verifiability is pretty poor. The journal has had little exposure: "Indian philosophy & culture" "Vaishnava Research Institute" - 3 hits, "Indian philosophy and culture" "Vaishnava Research Institute" - 3 hits, "Indian philosophy & culture" "Institute of Oriental Philosophy" - 5 hits, "Indian philosophy and culture" "Institute of Oriental Philosophy" - 12 hits, "Indian philosophy & culture"+journal - 13 hits, "Indian philosophy and culture"+journal - 111 hits -- most of this hits are directory entries because they are journal listings by libraries. The journal name pulls two results on google scholar. The Benjamin Franklin award is by a publisher, and the publisher lists 50 winners for last year and records only go back as far as 2001; the articles source is not independent, listing Richard Shaw Brown as its founder. I cant find the book "Rishi" in OCLC; 'UT Magazine' is http://www.ugly-things.com/, which is described as a Rock fanzines, and doesnt have archives; likewise I cant find a "Taste Makers" article in International Herald Tribune that mentions Brown. John Vandenberg 11:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a member of The Misunderstood finds a mention in the International Herald Tribune and gets an AfD slapped on his article here. Ironic? _{Freedom skies| talk} 14:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you found the article in the International Herald Tribune? who wrote it and when was it published? John Vandenberg 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friends, The International Herald Tribune article was in "TasteMakers" ("An occasional series about people for whom style is a way of life") by Andrew Ranard On Oct 31, 1995. Article was named "Gemologist Focuses On the Spiritual" by Andrew Ranard--Rsbj66 17:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to 30 TV Shows in Thailand. No foreigner has ever been 30 times on Thai TV (all stations) http://www.richardshawbrown.com/rsb-tv.html Thanks--Rsbj66 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added more substance (Later Music) with references. I didn't even mention the Movie project. Thanks for the help. I'm a clutz with code and don't known the Wiki rules, but I'm learning.--Rsbj66 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Misunderstood are extremely significant historically. Their single, "I Can Take You To The Sun", was released at the beginning of December 1966 by Philips/Fontana Records in England.. It is considered one of the first authentically "psychedelic" records, predating the first releases by Pibk Floyd and Jimi Hendrix. Legendary BBC DJ John Peel referred to it on many occasions as one of "the best records ever made." In fact, he kept a copy in a special box of records, see this article in The Times of London online: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14932-1836864,00.html

In Rolling Stone (Sept 2, 2004) David Fricke wrote: "Two weeks after that September '66 session, Jimi Hendrix arrived in the UK and became all the rage, the immigrant acid king. But the Misunderstood got there first. Hear the proof." Mikestax 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The group's entry in the All Music Guide was not written by Richard Brown, but by Richie Unterberger. Unterberger also devotes an entire chapter to the group in his book "Unknown Legends of Rock 'n' Roll" (Miller Freeman Publishing, 2004. ISBN 0-87930-534-7)Mikestax 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikestax, thanks for the references, but nobody is thinking about deleting the article about The Misunderstood. The issue at stake here is whether or not Richard Brown in himself, and his activities during and after his association with the Misunderstood, are notable enough to deserve an independent article. --Goochelaar 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for current day standing please see http://www.richardshawbrown.com/rsb-gem-articles.html to choose from 200 articles about subject Pleased advise which ones can be used to establish standing. Thanks--Rsbj66 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to help establish post-music notability I have listed 11. published books with ISBN, plus links to 200 articles published, and 30 TV appearences, which is a large amount of exposure for any expat in Thailand in history.

It is all very good and interesting, but not quite relevant with respect to notability as meant in Wikipedia. For instance, in WP, "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" (my emphasis). So, one tries to understand if the person/event/thing has attracted external attention from magazines, book, web sites, independently from the work by the subject himself. If you list your work, it might be useful for people interested in your work, but as for notability it just amounts to "I did lot of stuff". Everybody here has done lot of stuff (books, children, pies, travels...). It remains to be seen whether the person doing this stuff is notable or not. --Goochelaar 14:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You wrote, "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" <---More than 200 magazines and newspapers have written news and praise about us, such as feature news articles in International Herald Tribune, Singapore Business Times, Asia Magazine, National Jeweler (USA), Jewelers Circular Keystone, and a list of others. We have all these published articles. Mainly, no Westerner has ever gotten so much coverage in Thai history. You ask for only a few, so in the article I list two references to international articles on our notability. So according to what you stated I DO qualify for Wikipedia.

I see your other pages, such as by Geoffrey Giuliano that are 100% original research without a single reference but his one-sided self-plaise page is on Wikipedia!?<---it is VERY misleading. At least everything I have written is "true" and my notability is "respectable." Please take another look at Richard Shaw Brown and I give over 15 references on the page now. And it's all true and notable. Best wishes--Rsbj66 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Richard, thanks for signalling the Giuliano article, which has been immediately tagged as possible original research, and perhaps will be proposed for deletion. You could have done so yourself! In fact, it is perhaps better for you to edit articles not directly pertaining you or your activity. Jimbo Wales himself has been frowned upon for having edited the article about himself. So, thanks for the material you provided. But apart from it, of course you cannot judge yourself its notability or relevance.

It seems that the general consensus is not against you. So what I suggest is, leave things alone, let people consider your article for its merits and, if you like, you are welcome to contribute to other articles! --Goochelaar 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Goochelaar, thanks for the good advice. I'll follow that. Best wishes--Rsbj66 21:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, who is User:Mikestax? His name sounds awfully familar. Oh, yes, he's the guy from UT magazine. -- Emana 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---Mike Stax is also owner of UT Records as well as his magazine. He did a multi issue story on The Misunderstood in his Ugly Things Music Magazine, prior to which he did 4 years of research on the band, tracking down all the members and really getting the facts straight. His study is considered the full story, and may be expanded into another book on the subject. He has also written a 550 pages double screen play for a motion picture on the band and my aftermath.

One interesting thing to consider in my case is that during the time I played a major role in building 2 schools in India and One school in Nepal (all still running) during that time I was a fugitive from the Vietnam massacre and in India under an assumed (different) name. So it's a really strange situation where I built 3 schools but can't find credit for it in my real name. An example story of how one of the schools was built is at http://www.richardshawbrown.com/mysticarticles/nandagram.html and I think you might find it interesting as an adventure, worlds apart from the USA. Remember, apart from being a war objector fugative, I was a sudden Rock Star with ego, turned into a pennyless egoless monk in a stone age ashram with no electricity or running water. It was cave man style, where humility way MOST highly respected, and I was only Westerner. So it is quite a contrast from lead singer to nobody outcast. But the Point is I cannot take credit for building 3 schools because of different name and primative conditions. This was back in 1971, long before the PC, and WAY long before the WWW.--Rsbj66 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have done other notable work, put it in the article, with a 3rd party source, and then perhaps draw it to our attention here. Regardless of prior history of the article, if all of it has solid sources it may well survive.DGG 01:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comment: I would like to comment but since I'm a sock I can't. Sorry as per WP:SOCK. Good luck. --SockingIt 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm wrong. Is User:Mikestax a sockpuppet account for User:Rsbj66? You may use sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia, but please be careful what you do with them. (Copied to User_Talk:Rsbj66 page) -- Emana 21:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stax is an open reference who has researched and published articles on Rick Brown and his band in his magazine. His magazine is one of the references given. He lives in California. I live in Thailand. I have no control over his mail or input. I did mention to him to see this talk page and give any reference if possible. He has written his own thing.--Rsbj66 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#A7. FreplySpang 09:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zach gladnick[edit]

Reason Sharonlees 08:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Page is clearly not on a notable person. --Sharonlees 08:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. The First Doll 09:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per above and WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Madmedea 09:04, 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; I refrained from salting it because the recreations aren't overly-close together, and that it may be possible, if someone gets lucky and finds it, to create a referenced, WEB-compliant article. This isn't malicious repeat in-quick-succession reposting, really. - Daniel.Bryant 09:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arfenhouse[edit]

Web vanity that fails WP:WEB, and is recreated content that was deleted once before (see log). It also contains some original research, and is not written in the formal tone of an encyclopedia article. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with AAA. Vanity. No proper sources other than an ad. Notability not established. Pewtercollector 17:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material. Also WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt as recreation of deleted material. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. -- Kesh 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Arfenhouse has an article on Uncyclopedia. 58.178.57.252 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is really where that belongs. -- Kesh 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but looking at it, I think it will have a slim chance of survival... --AAA! ^(AAAA) 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect per nom. CrazedNinja 01:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but do not salt.This series of cartoons is as relevant as Salad Fingers, and yet that entry remains. Allow for a better recreation by someone who doesn't just want to advertise it.--Jimmydeanohyeah 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Bucketsofg 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Murat İldan[edit]

Delete[edit]

This article and all the articles on his books are a part of an aggressive self (?)-pr covering a growing number of wp editions; whilst he has little notability in english and even less in all the other languages. Note also the previous intro statement "Following his epistolary novel, The First Sorrows of Young Werther, he is regarded as a romantic writer", when the book in question is due to be published in february this year (now corected to march). When the article also stated that this unpublished Young Werther is his magnum opus, we an easily assume that this author not notable, yet.

Even though an anonymous newbee User:Melanicool (contrib) has corrected this, the most obvious errors in the biography, this is still selfbiograhy, vanity and spamming. It remains to be explained why he (or his advocates) wishes to make the impression that all of his books have an english title, as if they have been translated. And it is still a fact the he (or his advocates) is abusing wikipedia worldwide (or, actually, languagewide) severly in order to self promote beyond notability.

Please also note that all his alleged "books" have their own articles; though several of his listed plays (such as Journey to God, Alchemist's Wife, Goddesses also Die and Master Moliere is Marrying etc) has no information about publishing or stage performances; they are merely manuscripts. Orland 09:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article, and speedy delete for all the plays and books articles that he also created here. None of them has been published with more than 3 000 copies, and some are still to be published... No sources except himself or the editor. He might be close from matching the criteria, but his creation of articles on himself on 30 different WP (half have already deleted or started a deletion procedure) is an incredible attempt to use the limited resources of WP for a worldwide self promotion. A violation of WP's principles that are the reason for my vote. Clem23 10:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is odd smell coming from this writer. Better to wait and see if he actually is what he claim is. --Finn Bjorklid 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Clem23's first intervention, becoming strong delete after reading the very dubious interventions in favour of keeping. --Goochelaar 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete vast campaign of self promotion. --Vlad|-> 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Kjetil _r 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I wanted to give this a chance. Sites like google have limited effectiveness in searching for people who only operate abroad. But its hard to see how the case for notability has been made. I don't know how reliable the NewAbsinthe link is, but if there were more like it, I guess I could give this a pass. One of the proponents seems to think that merely publishing a book makes one notable and lists sites that sell his books. That is not the case. In other cases, proponents have described him as an emerging writer. Perhaps he can wait until he has emerged? Right now the massive sock operation leaves a bad aftertaste.Montco 03:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm the proponent cited as saying that a published book makes one notable (there's another one who does more, but I was the first one), I feel I should clarify my position. I'd misread the nomination as suggesting that the books were unpublished, rather than the plays, about which I can also find nothing online. Obviously if a book is available online, it's been published. That said, as I understand the nomination now I see that the mere existence of the books wasn't really in question - and neither does it automatically confer notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems as an obvious case of using Wikipedia for commercial reasons; what did our new attorney say about such "articles"? Ulflarsen 07:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to me as being a part of a wery cheap ad-campaign. Cheap moneywise, that is. Is Wikipedia supposed to sponsor him in all languages? Noorse 08:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete the article, and speedy delete for all the plays and books articles that he also created here. Self promotion --Dalgspleh 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Thermite Does not meet WP:BIO. The first page of Google results is self-promotion or otherwise trivial articles. As per Clem23, even if he were in that list it would count for nothing, being the equivalent of a directory listing if it has 10k entries. Does not meet WP:V - can't find any English primary sources...in fact, it's quite hard to find anything in the mess of GoogleSpam that now comes up when you run a search!! Given the socks, I think letting this article remain would encourage similar WikiSpamming, which would be a very Bad^TM thing.--inks ^T 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tuohirulla puhu 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Clem23- Wikipedia is not a commercial website. Surena 14:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete the author has not only vandalized en.wikipedia and other languages, he has also hijacked the effort to delete this vanity article by sockpuppetry. --Clouseth 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for all ancillary articles on plays and books. For the BIO: Delete or, at the very least, rewrite by someone who isn't directly related to the author by virtue of being...the author. There may be a case for inclusion on local site, as there is a review of one book on the Turkish tourism board website here, but half a thousand words of ego-massage it is not. As for little sock-puppet friends, just having written all these plays and books is not really the issue: I'd like a little more evidence of someone having ever read them. Scandrett 17:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are five reviews of his works if you search the name through this search page [17]. --Ekeb 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A 'review', as you define it, is essentially nothing but a de facto admission of a work's existence. A review of 'Animal Farm' saying: "I can confirm this book is real; is made primarily of paper; was written by a man originally called Eric and is mostly about pigs" would not have gained Orwell an admission, and the reviews you source review nothing but the size of the book. Useful only if you're looking to buy a paperweight or a draft excluder. I still say weak keep on the Author page (and not the individual play/novel pages) provided there's an agricultural scale cull of the pooterism & puffery.Scandrett 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the full text of the "reviews" look like this:

Title: The Beggar’s Prophecy (Dilencinin Kehaneti)
Author (Editor, Trans., etc.): Mehmet Murat İLDAN
Genre: Two-act play
Edition: First printing
Year of Publication : 2001
Dewey Decimal No: 812,42A 'reviewa
Number of Pages: 54 + vii
Size: 20 cm.
Publication No: 2644
Name of Series: Works on Art-Drama Series
Series No: 338-203
ISBN: 975-17-2629-8
Copies Printed : 4,000
Price: 800,000 TL
Description: Mehmet Murat ildan’s play about a beggar and a lady in Paris.

I don't know what other people think, but to me that is NOT a review, that is a directory/index listing. It is not an in-depth, non-trivial article. This is an example of a real, in-depth, review. Even if it were, one could argue that the Turkish Ministry of Culture is not the most independent of reviewers. Note also that WP:BIO suggests that simply publishing is not sufficient, the author must have also received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. Perhaps if more time was spent improving the plays instead of WikiSpamming...--inks ^T 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's not encourage people to write articles on themselves. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Self-promoting spammer. -- Yekrats 12:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This writer does not exist. He has not published any books at all. he is fiction. I comment to delete him. it is obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.122.73.12 (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- In Latin Wikipedia: "Calling it a self-promotion is curious. Nobody can know whether Mehmet knows about this case at all, although someone claimed the opposite. Ok, the promotion was bad, but the reaction smells bad as well." --Sun-o-man 18:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not a matter of Turkey. This guy would be from Costa-Rica, Slovenia or New Zealand it would exactly be the same. It's a huge spamming abuse on over 30 different wikipedias, of a very unfamous writer, totally unknown in Turkey according to the Turks themselves. And the community reacts against that, which is quite sound and normal I believe. VaclavSmar 07:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete vanity Prittglue 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Pancasila 14:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clem23 --Epaphroditus Ph. M. 18:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam --Orang gila 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep[edit]

Weak keep, although I'll admit to not quite following what's going on here. A brief Google using the Turkish dotted-I spelling throws up this site, which seems to verify the existence of "Roses under Paris" ("Paris'in Altındaki Güller", I believe, although my Turkish is pretty bad) and probably others as well, so he seems to have published something at least. Whether or not this is a vanity press is something I can't comment on, since it requires more language ability than I have. The fact that the article has claimed that an unpublished book is his magnum opus is neither here nor there, since it's a content issue which is curable by editing rather than deletion. In terms of the English titles, I'm not sure what the normal policy is regarding books with foreign language titles, although I'd point to this tome as evidence that perhaps it's legitimate to keep the titles as is, as long as the books have been published. On the surface, though, he seems to qualify as notable enough in Turkey, which I'd say makes him sufficiently notable here as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article,When we check the page http://www.essex.ac.uk/alumni/pubs/nineties.htm, we can see that the author has Master and Doctorate degrees in Economics from the University of Essex. Therefore, in the infobox, it is fair to write "Economist" as one of his occupations along with novelist and playwright... So I am not agree with the user Melanicool to remove the "economist" label. That info was correct. If you also see the page http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=113181, the page rank on the right, it is fair to say that author has certain notability. Also, as we all know that PEN Clubs are important and serious literary organisations. In Turkish PEN's official web site, http://www.pen-tr.org/en/writes.asp?catid=1&name=2&id=56, we see author's some works published expilicitly in English. I believe this gives us some opinion that though he is an emerging writer, he has already some notability. I know from a friend living in the USA that author's novel Roses Underneath Paris can be found in certain bookshops in New York. The novel is not in English, it seems to be a great paradox, but it is not, because the book is read by the Turkish community living in the USA. Same applies to London or Münich as well. So I believe we must be fair on judging about the notabilty... We should also bear in mind that, checking his life story, author has lived about 9 years in England and he writes books where the events pass in England. So he is pro-England or England-lover writer as well... even only for this reason, I believe that an article about him deserves to be kept, improved and enriched... 25 january 2007.

Vote note signed but done by IP 85.106.155.214. A IP in Ankara, Turkey, the same type of IP that created this article on 31 different WP on a timespan of 1 month and a half. And sometime uses the following usernames: Ademusset or Marivaux on Fr, Cicero on WP in Latin, Carlogoldoni in Italian, Lopedevaga in Spanish, and Muratildan in Turkish. Vanity of one single person that has never sold more than 3 000 copies of one of his books. de:, pl:, sv:, it:, id: and others have used speedy deletion, fr:, es: are using articles for deletion procedure shifting towards deletion. Clem23 13:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the article, I am totally surprised to see that some users doubt whether this writer has published something at all! I am half Turkish, because my mother is Turkish. With a quick search on google, I can give some proof pages that he has published at least 10 books. http://www.imge.com.tr/person.php?person_id=22366 (This is a known publishing house in Turkey); another one is http://kitap.antoloji.com/kisi.asp?CAS=33853. Another one http://www.tulumba.com/storeItem.asp?ic=zBK964063WA584. This particular site sends books all over the world. http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D3138FE9074FF19B0005DFB6D1186A7B243F (This one is Republic of Turkey, Ministery Page) http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D3137A2395174CFB32E19EDC603C979CEB01. There is a famous Publishing house on plays in Istanbul. You can find his book on their site as well: http://www.mitosboyut.net/index.php?option=com_productbook&func=detail&Itemid=30&id=135. There exist at least 100 pages where one can buy his books. This particular site http://www.truvabookstore.com/main/product_detail.asp?pro_ID=19&sub_cat_ID=11&cat_ID=5, is author's official publishing house and you can find his books over there as well. I think there exist a germen internet book site as well, wehere especially Turkish-Germans can buy his or other Turkisk books.
I have also seen that all the information in the article is verifiable. For instance in the article it mentions Absinthe: New European Writing Journal. I made a search on it. You can see his name appears in http://www.absinthenew.com/pages/issue2.html. In the article it mentions about AQT competition. I found information in this web page: http://undergroundtransit.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_undergroundtransit_archive.html that his play became finalist. In short, all the information in the article is surely verifiable. About Magnum Opus, I have not seen such a thing; if there was, most probably it was an editing mistake. As user BigHaz said, it's a content issue which is curable easily by editing rather than deletion. I am sure his books will soon be published in England as well. Wikipedia is a paradise of information; we must not delete, but we must verify and edit any kind of information if found wrong. We must also know that no one can ever promote himself through wikipedia, but only by the good quality of his or her works. I have read his book Antiquary Arago's Diary (original title Antikacı Arago'nun Günlüğü), I believe he is good quality writer and he knows England very well. So my vote is to keep the article strongly.Faydunnaway

This account is likely to be a sock-puppet. Clem23 11:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, from google search it is obvious that he is a known writer. My vote is to keep. Alpacin. 27 January 2007
- Hmmm. Two absolutely fresh users, who has only written in this debate!? This looks like Sock puppetry to me. --Orland 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 3, you forgot to count the IP that has also expressed a keep vote. Clem23 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, certainly notable in Turkey, the question is if it isn't a case for Turkish Wikipedia ... as for will be published soon in England: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we have things that happened and that are verifiable in an Encyclopedia Alf photoman 15:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, every writer has her or his advocates, that is quite normal. I have read some parts of author's play Master William Shakespeare, which is available in http://www.pen-tr.org/en/writes.asp?catid=1&name=2&id=56. He seems to be a serious and good writer. What use to delete the article about him which has obviously correct information? I believe that English wikipedia users can and should benefit from the information and literary material given in the article. We must also keep in mind the considerable effort made to create this article. I suggest we respect the effort and the work. So my vote is definitely to keep the article... deleting is an easy way, we should be helpers not the terminators.good day.Jabbar. 27 January 2007, 18.07

not signed by Sockpuppet n°4, you could also use the 4 different names that you used to write the article, I'm waiting for their vote. Clem23 16:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean out the self-promotion. Seems "notable" enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and see systemic bias. Baristarim 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on this? --Goochelaar 23:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I shall elaborate a bit myself. First of all, the person which is object of the article we are discussing shares 8 or 9 of the 10 features attributed to the average Wikipedian. Secondly, countering systemic bias means countering the tendency to consider a major Turkish (or Italian, or Somali, or...) writer de facto less important than a minor English-speaking one, not allowing a minor one (independently from his nationality) to advertise freely, should this be the case here. --Goochelaar 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A published author, notable in his own language group at least. Spam is annoying but does not make him insignificant. User:Dimadick
He is so notable that he isn't even listed in the turkish ministry of culture's turkish authors encyclopedia, that contains hundreds of names [18] Clem23 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the preface about that website, you will notice that the web version has only 2.023 the most notable of about 10.000 Turkish authors which are listed in the printed version [19]. --Ekeb 09:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting, so I was saying that he's not among the 2 023 most famous turkish writers, and that we do not know if he is among the 10 000. But as for notability it's still a very important information. Clem23 11:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, self-promotion or non-notability outside of origin country have never been reasons to delete in English Wikipedia. --Tbonefin 07:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are considerably less notable bios in the English Wikipedia. Seems to meet our marginal bar for significance. Huangdi 08:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI. I have also nominated for deletion 10 articles on mostly unpublished and unstaged plays by Ildan; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Admirer of Machiavelli. Quoting a visitor on my norwegian talk page: "this guy launched one of the most incredible spam event that I've ever seen on WP" --Orland 08:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep, It needs work on establishing the significance. Current form of the page does not have significant info, lets say textual depth. OttomanReference 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further info. Please also note that User:Saposcat, who must be recognized for some insight in turkish literature removed this edit by the most frequent Ildan-agitator User:Tagorgora, when Tagorgora tried to edit Ildan into the article Turkish literature. --Orland 11:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a tr.wp admin and probably the first reader of the WP article on him, I would like to provide you guys some information about this issue. First of all, it is Mehmet Murat İldan himself, who has been writing all these articles. So it's an autobiography. I personally don't see WP:AUTO as a reason to delete an article, as long as the person in question is notable. In that case i think he is, even though i've never heard of him in my life before his Wikiactivity. He is definitely not famous in Turkey, that i can assure you. But as an author of several books, i personally would consider him as notable. He has several awards, books published by Ministry of Culture etc. He clearly speaks very highly of himself and all his contributions are about himself, but my tendency to stay neutral no matter what pushes me to accept this person as notable. The article can be neutralized or stubbed.--Vito Genovese 11:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why to delete this article... Honestly, there is some ongoing prejudice about Turkish articles in wikipedia, and I highly disapprove of this! This guy has bbooks published. see above links, I checked them. So just because english speakers don't read him it means he doesn't exist as a writer or what? This is an english language encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of English things... he has several published books. turkish national libraries list him. what else do you need? --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're Turkish, would you want your country to be represented by this self-promoting, non-notable, hack of a writer or by Orhan Pamuk, whose reputation is not in any doubt and would not resort to such low actions to sell a few more of his books? By voting to delete this article, you are voting to protect the good name of Turkey and Turkish writers. --Pancasila 14:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Because I smell very bad racist lynching operation here! Turkey's most prestigous writers are those of the Turkish PEN Club members; Orhan Pamuk is also a member... Here is a definite proof that Mehmet Murat İldan is a Turkish writer and a member of the most prestiguous literary club in Turkey. Check this web page: Turkish PEN Club Members The article is not Self promoting, it is INFORMATION PROMOTING which is the most important aim of Wikipedia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.122.73.42 (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This vote might be Sock puppetry --Orland 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepAny person who has published 10 books will be considered notable enough in any country. Check the Kurdish page [Mehmet Murat İldan] His books have not been translated into Kurdish, but the information on the writer exists in Kurdish. What is the purpose of the Wikipedia, if not to provide information. Can anyone disprove the information given in the article? All you "no" guys just talk. His books are not in Kurdish language. So what profit he can gain from this? Obviously, this article and the brother articles aim is to provide info, nothing but info about the writer. If you need an information about Turkish playwrights, where an earth are you going to look at? Don't you see that Wikipedia is a wonderful opportunity to get information? Will the writer go to a publishing House in Portugal and say that "Look, I have an article in wikipedia, publish my works!" It is absolutely funny!!!!!! There is obviously unjustified no-proof attack on the article. I protest this strongly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.73.31 (talk • contribs)

This vote might be Sock puppetry --Orland 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What's with all the deletes here? Yes, the page may be a so called "vanity" page now. It may right now be self promotion. But if George W Bush wrote his own Wiki-page, would you guys still delete it? He is notable in Turkey. Just because you have not heard of him here does not mean that he is not notable somewhere else in the world. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable in Turkey--Boookabooo 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This vote might be sock puppetry. If I counted right, this is the 9th sockpuppet or suspected sockpuppet of Mehmet Murat Ildan (not all of them voted though, a few just tried to fix the article to try desperately to save it) Clem23 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Linguicism again. Several Turkish-speaking Wikipedians (including one who has my utmost trust in anything Turkey-related) have attested this author is notable. – Alensha ^talk 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Supplying a perspective: A biography of modern turkish national author Yaşar Kemal excists in ca 10 wp languages. This article was spread into ca 30 languages. This is obviously unproportional, and suggests an agenda of spamming beyond significance. --Orland 13:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a relevant comparison with Orhan Pamuk, the recent nobel prize winner. In many small WP they are the only 2 authors listed in the turkish writers category (ie in finnish) Clem23 13:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong . The same article is being considered for deletion in multiple Wikipedias all of sudden? first deletion proposal I've seen in Finnish Wikipedia that isn't in Finnish, for example. Can anyone tell me, admittedly, a slow-witted fellow, what the heck is going on? An craftily orchestrated international deletion debate, or business as usual? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An administrator at the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia noticed the concerted effort of spreading this biographical article to a great number of Wikipedias, and believing the effort to be self-promotion from an artist who probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability in any language made an extra effort of countering the apparent spam in like fashion. I believe that is more or less the core of this issue. __meco 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After considering the case, it does appear to be a case of a) an unprecedentedly elaborate VSCA attack and b) an equally elaborate and rather unprecedented response to it by AfDing the articles everywhere. So, right now, I'd say Weak Delete unless there's definite proof that these books are indeed published or something along those lines. If this is indeed a case of vanispam, the author must be strongly cautioned to not touch the article too much further, but if the article subject's merits are okay, then there's really no reason to delete the article anyway. User conduct is not grounds for article deletion. So, basically, improve or let it go. I do have to say that if this article creation gimmick is really as elaborate as it seems like at this point, this is most frown-worthy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The books seem to have been published, and nobody's flagged anything about a vanity press/print on demand outfit being involved, so that particular obstacle looks cleared. BigHaz -
      - Finnish vote seems to be for keep 26/10 at the moment. --Sun-o-man 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong . For some reasons why to keep this article, see the (English) discussion in the Latin Wikipedia. --Roland2 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would wwwwolf and Roland2 clarify whether their use of

is meant to indicate a comment or a vote?--inks ^T 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment. --Roland2 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment. "Strong" as in "I'd really like to know", "

" as in "what's going on?" =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments Hm. Following the comment by BigHaz that the books seemed to have been published, I have tried to find listings for the ISBN 975-17-2629-8 for "The Beggar’s Prophecy (Dilencinin Kehaneti)" which is supposed to have had a 4k print run in 2001 - no records [20], [21]. Have also tried the University Library catalogues of several Turkish Universities, no hits. [22], [23]. So I tried the listed ISBN for Sisam Adası Aşıkları - Lovers of Samos Island, 2006 and got nothing again. [24]. No hits even for the authors name. [25], [26]. These were the only ones I could find:[27]. In contrast, I can pick up any book off a pile here at the University of Otago library, and find multiple listings. For example "Renata's Journey", (1994), a historical narrative of a particular expedition in 1843/44 by Maori and Pakeha, of academic interest only, and probably had a small print run. ISBN 0908812361, and look, a listing.[28].--inks ^T 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refer once again to this site, which seems (although I can't be totally sure) to allow people to purchase two of his books and what looks to be an anthology of somethingoranother in which he is included - all in the original Turkish, however. There mightn't be an ISBN attached, but the fact that his work is available for purchase seems to say that he is published. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sincerely hoping that the following library and book web site pages will persuade you that these books exist:

Istanbul Technical University Library Antiquary Arago's Diary Novel Istanbul Bilgi University Library Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Play Turkish Ministry of Culture Library - Galileo Galilei Play Turkish Ministry of Culture Library William Shakespeare Play Turkish Ministry of Culture Library Antiquary Arago's Diary Novel Turkish Books Site Sisam Adası Aşıkları - Lovers of Samos Island Ormanın Hayaletleri - Ghosts of Forest Turkish Books Site Antikacı Arago'nun Günlüğü - Antiquary Arago's Diary Ilknokta Book Web Site Antikacı Arago'nun Günlüğü - Antiquary Arago's Diary TNN Bookstore Turkish Ministry of Culture Library Dilencinin Kehaneti - Beggar's Prophecy William Shakespeare Play Advertisement in Milliyet Newspaper I can give you 100 more web sites that one find all the books mentioned in the article. Please also note that 4000 copy for a theatre play in Turkey is realy a very very big printing number. Dilencinin Kehaneti-Beggar's Prophecy printed in 2001 and sold out compeletly in 2002. Now it is a rare book which can be found only in seller of secondhand books... We give big importance to Wikipedia and all we want is to be here, to let others know about the Contemporary Turkish Literature and share with you... yours sincerely... Tagorgora. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.226.141.13 (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to give additional information about the library records as a proof of the books existence. Here is the National Library records.

National Library of Turkey Database You can see that writer's birthday info is wrong. It should be 1965. But in the government record it is written as 1956. Please also check the spelling Ormanýnýn hayaletleri (Ghost's of Forest) The correct spelling should be Ormanın Hayaletleri. Thus, when you search the books in the google or in other search engines or even in databases, because of the wrong records, spelling mistakes it is not always easy to find a book in a quick search. National Library of Turkey Database in Ankara is the largest database. Please check the following page: National Library of Turkey Database You will see only 6 books of the author. But he has more than 10 books published. We don't see them in the database, because databases are unfortunatley not updated and there exists several spelling mistakes... Anyway, this is my final comment on this issue. You can delete or keep the article, it is your decision. I hope that people from different countries will create different articles on the Contemporary Turkish Literature and contemporary Turkish Writers so that literature world can be enriched further. Yours sincerely... Tagorgora. Vox populi vox Dei. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.231.213.149 (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I wonder if it is a coincidence that the last two, very indignant, remarks come from unregistered, unsigning editors with very similar IPs: in one case this is the unique contribution to Wikipedia, in the other there is also a minor editing to the İldan article. I won't comment about the racism accusations. --Goochelaar 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are we deleting this article because it is self promotion or because he's not notable? I mean, if the article was created by an established user, would you want it to be deleted? If an established user re-creates the article two months after the closure of this Afd, would the article get deleted and why? (WP:CSD A7?) What i don't understand is, why would self promotion be a reason to delete an article. Why don't we focus on notability and just neutralize the article? Does notability refer to how famous the person in question is or does it refer to the work he/she has done to deserve an article? I simply don't understand why we keep an article about Prince Harry's girlfriend and delete this one (or recreations in the future)? Not that i support this guy just because he's from Turkey (i got so close to blocking him on tr.wp), but i don't see any reason to relinquish information, just because it's been used for self promotion. --Vito Genovese 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things are actually getting muddled by several non-pertinent factors: the suspect of self-promotion, the sudden appearance of the articles in several wikipedias, the comments by possible sockpuppets, the accusations of racism... All of which heats the debate and distracts from the actual issues of possible non-notability and possible lack of reliable sources. Nevertheless, some good points have been made. For instance, somebody pointed out the "Encyclopedia of Turkish Authors" [29] of the Turkish Ministry of Culture, in which İldan does not appear. It allegedly includes the 2023 "owners of the most important works in Turkish language". So it appears that İldan is, at best, the 2024th most notable Turkish writer, which does not appear very notable among Turkish writers (we are not even thinking of comparing him with writers in other languages). This is just to exemplify some of the points made about his notability. Then again, these points must carefully be found amid other less relevant arguments. --Goochelaar 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think you are talking about this page. Turkish Authors I have just made a quick look at it. Özen Yula is not in the list, but Ahmet Önel is in the list. Özen Yula is a famous Playwright in İstanbul... I am saying to you that that list is definitely not correct, not complete, politically biased, since Fethullah Gülen's name is there!... Also it is not the list of the Famous Authors, but it is the list of Turkish Authors. Do you also know that Ministry of Culture is no longer printing theatre plays? Why? because the government does not like theatre!.. Oh, dear friend there are millions of things you don't know about Turkey, about what is going on in Turkey... any way, I will sleep now! But before sleep I will give you one more name, probably you may know him İsmail Cem, former Minister, died few days ago. he has many books, but he is not in the list! . He is not writing literary books, rather political books. But the list above already a mixed list. Good day to you... Yours sincerely... Tagorgora
COMMENT - I have read some of the discussions above. First of all, there exists neither racism nor prejudice against the Turks or what so ever. I believe there is confusion here. If you see the notability criteria for people in the following page, [notability], things will be clearer. It says that “The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person” From the above web sites we can see that he has at least 10 books published. He has published about Galileo Galilei, [Galileo Galilei] , since Bertolt Brecht this is the second play ever written on Galileo’s life. Can we call this a trivial publication? There exists no play on William Shakespeare’s life. See this page, [Master William Shakespeare], are we going to call this publication trivial and rubbish? Has anybody tried to read the play? Why not? Do you think that high literature is something garbage? Please see the page, [Gandhi], this is the only comprehensive Gandhi play in the world, no one can assert othervise; are we going to say that this Gandhi play is trivial publication? Another criteria says “Published authors who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.” Büyünün Gözleri (Eyes of Magic) Play, [Eyes of Magic], obtained a National award in Istanbul. Do you think that it is easy to get a national award where hundreds of participants enter the competition? Is it something trivial? Now please see this page, [Sabahattin Eyuboğlu]. You will probably say who the hell this Sabahattin Eyuboğlu is. He is a very important Turkish writer, and when I read the artcile I have seen nothing about Shakespeare and I added that info, added Shakespeare link as well. He has translated Macbeth, Timon of Athens, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, most wonderful translations… We have loved Shakespeare through his incredibly beautiful translations. Now, if you look at his article, a very short article, so he means an unimportant writer? We can not get anything from the length of the article. It is not the length but the quality matters. Unfortunately we don’t have much time. We have works to do. There are hundreds of Turkish related articles to be improved. There are also so many misonformation as well. Now see this page, [Mehmet Murat ildan] in Magyar language. It is clear that a Magyar guy translated this page. It probably says Murat ildan is a Turkish writer. And there is also Bibliografi. Where is the spam here? Is the play Master William Shakespeare spam? what is the spam here? I see only a very limited info on the writer. Are we going to call this a spam, a garbage? What is your knowledge about literature? Have you ever tried to read the writers one of the plays in English, available in different sites. See the page [Mehmet Murat İldan] in Latin language page. Do you call this a spam? It says Murat İldan is a Turkish writer. Galileo text is given there. So is it the play spam, or rubbish? Do you think that it is easy to be a writer in Turkey. Burhan Günel is a famous (and notable) writer in Turkey. His story books are printed in 2000 copies. May be you find it funny? Have you ever heard Burhan Günel? No! check the google now, you will see only 992! he is 60 years old. Now see this Turkish short CV: Ödülleri: Kültür Bakanlığı Çocuk Öyküleri Başarı

Ödülü (1979), Türk Dil Kurumu Ödülü (1981), Mehmet Ali Yalçın Roman Ödülü (1981 ve 1982), Nevzat Üstün Öykü Birinci Başarı Ödülü (1983), Ömer Seyfettin Öykü Ödülü (1994), Yunus Nadi Roman Ödülü (1997), Yunus Nadi Öykü Ödülü (2000). He has at least 6 very important Literary Awards! But according to google he is 992! There are lots of important Turkish writers that even most Turkish people don't know because they are not advertised, because big publishing houses are supporting many trivial, magazinal type books and writers. I am avery disappointed and sad about the above discussions!.. They mentioned above writers dictionary. They are all biased dictionaries. There is another dictionary where 4000 writer names exist. We don't have 4000 writers, I am talking about literature! Turkish Playwrights number is not more than 100! You can check from the playwrights association in ıstanbul by sending them an e-mail. What about living novelists? May be 200, but not more!.. Being famous is something to do with advertisement, somethimg to do with money, not with quality. Not every good writer has money, or dark powers for advertisements... What is the conclusion? The writer in question is notable but not famous in Turkey! Who cares about being famous? are we going to be interested in the works or whether the person in question is famous? Ask 1000 people in the streets of Turkey, They will not know about Sabahattin Eyuboğlu... Some says His Hamlet is even better than the original language, it so poetical... goodnight. Tagorgora.

Comment "Now see this page, [Mehmet Murat ildan] in Magyar language [Mehmet Murat ildan]. It is clear that a Magyar guy translated this page. It probably says Murat ildan is a Turkish writer" [User: Tagorgora] Now my Magyar may be a little rusty, but as someone with a little Latin left over from school I can assure you that while the latin page [Mehmet Murat İldan] does, sort of, say Ildan is a Turkish writer, it does it in a way that suspiciously reeks of someone running it through a Latin babelfish, since anyone with a little Latin left would have left the verb 'est', at the end of the sentence & I get the same feeling about the other languages that Ildan (sorry, Ildan's 'biographer') is posting to. I know this is nitpicking, but the whole thing just stinks to high heaven of a concerted, and conceited, attempt to carpet bomb every wiki in existence into submission. First of all I thought this was just simple vanity, more and more I'm starting to think hoax. Surely no-one could be so self-regarding to need about 15 sock-puppets and daily postings on AfD just to prop up their insecurity? Also, accusations of racism are a very cheap shot & need to be nipped in the bud right away.Scandrett 00:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: The Latin is ok, see la:Vicipaedia:A est B. ;-) --Roland2 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just added World Short Story Day article in the Wikipedia which was proposed by the Turkish Authors Association (TAA) in Ankara. About the article on Mehmet Murat İldan, I would like to give a brief info on him which is that the author is a member of TAA, Turkish Authors Association in Ankara. His name is written as Mehmet M. Ildan in the list. Membership number is 704. The association is a liberal sided organisation, some of his members prisioned in the past years. Another info that I know about the writer is that one of his plays, Tanrı'ya Yolculuk, Journey to God banned in Istanbul on the grounds that society is not ready for this play. The play considers the science as the sole Prophet. It is anti-religuous but pro-God play. In his theatre articles, this particular one Thoughts on the banns in theatre writer explains his opinions on such matters. but I don't know whether an english version of the article can be found on the web. I just wanted to give the wikipedia community these info. as far as notabilty, he is surely notable. this particular web site Tiyatrom is the most visited web site (among the theatre web sites) in Turkey. Please ellaborate on my new article World Short Story Day as well. Take care. Hande, 31 jan 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HandeKurtulus (talk • contribs) 12:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This would be the seventh Sock puppet to defend Ildan. --Orland 17:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reverted to editions turkish title following user Orland's contributions.

Comment: For god's sake, what's this longish debate about someone who has 10 books published? Isn't that enough criteria for notability? Who cares about the writer of the article? even if he wrte it himself... it doesn't say he's the bigest turkish writer - to have POV in it. It says he has X number of books published. So why are we still debating about NOTABILITY? I speak turkish and read the turkish sources. He exists. he has those books published, he is a member of the PEN club. what else do you need for notability? I do say there IS racim against Turkish articles going on in enwiki, and quite frankly I don't really know why. what's your problem with turkish literature? that you can't read it? that's no excuse for deleting something, just because you can't read it. 100 million speakers of the Turkish language CAN. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the ecessary references to the page, about the biography elements, about the award winning play (did find sources about it) and about the books, found his bio and bibliography at the website of the publisher of three of his books, Truva Yayinlari. Link also added at the site. Hope this is enough proof of notabilty for everyone. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 21:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, redirect set ~ trialsanderrors 02:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hayward[edit]

According to the article, he is "a face to watch out for in 2007." Unsourced apart from an official website and myspace.com link, fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 09:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, and so tagged, fails to meet WP:BAND --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant promo reproducing word-for-word from his myspace page. "Stay tuned for updates" is not what I expect to see in an encyclopaedia. Emeraude 12:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant Spamming for myspace. Blatant hoax, not a notable person and many other reasons. Delete on sight. Retiono Virginian 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt db-spam. When unprotected, redirect to the more notable Steven Hayward. JuJube 00:30, 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. W.marsh 20:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to GDP per capita[edit]

This page had a prod tag which was uncontested, but the creator of the article has not edited since October and is probably unaware of the concerns that have been raised, but he obviously put a lot of effort into it and I don't think it's fair for it to be deleted solely for lack of attention, so I moved it here for discussion purposes. No vote. — CharlotteWebb 09:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, air pollution is always a topical issue, and this article looks well researched. --Candy-Panda 10:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT (not an encyclopedic article, but a heap of 2002 statistics - perhaps in Wikisource, but not here, please). Moreover it looks badly researched and erroneous - look at the 57th USA, which has better O2/GDP ratio than 56th Samoa according to the table...--Ioannes Pragensis 11:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikisource or merge as suggesed. Errors can be corrected, but it's certainly not original research. Lists are a perfectly valid way to order encyclopedic statistics, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
This page contains many errors.

As it now stands, the table and the title of the page are showing different things, 'List of countries by ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to GDP per capita' for the title, and 'List of Countries by Ratio of Emissions per capita to GDP per capita' for the table.
If you divide 'X per capita' by 'Y per capita' you get X/Y, in this case carbon dioxide emissions to GDP, a list for which already exists here albeit the inverse, i.e. Y/X.
The table of the title, 'List of countries by ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to GDP per capita' makes no sense, as if would be an 'efficiency per capita', which would lead to countries with a large population looking like they were doing well compared to a small country.
A table of efficiency per capita, as was clearly the intention of this page would be original research.

For these reasons I suggest this page is deleted. sbandrews 13:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of statistics either. Entirely unneeded list. Prod disputed effectively due to WP:ILIKEIT. Seraphimblade 14:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This topic appears to be covered adequately in List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions. List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita, List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions, and List of countries by ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to GDP per capita just look like more ways to break down this data without really providing any additional insight. GDP explains how much economic output a nation has, but it doesn't really correlate with how much carbon dioxide a nation "should" be using. Delete. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Marginally OR, but more importantly effectively duplicates List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions as Sbandrews says. The latter appears to be better maintained and has a nice graph William M. Connolley 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sbandrews' second and 4th reasons (so I guess per William really). JoshuaZ 16:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicated list (but ignore WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE objections) The list does appear to duplicate other list articles, so deleting and redirecting to the other lists probably makes sense. However, a few of the comments above reference WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Note that that section of policy does not deal with lists of statistics at all. It deals, rather, with types of articles that present certian problems for Wikipedia in terms of verification and style and thus can be discriminated against for inclusion. So arguments based on WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE should be ignored as it does apply to this type of article. Dugwiki 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions and keep the resulting article. Fg2 01:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this list is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fg2 01:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicate of lists mentioned above. It does strike me as indiscriminate as well. The ratio of CO2 emissions against how much people buy/sell with a nation? How is that useful or necessary? The factual accuracy of this article is severely in question as well. Resolute 08:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicate, and the fact that synthesis of existing work (the GDP and emissions data) is very much original research. Proto::► 13:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate, per above. Sandstein 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete copyright violation. Tyrenius 01:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven P Deschamps[edit]

Non-notable Canadian military officer & corporate exec. Speedy delete declined as claim to notability is made (pioneered a Computerized Aircraft Simulation Centre for air cadets). Fails WP:BIO and the WikiProject guideline for military notability. Mereda 10:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Mereda 10:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of military affairs-related deletions. -- Mereda 10:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While this individual may have had an interesting career, nothing in the article conveys any encyclopedic value or any indication that it meets WP:BIO. Agent 86 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can produce evidence of notability. The article doesn't have any citations from notable published sources. Sixth Estate 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete In my opinion WP should include him, but per the standards I don't see that he qualifies. --Kevin Murray 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for copyvio of http://www.regions.cadets.ca/pac/alberthead/deschamps_e.asp , per copyright notice at http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/notices_e.asp (not for commercial reproduction). I've stuck a ((db-copyvio)) on the article. Argyriou (talk) 22:07, 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; in my opinion, any content that would improve the target article - Creative Technology - is redundant as already included. If you disagree, the history is preserved behind the redirect. Daniel.Bryant 09:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Labs Europe[edit]

Fails to comply with WP:Corp and classifies as advert. The page was blanked by the original creator (restored by VoABot II b/c of perceived vandalism Kai A. Simon 10:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Creative Technology. Nothing to see here. ~ trialsanderrors 10:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect If it has a NASDAQ abbreviation, it complies with WP:CORP Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Creative Labs Europe is a subsidiary, and the mother company is already covered: Creative Labs Kai A. Simon 12:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I have little faith in any article that contains the phrase "is the worldwide leader".--Tainter 15:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any good content to a section in the Creative Technology, if that grows so large, then it can be spun-off later, but a redirect will serve for now. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Creative Technology - it's the same company. Merge what you need. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Creative Technology per above. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 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 redirect to Gothic (computer game). It was an unnecessary fork. -- RHaworth 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nameless hero[edit]

Unencyclopedic personal narrative about the protagonist of the Gothic games. Consists of the plot of the games (duplicate with the games articles), some fan speculation/trivia, and some funny moments from the game. There's no point in writing an article about a character we learn next to nothing of in the games. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been deleted once, so I say speedy delete. John Reaves (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and likely original research. Jayden54 16:02, 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. -- Steel 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Copenhagen Report[edit]

I believe that it fails WP:WEB. When removing the prod tag I had put on it, the author stated that it had been linked to externally many times. That's not a WP:WEB criteria. And doing a google search, even typing in "Copenhagen blog" without the quotes doesn't bring this site up. Ditto dogpile. I don't see any major newspaper sites linking to it or mentioning it. Looks non-notable. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7 - does not assert encyclopedic notability.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as such. yandman 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non-notable blog/blogger.--Tainter 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. Jayden54 16:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete clear A7 case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 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. Nishkid 64 01:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Group[edit]

Doesn't seem notable as defined at WP:CORP. May simply be an advertisement for the company. zadignose 12:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as possible advert for NN-company Cornell Rockey 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesnt seem like an advertisment. It is a descriptive bio of a company. It would seem interesting that people with their own descriptive bios posted on wikipedia would call this page out. (Saramcgo 16:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Descriptive" in a POV way, describing a non-notable company with no citations. The linked article about an OXFAM auction of a Keira Knightly dress doesn't even mention Gold Group, not that it would be sufficiently notable had they been mentioned. And I'm not sure to whom you refer when you talk about "people with their own descriptive bios posted on wikipedia." I have no such thing, and the only thing I can find on Cornell Rockey is a User Page, outside of the "main" namespace, completely appropriate and non-contestable... and he didn't "call this page out." I did. He merely voted as a disinterested party. I should hope more people would do so, but few really seem to care about this non-notable entity.zadignose 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Services this might help some of you...came across it earlier (Saramcgo 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ST47Talk 11:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not enough goings on mentioned to be convincing. Auction event may be notable though, if it was the first such event and set a trend - though I'd need to see some evidence of this. Stephen B Streater 20:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This firm may eventually become notable. But one auction doesn't cut it right now. One of the sources doesn't even mention the company, they just talk about the dress.Montco 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is presumably because the Gold Group's one claim to fame was not even that they auctioned a dress, but that they worked with Oxfam (in some largely unspecified way, something to do with "social media") to promote the auction of the dress. zadignose 05:07, 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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hengeli[edit]

This article seems pretty clearly to be a hoax. None of the "sources" actually say anything and my own independent work is unable to verify any claims made in this article. My skepticism is furthered by the fact that I am aware of an area college student of the same name. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a hoax - Links don't lead to anything relevant, Google doresn't throw up any matches. •CHILLDOUBT• 12:56, 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, ST47Talk 11:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the link to a site the kid was no doubt using for his english essay gives it away. yandman 13:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hoax. --Tainter 15:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete odd topic for a hoax, but the sources seem bogus --Kevin Murray 21:22, 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. DS 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

String reality[edit]

Essay and original research. Author contested prod without addressing issues. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, im not sure what this means, why is my article being deleted— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolo21 (talk • contribs)

What it means is that the article appears to be an essay and/or original research; in other words, it is publishing your own research and/or opinions on a topic, not a factual account of a topic referring to other reliable sources of information. To quote the WP:NOT policy:

"Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. Please do not use Wikipedia for [...] [p]rimary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge."

This is why the article has been nominated for deletion. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems it's been nominated for deletion because Wikipedia is not the place to introduce one's own theories or philosophies. We are supposed to create articles on ideas, theories, and phenomena that exist outside of our own research, and to give clear references to published sources. We're not even supposed to draw basic conclusions that haven't been published elsewhere. For instance, if someone printed an article demonstrating "A," and someone else printed an article demonstrating "B," then we still can't say "A supports B," or "A contradicts B," unless someone somewhere has made this sythesis in print... and we have to give a citation. Examine the links given above to the policies on Original Research and Essays, and also consider whether this meets the requirements of Neutral Point Of View and Verifiability. zadignose 13:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --Tainter 15:31, 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. Nishkid 64 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn Dirty Apes[edit]

Completely non notable. "Damn Dirty Apes" gives many Google hits (many for a PC game of the same name, which also makes searching for Damn Dirty Apes plus World Of Warcraft difficult), but Damn Dirty Apes plus either of the authors gives only two relevant hits, one of them the homepage of the comic. [30] [31]. Since there is no evidence of any notability, it should be deleted. (Looking without the authors gives a few more hits, but on a site like TopWebComics.com, it gets 38 votes while the #1 gets over 400,000 votes[32] Other hits are self-inflicted [33] and so shouldn't count. Fram 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable web comic at all, and Google provides almost no relevant hits. Jayden54 16:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another blog site with a comic strip. Seems to be covered inWP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOTE, and WP:WEB. --JJLatWiki 16:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't pass WP:WEB. —MURGH ^disc. 17:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Planet of the Apes (1968 film) - No assertation of notability. DAMN YOU! YOU BLEW IT UP!!!! -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears non notable. It would be a good idea to make it a redirect as yukichigai listed above (that's what I thought the discussion was about when I first looked at it). --Nehrams2020 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability of webcomic is established.--Jersey Devil 04:39, 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 both. Nishkid 64 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Seedorf[edit]

Also Rahmlee Seedorf: Jürgen Seedorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD); Rahmlee Seedorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable football player. Matthew_hk t c 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability --Angelo 13:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - not notable per WP:BIO. Just being the brother of a "famous" person doesn't make these people notable either. Jayden54 15:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was amember of the youth teams of various notable Footbal organizations but the article notes he retired "having never played 1 match in professional football". His being an amateur athlete automatically eliminates any reason to keep this article. User:Dimadick
Delete both neither seem to have made it in the professional game. Qwghlm 16:38, 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 Merge. Cool Hand Luke 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanar (Star Trek)[edit]

Delete - These drinks certainly exist in the ST universe but in and of themselves are not particularly notable. Per WP:FICT they don't seem substantial enough to sustain individual articles. I would certainly be all right with a merge into a "List of Star Trek fictional beverages" article but if consensus is to delete I'm good with that. Otto4711 13:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating:[reply]

To clarify, I don't think the drinks are important enough to have a list article or I'd have done it myself, but if people want a list article I wouldn't oppose it. Otto4711 14:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Kanar as it only really impacted one series (DS9). But Keep Blood Wine, Romulan ale and Synthehol (especially Syntehol) as those beverages are mentioned and featured frequently throughout the Trek franchise. 23skidoo 14:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a single article on Star Trek beverages, or life in the Trek future, as that would probably be more useful at this point, and there's enough substance to their use in the series to keep at least some of these. FrozenPurpleCube 16:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even lumped together, I don't think "Star Trek beverages" would meet the threshold for notability. --EEMeltonIV 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that might be why it would be worth considering an article on life in the Trek future covering a variety of things like foods, drinks, even clothing. There's certainly enough hmm, widespread coverage of Star Trek that a variety of minor subtopics can fall under its umbrella. It'd be one thing if a substance only appeared in one episode, but with say, Sythehol, there's [34] [35] to give it real world context. Might even have been something in that William Shatner show on the History channel. FrozenPurpleCube 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My only concern with that is because there is such widespread coverage of "Life in the Trek future," any such article could become very long, necessitating section splits, and leaving us eventually back where we are right now. Wl219 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Klingon, Cardassian and Romulan beverages into respective speceies' articles. Not sure what to do about synthehol. --EEMeltonIV 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to separate species' articles per EEMelton. Do not delete this content outright. Walton monarchist89 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into something. Kanar can go as far as I care, but Kligon Blood Wine etc. are terms well known among lots of people and therefore deserve an article as having had an impact on the Real world. Much more then most episode articles in wikipedia TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps bring this to WikiProject Star Trek. They are reasonably active and I think they can deal with this pretty well. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television)

Keep or Merge. I think a "List of fictional beverages in Star Trek" can stand on its own, after you add in Raktajino and stuff that's been shown on only 1 episode (muskin seed punch, Slugo-Cola). Wl219 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and create redirects afterward) to List of fictional food and beverages in Star Trek. Had to throw food in there so we can add Hasperat (Bjoran food) and other stuff that is likely to be made/already have an article. VegaDark 06:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per the apparent merge consensus, I have gone ahead and created List of fictional foods and beverages in Star Trek. Wl219 10:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional foods and beverages in Star Trek (and give Wl219 a smile). I don't recall Kanar ever being much of a plot point but Romulan ale has a memorable appearence in Star Trek VI. Eluchil404 07:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chief King Records[edit]

Speedy removed; PROD removed by article creator. Non-notable record company. 0 relevant Ghits on "Chief King Records". Ghits on supposed producer Dubeatz = 0 from reliable sources (mostly myspace and similar). Ghits on name of founder Andrew Ilasa = 1 (photograph in private photo album). Ghits on supposed band behind first records ("The Quantize") = many, but none apparently about this band. Possible hoax? Robertissimo 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notbale record label. --Tainter 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:CORP and Google provides not even a single hit. Jayden54 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being non-notable as listed above. --RedHillian 17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also see Chief Lab Records - created by the same person Lugnuts 09:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the PROD gets removed, I would think that Chief Lab could be added to this AfD(same situation re: Ghits as "Chief King," and the other information is identical. In the meantime, I'll let PROD take its course. Robertissimo 13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 State of the Union Address[edit]

This article is inappropriate for inclusion for at least another eleven months, and it seems to fails a grand total of three policies. First, it runs counter to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, because it is covering future events that don't have an adequate amount of information provided about them as of yet. Secondly, it contains original research (forbidden by Wikipedia:no original research), because the article is based entirely on assumptions cobbled together from facts which haven't been connected by wikipedia:independent sources. Finally, the bulk of it is unverifiable, therefore (or is it thereby?) conflicting with wikipedia:verifiability. While some of the facts are verifiable, the ones directly about the speech are not.

It has prodded and deprodded by others. Finally, there are zero sources. While that isn't a reason for deletion itself, it's a sign this wasn't exactly written from published sources - backing up my previous three statements about the fact that it is in conflict with Wikipedia policy. Picaroon 17:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is absoloutley nothing that can be told about this speech now. Recreate next January. --Tone 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Phoenix2 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides, most of the article seems pretty obvious, so there's really no point in having it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.208.58 (talk • contribs) 18:13, January 24, 2007

Delete. Crystal ballism - the president does not always give a State of the Union address in the last calendar year of his term. --Transfinite 18:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --128.59.155.31 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate next year. --Daysleeper47 20:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate next year. --myselfalso 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crystal ballism, no real information --Cadby ^(talk) 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems fine as a template to me. Are we to delete articles on the 2008 presidential election and 2008 nominating conventions too? Edit away, but no real reason in my mind to delete. However, if there's any possibility it won't occur, then delete. But I think it will since Bush is president until Jan. 2009. Certainly he won't give one in '09, but I'm nearly certain he will in '08, with a year left to go in his term. Moncrief 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: but there is already verifiable, non-speculative information that can be posted about the election and the conventions. There is no way for anything to be written about the State of the Union address a year hence that cannot fail the Crystal Ball guideline. 23skidoo 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --gwc 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Moncrief --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because of its "one year from now" nature, it can contribute no new information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.78.230 (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your close attention to process, DumbBOT. Picaroon 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too premature. Impossible to write without loading with speculation, Crystal Ball, POV, etc. As noted by me above, there is no way to compare this to the 2008 elections or conventions, for which verifiable information is already available. We won't know anything about the 2008 speech until he gives it. 23skidoo 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now) There's only one thing you can verifiably say about the 2008 state of the union address - currently President Bush is expected to deliver it. That's it. You're not going to find any published articles about anything else worth saying about it yet. Delete, and recreate in January 2008 when there is more published information to relay. Dugwiki 20:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This entry doesn't require a placeholder. And it's weird. And crytsal ballish. -Caliwiki123 20:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and don't forget the redirects. This article may easily be recreated at such time as the speech itself begins to get coverage, which is almost never before fall. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki. The only thing we can say for certain is that it will happen. We can't even guarantee right now (given the vagaries of life) that Bush will be the speaker. --Charlene 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article does not violate the "not a crystal ball" policy, which allows a future event "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics." The State of the Union address, mandated by the Constitution, is as certain to occur as the presidential election, and will take place months earlier. It garners press coverage worldwide and so is obviously notable. Fg2 01:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points. In order for your vote to be counted as Keep, please change your vote from "Comment" to "Keep." And a poorly written article isn't an excuse for deletion, in my opinion, if the subject itself deserves a page. Bad articles can always be edited. Moncrief 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the comment made before: this is still a notable event that doesn't violate any policy about future events. There just isn't enough information to make an article on it yet. ShadowMan1od 01:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a crystal ball article.--Jersey Devil 04:35, 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. Nishkid 64 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 16 April 1695[edit]

I think this battle never happened Filiep 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It probably didn't happen. From the article HMS Intrepid: "The first Intrepid was a third rate ship of the line captured from the French in 1747" -- before the supposed date of this battle in which Intrepid was captured by the French. -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified. From above, it appears that it would be impossible to verify. If somehow it should be, then the title needs a drastic change. Agent 86 19:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V unless historical sources can be found. Walton monarchist89 19:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ as SpookyMulder (talk · contribs) appears to be an editor in good standing who continues to edit naval historical articles, so I don't think it's a hoax. It may not be notable, however, so we should ask for references. --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to delete after e-mail with author, who assents to deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 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. W.marsh 15:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Strategic Command[edit]

Re-listing after a botched bundled nom. Can't find any evidence of notability, so I request deletion. ♠P M C♠ 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources, no notability. There were a good few google results[36] (I was searching with the criteria 'review'), though I note that even my specified search turned up another game [37] which may account for some of them. Very open to keeping should reliable secondary sources be shown. QuagmireDog 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created it myself as spur-of the moment, since it didn't seem harmful to Wikipedia at the time. --Planetary 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per Planetary the article's creator. Now meets WP:SNOW. Ronbo76 14:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 50k Google hits, and as far as I can tell, all results from the first Google page are about this one. It's a notable freeware game.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, stub that hasnt progressed, and no serious reviews in the first 30 hits so it probably wont pass WP:SOFTWARE. John Vandenberg 12:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. John Vandenberg 13:46, 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 keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armagetron Advanced[edit]

Re-listing after a botched bundled nomination. Can't find any evidence of notability as Wikipedia defines it, so I request deletion. ♠P M C♠ 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB; no evidence of independent third-party coverage (fansites don't really count). Walton monarchist89 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Apple provides downloadable packages for this game, which goes a long way towards meeting one of the proposed criteria on WP:SOFT. [38] John Vandenberg 12:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. John Vandenberg 13:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counter Argument: Just to point out that since Armagetron Advanced has superceeded the original Armagetron project, the Armagetron entry redirects to the Armagetron Advanced entry. Since Armagetron was included on many linux distribution install cd sets, it counts as having distributed through a well known medium independent of the Authours, as per the Wikipedia Notability definition. A list of independent packages: http://rpmseek.com/rpm-pl/armagetron.html?hl=com&cx=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.228.169 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 January 2007
Most distributions have upgraded their installed Armagetron to 0.2.7.1, which is the second release under the name Armagetron Advanced. Mandriva and Kubuntu (therefore, Ubuntu as well) and Gentoo have all been spotted by developers as having upgraded to 0.2.7.0 or higher. It takes time, and Armagetron Advanced hasn't been around that long compared to the original Armagetron project. I'd also like to point out that many notable open source games aren't going to have any third-party distribution, and are going to struggle to meet the letter of the notability policy. That's because while many open source games have significant following, few, if any, ever appear anywhere else. Packages to Linux distributions are largely maintained by someone within each game project, (with a few exceptions, such as Mandriva and Ubuntu). I think the list of games that were nominated by PMC for the most part should either not be deleted, or should be exempted from the notability requirement because there is a sizeable community built around each of them. --70.244.120.143 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the newcomers, welcome! If any of the newcomers are part of the Armagetron Advanced project, please read conflict of interest; it doesnt preclude you from participating in this Afd process, but it nice to alert others who you are.
The point about distribution is well made. "143.167.228.169", you have claimed that Armagetron Advanced superceeded the Armagetron project -- can you provide evidence of that, either by:

showing it is a fork of the original codebase
demonstrating that the same developers have migrated to the new project
the new project is feature-compatible with the earlier project
a distro dropped the earlier project at the same time they picked up the Advanced project
some other way that I havent thought of

In addition to that, to bulster the chances of this article being kept, please find some independent reviews of either the original or the Advanced version. (read WP:V to determine what you need to look for). Note that user-contributed directory listings like [39] are not enough. John Vandenberg 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the original Armagetron front page (points to advanced), original Armagetron project page (points to advanced, developer overlap) and Armagetron Advanced project page (developer overlap). The source code of 0.2.6.0 (final original release, besides the 0.2.6.1 security-related update) and 0.2.7.0 (first advanced release) should be nearly identical, etc.
I'm not an AA dev although not too far from it. I suspect the people above without accounts are on the team. --Jonathanvt 07:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I (143.167.228.169) am one of the Armagetron Advanced project administrators, I go by the name of Tank Program within the Armagetron community. I was previously unaware of the conflict of interest guidelines as I have not previously contributed to Wikipedia. In that light, please treat my comments as someone who wishes for the article to remain in place and is willing to support its retainment with supporting evidence. To be honest, I am unaware of Armagetron appearing in any major publication. Most reviews that can be found come in the form of blog entries, forum entries or small site reviews. This suggests Armagetron follows more a word of mouth pattern, where a person hears from a friend and shows the game to another friend. Some examples:

Also, though this isn't a fantastic selling point, Armagetron Advanced does pop up in security advisories ocaisonally. Luigi Auriemma has devoted time to scanning Armagetron Advanced for security holes and consequently advisories have popped up in several locations:

http://www.securiteam.com/windowsntfocus/5JP0A15EVO.html http://www.frsirt.com/english/vendor/256 http://secunia.com/advisories/21093

Furthermore, packet capture utility Wireshark also has an Armagetron Advanced display filter (http://www.wireshark.org/docs/dfref/a/armagetronad.html) contributed by Guillaume Chazarain (http://wireshark.osmirror.nl/lists/ethereal-dev/200505/msg05740.html) a developer independent from the Armagetron Advanced project. Looking through the complete list of such filters, there are very few other network game filters, the only other one I could see was for Quake3.
Thanks guys. Any chance one of you can upload a screenshot of "Walls" and/or one of the original game, for old times sake. Let me know the filename.
Ok, I vote keep on this one. The original sf.net project was started in 2000 and after what appears to be an amicable fork the team have continued under the new name; it is carried in a number of distributions and being offered on the Apple site as an OS X download is pretty notable IMO; finally, a few of those reviews are independent and more than directory entries (I've added three to the article). Having security advisories and a Wireshark filter already is pretty nifty really; it shows that this game is being used in the dungeons while the vampires wait for their wings to dry out. Whats more, the developers who have joined us on this Afd have been pretty level headed. Also, its available via Linspire's Click'N'Run [40]. John Vandenberg 13:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note about OS X download on Apple site: anyone can add programs there, so it's one of those directories.
The graphics didn't change much with the advanced fork (mostly textures at some point). Only the window title of this article's screenshot shows that it's most likely of the original and not an early advanced. It also shows a messed up renderer and rather ugly texture filtering settings, so it should probably be replaced by a quality screenshot.
As for screenshots of Walls, there are a few very old screenshots buried in the original web pages. They might be of Walls or something not much newer. To be sure we need an answer from the person who put them there. I'll ask. --Jonathanvt 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self: look at the title ("Walls: Screenshots") next time. --Jonathanvt 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Armagetron Advanced appeared in http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=8&cId=3156339 - an article that, in turn, appeared in the print publication "Games For Windows: The Official Magazine". While the article was only a summary list of free games, AA was present (listed as "Armagetron" but with a file link to "Armagetron Advanced"). -- Pxtl
- Written sources must be non-trivial, that is, they must have a "depth of content...exclusive of mere directory entry information, [that] directly it addresses the subject" (WP:NOTE). The article was only a summary list, thus, a mention doesn't meet the criteria for a valid, non-trivial source. ♠P M C♠ 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - reviews are good enough sources... Addhoc 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mainly because it is widely available, a bit cult, game, which is related to a definately cult movie Tron. From my perspective, I always knew that playing tron 3d was available under Linux thanks to Armagetron. SalvNaut 00:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Vaughan[edit]

Was listed early on during Vaughan's term of office but the discussion generated no consensus. Former chairs of party's youth wings don't meet the Wikipedia thresholds for notability - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Bristow and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donal Blaney. Timrollpickering 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided The notability shouldn't change just because he is out of office, but should he ever have been judged to be notable? The prior AfD was pretty balanced pro & con. I sould say keep if the article had credible references, but I'm not inspired to do the research. --Kevin Murray 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now anyway. If he ends up becoming non-notable then delete, but you never know. David 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is not an office conferring automatic notability. Recreate when career becomes notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "If be becomes non-notable, then delete"? He is already non notable. Chairman of a youth wing of a political party is hardly notable. Resolute 08:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article about unremarkable subject.WindsorFan 09:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurolinguistics[edit]

This article is identical to the second half of the article Languages of Europe. The article in itself is badly written and full of unsourced statements and original research, but it is because it already appears on Wikipedia that I have nominated it for deletion. JdeJ 15:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the main author of the article so let me add a few comments here. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was gonna say speedy redirect if the content is identical, but quick search tells me that this is topic at at least two German universities (U Mannheim, KU Eichstett), so this might be worthy of further investigation. I'm adding this to the WP:SCI test cases. ~ trialsanderrors 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only a topic at these two universities, but also at the universities of Freiburg, Berlin, Regensburg, Passau, Frankfurt (Oder) and a number of universities outside Germany. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say the article can stand as is with citations forthcoming with Languages of Europe being the main page. It may not seem it now, but I'm sure sources can be found to validate such a topic. SynergeticMaggot 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've now added sources at the beginning of each of my sections. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tricky issue. If this is a topic at some universities, it can be worth an article. But the article as it is, it is almost useless. Filled with errors and highly speculative. Perhaps the heading can be kept, but the text should be deleted. Making minor edits to a text this bad is not going to help much.Dusis 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added quite a number of concrete sources now at the beginning of each section. Moreover, the link to the plattform EuroLinguistiX (ELiX) had already been there. Readers could find over 20-something-page long bibliography of articles and books on various Eurolinguistic issues. I hope this shows that, as a matter of fact, nothing is speculative. If you find any errors, please tell me. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced original research and pure garbage at that. Only people who use the Latin alphabet are truly European? Yeah, right. This page is little more than a collection of errors and POV violations with no scholarly basis. The subject is so Mickey Mouse I suggest a merge with Eurodisney.--Folantin 10:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of aspects in your comment.

1. If you think that drawing an intersection from various sources on individual languages and language groups is original research, then the some of the points are original research. But then my understanding of OR has been different so far.

2. I can understand if Wikipedians are a bit worried if they see too much quoted from author's own books. I have therefore added a number of other sources now plus two reviews on my own book, which show you that it's not garbage.

3. Nowhere do I claim that using the Latin alphabet makes somebody European. I have simply given a current definition that is based on a whole series of cultural-anthropological features. If you're more happy with a well-known name, then let me just point out Huntington (I have added his name and book in the article).

4. I don't see the concrete POV violations. I don't evaluate in the article, I just observe and describe -- I'm a linguist. I don't see where the lack of basis should be unless you mean a lack of sources (which I have now added apart from my book).

Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - virtually unsourced, Wikipedia is not a place for academics to write up yesterday's lecture. Complete essay. WP:OR and WP:NFT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are now given. It's not yesterday's lecture, it's my everyday work. And it's many other linguists' work.-Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This word looks like a WP:NEO with only ~900 hits, but as Trialsanderrors has pointed out, it is being used in scientific fields (inc. conferences and journal names, and 20 scholar hits). I don't see any discussion yet on Wikipedia talk:Notability (science). John Vandenberg 12:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me only remind you that the term is not coined by myself, but was coined in 1991 by Norbert Reiter (as I've already written in the article). -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep First of all, it is not identical or even a rewrite of the 2nd half of Languages of Europe, but a considerable expansion, and undoubtedly worth an article, as this is a large subject. Not being an expert on the subject, i cannot tell to what extent it represents a different sub-discipline. The content looks solid and academic, at least to a non-expert. But i do know that it is unreferenced by any standard, regardless of subject. The way to show that sources can be found is to start finding them now and put them in. Certainly the first step is some general references.

If this is not an alternative and unrecognized theory, surely any of the books on the subject that are appropriate can be given. if it is an unrecognized theory, it still must be represented by more than the one book presently there. And if it is of this status, the differences from the standard view of the subject should be explicitly shown, to guide the outsiders to the field, with the proper balance. The way to deal with errors and speculations is to discuss them on the talk page, not here. DGG 21:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I hope that with my additions of sources, I have improved the article. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep It is definitely not identical to the second half of Languages of Europe. If it is badly written or if someone does not agree with the definition of Europe given in the article, the talk page should be the place to discuss this. Calling someone's research "pure garbage" without any investigation while at the same time criticizing the article for lacking a scholarly basis, does injustice to the Wiki-community. But that's just my two cent, of course. Susan 217.250.55.4 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. If indeed somebody feels that there are any language errors, just tell me. I have had the article read by a native before I placed it on Wikipedia, but not all errors might have been deleted. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's the inclusion of articles like this that does "injustice to the Wiki-community". The valid linguistic information in this piece is available elsewhere on Wikipedia. The way it is stitched together here either constitutes original research or gives undue weight to a fringe theory. This page is completely unreferenced and I could cover the whole article with "citation needed" tags. The onus is not on me but the article's authors to provide proper sources, especially for the controversial claims this page makes. --Folantin 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the word "fringe theory": I don't put up any theory; I just describe the facts as far as they are known to us. Again, if you think that a synopsis and synthesis of facts is original research, then yes, some of the information given in the article (namely the one on communicative strategies) has been "synthesized" by myself and is in this sense OR. But most points are already common knowledge. Again, to show this I have now indicated a number of sources (including encyclopedias). -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is not so much the English used in the article (I'm not a native speaker, mind you, so others may disagree). The main problem is all the factual errors and dubious statements made in the article. Dusis 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where you've detected factual errors. The facts presented are mostly based on other researchers' studies (I've now quoted the most important ones). Maybe you could give me a few more hints. -Sinatra 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks are due to Sinatra / Joachim Grzega for pointing out that he is the main author of the article. I'm afraid that that makes the quality of the article all the more dubious, as the main author frequently uses himself as the source.Dusis 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never quite understood the fear of many Wikipedians if somebody quotes from his/her own (expert) research as long as it's facts that are presented and not just guesses or evaluations. And again, I'm nut putting up any theory. Please note also that I've pointed out two reviews where my book is seen in a positive light. I'm really not keen on doing PR for my own book. I just want to offer and share my expert knowledge with Wikipedia users and contribute the results that (also my own) academic research has brought to light. But in case you would be happier if I quoted my own works less frequently, I could do so. -Sinatra 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possibly trim to the level of the German version, which seems a much better starting point for a balanced article). Factual inaccuracies are a content issue, AfD is to establish notability. There is enough academic activity around this topic, esp. in Germany, to consider it notable. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I originally had. But then I thought that I could also share the knowledge of Eurolinguistic studies with Wikipedia users, incl. my own studies (because with quite a number of aspects I am the one who has come up with a synopsis and synthesis of individual facts). Of course I think it would be a pity to delete all the information, but if the majority thinks it should be crossed out I will accept it. (Just one question: would it help if somebody else inserted the same information?) -Sinatra 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, we don't delete here, we hide things in the edit history until they're sourced. Given the number of "source" and "dubious" tags it might be better to grow the article organically, and to state claims when they can be sourced, rather than to have a lengthy article full of post-it notes with question marks. Since you're the author of the book, that puts you in a bit of a WP:COI situation, although we're loath to run experts out of town. But as an expert you should also have access to what others have written on the topic, and in case of doubt refer to their work rather than your own. It's always a question of balance, and when the notability of a field is somewhat doubtful articles that make excessive use of personal sources tend to raise suspicions. ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The article requires a complete rewrite, however I'm not convinced with the list and then article format of Languages of Europe. Addhoc 20:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. A Train ^{take the} 17:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fuller[edit]

Prod expired, but article has too much claim of notability (especially in history), for me to be willing to deleted on a prod of "Unnotable 23-year-old private citizen, does not appear to meet WP:BIO". The article doesn't show that he meets WP:BIO, but I'm not convinced anyone has really tried. Last paragraph has troubles with WP:SELF, but that is not a basis for deletion. GRBerry 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't really appear to be that notable to be honest, and doesn't pass WP:BIO. Lacks any reliable sources as well. Jayden54 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - may be notable as he works for a major radio station, but needs more reliable sources to demonstrate recognition of notability. Walton monarchist89 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - very marginally notable, maybe, but as Walton monarchist89 mentions, not enough sourcing to be sure. Also, from the last paragraph, doesn't sound like he's too happy about having an article (not that that would be a reason to delete). delldot | talk 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with what has been said above, but draw the conclusion that notability is there. The lack of sources is casue for research not deletion. --Kevin Murray 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really notable as a radio personality or journalist. Certainly no WP:RS compliance demonstrated. --Dhartung | Talk 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far far far below standards of notability. Where are secondary sources talking about this person, who comments on sports on a radio show once a month? Pete.Hurd 23:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:39, 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. Admin rationale on Afd talk page. A Train ^{take the} 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Ton Hammer[edit]

Deleted once as A7 and G11, now re-created with assertions of notability in the form of passing mentions in some external media. No evidence presented of substantive coverage in reliable independent sources, Google shows only around a hundred hits for the exact text. Article reads as WP:OR, site forum includes the usual garbage (http://forums.tentonhammer.com/showthread.php?p=32565). Apparently they are watching me; I wouldn't want to disappoint them. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm a third party proponent. I use Ten Ton Hammer as a source for many of the MMO's that I participate in. It is accurate and reliable. Yes, it has forums, but many places that are listed here have forums as well as content. TTH articles themselves are not OR, but well documented with references to other articles. I find I link to many other sites listed in their articles during the course of my time spent on TTH. I am not a paid employee. I am volunteering my time to see that a valuable resource be included in the Wikipedia. It would be a shame to not include this type of resource in this encyclopedia. It's larger and more helpful than the other two sites mentioned below. --Zannniee 17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Indeed we are JzG. *smiles* Anyway, you should not redelete the page, as there are sites of comparable size and stature (Stratics and Warcry) that have pages on the Wiki and are not being threatened with deletion. We are still looking for clarification on several issues brought up in the "discussion" section of the page that have not been addressed. I'll reask here: would being considered an "affiliated" website (a status symbol) be the equivalent of a notable award. There are several gaming companies that consider Ten Ton Hammer "affiliated". We are collecting quotes from their community managers as we speak. Micajah (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- ~~Cleanup & Neutral for now~~ WarCry is AfD too right now, but I've been working to find and add proper references for it to show its notability per WP:WEB. If someone could do the same thing with TTH, I think that'd go a long way towards establishing notability. And clean up the article to be a bit more neutral too, right now, it reads like an ad/press release. :) Shrumster 12:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Weak~~ Keep. Cleaned up some stuff, added a reference or two, but it does need more references. And serious rewriting of some of the parts. I've already started NPOV-ing the thing, need some help rephrasing some stuff to make them not sound like a promotional thingy. To the TTH people here, if you guys are serious about the entry, please look for some 3rd-party references and add them to the article. Shrumster 17:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Site's verifiable and notable enough for me now. While there's a lot of WP:COI going on here, I think the article is moving towards NPOV now. Cleaned up the links and references, could use some more.Shrumster 20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hello, Nicole Hamlett here, I work for the aforementioned insubstantiated network. It appears that our Affiliation with Sigil Games is not a valid indication that we are a credible source for MMO news etc. If I may, could I please have a direct list of things that we need to do as a company to validate our existence within these pages? Thank you. -- unsigned comment left on 18:38, 25 January 2007 by 75.70.215.55 (Talk)

Hi Nicole, I did initiate an AfD for WarCry (website) actually, but since then some reasonable references have been found for it. As I mention below, the guideline for notability is at WP:WEB, thanks. Marasmusine 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Danny Gourley here. I also work for Ten Ton Hammer. I find it interesting that so much effort is being made to keep this entry from existing. I mean, I can use Wikipedia to find an exact recipe for how to make crack cocaine, but the information on TTH is deemed to have too little value to be here? Just tell us what hoops we have to jump through to impress you guys as much as Bees_wax and Chewing_gum and we'll get it to you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.70.215.55 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hallo Danny, the information I've been working from is at WP:WEB, thanks. Marasmusine 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Marasmusine 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read this page and the article talk page. I'm sorry, but I do not think the site meets WP:WEB. I further think it always bad form when the site owners rather than third parties are the proponents of the keep argument. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm third party. I just enjoy their site and the information available. I'm the individual who originally constructed the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Micajah (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - article needs evidence of coverage from reliable sources other than the creator's own website. Walton monarchist89 19:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no independent references The only reference provided in the article is the Ten Ton website. The article needs to provide independent, external published references talking about Ten Ton. If good references can be provided, then I'll reconsider the possibility of keeping. Dugwiki 20:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy No evedence of meeting WP:WEB or even coming close. Based on the forum thread they seem to see having a WP article as an advertisement or trophy. How wrong they are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references are extremely minimal and insufficient to establish notability; plus a clear conflict of interest. — brighterorange (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete: Fails WP:WEB; it's just another game site that lacks reliable sources to back up it's notability. Based on the comments in this debate, there are two things I should mention: Firstly, please read WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you like it and find it useful does not mean it should have its own article on Wikipedia. I like the picture frame on my wall, but that doesn't mean I should make an article about it. Secondly, looking at the comments by some of the TTH staff, it seems there is a conflict of interest. Be aware that Wikipedia records what is verifiable; it does not record everything in existence. Please do not use Wikipedia is a media for promoting your site. --Scottie theNerd 05:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's steadily improving at least. Still needs more work and more sources. --Scottie theNerd 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Participants please note that failing WP:WEB (or any notability guideline) is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Only articles with no (verifiable) assertion of notability may be speedied. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As mentioned earlier, TTH staff participants should be aware of the guidelines in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This doesn't mean that TTH staff input is not valued, just that it can't be treated as an unbiased source. Nor does it mean that TTH is in any way a poorly run site, just that its encyclopedic value (see WP:WEB) has not been verified by a reliable third-party source. --Alan Au 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm in no way affiliated with anyone to do with gaming, except I bought a Wii for my niece. It does seem that TTH is being regularly covered or republished by IGN "Ten Ton Hammer" site:ign.com (e.g. [41]), which could assist them cross the WP:WEB line by way of criteria 3. If this was to be kept, it would need to grow a lot of reliable sources rather quickly. If the TTH staff wanted to do this, I suggest they find the best five sources from the most notable sources (i.e. no forums, and try to find sources where the author has a real persons name), and include them on the talk page. If they are not publicly accessible, please provide explicit details on how the article can be found (title, date, author, etc), as we have people here who have access to LexisNexis, but you need to do the grunt work so they can verify the article in a few minutes. John Vandenberg 14:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ok, cleaned up the article's other sections, reworded POV stuff into NPOV with references. Shrumster 16:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per obvious notability. This page is a known underground hangout for 3rd party MMO guys. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. BTW, just realized that perhaps the article should be moved to Ten Ton Hammer (website) since it seems more appropriate? Shrumster 09:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isnt appropriate; see WP:NAME. Note that the name of the article isnt being discussed here, it is the content; see WP:Afd and WP:DEL. John Vandenberg 12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, when I went to look at the page I wasn't expecting that to be my argument, but it appears relatively NPOV. Several sources are cited, some of them are not very substantial mentions, but it appears some of them are. Forum garbage aside, it appears this one's notable. Seraphimblade 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train ^{take the} 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quil Ceda Village[edit]

Article is a description of a shopping mall currently in development. I do not think it is notable nor necessary for this encyclopedia. Beltz 11:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although some may disagree that shopping centres are notible enough to deserve individual entries, one that has not been built yet surely does not meet this criteria •CHILLDOUBT• 12:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Davidbober 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, from User:Asian69 who posted on the talk page only. Here is what he wrote there: I believe this article is essential for Wikipedia. One reason is that Quil Ceda Village is becoming Washington's state top tourist attractions, and I feel that information needs to be provided about major tourist destinations on Wikipedia for the general public to research about this tourist location. Second, the sheer size of Quil Ceda Village and its anchors (like the Seattle Premium Outlets, big-box retailers, and the casino-hotel resort calls for attention on Wikipedia. I hope you the editors will not delete this article for this and many more reasons.
Delete Future attractions should not be documented in WP ('Wikipedia is not a crystal ball'). I could imagine that a good article might be written about a shopping center, but this would not be it. EdJohnston 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, [42][43][44] and it seems to be a bonified locality with its own government body called the Consolidated Borough of Quil Ceda Village, which makes it inherently notable [45]. --Oakshade 01:23, 25 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, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? --Oakshade 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade; meets primary notability criterion as Oakshade's sources prove. schi ^talk 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Definitely notable, but article seriously needs editing. The article still does not contain an assertion of notability, even though the references show that it is notable. Argyriou (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it does look more like an article about a shopping mall than a community. --Dhartung | Talk 22:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Looking at the refs, its a shopping mall which seems to have organized as a community (or vice versa) in order to keep at least some of its own sales taxes. Not notable as either.DGG 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- This rings of WP:I Don't Like It. It adheres to the prime qualification of WP:Notability. If it's not notable then it wouldn't have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the primary WP gauge for notability. Just because an editor doesn't like the reasons for its notability doesn't make it non-notable. Besides, it's an actual municipality (see reference above). --Oakshade 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: We have an article on Colma, don't we? Argyriou (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, actually, whether it's an important village or not (and real places are generally notable by default), the political ramifications (state sales tax tussle) should be sufficient to establish notability. The outcome could have national implications. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More sources from a wide range of publications both for and against: innovations.harvard.edu, seattle.bizjournals.com, indiancountry.com, soundpolitics.com, marysvilletulalipchamber.com, and leg.wa.gov. John Vandenberg 14:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:24, 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, BTW. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link Community School[edit]

No assertion of notability. Spammy copyvio from here as well. Hús ö nd 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most schools wouldn't pass WP:N and nothing indicates this one is an exception. Lexis-Nexis shows a handful of passing mentions. Didn't wade through all the 213 unique Google hits but the first few are directory-type entries, nothing we could use to write a WP article. Pan Dan 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well written and meets WP:SCHOOLS criteria for inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Comment) WP:SCHOOLS has been labelled "rejected," but anyway, how does Link meet WP:SCHOOLS? Pan Dan 02:50, 25 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, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above keep votes.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just one.--Hús ö nd 17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well written and notable for the community in which it is in. Reads a little too much like advertising, but editing is the answer for that, not deletion. Caper13 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete absolutely no reason why it should be considered notable except those applying to all schools indiscriminatelyDGG 02:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as copyvio from school's own website even going back to the earliest versions in the wiki page history. That would explain why it's well written. Tagged the article. DMacks 06:46, 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 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Index[edit]

Non notable PR puffery translated into an article. Do we now reward adept PR people with articles? This is a non notable, here today gone tomorrow initiative, most recently of an Australian bank, previously possibly of some other bank. It has little or no merit, and is only notable in terms of lazy media swallowing in full the "interesting" press release to get a few easy column inches. What next on wikipedia? Rollerskating ducks?. A Press Release to Article API?

Delete --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Absolute crap. --- RockMFR 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --BenWhitey 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - currently fails WP:V; needs sources to prove that this index is in wide use. If no sources are provided, delete. Walton monarchist89 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge parts of it into the Big Mac index TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO. (There is no need to rant and rail in nominations, it often works against you.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources to pass WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 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 redirect/merge. W.marsh 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprout crumble[edit]

Delete - non-notable fictional food item that apparently plays a role in one episode. Unsourced. If there's an article about the specific Red Dwarf episode then it can be merged and redirected there. Otto4711 20:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia -- Whpq 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quarantine (Red Dwarf episode) - Also, merge the non-OR, non-speculation content. That leaves all of one sentence, but still, probably worth putting in the episode article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the one utile sentence into Quarantine (Red Dwarf episode) and jettison the rest. SkierRMH 05:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete The food appears outside of the episode, so it would probably be unwise to do a redirect. ShadowHalo 10:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quarantine (Red Dwarf episode). "Sprout crumble" has no significance at all in the episode/series. mikm_t 05:37, 25 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, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the episode article TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:45, 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 many sources, none reliable. ~ trialsanderrors 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jun (musician)[edit]

Alleged pre-debut album member of Japanese band X Japan. No reliable sources have been presented to confirm involvement with the group, no mention of that person on the band's or any of the verfied members' official websites. Hence notability in general very questionable. Cyrus XIII 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Japanese wikipedia article on X Japan (ja:X JAPAN) mentions Jun as a guitarist when they were an indy band, and there is an article (ja:高井寿) about him. Perhaps to be taken with a grain of salt, as there is just two anonymous IP editors who worked on the Japanese bio article. Neier 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And, even more so, as the references to Jun in X JAPAN (Japanese wikipedia) were all added just four days ago. Neier 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure whether I am reading this right but hasn't this article already been considered for deletion at some point but the respective tag was quickly removed by the anonymous article creator without any comment? Anyway, this could very well be a case where information is transfered from one Wikipedia to another without considering its validity. - Cyrus XIII 13:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that looks like a speedy deletion tag. Via Amazon, I could verify that the part about 高井寿 writing several instructional guitar books is true; but, that alone would not pass WP:BIO. A WP:V reference that puts him in X Japan at any point is needed, to keep the article. Neier 14:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This will change this trouble, Jun's official website: http://www.geocities.jp/takaihisashi2005/ , you're happy now? :) Darkcat21 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, not happy yet. This page is not WP:V as described by Cyrus below. I can make a geocities page that puts me as the keyboardist of X, and that would be just as verifiable. Neier 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) WP:V says the following about this kind of source: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. And the absence of any confirmation regarding an involvement of this Jun character on the band's or any of known members' websites (such as www.hide-city.com or www.yoshiki.net) further weakens any claims this GeoCities page might make. - Cyrus XIII 21:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do I have to link to some videos that you can see Jun? 81.184.83.200 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you aware that weighing in on a discussion both with a registered account and an IP could be considered sock puppetry? Because I find it quite peculiar that pretty much all IPs recently used in X Japan related content disputes originate from Spain (Barcelona area), the country Darkcat21 has previously stated to be from.[46] - Cyrus XIII 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I'm that IPs, but I just add stuff from school, anyway you're trying to avoid the official website, or whatever? Check the X Japan discussion, please. Darkcat21 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copied over from Talk:X Japan in order to focus discussion on the matter on a single page:

You are missing the point. This best source (as I have stated numerous times by now) does not qualify as a reliable source per WP:RS, it is self-published material, neither backed by the official website of the band nor those of the former members which we can be certain about. The other references you have introduced in this dispute are no better, as they all rely on user contributed content. Given that the flow of information between Japan and the band's non-Japanese fans is not only hampered by the years which have passed since the group's split but also a considerable language barrier, widespread gossip and misinformation would come as no surprise. Any further discussion on this particular matter should take place on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jun (musician). ~ Cyrus XIII 00:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that the Geocities page is mine? Look: http://www.kellysimonz.com/j_index/index.html Kelly Simonz's official pages he linkes to my site!! wow!, look: http://www.kyosoku.com/product_01.html#kd001 this page, if you see at the bottom you'll see a small biography of Jun, it says X, wow! Takeshi Hada also links to Jun's official webiste: http://home.netyou.jp/ff/rain/link.html, come on! it's official that site, lot of japanese bands create their own webiste, and they host it in free servers. Darkcat21 13:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of all the sources offered, none seem to meet WP:RS. ShadowHalo 17:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, finally and with lot of help I have got the reliable sources you have said.

Rommel, was a japanese band, Jun or Shu or H. Takai was one of their members (you can see also this in his OFFICIAL webpage), well, look at this: http://www.rockdetector.com/officialbio,41051.sm;jsessionid=1342D8071BA23965902521B05A61684A Rommel information from Rockdetector a copyrighted news article webpage.

Frontman "Shu" (Hisashi Takai) had credits with EMPEROR and X.

OK, then we have Extasy Records official webpage (http://www.extasyrecords.co.jp/eng/company/index.html) look what it says:

1986.04 Establish EXTASY RECORDS upon releasing X' new single, [ORGASM]

Then you check the Wikipage about this: Orgasm_(song) oh, look at the cover there's a guy at the right, who is he? JUN. (you can also check this in his official website). Do I have to say more? You can see, copyrighted webpages talk about Jun, and lot of more sites also, as you can see the 4 ciations I added yesterday in the main article (X Japan). Darkcat21 19:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what Rockdetector's FAQ has to say about the origin of its content:

CAN I CONTRIBUTE TO ROCKDETECTOR?
Yes you can. We are always on the look out for people with specialist knowledge, solid writing skills, dedication and enthusiasm.
WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION?
Direct from bands, labels, PR companies, contributors and twenty years of information gathering.

So basicly this site is yet another unfit source, as it relies on user contributed content, just like Wikipedia. Same goes for the supposed cover scan you mentioned, its origin and authenticity cannot be verified by existence alone. See this policy regarding the viability of images as sources. - Cyrus XIII 20:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read this also by the way: http://www.geocities.jp/takaihisashi2005/QUESTION.html, really this is one of the most stupid situations since I'm on Wikipedia, I find stupid how people can say that this man doesn't exists, really I don't understand it. Darkcat21 20:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know he exists. The problem is that there are no reliable sources that establish his notability or tell us about him. You may want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (music) to find out more. ShadowHalo 22:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have here a chinese site (I guess) talking about Jun: http://pos.vvpo.com/type-yd.asp?CID=37240, you can see he's a former member of X Japan. Then another apge: http://moidixmois.altervista.org/members.htm, read. Or this: http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/groupe-groupe-Gyorai-l-fr.html Darkcat21 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More self-published/user contributed content and in case of vvpo.com I am having trouble to even verify what the page does and where it gets any of its artist related information. - Cyrus XIII 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep on findind sources, and if the articles is deleted I'll create it again. Bt the way check the chinese page they also cite the GeoCities site as official, well is officil, you may know that lot of japanese indie acts host their pages in this kind of servers. Darkcat21 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Practically announcing to disregard any consensus reached in this discussion, should you find it unfavorable, might not be a good idea. And you also do not seem to have read, understood or cared about the numerous Wikipedia policies which have previously been mentioned here by me and the other editors. - Cyrus XIII 20:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kyosoku.com/ [1984年に東京に上京し、X、ROMMEL、EMPEROR等のバンドで活動]
http://rittor-music.co.jp/hp/books/guitar1_data/05217205.htm [1985年にエックス（後のX Japan）に加入し「EP／オルガズム」に参加するが一年後に脱退。] (If you put CD Japan as a cource, you may also accept this)
http://moco.moo.jp/colobamilkbar/i/prof_aki.html [高井寿（ex-X]

Darkcat21 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I still see no reliable sources, but even if I did take the citations to be reliable, I don't think that he would pass notability. Dekimasu 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No notabilty? haha, well if you actually remove the article someone will create it again, he's a Japanese musician, he released an album, he had a solo career, he was in other bands like Rommel, etc. Darkcat21 12:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But none of those things are mentioned in the article. I do not object to a well-sourced article that shows notability, but this is not it. If there was an assertion of notability here, then we could get back to talking about WP:V. Dekimasu 13:16, 21 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, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source is not reliable.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:44, 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 delete but redirect. W.marsh 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-American philosophy[edit]

Dubious POV fork/original research written by someone using Wikipedia to grind some axe about the distinction between analytic philosophy/continental philosophy. There is nothing in this article which constitutes real, verified fact that is not subject to interpretation, and what little might be salvaged can be put elsewhere. Rosenkreuz 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participants should vote "delete", "keep", or make a comment. "Support" is ambiguous. --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The three short paragraphs which constitute the stub are all inaccurate and would need to be rewritten from scratch. I posted the reasons on the Talk page [[47]]. I also can't see the need for the article unless British and American philosophy are not going to be treated anywhere else on Wiki. If they are, then an improved article would just be duplicative. KD Tries Again 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD Tries AgainKD[reply]
Delete: Needless to say. It is strangely written, inaccurate, and based on the eccentric and idiosyncratic thesis that geographical differences underlie philosophical ones. (Differences of language and culture maybe, geography, no). Dbuckner
Support for Delete per all above. Johnbod 17:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (support) per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOR; entire article is original research. Walton monarchist89 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fork per above. Linguistic distinction unsupportable. Even the content contradicts the title! "English-speaking countries of North and Central America" - I don't know where the author has been, but Spanish is spoken in Central America, Portuguese and Spanish in South America, and French is spoken in the most populated portion of Canada. Here in the U.S., English is the language of business but most products are turning bilingual (English/Spanish) due to massive immigration from Mexico and countries further south. What does "Anglo" have to do with anything? Zeusnoos 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be fair, "Anglo-American philosophy" is a term in use, but of course it doesn't refer to the language in which the philosophy is done, but the location (Britain and America). It can indeed have the connotation of "analytic" philosophy - but all this reinforces the point that even a correct account of the meaning can only be a dictionary definition with links to the main articles on Philosophy or Analytic Philosophy. KD Tries Again 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Comment: Agree, you also forget Jamaica, Guyana, large parts of Canada, amongst others where English is spoken. A comparable term I suppose is Latin-America.--Lucas ^Talk 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But this is precisely the misconception from which the article starts - "anglo" in that phrase does not mean "anglophone". It just means English (although I would concede stretching it to British). So the article can only be a dictionary definition which redirects to articles dealing with British and American philosophy. KD Tries Again 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Comment: I would not stretch it to British, Britain includes Wales and there are also Anglo-Welsh relations. Not sure if there is a article on "American Philosophy". The word Anglo-American can mean governmental relations between the U.S. and the U.K. or their cultural commonality, but it can also include Welsh-American and also Jamaicans who live in the Americas and speak English. It depends on the context. I hazzard a guess that no one here knows what it means and that is why no one has been able to replace the bare two sentences on it given in the article and instead just say delete! --Lucas ^Talk 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a question of what you or I would stretch it to: as the term is actually used, no-one makes a pointed distinction between Scottish or Welsh and English philosophers. KD Tries Again 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Delete the article is, as I commented, basically rubbish. In addition, wrongly equating analytic philosophy with anglo-american philosophy, it introduces a systemic bias. Analytic philosophy occurs in Australia, South Africa, and in non-English speaking countries. Banno 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is, as I commented, basically rubbish. In addition, wrongly equating analytic philosophy with anglo-american philosophy, it introduces a systemic bias. Analytic philosophy occurs in Australia, South Africa, and in non-English speaking countries. Banno 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork rather than proper academic article. "Anglo-American philosophy" is more likely to refer to foreign policy or cultural imperialism than an actual distinct branch of Western philosophy (see Anglosphere). --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very strange request for deletion: are people denying the existence of Anglo-American Philosophy? If not then go and edit the article (all three lines of it) to your satisfaction. If you do deny it then maybe you should say the term is defunct or something like that.

As far as I've seen no one has tried to correct anything in the article and there have been no reverts. If it does not connote Analytic philosophy then go and clarify this fact in the article before others make the same mistake, it would only take two seconds to change the wording. Nor is there anything strange about geographic designations in philosophy, it does not mean the philosophy there is any worse or any different in a bad way, it is just a way of referring to it.

Judging by the number of delete supports above I'd say the article will get deleted, strange, 'cos there is such a thing as Anglo-American Philosophy, there is probabaly even Franco-American philosophy though I've not read any of it.

--Lucas ^Talk 23:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The distinction Exists. The views of Editors above are biased by the Editor's War at Philosophy. This issue is clearly a matter of Power, not Truth, Meaning, Rationality, or Criticism. Philosophy does not suffer by such sameful and disgraceful conduct. It is Wikipedia which suffers. This is another one of the instances of Truth by Voting, or Truth by the Majority. Noam Chomsky should see this. The Editors War should end first. This is not that different than Stalin, or Animal Farm. Oh, and it is highly unreferenced.

User:Dbuckner - so this is what you mean by Philosophy is Rational?

Looking forward to a better day, Ludvikus 23:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If folks believe there is a legitimate reason for this article to exist, please cite verifiable, reliable sources to show that this subject is notable. Right now, there's a single book cited, which appears to be a primary source. That's insufficient for a Wikipedia article, by any stretch. -- Kesh 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleteWe're voting on the conception of the article, which seems to be a POV fork or an essayDGG 02:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and KD's comments. This article exists solely to extend Ludvikus' edit wars. My (naively) good faith attempt to edit the article in a less contentious direction was summarily reverted by Ludvikus. This article and its edit history, however, does have the virtue of being further evidence to support a ban on Ludvikus. 271828182 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant WP:OWN Banno 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POVFORK and insufficiently sourced neologism.-- danntm ^T _C 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but completely rewrite. [See below] The term "Anglo-American philosophy" is a standard one, and certainly no noeologism (it's preferred especially by those who feel that "analytic philosophy" is much too narrow a term); a just to give a selection from the first page of a Google search: [48] (PDF), [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. However, this article is a personal, poorly written, and largely inaccurate essay (and manages to get all that into two lines, at least as I write this). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term would appear to be used in contrast to "continental philosophy". This makes more sense, in a way, than distinguishing "continental philosophy", a region, from "analytic philosophy", a method. But given this, what more would you have on the page than a re-direct to analytic philosophy? Banno 10:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I was in too much of a hurry. If I could, I'd rewrite Analytic philosophy so that it was about the school of philosophy that makes analysis the sole distinguishing characteristic of philosophical thinking, and make Anglo-American philosophy the main article. As that's unlikely to happen, I'll change my "vote". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It seems we are caught between two poles, most editors here disavow talk of a distinction between Anglophone philosophy and Continental, more than they would disavow one between Analytic and Continental. Now we see proposed a distinction based on the geography of Anglo-American (which is really also cultural not just geographic) to ensure a method is not compared with a geographic distinction. The problem is that somehow both coincide, geography and method coincide in Anglophone (English-speaking countries but also those who partake of it in non-English speaking countries).

As to method, Analytic pretends to a method but you find all kinds of things there (trascendental arguments, ontological relativity, a denial of meaning to the word Analytic itself!, Wittgenstein II, ordinary language, new metaphysics, etc.), perhaps as many varieties as you find in Continental which may also be given as method, though not as clearly maintained as the original Analytic one, and with many changes in its history. One might say the method was initially a clearly articulated phenomenology, then existentialism, then structuralism and then deconstructive or post-structural. The three: Analytic, Anglo-American and Anglophone have also passed through such varieties in method. The heightened distinctions here between these three is inveitable when you are close up to them, but from the level of talking about Continental as one thing, these three also blur, and can be named as one, we just haggle over the name.

It seems the distinction we try to make here can be geographic, methodological, language-based, and/or cultural. So you cannot be faulted for mixing categories (eg, comparing method and geography) because in reality they are mixed and that is perhaps why there is such an issue as the schism in the first place.

--Lucas ^Talk 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make redirect to Analytic philosophy (if necessary, as it probably will be, protect the redirect); it would be peculiar if looking up this standard term in Wikipedia should be fruitless. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: An accurate definition with redirect to other philosophy articles - I am not sure why that doesn't fall foul of the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy? KD Tries Again 15:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
Just to add, based on the re-direct suggestion, it should also re-direct to pragmatism. Where else? KD Tries Again 15:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
If the first question was directed to me, then I didn't mention anything about a definition; I just said "make redirect" (note, though, that "Wikipedia isn't a dictionary" isn't a policy, but a guideline, and that such an approach would be possible as a meaty dab page). As to the second question: at least one of the links that I gave explicitly distinguishes between pragmatism, continental philosophy, and Anglo-American philosophy. I don't think that anyone uses "Anglo-American philosophy" to mean "pragmatism", though many people use "analytic philosophy" to mean "Anglo-American philosophy". But there is no wholly satisfactory approach that doesn't involve rewriting Analytic philosophy to some extent.

To be honest, if proper discussion were possible on these articles, which at the moment it isn't, the place to settle this would be at Talk:Anglo-American philosophy. A case could be made for an article that explained clearly what the term means (that it includes analytic philosophy properly construed but is much broader than that, that it's misleading in that it isn't limited by geography or by language, etc.), and how it's distinguished from other philosophical traditions, including Continental philosophy. Failing that (and I hold out no hope for such a course), a redirect is the best of the bad options. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, easy to find references to Rorty as Anglo-American and also as a pragmatist. But yes, ideally we should be able to discuss this on the talk page (but not like this [[54]]. KD Tries Again 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Well, in so far as I'd bother with Rorty at all, I'd agree with Susan Haack that his supposed pragmatism is at odds with the real thing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merge to Analytic philosophy (and prevent re-creation of the deleted content as necessary). I concur with User:Mel Etitis: there's no reason for a fork here, though either name would do; the existing article can easily explain the situations where the other name might be used. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I draw attention again to the fact that analytic philosophy occurs outside of the UK/US; and that therefore equating it with with anglo-american philosophy introduces a systemic bias. Banno 19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to a matter of Wiki policy or style rather than any factual dispute. "Anglo-American" is a phrase unquestionably used as if synonmous with analytic. Banno is obviously right that, strictly speaking, it's wrongly so used. Should Wiki follow common usage or strict facts? Note that this is not entirely trivial, because we have exactly the same problem with "continental". KD Tries Again 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

I don't think there's anything systemic about this, nor do I think a redirect has to "equate" two topics (indeed, as I said above, it would be best for the existing article to explain when "Anglo-American" might be used instead of "analytic"). At most this is a slightly inaccurate redirect, and that's still the best possible option under the current circumstances (circumstances which have already rendered many quite bad philosophy articles effectively uneditable). If the redirect is really unpalatable to a significant number of Wikipedians, I'll change my vote to a simple delete. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree it is not systematic, the world does not happen to work that way. Am I no longer allowed to call Budweiser an American beer when it is made in Nigeria? The point is not that Analytic is done outside of the Anglo-countries, but that, institutionally, it has the stamp of U.S/UK origin. Almost all philosophy in its subject matter has a global appeal, and rarely is it strictly local (you'll find Eastern/Continental/Analytic all taught globally). We use the word to help us trace its origins that is all. But since Anglo-American philosophy was not always Analytic it might be an idea to explain this in the article. What I mean is to answer the question why many phil.depts. in the U.K. switched to Analytic and coincidently many of the U.S. ones did too. These U.S. phil. depts did not choose French or German philosophy and perhaps this is down to language, imitiation, vestiges of colonialism, or the "special-relationship" -- Lucas (Talk) 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some fair points. However, I will leave my vote at delete, since I think the term presents an implicit bias. However, I will not object to the page being made a re-direct. Banno 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the new Oxford American Dicitonary:

analytical philosophy ( also analytic philosophy ) → n. a method of approaching philosophical problems through analysis of the terms in which they are expressed, associated with Anglo-American philosophy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucaas (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete and redirect. An accurate explanation of the divide is attempted elsewhere, and much more coherently. KSchutte 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K'Pop[edit]

fails WP:MUSIC - Prod tag removed. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only reference provided doesn't seems to be sufficient to establish notability by Snowolf (talk) on 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you search for its Korean name (케이팝) you get more results. [55], [56], and [57] seem to indicate the group does exist, albeit it seems they are actually named "K-POP". Notability is also not an issue, they have three releases by a Big 4 label (Sony BMG). hateless 08:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is an issue until the article shows otherwise. Please add a reliable source to the article. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 14:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spoken like a true bureaucrat. You know, the effort you have used to admonish me could have instead been used to update the article. hateless 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do try keep the discussion to the article in question and not on other editors. Some editors may find your comments offensive. WP:NPA - no personal attacks.Luke! 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made the assertion of notability, not me. And you in turn chose to attack me instead of making the necessary improvements to the article, which I find rather hypocritical. In the end, "admonishing" you to back up your defense took me much less effort than backing it up for you would have taken - effort I was able to spend working on articles of much clearer usefulness than this one. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out how to weed ghits for the band from ghits for Korean pop music in general. If you have a source for your claim about them being signed to Sony BMG, now would be a good time to add it to the article. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site, which I added to the article, listed SONY-BMG as the publisher for their 2004 album, but it listed Doremi Media (도레미) as the publisher of the 2002 album, so I was inaccurate in my assertion. Doremi is credited as a major label in Korea.[58][59] As for your comments before, I do not appreciate the implication that my opinions and the facts I bring up on this or any AFD can be discounted unless I expand the article. While I may regret the tone of the comment, I don't regret the content. hateless 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provided a translated version of that page? I can't read Korean, and I doubt many contributors can. If no one can read a source that is supposed to assert notability, this page will just be nominated for AfD again. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I tried running the page through babel fish, and I see no mention of Sony-BMG there. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to follow the links to find label info. The 2004 album is here, the 2002 album is here. For the 2002 album, it lists "도레미" as the label, which a google search reveals as Doremi Media. Sony BMG's profile on their 2004 album is here. For the record, I know nothing about written Korean. hateless 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Sony link to the article. The crition states, however, that the band "Has released two or more albums on a major label", which has still not been met. And regardless, the central criterion ("It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable") remains to be met. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated "Doremi Media" is major label in Korea, it doesn't have to be one of the 4 major labels in the whole wide world. Monni 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag with ((expand)). Monni 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reasons for keeping this article? Luke! 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason is like it is pointed out above, the band is notable, but it isn't adequately documented on the article. My alternative vote would have been userfying the article until notability is proven adequately in the article. Monni 18:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - searching for "K-Pop" yields tons of irrelevant hits about Korean pop in general. To narrow the search, I added the name of the first listed member of the band. The google search "Yoo Bin" K-Pop -wikipedia -kpopwiki -youtube -site:xanga.com -site:livejournal.com yields seven hits, none of which are relevant. Ghits are not a formal indicator of notability, but this is not a good sign. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple instances of coverage from various newspapers clearly visible in first page of the 18 thousand Google hits you get by searching on the Korean name [60] such as [61] [62] [63]. "No hits in English" is a pretty poor indicator of anything when you're dealing with topics from non-Anglophone, non-Latin alphabet countries. cab 14:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless someone can point out that the non-english hits are not valid; otherwise, we should have WP:FAITH and tag it with ((expand)). John Vandenberg 14:40, 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 speedy deleted per WP:WEB and the like—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pie vs cake[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)).

A comic on a website about whether pie or cake is better. Non-notable obviously. Recury 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article is not about a comic, nor even about which is better cake or pie. It is about the situation that occured around staff members creating a feud and it's effects on the users of the site. In many ways it is similar (on a drastically lower and much sillier scale) to the publishing of the Mohammad comics and the outrage stirred up in the Islamic community because of them. (Much much lower and sillier scale) Creol 17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is a valid argument that people have been following on roosterteeth.com. I see no reason why this article should not be included on wikipedia. maybe it should be linked on Roosterteeth.com wiki article but still included in wikipedia. maybe it is not noteable to EVERY wikipedia reader but then again most articles are not notable to everyone. the mere fact that the pie vs cake argument does in fact have a following should be more then enough reason for a wikipedia article to exist.
I think the entry should stay. At least for a little while longer. It is no longer an edited mess. Fritzmonkey 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't explained how the article satisfies our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has potential, but maybe not in it's current form. There are articles about other internet memes and phenomena. While it certainly is alive and kicking on the Roosterteeth Site, I'm reasonably sure It did not start there and it is on many other sites as well.PollitzerBK 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be verifiable from multiple, independent reliable sources. So if some other news site wrote about it that would help, but if its just people on that website talking about it then it isn't independent and if its just blogs or forum posts that talk about it then those aren't reliable sources. Recury 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this artiticle would be better placed on the RvB web site and forum, not here. I see what the Wiki people are saying about it being unnecessary and just silly, but that is the heart of RvB. Anyways, I don't think it should be deleted now, but if it must then lets us move it to the RvB site first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.30.180 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-25 17:35:37
Maybe you'd consider some of the others candidates for deletion too, but a lot of the articles in the Internet Phenomena list don't have much verification other than "this image first appeared on the somethingawful forums on Such and such a date" like the HA! HA! guy PollitzerBK 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly true, but it doesn't exclude this article from needing them. Recury 17:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can come up with, most references I'm finding so far are simply other discussion boards talking about the same thing PollitzerBK 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's entirely relevant, but in the interests of disclosure I'm the moderator "BigBen" on Roosterteeth.com. I also do some wiki editing and I'm trying to be neutral here, so feel free to consider any potential bias on my part. PollitzerBK 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about something similar (perhaps more cleaned up) to the article on Pirates versus Ninjas. This is a similar phenomenom, and could be dealt with in a similar way. PollitzerBK 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That article isn't referenced at all. It's even got the tag asking for references, so I wouldn't use that as a good example. All your base are belong to us has some references to The Register and CNET (although a lot of the other references aren't very good). Recury 18:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the discussion page, the "Pie vs Cake" debate is found across many forums on the internet, not just on RoosterTeeth. RT are just the people who escalated the debate with the comic. However, for many forums and websites with a discussion element, the "pie or cake?" question is a common icebreaker.
I suppose that's the question then, how do you reference a phenomenon that has a very obscure beginning, and primarily consists of a debate occurring on discussion boards. Or is this enough to eliminate it for consideration entirely? PollitzerBK 18:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. WP:V says: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:RS discusses the reliability of forum posts. Recury 18:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RS also has at the top "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I would certainly agree that because it does not strictly meet the rule it needs extra attention, but in this case I think it's a candidate for an exception. This is because, like the case of the Pirates v Ninjas article, it seems that forum posts are ample evidence to merely document the existence of an internet phenomenon, which is all the article should focus on in any case, not the personal disputes of some roosterteeth staff members. PollitzerBK 18:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia employs sources where the identity of the author/publisher can be ascertained, where it is evident that fact checking and peer review have occurred, and where it is evident that what has been published has been acknowledged by others and has become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. An anonymous or pseudonymous posting to a World Wide Web discussion forum fails that on just about every count. And as Recury pointed out, you are using as a benchmark an article that isn't satisfactory when it comes to sourcing. Uncle G 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete forum joke at a single site, no claim to notability. Not even close to WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A google search for Pie vs Cakefinds threads on several dozen forums devoted to the topic within the first few pages. I won't make any claims to verifiability or reliability, but that's reasonably notable. PollitzerBK 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never edited anything on wikipedia before, but I feel I need to have my say on this one. The Pie vs Cake argument, although I do not know whether started on the Roosterteeth website, it was the first place that I (and i would warrant many other people) heard of the argument.
Just because this article is based on references to discussion boards, forums and the news pages of a few websites does not mean it should be deleted from this one, it is a large argument, which first started out as a joke based on actual events taking place in an office which were quite comical and surreal.
The fact that some people decided to take the argument seriously is, i believe reason enough for it to have a place on Wikipedia. It should at the very most be moved to an article concerning the way in which people sometimes do not recognise humor, or refuse to, thus creating a serious disagreement.
In closing, this article's subject matter does belong on this website, quite simply because it is information, and information is what this website is all about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.33.54.69 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Our metric of whether something is deserving of an article is whether it has already been properly documented by independent sources outside of Wikipedia. Your metric is perhaps a reason for those sources to consider documenting the subject in the first place. But Wikipedia is not a primary source and until they do document the subject, it should not have an article. Uncle G 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - seems to miss the mark under multiple parts of WP:NOT, WP:WEB, WP:NOTE, and WP:NOR. The Rooster Teeth article is most appropriate, if the pointless information is part of WP at all. --JJLatWiki 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not expand the article to include more the the RT content and references? Fritzmonkey 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)~Darkended Blade (XBL gamertag)~~I believe the article should be relocated to the history section of the Roosterteeth wikipedia entry, rather than deleated.

The Pie vs Cake feud is Rooster Teeth History. Since Rooster Teeth manages Red vs. Blue, it is Red vs. Blue history and it should be preserved. Relocation is only fair. – Elizabeth Shaoblane

Speedy delete, surprised it was nominated for an AfD. Clearly non-notable, I agree with User:JJLatWiki re: at best moving a summarised (down to a sentence or two) version to the Rooster Teeth article, in reality it's my opinion that it doesnt really belong on Wikipedia. MidgleyDJ 20:40, 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, vandahoaxlism ~ trialsanderrors 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flahive[edit]

I think this is a hoax. There are no Google hits or Google Scholar hits. I highly doubt someone living in Britian as recently as the 1800s would have been the first parlimentarian with red hair. Red hair is fairly common in that part of the world. Also, the article's creator User:ChaseProcknow, has been creating other vandalism articles. I could go on, but I won't. The only reason I'm AFDing this instead of marking it for speedy is it doesn't meet any of the speedy criteria. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A blatant hoax. Using a Small town in Britain shows that you have no made no original research and you have made it up. Delete Retiono Virginian 17:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete:It is complete and utter BS, the man doesn't exsist, and more importantly even if he did, the creator wouldn't have got the name wrong for a Member of Parliment, utter rubbish. delete asap.--JWJW ^Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 17:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

frankly i can't beleive that the article even got to this stage.--JWJW ^Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Jreferee. Bugtrio | Talk 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete obvious nonsense. Seventypercent 17:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - (1) Delete per nomination and since the article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. (2) Speedy delete since likely the article is a hoax and the subtle references to red hair and listing a "wife's" name probably designed to particularly identify "Flahive" so as to be the target of the libelous statements in the article (which I just removed). -- Jreferee 17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsensical hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Balant hoax and vandalism from an indefinitely blocked user. The red hair reference simply exists to parody red haired people. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:07, 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 deleted by Kaisershatner (A7). --- RockMFR 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Hodgson[edit]

Prod removed by anon without comment. No sources cited, and google totally fails to find anything relevant. Either someone non-notable to the point of anonymity, or total hoax. Fan-1967 17:19, 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. —Centrx→talk • 21:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 2Pac Album[edit]

Not only is the entire album a rumour, but I have received confirmation from an official source that the album is entirely rumoured, and that nothing is in production. I can get in touch directly with the lawyers for the firm (based on the West Coast of the USA), and get confirmation from them, but ideally I would hope that it won't be required, due to the only source being a throwaway comment in an obscure radio interview. Hawker Typhoon 17:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Computerjoe 's talk 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (1) Delete per nomination and since the rumor does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. (2) Per some publications, "Loyal to the Game", released in December 2004, was the seventh album of Shakur's music released since he was shot and killed in 1996. "Pac's Life" was the 11th posthumous release from Tupac Shakur. The posthumous release count seems to have a debate of its own, but more than seven items have been released posthumously so that the rumor itself seems to be factually incorrect. However, the rumor is not so offensive as to deserve speedy delete. Thus, delete seems appropriate here. -- Jreferee 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Walton monarchist89 19:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perRobert2TLA 22:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC) LT Hutton did say what is posted but in checking with Amaru and Amaru lawyers there is no such album coming.[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL JuJube 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Unlikely search term. ShadowHalo 23:20, 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. There is simply no credible assertion per WP:BIO or any other guideline for an article on this radio show character. If anyone wants to DAB this per Barno I think that is a very good idea.--Isotope23 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Midnight Rider[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)).

Fictional, non-important character on a radio show --Whackbagger 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dusty Rhodes. It's appropriate, because that is a persona used by wrestler Dusty Rhodes. Kyros 02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I had prodded this but it was contested. Mango juice^talk 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS, WP:BIO. I do not think that an on-air character that has existed for less than 2 weeks is notable. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable, unencyclopedic. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT for reasons of previous commenters. No prejudice against creation of a new article under this title for any of:

- the Paul Revere biography video

- the Paul Revere "virtual museum"

- the 1953 movie featuring the Lone Ranger character

- a redirect to the Gregg Allman song (without "The" in title), which also charted when other artists covered it

- a redirect to the Kat Martin novel (without "The" in title)

In fact maybe a disambig page should be set up, as some of the above subjects will be found notable when people with enough interest research them. Barno 04:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination for deletion is created under false, bias pretenses, due to the fact that the person playing the role is very maligned in the XM community. Rider is a character that Dave McDonald plays, therefore, it should be kept with editorial notations stating the fact that he is a character. MattyFridays 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MattyFridays (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The character is already mentioned on Dave MacDonald's page. This fictional character is not notable enough for his own article --Whackbagger 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Dave MacDonald was killed at Indy in '64. East Side Dave is another character played by the person Dave MacDonald, but they are two separate, notable characters. And you are not being neutral.

Actually, one more thing, and this is key to your entire argument, Whackbagger - do you have a VERIFIABLE (key word) reference that states Rider is East Side Dave? MattyFridays 18:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Whackbagger is always speaking in absolutes about The Rider, yet has no verifiable sources for what he is saying. More holier than thou elitist editing which does Wikipedia a disservice.69.140.51.137 09:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete Wait a sec, let me get this straight... Dave McDonald=East Side Dave=Midnight Rider? And you expect Wikipedia to maintain separate pages for EACH? If you had ONE page for McDonald, noted there that these others are personae, and redirected those names to McDonald I MIGHT vote for it. Better yet would be a page for the show they appear on (sorry, it is so un-notable I cannot remember the name) with a list of the shows cast and all characters each plays. However, and I am gonna say this as plainly as possible... Midnight Rider is NOT notable. Where are independent reliable sources??? Where are news stories in mainstream media about ANY of this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BillWSmithJr (talk • contribs).
Delete unencyclopedic. --Bill.matthews 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful to wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flash Virus (talk • contribs). — Flash Virus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Until his identity is revealed there is not enough proof to merge the article with another one.. for now it is useful to wikipedia for listeners of a very reputable radio program who are seeking out information on the show staff. IrisKawling 05:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is a producer of Ron & Fez. His content can go in the Ron and Fez article or the List of Ron and Fez Show characters. He is not notable enough for an article. --Bill.matthews 06:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable enough for his own page, as it was also a persona of Dusty Rhodes, who is a worldwide known figure in professional wrestling. The Midnight Rider page should not be merged with Dusty or East Side Dave

Keep He is notable enough for his own page, as it was also a persona of Dusty Rhodes, who is a figure known worldwide in professional wrestling. The Midnight Rider page should not be merged with Dusty Rhodes or East Side Dave as it is a completely separate persona.--Hndsmepete 08:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not subjective. Doing a google search for "the midnight rider" produces no results that relate to the Ron & Fez producer (other than this article). Therefore he is not notable. As a producer for R&F, he is already listed on their article. --Bill.matthews 13:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wallop (talk • contribs). (Note well: User's thirteenth edit.)

Delete, per nom and various others above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete • There are no strong verifiable sources, and [{WP:N|notability]] is questionable. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and others. Verifiability and notability are very questionable for this article. SuperMachine 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of references and notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contra the meats - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dusty Rhodes OR East Side Dave, OR make a disambig page. Mathmo ^Talk 04:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to East Side Dave, OR make a disambig page Nothing should be deleted because several people think its not worthy. Obviously a few people also think it is worthy to be in Wikipedia in some form. Tyrannical editors and their henchman who think they own Wikipedia must be stopped. 69.140.51.137 09:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Ron and Fez Show is notable enough to have it's own page and their other Producers East Side Dave and Earl Douglas are notable enough to have their page I see no reason why their collegue, The Midnight Rider wouldn't be notable enough to have his page. This is a Whackbag user with a single purpose out trying to harm The Rider and the Show's reputation and this deletion discussion should be ignored, closed and The Riders page left in tact. Cgbrannigan 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC) — Cgbrannigan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Cambuslang[edit]

A small town, such as Cambuslang, does not warrant an entire article specifically on its 5 schools and college. Computerjoe 's talk 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly we don't have a clear policy on inclusion of schools (since the unfortunate demise of WP:SCHOOL), but there's not much in this article that couldn't be covered in the articles on the schools themselves. "History" section reads like an essay (violating WP:NOR) and there's really no other useful content. Walton monarchist89 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cambuslang. Seems to me like good info, no reason to delete. The more obscure info about particular schools can be discarded or put into individual school articles. delldot | talk 21:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cambuslang. At first I thought this may have been split off from there, but I couldn't find anything in the history of the Cambuslang article that supports that - and there's nothing on the discussion page that shows a plan to do so. Would fill out the "parent" article quite well. SkierRMH 01:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete This was originally a part of the main Cambuslang article which has been split into related articles to bring it within Wiki size limits.It is a part of a fairly large project on aspects of this small but important village, (or at least important to the history of Scotland) which is itself part of the larger project to make Wiki the major point of first reference for most shared knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony164 (talk • contribs)
Strong keep. This would not have failed WP:SCHOOL, due to age and architecture; it has pictures of a school built in 1848, and intends to cover others that date back further. It has problems with WP:OR and WP:RS, but lets give the editors some time now that it has been pointed out. John Vandenberg 14:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As ever, we need to see notability. Most towns have a history of providing education and educational facilities in their environs. Why is Cambuslang different and worthy of particular attention ? The article doesn't even hint. WMMartin 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The original research in the history section isn't leaping out at me, but I'd encourage Tony to merge this wholesale with Cambuslang. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Pastordavid 23:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Mutsengi[edit]

Fails WP:BIO concerning living people--Thomas.macmillan 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (1) Per Wikipedia:No original research, articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. In particular, a Wikipedia article about a person should not include unpublished analysis. Mutsengi has done many noteworthy things and that is what the unpublished analysis in the article seeks to prove. This unpublished analysis violates Wikipedia:No original research. (2) 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 such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. The article should be created using multiple non-trivial published works that discuss Mutsengi himself (which the article does not). The article RBZ Must Encourage Use of Plastic Money does mention that Asher Tarivona-Mutsengi is a research scholar at the University of Texas at Austin, College of Natural Sciences, but that is not enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Mutsengi is from Zimbabwe, so a problem might be that the multiple non-trivial published works that discuss Mutsengi himself are located in Zimbabwe and not accessible over the Internet. If the author of the article can find some multiple non-trivial published works that discuss Mutsengi himself, please include those in the article. However, it does not appear that the topic meets Wikipedia:Notability and I do not think it can meet Wikipedia:Notability. Thus, I believe that the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee 18:43, 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. W.marsh 20:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Harward[edit]

insufficient assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO; no evidence of notability (a link to the subject's own website is not enough). Possibly a vanity page. Walton monarchist89 19:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he's moderately well known in the skateboard community, although probably the least of all skateboarding articles we have on here. Here is a google search about him which shows a lot of results. --Liface 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO so far. If other WP:RS are added to the article to assert notability, we can reconsider. delldot | talk 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep' if some references can be added --Kevin Murray 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this point the article has virtualy no content. If Liface or anyone else can establish that this guy has had a career, then it would become a proper stub. User:Dimadick
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:06, 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 the lot. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Beazley and Screwed Over[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Supposedly a character in an internet comedy, and the alleged internet somedy, but I can't verify any of that. URL for the alleged show doesn't exist. More likely just schoolboy nonsense. Fan-1967 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, no sources, WP:NFT. -- Merope 18:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article even admits that the show in question is "not so famous". Clear failure of WP:V. Walton monarchist89 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YouTubecruft. JuJube 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong. I don't think it exists even there. I haven's been able to find any trace of it. The article claims 144 22-minute episodes. Youtube's limit is five minutes. Fan-1967 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to YouTube on the article. JuJube 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's just a link to http://www.youtube.com with nothing more specific. Fan-1967 02:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Tom Beazley per db-attack. -- Shunpiker 06:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. When I originally prodded Tom Beazley, Screwed Over was a "hit British TV show". How the mighty have fallen! —Cel ithemis 23:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undoubtedly a hoax. The author of the page Jebus64 has a good bit of vandalism in his edit history. In particular, see these edits: [64], [65], [66]. ●DanMS 00:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the following associated images uploaded by the author Jebus64 should be deleted when the article is deleted:

Image:000 1571.jpg

Image:000 1490.jpg

Image:Screwed-over6.1.jpg

Image:HippyPeaceCoat.jpg

Also these, which are duplicates of the above and not linked to any page:

Image:1440539667 l.jpg

Image:1475825968 l.jpg

●DanMS 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Chozen Bays[edit]

Biography for person with no noteworthy or substantial achievements. —Brim 13:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability asserted whatsoever, unsure how this could ever meet WP:BIO. The Rambling Man 13:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I did find this article about her and her husband [67] and a Google News Archives search comes up with a few more articles [68]. --Oakshade 06:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Oakshade. Quadzilla99 18:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The article itself does not claim much, and there is not much to claim: she is only a student, and it lists the people she has trained under. This is not notability, and if a few local papers write about it it may still not be notability. Look at what is said about the subject DGG 01:11, 24 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG - no evidence of substantial notability outside the local area. Walton monarchist89 19:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No particular notability established. No publications of her own, no remarkable achievements. User:Dimadick
Weak Keep per Oakshade and two books I found on OCLC (see talk). John Vandenberg 15:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure what the contention is for opposing this article. First, Dr. Bays was already listed in the article on Taizan Maezumi, a controversial Zen Roshi who established six Zen temples in the US, including the Zen Center of LA (ZCLA). In that article she is listed as one of his twelve successors, to whom he passed dharma transmission. There are others in that list, in that article, who have articles in Wikipedia, which to my reading are scarcely more detailed at this point than this one on Dr. Bays, yet none of these has been suggested for deletion.

Second, this is fundamentally historical information on at least two points: (1) nationally and anthropologically - it is directly concerned with the early spread of Buddhism to the west, in particular throughout North America and (2) locally - it is of considerable local import that Dr. Bays is the founder of one of the first Zen centers in Portland, Oregon (the ZCO) and founder of a Zen Monestary in Clatskanie, Oregon. Certainly, researchers just 20-40 years from now who are interested in Buddhism's early fits and starts in Oregon will find this information useful and there will, no doubt, be researchers in Oregon seeking exactly this information. I would add that as a student of early Christianity I can only wish that information like this existed about the earliest churches, what they were about, who started them, when and where. We have the opportunity to preserve this kind of information for future researchers who are studying, among other things, the manner of religious spread and growth (or, as we do not yet know whether Zen or Buddhism will find fertile soil in North America, assimilation or extinction). With a mind to the above points, to anyone recommending deletion, please review these criteria in the Wikipedia policy on "notability" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29):

(1) Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject?

(2) 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?

(3) 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?

(4) Biography -- Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject?

(5) Search Engine Test -- Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google ([1]), Alexa ([2])?

I believe the article passes all five of these tests. The historical importance of the connection to Maezumi Roshi and the founding of two considerable and historic institutions in Portland is certainly as important as Champlain Bridge, another article perfectly charactistic of thousands found in Wikipedia.

These institutions are equivalent in historic value to "the first church" or "the first synagogue" in any city, which are common entries all throughout Wikipedia for obvious reasons, even when the churches or synagogues are now defunct. ˜˜˜˜dcwood

Keep per this search giving enough for WP:BIO... Addhoc 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Minor characters in the Jeeves stories. I will redirect there for now, the histories are preserved if anyone wants to merge extra content. W.marsh 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Travers[edit]

Another minor character in P G Wodehouse universe. All there is to be said about many of them is their relationship to Wooster or whichever main character. Snippets of plot synopsis should be in the article about the book , not scattered over the various characters. Delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same reasoning applies to:

Delete all Just because one likes a book or series of books is not a good reason to create a spew of articles about each individual character, when the individual characters have not been the subject of multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources, and the articles consist of snips from the books. Edison 15:18, 19 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a single article on Minor characters in Jeeves and Wooster. Walton monarchist89 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jeeves and Wooster. That article's not too long yet. To quote WP:FICT: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a 'List of characters.' This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long..." delldot | talk 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jeeves and Wooster per delldot's reasoning. Barno 04:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a single article per Walton monarchist89. Their articles are very short and could stand the merge with each other, without crowding the Jeeves and Wooster article. User:Dimadick
Delete all as not demonstrating real world notability. I do agree with the above sentiment that Jeeves and Wooster could use a (concise) plot summary. --maclean 05:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jeeves and Wooster is not the best place for a merge, as that is specifically about the TV series. ‎Minor characters in the Jeeves stories already mentions them, and plot synopses should be in the articles about the book or story (to avoid the same material being duplicated under each character). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with voluntary caregiver. Cool Hand Luke 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carers[edit]

WP:NOT a dictionary; possibly merge with Care. Current content of article reads like a government info leaflet. Walton monarchist89 18:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with voluntary caregiver. There's some interesting and pertinent information there; it's perhaps better off in the extensive VC article that already exists. DanielEng 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain about this - its once again a question of different vocabularies both sides of the Atlantic - I have been a carer for 15 years but would never have found voluntary caregiver without my own stub being nominated immediately for deletion, which hasnt happened to me before and is a bit scary ;-) voluntary caregiver is a purely American term, the British equivalent is "carer" - or more controversially "informal carer" but "carers" is again slightly different - used very commonly in the UK to define the range of organisations and legislation affecting the individual "voluntary caregiver" Anyway, it's a huge and complex subject and each country has very different legislation and cicumstances. Why not have a single short generic article , and then separate links to articles for UK Carers, US Voluntary Caregivers etc etc? Excalibur 10:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Voluntary caregiver should be merged into this article, which should be renamed to Carer. The reason that I'm advocating it be merged this way and not the other way round is that a google search for [ carer] returns 1,200,000 hits, while [ "voluntary caregiver] only returns 359. I've also sourced the article. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 02:35, 24 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; merge anything of value into Voluntary caregiver. I'm not really confident about the google test above, particularly what some of those hits for "carer" might really be for. Once you get past a certain number of ghits, the rest are really questionable; however, I have no real strong opposition to merging into carer. Maybe those two articles are ripe for merging themselves, but that's another discussion elsewhere. Agent 86 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to me it would be better to merge both this and voluntary caregiver into Carer - better to use the singular form, for the sake of clarity. Even when merging, the content of the article needs a substantial rewrite - as I said, it's mainly text lifted verbatim from a government info leaflet. Walton monarchist89 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like to think I have a fairly massive vocabulary, but I've never heard the word "carer" before. If it's a Britishism (as it seems to be) perhaps there's a more international term for the same concept that this can be merged/redirected to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article and Voluntary caregiver to a new article with a more neutral name. Then Redirect the two terms to the new article. Messy, but the best way to provide an NPOV that covers both terms. I would suggest Caregiver as the final article name, with both articles redirected to that, and a section noting the geographical difference. I'd rather avoid the kind of skirmish that Petrol/Gasoline has caused! -- Kesh 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Darnit. There's a disambiguation page at Caregiver. Can anyone else think of another term that would work? -- Kesh 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like this idea very much, and agree that it would prevent any possible POV issues. How about naming the article simply Carer/Voluntary Caregiver? It's admittedly an unwieldly name but it would cover both bases. I never have heard the term 'carer' used anywhere myself, and it seems that there's too much of a international divide to use the words interchangeably. DanielEng 12:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm out of my depth on this one - happy to leave it to more experienced editors.I agree the current article is too short, but it was just a quick attempt to get the ball rolling - there's a huge amount of potentially useful and encyclopaedic information that will be added as soon as concensus has been reached on this issue.Excalibur 12:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Just checked, and the word "Carers" is used internationally eg http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/care_for_me/carers/io_en.htm

Carers : "Carers are non-professional people who take care of patients at home. Carers can be relatives of the sick person or other volunteers. They usually give help or support to relatives or friends because of long-term physical or mental ill-health or disability, or problems related to old age. As they deal with serious matters and under difficult circumstances, carers need particular attention from national and regional authorities to help them with their tasks. In general, to carry out their duties smoothly and efficiently they require flexible working time and financial support."

Also see: http://www.internationalcarers.org/

International Alliance of Carers Organizations New International Caregiver Organization Launched On February 27, 2004, the International Alliance of Carers Organizations (IACO) was launched by family caregiving organizations from Australia, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the US. The mission of the organization is three-fold:

to increase visibility of family caregiving across the lifespan as an international issue; to promote the sharing of best practices in caregiving programs between countries; and to encourage and provide assistance to countries interested in developing family carer organizations. IACO will be headquartered in London; seed money has been provided by Pfizer US. Initial IACO projects will include promotion of a United Nations Day for Carers and a presentation on the IACO as part of a half-day workshop at the International Federation on Aging conference in Singapore on August 4, 2004. National family carer organizations in all countries are encouraged to join the alliance.Excalibur 12:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think on reflection "carer" might be better than "carers" - By way of a precedent, I note that the entry for refugees is redirected into refugee

so there seems to be an inbuilt preference for the singular when referring to a whole category of people.Excalibur 12:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Voluntary caregiver. Carer is currently a redirect to care, a disambig page, so I think that should be merged with voluntary caregiver, too. I don't see a NPOV problem with "Voluntary caregiver", but maybe those who do could explain. I'd object to keeping it "carer" because I suspect it's a neologism created to send a specific message and not in especially wide use (my uneducated guess). A slash in the title won't work since that would create a subpage (but you could use parentheses instead). Excalibur, you're right that the singular is preferred where possible under naming conventions. delldot | talk 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the neologism argument - there are a lot of wiki entries a great deal more neological than "care" and "carers" which have been used for well over a quarter of a century and are now enshrined in law. According to Carers UK website, the chronology is as follows:

1965 National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants formed. 1976 Invalid Care Allowance introduced - the first benefit for carers and still the only benefit specifically for carers. 1978 Introduction of Home Responsibilities Protection to protect carers’basic state pension 1981 Association of Carers formed Excalibur 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hague[edit]

Probable hoax, doesn't appear that any Lee Hague ever appeared on Pop Idol, no sources. Tubezone 18:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Doesn't look like he was interviewed by "attitude" magazine either: [69] Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 02:43, 24 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V (and possibly WP:HOAX). Walton monarchist89 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; this looks like a hoax to me. "'Lee Hague' pop idol" brings up nothing outside of Wikipedia mirrors. Trebor 23:45, 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; as a side-note, Trebor is right about judging the article on its' merits rather than the nominator. Daniel.Bryant 09:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive activism[edit]

A7 Froody dog 19:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Article does assert notability and therefore does not meet A7. I don't really have no opinion so I won't vote at this time. Soltak | Talk 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vote changed as nom's only contribs relate to the nomination of this article. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge the article on its merits, not its nominator. Trebor 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article makes no notability claims, and doesn't actually provide any information. Link goes to website that does not appear to have anything to do with the article. Citicat 04:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ad for Organelle; term neither used widely nor used this way elsewhere. Pomte 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent references The article's only reference appears to not be independent of the subject. Articles needs independent published references to verify the information is accurate and uses accepted terminology. Dugwiki 20:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced; I haven't find anything relevant. Trebor 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded beyond dicdef and sourced. delldot | talk 18:05, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivaled Fate[edit]

A webgame with issues surrounding reliable sources and verifiability. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Google hasn't turned up any reliable sources. Wafulz 04:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical non notable game. All souces reach back to itself etc. fails WP:WEB--155.144.251.120 05:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently one of the most pioneering browser based games on the internet, featured in a local paper in 2005, no online references available for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.210.71 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Can you give us the name and date and page of the local paper? If someone from the region can go to a public library and look it up, that would be one verifiable source. Note that WP:V requires multiple independent sources, though. Neutral pending any evidence that other reliable sources have published enough about this being "most pioneering". Browser-based games rarely get enough fact-checked coverage to meet WP's policy. Barno 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A local paper doesn't always cut it either. Plenty of my friends have been described and praised in local papers and they certainly don't merit articles. --Wafulz 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I've added some links. There are a few more out there, including personal guild pages and wiki internal references, but I'm on lunch break. I'll try and mobilize r-fate's user base to contribute to this article in a non-biased, non-meatpuppet way. Fatprincess 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources to show it meets WP:WEB RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:26, 19 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB unless evidence of third-party coverage can be demonstrated. Walton monarchist89 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 155.144.251.120. JuJube 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. John Vandenberg 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I've added some links. There are a few more out there, including personal guild pages, but I'm on lunch break. I'll try and mobilize r-fate's user base to contribute to this article in a non-biased, non-meatpuppet way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatprincess (talk • contribs)
- This is not speedy keep criteria, please have a read through WP:SK. Also, the sources provided are trivial- they are user-submitted, and don't even give any information. Personal websites do not count as reliable sources. --Wafulz 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try and mobilize r-fate's user base to contribute to this article in a non-biased, non-meatpuppet way. Useless. Unhelpful. Nonproductivish. Ineffectivoid. JuJube 07:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't bite. --Wafulz 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete doe not meet WP:WEB criteria and sources are non-reliable and/or trivial. Eluchil404 14:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to GTKWave. - Daniel.Bryant 09:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shmidcat[edit]

Doesn't seem very notable. About thirty ghits, a number of which seem to derive from the same info. I have no doubt this exists and may be a useful utility, but it is extremely obscure. Wehwalt 04:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to GTKWave. Not notable on its own, but deserves mention in the GTKWave article. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 03:06, 24 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Ultra-Loser; no assertion of notability on its own, but worth a mention and redirects are cheap. Trebor 23:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Ultra-Loser. John Vandenberg 15:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:24, 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 Keep per consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Cranky (2nd nomination)[edit]

(first nomination) Delete, due to WP:WEB—not to mention a very unencyclopedic vanity page. Yes, this entity is mentioned on the internet. Let's take a look:

Guardian article - it's not the subject of the article
An interview - this can't qualify as the first for WP:WEB, because there is no indication of the identify of "NetSlaves", and whether this interviewer is reliable or not, or whether he or she is part of the Mr. Cranky community (hence being self-promotional). I would not say that "content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators", because the content isn't being distributed, nor was it ever systematically distributed: this is a one-time occurrence of an interview. In addition, there's a Site 404 error, hence making this interview unverifiable.
Seattle Times - this is about the co-founder of Mr. Cranky, who was minimally involved in making it. The subject of this article is not Mr. Cranky.
Highbeam article - requires registration, and what I can see appears to be more of a site description than an assertion of notability. I am also dubious about the reliability of this source.

Sources 1 and 3 fail WP:WEB. Sources 2 and 4 are unverifiable, since the content cannot be accessed. Since I also doubt their reliability (if they could be accessed), the sources regarding this article are not multiple enough to establish notability. The Chicago Tribune apparently featured this website, although I cannot find this, making it unverifiable. Delete --Gracenotes ^T § 18:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Gracenotes ^T § 18:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no evidence of reliable sources. Walton monarchist89 19:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Within ten minutes, I found two sources that pass WP:WEB: The Hoya (2/7/03) and Oregon Daily Emerald (5/25/00). Plus, extra notability should be confered when the site's writer moonlights as an entertainment writer for MSNBC. Plus, the fact that Cal's film school sees it fit to include Cranky on its list of movie review databases carries some weight. Caknuck 20:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided references added As per Caknuck above, there do appear to be verifiable references for Mr. Cranky. Keep, assuming the references are actually added to the article in the appropriate manner. Dugwiki 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, website has declined in popularity but was well-covered during its tenure. Some sources are now behind paywalls, others from that time have disappeared offline entirely. Mr. Cranky is profiled in 505 Weirdest Online Stores (2005) [70]. The Internet Bible (2000) calls it "an excellent film guide".[71] and The Everything Internet Book (1998) [72]. Once again I find people using AFD as a quick solution to ((unreferenced)). --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, FYI, NetSlaves was an independent publication whose content was redistributed on WIRED (I'm surprised we don't have an article). And I really would like to hear your reasoning as to how the Rocky Mountain News fails WP:RS. HighBeam -- if that's your worry -- is a large corporation that handles paid archives for many major publications. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Finally, WP:V makes no provision for paywalls or paper publications being unverifiable. Many of these may be accessed by walking to one's library. Please do not expand policies to cover your personal interpretation. --Dhartung | Talk 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, I don't see where I've implied that. I'm disappointed that my actions have indicated, to you, that I thought that book sources were unverifiable. The sources provided by you and Caknuck are helpful (although that the author is notable doesn't mean that the content is). The article, in my opinion, was very unencyclopedic, although notability concerns distracted me a bit more. While you have more or less removed from my mind any qualms about the latter, the former (as well as verifiability concerns), which does not seem to merit deletion, is still... concerning. Gracenotes ^T § 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are good. Ab e g92contribsBoomer Sooners! 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup. Notable enough: the Chicago Tribune connection and the published book push him well over the bar. Definitely needs cleanup badly though. I recommend getting rid of the "Crankyland" section entirely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Seventypercent 00:05, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 15:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Chowdhury[edit]

Contested ((prod)) (reason on prod: "nn filmcrew member; fails WP:BIO and nearly non-notable enough for speedy deletion, but could be construed to assert a modicum of notability"). On the article's talk page, User:130.209.6.40 contends that this person is notable, but only provides this google search for the term "Anil Chowdhury, production controller". However, if one refines the search to ""Anil Chowdhury" production controller", the result is only 17 ghits. (A search for just ""Anil Chowdhury""[73] is not so overwhelming, either.) IMDB entries[74][75] for "Anil Chaudhary" and "Anil Chaudhury" reveals a paucity of credits for each result, and it's not even clear which one is these individuals is the "Anil Chaudhary" of the article, if either of them are at all. The "Anil Chaudhary" is said to be a production controller. I'm not even sure if there are many "notable" production controllers in this world, no matter how many movies this person worked on, and working as a filmcrew member on a notable director's films doesn't impart notability on the crewmember in and of itself. Agent 86 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real claim of notability. Many people work on films even in the nascent Indian film industry. This association in and of itself does not confer notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, if we go by Google hits there is very minor reason to vote keep. However, like many other stuffs in India (or, for that matter, South Asia and many other countries where Internet penetration is not comparable with that in countries like USA, UK), we should consider this article from another point. Anil Chowdhury is considerably known in the Bengali film industry for his association with Satyajit Ray, a noted film director (and a featured article in Wikipedia). In fact, I rememeber I started this article while helping improve the article Satyajit Ray, and could not find many internet sources on the person. However, I have read some printed sources (mainly in Bengali language) where he has been mentioned, in most cases in relation to the films of Satyajit RayIt is Anil Choudhury's association with memorable cinemas like Pather Panchali, Aparajito etc that makes him notable. So IMO this article should not be deleted. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same reason as above. Pather Panchali brought deep changes in Indian cinema, and Anil Choudhury's contribution to it as well as his later collaboration with Satyajit Ray has entered Indian movie lore.--ppm 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not about Pather Panchali or Satyajit Ray. The article is about a filmcrew member, and provides no information about what Choudhury might have done that was encyclopedic. Just because one works for a notable person does not make one notable. At most, a mention can be made in a article on Panchali or Ray that they hired Choudhury to work as one of the filmcrew, but I fail to see how even that much is encyclopedic. Agent 86 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is low on info, I admit. But the sparsity of the article itself is not a measure of Choudhury's contribution. Nobody "hired" Choudhury. Choudhury unsuccessfully tried to find funding for Pather (as a friend) for a while before Ray told him that he'd venture out without funding and do it (the first person Ray shared this resolve with). As the "production manager" (aka the guy in charge in exchange of nothing), Choudhury personally and otherwise (for example getting Ray's wife to sell her ornaments without telling either Ray or his mother) managed to fund the film for a while before suggesting to a desperate Ray that he approach the chief minister of West Bengal, which finally how the film was completed.--ppm 05:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dwaipayan and ppm.Baka man 17:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. M-9 Line[edit]

Not notable. There are infinity suburban bus routes. Anthony Appleyard 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; other articles on local bus routes have generally been deleted in the past. Walton monarchist89 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In general, bus routes change too quickly and easily for them to sustain separate articles. There are some exceptions, such as the historic bus routes in London, but this does not appear to be among them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Meelosh 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but sources should be cited in the article. W.marsh 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Daisy Nightclub[edit]

I love The Human League, but I quetion the notability of this article. It's definitely written with a POV tone and the image is way too large but aside from that, did the club have any other claim to fame besides the Human League connection? It's not like this place was the Hacienda or CBGBs or some other notable, iconic pop music club. -- eo 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only references are in relation to the girls' discovery. Not enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - My Reply, If the article needs rewriting then so be it. But as regards the notability I strongly disagree. The 'Crazy Daisy' nightclub is listed in the Official Sheffield City Council history of the city.Which is why it is in the Sheffield Catagory as well as The Human League. It is mentioned in over a dozen Human League and Electronic Music websites in UK and US. It is referred to in a number of interviews of Gayle, Oakey and Catherall particularly the BBC Online. A Google search will throw up more. This may prompt a wiki search by an interested party. Of course the club is only notable for discovery of Gayle (Sulley) and Catherall, but that incident alone is deeply embedded in British popular folklore, which even non Human League fans know. When Susan is interviewed by the media she is nearly always still asked to tell the story, 27 years later. If that is your rationale for deletion then please also delete the Viper Room entry which is only notable for the death of River Phoenix. The article will be expanded by virtue of it's presence on wiki, where someone with more info than me can add to it. For obvious reasons a historical location from a quarter of a century ago doesn’t have that much readily available information, that is what I thought Wikipedia was created to provide. Rest assured when I next speak to Susan Gayle I will ask her for some background info on the club.

Andi064 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I have to agree with Andi064. Although the current article is not up to scratch, some rewritting should bring it to standard. I have quarrels with the notability of the place, providing Andi can give us sources to the Official Sheffield City Council history of the city. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite per this search... Addhoc 23:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We all seem to agree that the club's only claim to notability is the Human League link. However, the Crazy Daisy story is already covered in greater detail in both the Susanne Sulley and Joanne Catherall articles. That seems like enough.--Kubigula (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thin claim to notability, thin coverage, even in the Google News archives. Sandstein 19:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt due to repeated quick-fire recreations; if he meets WP:BIO in the near-future by playing in a professional league (as Scottmsg et al point out he hasn't), someone can present reliable sources to DRV and ask for an unsalting. - Daniel.Bryant 10:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Ramsden[edit]

Non-notable footballer/vanity page. Speedy deleted twice already in the last 3 days.

delete and protect from recreation per nomination Cornell Rockey 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable since he has not played in a professional league. Possibly speedy delete under CSD G4. Scottmsg 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Scottmsg - fchd 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. HornetMike 22:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only has he never played in a professional league, he's never even played in a Saturday league, the league he currently plays in is a Sunday league. Absolutely no notability whatsoever ChrisTheDude 07:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable player for a totally non-notable team WikiGull 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stongest possible Delete - need I say more. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth - per WP:BIO and nomination. Qwghlm 16:37, 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 Keep Cool Hand Luke 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metabrowsing[edit]

disputed PROD for NN- new search/browse method for the web, suspected neologism delete Cornell Rockey 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep The references are sufficient to prove the use, and it is just as significant a concept as metasearching, which has long had an article. Basic concept, but article will need much expansion soon.DGG 02:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The term has been used in press an journal articles, however I'm worried that a walled garden is being created by the single purpose account Tony343, and this article is focused on Quickbrowse. I'd like to see it cover when the other players in this market opened for business and closed up shop. It should also discuss how the technology works. John Vandenberg 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Though the subject of the article fits the definition of a neologism, the WP standards do not prohibit all neologisms. Per the guidelines this subject seems to be among the specific exceptions, and the concept is broad enough that this article can be broader than a mere dictionary definition. --Kevin Murray 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Addhoc 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Goodall[edit]

non-notable footballer adavidw 20:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Does not meet WP:Bio. Scottmsg 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and also delete everyone else who's only link to the real world is "Preston St FC" - fchd 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the rest of the Preston St walled garden ChrisTheDude 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stongest possible Delete - need I say more. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete blatant vanity article. Qwghlm 16:49, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 10:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Goodall[edit]

non-notable footballer/possible hoax adavidw 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 22:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Scottmsg 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the rest of the Preston St walled garden ChrisTheDude 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stongest possible Delete - need I say more. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if the person is notable the article fails to demonstrate that Alf photoman 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete blatant vanity article. Qwghlm 16:48, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW – Pea ceNT 07:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden Spoon Society[edit]

disputed PROD for unreferenced, NN-charity delete Cornell Rockey 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am a newbie at this, What is a "disputed PROD for unreferenced, NN-charity?" What it disputed and what is unreferenced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gonker44 (talk • contribs).

PROD refers to the ((prod)) template for proposed deletion, which was disputed by its removal. It is unreferenced because it has no reliable sources demonstrating the subject's notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Wooden Spoon is notable, this is not. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep pending references supporting notability, e.g. Google News Archive results. --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help, The major reference for justifying the notability of the Charity is its own website which is referenced in the article. I have also now listed the Patron HRH Princess Anne, and several notable (major celebrity in rugby term) names who are Honorary Presidents of the Society - all of whom have their own articles in Wiki. Please help if I have not "properly" cited sources etCheers - the website says it all for me!

Also can I ask why user cornell rockey is removing relevant links from other articles to this article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonker44 (talk • contribs)

commentBecause you've referenced in the article for the national rugby team that this charity was founded in a bar while watching the national team on TV. Hardly a notable event for the national rugby team, and as such, it doesn't belong in their article. Cornell Rockey 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'comment Sorry Cornell, but you are making a subjective, incorrect assumption, and I do not believe you are qualified to remove that. The founders were not watching on TV, they had been to the match itself, and were directly influenced by the loss to found the Charity.it was indeed a notable event - an event that has directly led to $25m being raised for disadvantaged children, and the fact that 7 of the England Rugby world cup winning team are currently Honorary Presidents of the Charity is testament itself to the importance felt by the England (and now British and Irish) rugby community to the importance of this singular event in 1983.Gonker44

Keep - The article definitely needs a clean-up, but that is all. The charity is notable, just looking at it's patron is enough to convince me of that. Also, with so many members, and the level of money raised, it is very hard to argue that having an article on it is inappropriate. - Shudda ^talk 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep per Dhartung. Also we have a new user on board here, so lets help a bit to get this one across the line (if that is possible). Gonker44, Wikipedia requires that each article has reliable sources that are independent from the person or company, so the information on their website isnt "enough". We need to find nice news clippings that support the facts. Can you find one that supports the society being established in 1983? John Vandenberg 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to normal keep as the article has been improved to include sources for the important facts. John Vandenberg 19:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have given the reference directly from the website of the history of the charity. It will celebrate its 25th Anniversary next year. is there any reason to doubt this? The fact that England did not win the Wooden spoon in 1982 or subsequent to 1983 independently verifies the date it was formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonker44 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 January 2007 Taking a look at another article - the American Red Cross - I note that the history of it mentioned in the article is referenced directly to its own website, is this incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonker44 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 January 2007

Gonker44, your link to the website is a self-published source, which means it is not good enough as evidence on the Wikipedia, according to the "Verifiability" policy (you should read this policy). You need to look through the online news clippings (i.e. take a look at these: [76]). This will take more of your time, but the end result is much more useful in an encyclopedia, because then our readers can verify the facts from sources they trust. John Vandenberg 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Dhartung. The Society seems to be well known in rugby circle according to ghits--Vintagekits 08:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many thanks to thse who are helping me here. I believe that the consensus of feedback received is that most readers would understand that the Wooden Spoon is a major charity in the UK and Ireland, and deserves an article - one that I do hope will be expanded greatly once I advise the 11,000 members it exists!

What you are asking for is verifiability to the statements of when it was founded etc. Well, back in 1983, it was launched by just 5 people, with no funds, so it is unlikely it attracted much press attention at first. However, I can verify that Spoon has been registered with the official UK Charity Commission since 1984 and have now added this to the article. I hope this satisfies this aspect! gonker44

Gonker44, thanks, that's the sort of source we need. I've reformatted the sources so that additional factoids regarding the source can be annotated and seen by the reader. The syntax for use ((cite web)) can be a bit tricky; if its annoying you, dont bother with it, just use the [url] syntax. John Vandenberg 19:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kittybrewster 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn. A ecis^Bravado 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GeenStijl.nl[edit]

disputed prod for NN-blog delete Cornell Rockey 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. GeenStijl a non-notable blog? It is the most notable blog in the Netherlands. Also note that it has an Alexa ranking for the Netherlands of 15, which is higher than MySpace, IMDB and eBay [77]. A ecis^Bravado 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw my bad, started the AfD on the wrong blog, had this confused with another that actually had been a disputed PROD. would an admin kindly close this out? Cornell Rockey 21:02, 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. W.marsh 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor's Advocate (song)[edit]

Article was proposed for deletion with the reason "Never released as a single, and therefore has no notability." While that line of reasoning is not always correct, it is true that there is no assertion of notability of this particular song in the article. The contester of the prod has said on the article's talk page: "This could go on to be one of the better songs of the era, you never know." However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. A ecis^Bravado 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to album page, unless special attention has been given to this song in third-party sources. At present, it seems like a minor song off the album and crystalballery if it only might go on to be regarded as one of the better songs. Trebor 23:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This track is notable because it explains the theme for The Game's second album of the same name. It talks about the controversy between The Game and Aftermath Records and how it has affected The Game's life and relations between the involved parties.--NPswimdude500 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got any sources focusing on it? Does it qualify under the notability guideline? Trebor 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it doesn't meet any specific notability requirement. There is third party commentary (though not as much as you would find for a single), most of which says that "Doctor's Advocate" is one of the best songs on the album. HipHopDX.cm goes as far as to say that the song "really puts Game’s behavior into perspective, painting a picture of him as a young man struggling to handle all the spotlight and drama he was suddenly thrust into." Additionally, it is commonly listed as one of the top tracks on the album in messageboards, and comment boxes (of course Wikipedia disregards forums, messageboards and user opinions in general as irrelevant and noncredible [sp?] sources, but nevertheless...).

Sources of [credible] third party commentary:

Technically this article doesn't meet any of the notability requirements. Won't deny that. But it is regarded as one of the album's best tracks and has the most commentary on the album's main focus, The Game's conflict with Aftermath Entertainment (specifically Dr. Dre). You can delete it if you want, because there's nothing to say you shouldn't. But I think because of the song's content and the positive reviews the track has received (even if they are from "unreliable" sources), the article should be kept.--NPswimdude500 06:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be getting rid of the information, just merging it to the album page. Is it really worth having a two paragraph article on a song off an album, which wasn't released as a single and otherwise has very little "special" about it. As you say, it doesn't meet the notability guidelines and since there is an easy merge available, I don't see any reason to keep it separate. Trebor 13:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Trebor... Addhoc 12:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; as a side-note, it was merged back in to Far right prior to my closure now. - Daniel.Bryant 10:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political Parties labeled Far Right, Extreme Right, Nationalist or Right-wing[edit]

This page is a POV-fork from Far right. There is a similar list in Far right, titled Parties labeled as "Far Right" or "Extreme Right", which was originally removed by the creator of this article; I replaced the list in Far right, and nobody there has objected. This list-article conflates "Far Right" and "Extreme Right", which both connote extremism, with "Nationalist" and "Right-wing", neither of which connotes extremism, which creates the possibility of using this list to tar non-extremist nationalist and conservative parties with association with fringe extremist parties. Argyriou (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is a fork.--Tainter 22:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NPOV and NOR issues. C mon 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV as discussed above. Would a list of "Political Parties labeled Stalinist, Communist, Progressive or Liberal" be appropriate? PubliusFL 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. -Will Beback · † · 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments.--Jersey Devil 04:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. Tazmaniacs 14:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above-DE SU 05:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Chess Network[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Diminutive chess playing site. Drawn to my attention via the afd debate on Ten Ton Hammer. Notably, somone who identifies with TTH comments on their own forum that "Also, something I found hilarious, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Network exists for the Chess Network that TTH's parent company owns. It's smaller then TTH itself. So uhhh.". (First post at [78] - scroll to top of page)

So, as you say. Uhhh. Or as we say, Bye. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Delete --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is a component of the effort to increase the coverage of chess websites and a significant chess site along with Chess Live, Playchess, Free Internet Chess Server and Internet Chess Club. For balance we should have an article on each of the sites. If this is deleted then a new article will need to be created to link them all together. I have added some references to meet WP:WEB. Susan Polger is one of the foremost chess educators and Chessbase the leading chess internet site. When they speak positively about a website then it is notable. Please retain it. BlueValour 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have upgraded my view in the light of the excellent cleanup by Shrumster. BlueValour 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Only 68 players online? Sounds pretty small to me. — brighterorange (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - latest estimate is about 10,000 subscribers. Smaller than Internet Chess Club with 30,000+ but still pretty good for a subscription site. Several hundred would be online at any one time (you can log on free on to check if required). BlueValour 07:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I was originally a skeptic upon seeing the "Subscriptions and Trials" section of the article (seems like promotion) but upon seeing the references, it seems pretty notable and well-known. That "Subscriptions" section should be axed though, and the rest of the article filled out. I'll see if I can clean up the references to look more professional. Shrumster 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I fixed the article as much as I could. The site itself is very, very notable, it seems. Actual recognition by the United States Chess Federation...can't get any more notable than that. A number of masters and grandmasters are members of the site, including three (notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries) I've included in the article. If they play on it, it's good enough for me. Shrumster 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Actual recognition by the United States Chess Federation...can't get any more notable than that." Nothing US-centric about that view, then :) --Tagishsimon (talk)

- Comment. Oh, and to directly address WP:WEB, rule #1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I've already fixed the references section with regards to this. I doubt that favourable reviews from known chess grandmasters would be "~~non~~-trivial". Shrumster 18:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - erm I think that you mean "trivial" :-) BlueValour 22:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whoops, my bad. :) Shrumster 00:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Shrumuster. He seems to have addressed the issues that brought the VfD. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems to be notable (10,000 subscribers is not that low). Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 02:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Shrumuster. He seems to have addressed the issues that were brought to the AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 14:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Time to close this as keep under WP:SNOW, I think. If I did but know how. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Reply, you would need to be an admin to close this under WP:SNOW. If there had been no deletes at all you could have closed this yourself as speedy keep by withdrawing your nomination for this AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 09:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consenus to delete. W.marsh 15:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde[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)).

Fails WP:BIO- non notable IRA terrorist- no references and no evidence of having done anything Astrotrain 21:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This was any amazing man, born in Derry, moved to Belfast where his house was bombed and his father and brother shot by loyalist. Then commended for bravery by the Irish Army before joining the PIRA, involved in many missions and killed by the British Army. Granted more detail needs to be added but that only comes with time.--Vintagekits 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are using unreliable sources, or citing sources that cannot be verified. The Troops Out Movement is not a reliable source for example. Other users may wish to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Montgomery where Vintagekits is citing a Daily Mail article that doesn't even exist in their archives. Astrotrain 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Actually the source was proven correct, the article was in its subscription service, and also obviously could have been read if you bought the paper on the days that the information was printed in them, or went to look at their arcives--Vintagekits 16:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - not just one source there mate - what about CAIN and The Guardian - ever heard of them!?!--Vintagekits 23:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable Weggie 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have now added a lot more detail and references to the article. Please see here to compare old the version and the time the AfD and the current contribution. regards--Vintagekits 16:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The manner of his death and his ther accomplishments together make him notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Under the condition that the POV in the article is removed, and the content is narrowed down to what the references cover. Some of the references quoted don't even mention him. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Stu, in the other articles he is possibly refered to by his English name which I have also listed, please note that his English name is stated in different location as being any comination of Tony or Anthony and McBride and MacBride. regards--Vintagekits 08:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. I would also point out that how "strong" you might feel about your vote doesn't make it worth more than my regular old delete. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isnt a vote, its a discussion, and strong/weak are ways of expressing emotion. play on. John Vandenberg 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As much as I hate to agree with Vintagekits, MacGiolla Bhrighde probably deserves to be kept given the particular circumstances; however these debates have to be on an individual basis only. Vintagekits must also realize that lavishing praise on terrorists is a sure way to get his edits reviewed for POV.El chulito 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not noteable. - Kittybrewster 17:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is Wikipedia's intention to carry a biography of every dedicated murderer of innocent civilians who ever existed. David Lauder 13:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article seems to be part of an ongoing attempt to memorialise every dead IRA militant on Wikipedia, padded with dubious sources and an undercurrent of anglophobia.--Major Bonkers 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above comments.--Couter-revolutionary 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Admin, please see here and here for details on the canvassing campaign in breach of WP:CANVAS that a number of the editors who have voted delete have been engaged in.--Vintagekits 19:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Much of the arguments for deletion above boils down to to POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT as we know that is not a reason to delete. There is numerous nontrivial secondary source coverage here, and any perceived NPOV problems can be sorted through WP:SOFIXIT. My reasoning for the 'keep vote are factual.

A nationalist moving into a loyalist area and where there family house was repeated attacks and he and his father were shoot (his father eventually dieing from his injuries (notable)
Joining the regular Irish Army and at the same time secretly joking the IRA, highly unusual, controversial and therefore notable,
Caught smuggling arms from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland and subsequently being imprisoned for this (notable)
PIRA membership is pretty notable on its own but MacGiolla Bhrighde was aligned with the militant South Derry and the East Tyrone Brigades who favoured a more radical approach that the IRA Army Council.(notable)
Shot by the SAS in highly disputed circumstances with republicans claiming he was executed after being detained and British forces claiming that he was shot after lunging for a British Army soldiers gun.(notable)
Debate of the location of his memorial stone, may not very notable but interesting nonetheless.
He is refernced in some of the most well known books on the modern days troubles including those by Andy McNab, Tim Pat Coogan and Ed Moloney.(notable)

Finally please compare the version when the article was first nominated and the current version.--Vintagekits 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this one is obvious. Numerous independent sources attest the notability of the topic under WP:BIO. —ptk✰fgs 23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All of the citations are from non-reliable sources, while google books and google news return nothing. Addhoc 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable figure in the Irish conflict who played a key role in the IRA's armed campaign. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Whether you agree or disagree with the man's politics, his life was an extraordinary one and the information contained on this entry informs the general knowledge and understanding of the Irish conflict. I am interested in all of the extraordinary people on all sides of this conflict whose history and the political choices the made and actions they took can contribute to the general understanding of the war in Ireland.Free Speech

Comment:the IRA were a proscribed and illegal organisation throughout all of Ireland. There was no "war" in Ireland, just a terrorist campaign by an illegal group of monsters responsible for the deaths of innocents. Glorification of these people in pages on Wikipedia should be discouraged entirely. That is not what encyclopaedias are for. David Lauder 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - firstly "Free Speech" is an IP and the above 'vote' his/her first contribution. Secondly, this isn't about whether he was "extraordinary" or a "monster". The sources provided so far are not reliable and the subject does not appear to be verifiable based on internet searches. Addhoc 10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - internet searches alone do not tell the whole story with regards this situation, 1. When he was killed in was before the "internet explosion" - if it were today then there wold be a multitude of internet based sources, if you were to access the hard copy archives of Irish and NI paper you would be able to see the reports. 2. He is written about in a number of the leading books relating to Northern Irish troubles and they have been referenced. 3. which sources listed do you not consider to be reliable and what statements from them are you questioning? If you can clearly list and point your argument then we should be able to discuss them sensibly. regards--Vintagekits 11:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for your calm and thoughtful reply. Completely agree that internet searches don't always tell the whole story. For the avoidance of doubt, when the nom indicates "no references" that implies none of the citations provided are considered satisfactory. Could you provide extracts from the books that mention him? Addhoc 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,Addhoc, no problem, please see the nominators history of nominations to gauge his POV, I dont have time right now to type out verbaitum the extracts for the books but I will try - they are very well known books with regards this subject, the McNab one being very popular as it was the follow up to his "Brave Two Zero" book with the Moloney and Coogan books being more recognised within the academic world for their insite into the working of the IRA and its history. I'll see what I can do.--Vintagekits 12:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted /wangi 13:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Horizon[edit]

Self promotion of a non-notable local project TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails to assert notability and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. NeoFreak 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article: "expected to be completed in 2008". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per everyone else.Azerbaijani 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short, and has been edited once (on creation) besides the deletion nomination. Could be re-created after the series starts, but doesn't need to be here, as per above reasons (mine and others'). -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 23:45, 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 to delete. W.marsh 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Breslin[edit]

Fails WP:BIO- non notable IRA terrorist- no references- no evidence of him having done anything significant Astrotrain 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he wasn't notable, why did the British soldiers kill him? Martyrdom makes notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that the number of persons killed by the British Army runs into the millions. If being killed by the British Army makes a person notable, we better free up some server space. Martyr is POV and OR. Astrotrain 12:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Yes, martyr is POV, and is not mentioned in the article. However, being a member of the IRA who was killed by the SAS under the "shoot to kill" policy and whos family recieved compensation for his unlawful killing is not POV and is indeed notable.--Vintagekits 13:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Weggie 23:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Just read some of the detail of the references that have been added. IRA member who was shot in under the "shot to kill" policy. I will heavily add to the article as soon as I get time but it is getting difficult as Astrotrain is on a crusade and has AfD'ed loads of similar articles at the same time.--Vintagekits 23:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs better references though. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs expanding and referenced. --Mal 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete. Just being killed by the British, even under a controversial policy, is not enough to make one notable. Argyriou (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not support notability as they are not independent and non-trivial. Eluchil404 14:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, An Phoblacht, Irish News, UTV, Northern Ireland Fourm, Politics.co.uk, CAIN - "not independent and non-trivial"--Vintagekits 09:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These links were being removed from the article, so some users would not have seen them. Tyrenius 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WinLIKE[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank below 1m Computerjoe 's talk 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep How about actually reading WP:WEB. It seems notable and important enough to have an article, also with the screenshots. Retiono Virginian 21:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you provide sources to the effect? Thanks. Computerjoe 's talk 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Argyriou (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, interesting but non-notable window manager API, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Unsure what WP:WEB has to do with it. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show it meets WP:SOFTWARE. CiaranG 19:48, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T (abbreviation)[edit]

This article, despite the implications of the article title, is not a list of things abbreviated as 'T' -- it is a list of what T could possibly stand for in abbreviations that contain the letter 'T', plus an additional list at the bottom of the page of items that are vaguely related to T. No matter what the article is called, I don't think such a list belongs here. We have a (fairly massive) article on the letter T, a T (disambiguation) article that was extracted from T after much acrimonious debate, and finally this article, which was presented as a list at the bottom of the disambiguation page, and separated out so that the disambiguation page could be useful.
This list, due to lack of discrimination and its consequent sheer size, isn't useful, and if trimmed, wouldn't serve any more purpose than the disambiguation article. ArglebargleIV 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. especially the lack of discrimination is a major problem on this page TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate entries with T (disambiguation). Delete obscure or self-promotion entries. I remember in September 2006 when Macaw 54 had been trying to make the T article bigger and bigger, and I tried splitting it, and asking for help, but he kept following me around saying "No, I'm okay; it is Georgia guy who is behaving badly." However, now Macaw 54 had been blocked, please check out both this page and the T page and try to remove info that Macaw 54 had added. Georgia guy 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete salvage anything and put it into T (disambiguation), but if not then jujst get rid of it. --Tainter 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Usable content has already been merged into T (disambiguation). --Strait 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful into T (disambiguation). Fg2 01:47, 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 Speedy deleted by KillerChihuahua as nonsense. BryanG^(talk) 02:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Sperati[edit]

Disputed speedy. Straightforward non-notable [auto?] bio. -- RHaworth 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obvious and blatant nonsense. Unless you're inclined to believe that this person was giving Connie Chung interviews on the subject of rape at the age of 12, I don't see how this can be anything other than a hoax. Seventypercent 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After poking around a bit more, it appears that most of this article was simply cut and pasted from the Bob Knight article, changing Knight's name to Sperati. Seventypercent 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you beat me to it. I've tagged the page db-nonsense for the same reason. CiaranG 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax --Kevin Murray 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Delete Straightforward vandalism cut-and-paste. Why are we even discussing it?--Anthony.bradbury 22:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I like the sound of my own voice. CiaranG 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Unless we can demonstrate that Josh Sperati is Bob Knight, after a name-change and a drastic de-aging surgery. I like the sound of my own voice, too. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:09, 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. W.marsh 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mauldin High School[edit]

Non-notable Seinfreak37 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High schools are harmless. Besides, keeping the article means that we have a stub to start with if the school suddenly finds itself in the news. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article about the locality or school district. The proposed guideline WP:SCHOOLS3 says "A school may be best handled in a separate article if it is the principal subject of multiple reliable independent non-trivial published works. If it is not, then it is likely sufficient information to expand the article does not yet exist, and any verifiable information might best be merged and redirected to an article about the locality or school district in which the school resides." Edison 00:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The above keep arguments are nonsense. Creating an article because someday the topic might be notable is not acceptable. If that standard was followed, there would be no notability guideline because there is always the possibility that something might become notable. That's why we don't write about things until they actually are defined as such. Soltak | Talk 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and only recreate the article if the school for some reason becomes notable. --Nick Dowling 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete harmless is not N. future use as a stub in case justifies every person or object in the world. DGG 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't usually vote one way or another on schools, but this particular article is so bad that even if this is an extremely notable school that it's vital we have an article on, we'd do better deleting this and starting from scratch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references, and notability is not proven. WMMartin 13:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Ashe ( -1862)[edit]

This is a biography of a non-notable person. Only claim to fame is fighting in the American Civil War Pinkkeith 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails N and BIO etc. etc. We cant keep every soldier of every war, unless of course he/she did something notable. SynergeticMaggot 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a grandson of a state governor does not establish notability, nor does fighting at Shiloh. Fails WP:NN.--Anthony.bradbury 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN war death. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information other than a link to his grandfather and the battle in which he died. I think this is the shortest article I have seen in quite a while. What would be its use? User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manic aggression[edit]

Article about a band that does not establish notability. It does not seem close to meeting WP:MUSIC, so I doubt that it is a matter of finding references. It is a contested prod. I am also nominating these related pages:

“Cultural Suicide”
“Sampler Platter” (E.P.)

Khatru2 22:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sorry guys, playing at a county fair isn't quite up to notability standards. delete all three.--Tainter 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fails every criteria in WP:MUSIC, AFAICT. Ohconfucius 17:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND, insufficient third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 08:22, 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 11:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of web chat sites[edit]

Wikipedia articles should not exist as link-farms or directories: Wikipedia is not a repository of links, Wikipedia is not a directory Ronz 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#17-January-2007, Talk:List_of_web_chat_sites, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_social_networking_websites_(2nd_nomination). --Ronz 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. →Ed Gl 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow. a link farm if there ver was one. --Tainter 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of chat-sites, and should not host any article which is.--Anthony.bradbury 22:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Web directories/lists of links are pretty clearly covered in WP:NOT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. big-boards.com does this better. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory.-- danntm ^T _C 04:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 16:20, 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 keep Cool Hand Luke 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel Port[edit]

Non-notable person; fails WP:BIO. (Note: as of 20:42, January 30, I am changing my vote to Neutral) Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:49, 25 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)).

- do not delete. I think that Ms. Port should remain in wikipedia, when I first heard virgin radio, I wanted to look up some information on the radio personalities that was not produced by the station itself. I think her role as radio sidekick warrants an individual entry. This would also apply to Tony Moorey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15.195.185.76 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

DO NOT DELETE

I think that instead of deleting her page you should merge it with the pages of Geoff Lloyd and Tony Moorey to make one big page for The Symposium!!!!!!!!!!--Gumboster 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete

Just look at the amount of debate/interest this issue has raised. Surely this alone proves that Annabel Port is significant enough to merit her own page, anyway the democratic balance seems to be heavily weighted in favour of keeping the articleConal 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Annabel Port is an extremely talented and funny entertainer, she played an important part in Pete and Geoffs Breakfast show on Virgin Radio and continues to do so as part of the Geoff Show.

DO NOT DELETE

Annabel is the heart of the geoff show on a weekday night, you cannot just delete her from the website that holds the fountain of human knowledge!, she has also worked with Paul McCartney you wouldn't delete john lennon! (that was a bit extreme)but wikipedia has articles on people that have lived in the big brother house...WHAT HAVE THEY DONE THAT IS NOTABLE...annabel has done something, and she and the symposium have over 1 million listeners! DO NOT DELETE 86.3.88.170 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete

Annabel is Gorgeous, Don't delete you silly Americans !*Do Not Delete Annabel is a great icon for the Virgin Radio Goeff Show - a show with world-wide coverage. She is definitely a well known celebrity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.64.255.106 (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do Not Delete

I think Annabel is definitely a celebrity in her own right and deserves a page on wikipedia.Penny79UK 20:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete

Deleting Annabel would be like deleting terry wogan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.45.34 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do Not Delete annabel port is a celebrity for many people in London and has been for some time now she is a great radio presenter and should at least be acknowledged for this somewhere, this profile is not doing harm, it is not offensive, it is just a biography of a radio presenter. PLease don't delete this 88.109.39.10 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - I agree with most comments made here, the point is not that she is not a notable person, as it was stated before if Big Brother contestants are notable for living in a TV house for a few weeks, Annabel Port whom many people listen to and love on a daily basis and have for many years now, certainly deserves an entry. But I do agree the article can do with a facelift and tidy up. I get the feeling that The people who appreciate her somewhat original style have tried to create an entry that reflects that style and is unfortunately not adapted to what WP articles usually look like. She deserves a proper entry, so please WP people keep the entry and please fans don't mess up the page of someone you like, see what it leads to !

194.98.105.3 13:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Kathy, member of Wikipedia France[reply]

Do Not Delete - it simply requires clean-up. MSJapan: you are wrong. The first result on Google with the term "annabel port" is her Virgin Radio profile page. She is a visible member of the radio industry, syndicated on a nightly basis to the whole of London on FM, the whole of the UK on AM and DAB, and worldwide online, and she has been nominanted for Sony Awards. All this article needs to be relevant is a cleanup. --poorsod^talk 15:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - The item referring to the boyfriend comments: This statement was indeed accurate, a citation should be possible if you're able to link to the podcast of the radio show where annabel made this reference. Annabel is nationally known to virgin radio listeners in the UK, and also those listeners on the internet. Criterea for Notability states 'Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers' - Annabel's opinion is nationally broadcast Monday to Friday as her role as an entertainment personality in "porting controversy". There is not sufficient basis for removal, and more than enough for keeping the entry - Jonathan Lozinski —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.131.121.253 (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem like a notable radio presenter. Jokes about boyfriend don't help. --Dhartung | Talk 23:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Annabel recently considered ending her relationship with her boyfriend of four years, on account of the fact that she found the latest Roxette single in their CD-player"? I'd like to see a verifiable source for that one. User:Dimadick
Do Not Delete - she calls up Donald Trump's secretary asking him to come and play such games as "can Trump's pet play the trumpet". Genius - she should stay a notable person.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.228.233.162 (talk • contribs).
Do Not Delete - Annabel is an integral part of "The Geoff Show," one of the most popular radio show podcasts on the internet. Her voice if familiar to radio listeners and internet users worldwide, and her sense of humour provides an essential balance to the humour and wit of Geoff Lloyd and Tony Morey. She is notable in terms of UK and worldwide radio, and should stay on Wikipedia.

User:Songfta (Note: This user has only 29 minor edits prior to this AfD, since Feb. 2005.) MSJapan 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. As an individual, she is not notable, and there do not appear to be any sources to verify any of the claims made. This article is the first Google hit for her, which is usually a bad sign. The second is the WP article on the show she cohosts. There's a few mentions here and there, but none of it really adheres. There's plenty of radio cohosts who don't rate articles, and she's just another one. Also, as there's clearly some humor intended in the article (which doesn't belong there), my final statement would be "I don't care if her boyfriend checks this page six times a day with Roxette on repeat, she's still not notable!" MSJapan 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MSJapan. Valrith 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete- Annabel Port is a nationally recognized presenter (DJ for the illiterates reading) on Virgin Radio, a national station in England which is heard worldwide online. It w/b criminal to delete her. Martyfromnewyawk
Do not Delete Annabel Port is a very notable face in British radio, and is nationally recognised both in the uk and worldwide. Clairehogben 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete -

REASONS THAT DELETION OF Annabel Port IS INAPPROPRIATE

1. Notability: Annabel Port broadcasts to a nightly audience of over a million people in the UK (source: RAJAR the UK's radio audience research organisation) as well as many more online, with Virgin Radio being the world's most listened-to radio station (source: Arbitron). That's an audience bigger than most non-syndicated US personalities, and even some syndicated ones. As part of the Pete And Geoff show team, she has received multiple radio awards and nominations, including for the prestigious UK Sony Radio Academy Awards.

2. Other Media Coverage: She has been featured in large-circulation national UK publications such as the Daily Mirror, The Independent and the Radio Times, and appeared as a guest on both terrestrial and digital TV channels in the UK.

3. Cultural significance: In addition to this, as mentioned in her entry, she co-wrote a song with Paul McCartney. As one of only a handful of people to boast a composer credit alongside one of the greatest music and cultural icons of the 20th Century, thIs alone should warrant her a permanent entry.

ON VANDALISM: As far as people adding silly jokes to the entry goes, this is an unfortunate and unwanted of entries about pop-culture figures, major or minor. The boyfriend comment was clearly something mentioned on the radio, and jumped-on by a listener who edited here. There are hours upon hours of verifiable source downloadable in the form of podcast/archive audio, although this is, admittedly, an arduous task.

The problem here, surely, is not the validity of Annabel Port's entry, but a need for greater vigilance policing this page for vandalism and flippant additions. 82.69.47.207 10:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Lespez[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.47.207 (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do Not Delete - Annabel Port is an integral part of The Geoff Show, one of the flagship shows on the world renowned Virgin Radio. To delete her entry would be a crime, as she clearly meets the criteria to be listed on Wikipedia. Phloot 12:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do NOT delete she contributes hugely to Virgin Radio - without her the show would be nowhere near as entertaining. She deserves a mention on Wikipedia as a figurehead of radio presenting, not to mention her sharp wit.

Do not delete - While the article on wikipedia is of exceedingly low quality and little value to anyone wanting to read up on her that is no reason to delete it, for the reasons preceding this comment there are many reasons as to why there should be a page for Annabel Port all it is in need of is a clean up.

do not delete. why? CAUSE I SAID SO. i am an angry hormonal teenager and if you'd rather have me causing havoc than listening to the MARVELLOUS virgin radio... you know what to do.. i warn yee.. i am a pest.

Do no delete - As a presenter on the largest commercial pop and rock station in the UK (Source: RAJAR) she deserves an entry here. If her entry is deleted, then the majority of other radio DJ entries would similarly need to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.49.61.205 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do not delete. - As a presenter of a very popular radio show in the UK she has a large fan base and therefore deserves to have an entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.44.169 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Do Not Delete - Annabel Port is an integral part of a national radio show. How about we delete Chris Moyles? 88.106.170.67 13:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Wikipedia is international and ground up in its concept. Annabel Port commands an audience both in the UK (on national independent radio) and internationally via the Internet. The radio station in question has recently featured the UK Prime Minister live on air (not as a specifically invited guest - he called in himself), so Mr Blair is not of the opinion it is insignificant. Vandalism (the boyfriend comment) and lack of sources are specifically listed as not good enough reasons to delete. The Geoff Show is innovative light entertainment radio and is significantly different from any other radio show I have heard. Annabel is an integral part of the Geoff Show (as she was of the Pete and Geoff Breakfast Show). I have personally not heard of all of the subjects of Wikipedia articles - surely this is the point? An Encycopedia is a place where a person can look up information that he or she does not already know. Panperoxide 19:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete!!

Annabel Port is an essential member of a prime time radio broadcast that goes out worldwide, although she is not the main host, she provides much of the content and among the shows listenership she is very well known and loved. I see that many of the contestents in Big Brother have an entry, Chantelle, Jade Goody etc, even though they haven't achieved anything in life. Annabel has forged a successful career in radio over the past 5 years and could be considered one of the top 200 most powerful people in radio in the uk. I guess the question that i would ask the Wikipedia administrators is "Do you consider radio to be an unimportant genre of entertainment not worthy of comment or discussion now we have other forms, television, internet etc?" If Karl Pilkington can have an entry, then Annabel should also have one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.176.235 (talk • contribs) 20:01, January 27, 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE : Annabel has kept the nation amused for years, she is a truly worthy person and has saved many a person from suicidal thoughts. she is VERY well known in Surrey, her biggest fan base. As a student i have just been asked to do some homework researching radio stars, i have chosen her, it is very useful to have information about this celebrity here. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.251.72 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 January 2007
Delete. Just another radio presenter, no different from any other. Please, people, let's at least have a hint as to why we should regard this kind of stuff as notable. WMMartin 13:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Over the last year I have become a fan of the Geoff Show and in Particular Annabelle. I think she is a integral part of the show. The show is worldwide. If you are to delete Annabelle port then you must delete all other Radio DJ's that you have listed on this site.

DO NOT DELETE: Annabelle Port is a well known radio presenter and a lot of other Virgin Radio presenters are on Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by rvsrvs (talk • contribs) 17:08, January 29, 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Delete: Annabelle is indeed a celebrity, and a well known presenter for virgin radio, There are lesser celebrities on wikki!

Worth noting that an effort to save this article has just gone out on air :)

Keep. Sock puppets and rentamobs aside (why is the concept of the word 'keep' always beyond them?) she's co-presenter on the morning radio show on a nationwide station with a listening audience (i.e. number actually listening, not number in the area broadcast) of over 2 million [79], and on more than one occasion a nominee for the Sony Radio Awards. How many ears listening to you in the morning are needed to make someone notable? Average Earthman 22:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't know that even 10 Billion ears listening makes someone notable. Aside from that, there is also the issue of WP:RS, which, imo, don't exist to support WP:V for this article. Valrith 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If 10 billion ears listening are still not notable I suggest we just nominate Jesus Christ for deletion. And frankly if 2 million people are listening to you everyday then that is more notable than a huge number of people in wikipedia articles. As for reliable sources - I've given you RAJAR, which proves the station exists and is notable, and the stations own website has a biography for the woman. What are you waiting for, a book? Average Earthman 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: Annabel Port is very well known in the UK, and many other countries as well. If you put an article about pete bennett on Wikipedia, surely you should keep this article. It only needs a bit of tidying up and it will be fine. BackInBlack89

Keep National radio personality on a popular show. And found a Daily Mirror article about her. [80] (inserted into article). --Oakshade 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's on Virgin Radio, right? That seems to be a national radio station, and also available on cable and satellite. Sky Digital, I see. So, this is someone who can be heard across most of the European continent. That's somewhat notable. --Kim Bruning 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable radio presenter. One Night In Hackney 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page seems pretty overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the article, with most of the pro-deletion brigade being our cousins from across the pond who seem to know very little about British radio and its presenters (just as I know very little about American radio). Just needs a cleanup, nothing more. 88.81.132.38 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW – Pea ceNT 07:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin McGartland[edit]

Another non notable alleged IRA terorist. Fails WP:BIO. Astrotrain 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although note he was actually a Special Branch agent who infiltrated the IRA. --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to keep with new sources. --Dhartung | Talk 01:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apart from being a former memeber of the IRA he then worked for M15 as a spy and wrote one of the most well known books on this subject and I think the IRA then tried to "take him out" in England. I think puts the NN issue to bed.--Vintagekits 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, He's an intersting charactor and is a published author of Fifty Dead Men Walking. He's not alleged anything this time. Definately notable Weggie 23:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Also film book. I volunteer to get this article up to scratch (NPOV) Weggie 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, and failing wp:bio. I'll change to keep if more info is added and heavily expanded. SynergeticMaggot 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The guy has a book and a film based on his story and thats NN!!! I would like a chance to add to the page but Astrotrain has nominated a number of similar pages for AfD at the same time without any prior discussion, so it is pretty difficult to keep up and work on all the articles.--Vintagekits 23:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. I've added a little more about him to the article, just spending 5 minutes using Google. Hopefully editors (like Vintagekits) will add more useful info. Argyriou (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as re-written/edited & Kudos to Argyriou! SkierRMH 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep When nominated this article was a stub. I did a google search, which quickly revealed an abundance of sources with significant mentions, including national press, TV documentary, questions in parliament and references by politicians. I have added this information to the article and greatly increased it, but I find it extraordinary that the nom either didn't do a google search, or, if he did, didn't see these results, or, if he did see them, failed to recognise their value. Badly researched AfD nominations not only waste community time, but stand to deprive the encyclopedia of worthwhile articles. I note the nominator has also proposed "a number of similar pages for AfD", and I trust he will check carefully to ensure that that is the right course of action for them. It could otherwise look very much like bad faith noms, which is a form of vandalism. Tyrenius 06:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not a bad faith nom - Wikipedia is not a memorial site for IRA terrorists - and this person is not notable. There are lots of criminals and criminal gangs in the UK that appear in the papers- this does not make them notable. He fails WP:BIO Astrotrain 08:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should be very careful what you say per WP:BLP amongst other reasons. This man is of course not a terrorist but working undercover with the police, so that is irrelevant and confused thinking or just Chewbacca. Similarly he is not a criminal and I presume you are not implying he is, but that is merely there for some kind of inappropriate analogy. However, you might like to check out Category:English criminals for future reference. In WP:BIO there is actually a specific mention of notability: Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events (my underline). Tyrenius 08:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The possible serious consequences of unfounded accusations can be seen here. Tyrenius 09:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the article says he is in the IRA- which is a terrorist organisation in the UK and Republic of Ireland. Astrotrain 09:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from highly selective readings to advance a false argument and create a misleading impression. The first line says, "Martin McGartland is a former IRA Volunteer and informer. When his cover was blown, he escaped", which communicates an entirely different situation to the one you have just stated. Tyrenius 14:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I think the above highlights the blatant bias that Astrotrain has with regards this issue.--Vintagekits 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IRA and MI5 member, published author and controversial figure overall. I think he passes the notability test with flying colors. User:Dimadick
Strong KeepEasily makes notability criteriaMs medusa 11:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as a surviving double agent/IRA informer, he is quite notable, just as much so as Sean O'Callaghan, for example.El chulito 16:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kittybrewster 16:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic XG[edit]

Non-notable fan game that isn't even finished and will never be judging from the latest news date. Metrackle 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a fan-created game with no observable notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable fangame - I don't think any Sonic fangame is notable. --tgheretford (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fangame, the end. JuJube 00:41, 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 delete. W.marsh 15:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CORPG[edit]

Article is currently completely unreferenced. Moreover, by the article's admission, the term CORPG has extremely limited use in the industry at best, seemingly limited to Guild Wars and an as-yet unreleased game called Fury. Also note that while the company that produces Guild Wars might use this term to describe its game, it's debatable that the term is widely used anywhere else, with many other sources simply referring to Guild Wars as an MMORPG. So unless the article can produce some verifiable published references to show that the term CORPG is an accepted word in the computer gaming industry, this should probably be deleted as unverified and possibly simply a made-up-phrase used for promotional purposes by Guild Wars marketing. Otherwise you may end up seeing computer games shuffled into Category:CORPGs soon based on an unverified phrase. Dugwiki 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, if it were slightly more notable I'd suggest a merge to an article on massively multiplayer online roleplaying games or to Guild Wars if appropriate. I'm familiar with this concept from Guild Wars but it was the company that made GW who coined this phrase and it doesn't apply to anything else. MLA 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are some 69,000 google results for CORPG. And unlike what MLA believes it has not only been used to discribe the game Guild Wars. Also this article is covered on other foreign language wikipedias. Mathmo ^Talk 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having looked at the google searcg Mathmo mentions, I'm not further enlightened. There's nothing except references to Guild Wars and other language wikipedias which all only reference Guild Wars themselves. This is just a marketing slogan. MLA 00:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, while I'll expect you are right and it originally came about due to Guild Wars it has however reached a broader range than that. As for a google search, you might find it helps in your search for non guild wars related pages to exclude those pages from the search along with any wikipedia pages. As such here are a few of the ones found [81] [82] [83] . Mathmo ^Talk 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Seems to be a neologism solely used by GuildWars. A redirect might be acceptable. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, I agree that a redirect to Guild Wars is a good idea since the term originates with that game. I notice that the article does now at least list the references to the official Guild Wars manual and Fury manual, which is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to verify Mathmo's links above, but I notice that one of them is a "player review", which can't be used as a citation. But if one of the other hits he mentioned checks out, and can be added to the article as a valid reference, it would bolster the case for keeping. Dugwiki 17:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable third party sources are included. No objection to redirect. Addhoc 23:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Visual kei. I'll leave the history there in case anyone wants to merge something or other. W.marsh 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual rock[edit]

Article does not reference any sources, might be original research and already claims to be an alternate term for visual kei (an article which also somewhat struggles in regards of WP:V). - Cyrus XIII 23:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glam rock. Argyriou (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking refrences and seemingly exists as the articles visual kei and Glam Rock. maybe could be incoporated more into visual kei. still, delete.--Tainter 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything into the existing articles Visual kei and Glam rock unless there's some distinction that didn't come across as I read this article. Fg2 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Visual kei... Addhoc 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but some of these sources should be cited in the article. W.marsh 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Evoy[edit]

This short bio reads like a résumé or perhaps spam. Previously speedy-deleted despite "hangon" tag. ➥the Epopt 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please review the material referenced at Talk:Ken Evoy, which includes reproductions of references in mainstream media. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Soltak | Talk 00:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information now available in Talk makes an insufficient case for notability per WP:BIO. --Ronz 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article might have some POV and verifiability problems as is, but the guy is clearly notable. See results of the Google search for "Ken Evoy" + interview [84]. Now of course not all these sources are reliable but they clearly show that he meets our requirements of WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 21:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A strange new meaning of "clearly" I was previously unaware of. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Distinctly minor-league stuff, and the references don't change that. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this search giving enough for WP:BIO... Addhoc 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Kings[edit]

questionably notable music group with no references, so I send back to an AfD Cornell Rockey 23:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As discussed in the 1st AFD, no evidence of passing the ancillary criteria of WP:MUSIC, much less the primary notability criterion. (Someone at the 1st AFD said their website showed 2 albums released on Jade, but I don't see it there, and even if it were there, their website is not reliable.) Pan Dan 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I did a fair bit of looking and appears can't find anything meeting WP:MUSIC. First, two of their albums are self-published—on their official website listed as "Released 2000: © The Old Kings", and two are by Jade Palace Records which appears very minor only 42 Google hits for that label. Every write up on the group I find has the exact same blurb (none at sites one would list as reliable sources), and their album is selling mainly at CDbaby, which appears to take CDs on consignment: "161,069 artists sell their CD at CD Baby". There is some ambiguity. They have a listing at allmusic (just one album) [85];and one CD selling on Amazon.com [86] with a sales rank of "no rank" and Amazon has thousands of self-published books--is it any different for CDs? No mention in any newspapers I checked.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources provided, and I can't find any sources that would assert notability, either. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band. Speedy deletion proposed by User:JJay, prodded by User:Pan Dan, then AfDed by User:Pan Dan, then prodded again by User:TheRingess, and again prodded by me (User:Jobjörn), and finally AfDed by User:Cornellrockey/User:Pan Dan again. As a matter of fact, hardly any actual content has been added to this article has been made since it was first edited by User:202.156.6.54. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:52, 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.