< January 27 January 29 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep per consensus – PeaceNT 07:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kunoichi[edit]

Kunoichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This amalgam of original research and fantasies from various works of fiction is utterly devoid of sources. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chewbacca defense[edit]

Chewbacca defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism that is not the subject of reliable third-party sources. Delete per WP:NEO. Chardish 00:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Also per UncleG in this afd, below. --N Shar 03:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Uncle G's first source is not a blog; look in the "legalese" section for this PDF version of a scholarly presentation.--chris.lawson 04:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not a source about the Chewbacca defense, this is a source that uses and references it. Furthermore, it's a series of PowerPoint slides with little actual content. WP:NEO is quite strict that an article requires sources on the subject of the neologism, not simply sources that use them. - Chardish 07:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is a substantive discussion by legal professionals of the actual strategy that the South Park writers called the Chewbacca defense not "on the subject" of the neologism? These are not trivial mentions.--Dhartung | Talk 00:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also this is more notable than Nincada, just to make it clear that I'm intentionally not citing policy ;) --- RockMFR 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's been done. See above.--chris.lawson 06:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources found. However, I'm seriously disappointed in how many people are applying [[WP:ILIKEIT] to this. AFD's are not "votes", and "I like it" is not a reason to retain an article. --Haemo 10:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why didn't you actually use that source? Finding a reliable source is one thing, using it in the article is completely different. The whole point of WP:V is that anyone who read the same research you did (in other words, the credible sources you cite) would obtain the same information that the article presented. Citing a source without using it in writing the article is worse than leaving the source out altogether - it sends researchers looking in the wrong places to verify the information you presented in the article. As such, I removed your reference. If you want to use this book as a source: 1) Acquire a copy of the book. 2) Read the chapter in question, and make sure it's pertinent to the article. 3) Using the book as a source, rewrite the article using only credible information. Until you do that (and maybe even after you do), the article still fails WP:V, which is non-negotiable. - Chardish 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point partly taken, maybe I will move it to "Further reading" until it can be properly used and cited. The reason I did not rewrite anything is because the article makes no "claims" that require sourcing from it. One might ask exactly what in the article you would consider to be "unverifiable". A fictional legal strategy used in an episode of South Park and what is essentially a transcript of the scene in question? Surely that is beyond doubt, and verifiable from the episode as a primary source. Then a small section on external usage which cites only those cases (OK, mostly blogs) where other editors have found sources. I will, by all means, get the book and add anything interesting I find. I might also point out that the nomination represents that the subject is "not the subject of third party sources", I was merely pointing out that it is. --Canley 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you are arguing, Chardish, that a topic is not notable, deleting material that demonstrates notability from the article[1] may be viewed as bad faith. The standard we are meeting at AFD is verifiable, not whether every i is dotted and every citation matching a source or vice versa. Anything else represents a content dispute which is not germane to WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 23:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • would you consider allowing it in the Wikipedia space, as we often have essays and information there (i.e., WP:HOLE or WP:SPIDER aren't worthy of articles). Part Deux 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I've got this straight. A "Chewbacca defense" is one where the prosecution's side is presented as too complicated to be convincing:

...or use a "Chewbacca defense" (thanks to the South Park TV show for this phrase) and try to razzle-dazzle the jury about how complex and complicated the other side's evidence or probability estimates are. [2]

No, wait. It's a defense that's "based on physical possibility that someone else committed bad act" [3].

This source seems to agree; though it never explicitly defines it, it gives an example of a Chewbacca defense as a "prevalence of computer vulnerabilities and malware technology that allow unknown persons to access one's computer [presumably to commit a 'bad act']."

But no, wait. The "Chewbacca defense" is actually a postmodernist's dream, "in which someone asserts his claim by saying something so patently nonsensical that the listener's brain shuts down completely."[4]

Maybe the experts at the Purdue U. conference can help me understand? Nope, all they give is the title of a lecture: "Poking the Wookie: The Chewbacca Defense in Digital Evidence Cases".

Then, this unreliable source suggests that an essential element of a Chewbacca defense is the use of "technical jargon" that most juries wouldn't understand.

Ah, now I understand! What we've got here is a classic neologism that's not even fit for Wiktionary.

Now, it is conceivable that even without a coherent definition of "Chewbacca defense," we could still support a Wikipedia article with this title, if various reliable sources were found that discuss the concepts denoted by the various meanings of "Chewbacca defense." But what we've got are unclear powerpoint presentations[5][6], uncited non-peer-reviewed course notes[7], blog posts [8][9][10], and totally unhelpful references in The Guardian and The Associated Press[11][12].

<tongue in cheek>As for Uncle G's Chewbacca defense of Chewbacca defense, note that "Johnnie" begins with the same phoneme as G -- as in Uncle G. Coincidence? I don't think so. Remember that the Chewbacca defense is used to confound, not clarify! I submit that Uncle G, like Johnnie Cochran before him, doesn't really believe the result he is arguing for!</tongue in cheek> Pan Dan 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So this article would be better in Wiktionary... riiiiight. --Canley 11:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You certainly couldn't transwiki the thing, but Wiktionary allows articles on neologisms, while Wikipedia strongly discourages it. - Chardish 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reply to Geuiwogbil) The "commentators" cited don't discuss the term or whatever the term is supposed to denote. The citations are merely references to the term. The lecture notes, for example, don't define the term or comment on it; they're just appropriating a pop cultural item to lighten up the lecture. It seems to me that collecting these and other references to the term is original research, unless it can be shown that an external source has already taken note of these references. Pan Dan 13:18, 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 all not marked as valid disambiguation in total 15 votes delete (mixed in with keep disambig. delete rest votes), 3 keep all, 3 relist and 1 merge. Feel free to bring back any page as a valid disambiguation.--Jersey Devil 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay[edit]

Abhay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This a series of names taken from the Indian given names category. Some in that category were valid disambig pages, or articles, but the following should be deleted, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and all they do is define the name. Perhaps some of these will make valid redirects, disambigs or articles. I am happy to withdraw individual nominations. I am also nominating-

Comment :Any that I have struck out, I am withdrawing the nomination for. Also note that I am withdrawing the nomination for Abhay itself, as it is now a valid disambiguation, but I reqest this discussion is kept open for obvious reasons. J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, these are actually first names/given names, and NOT surnames. As for ghits, you'd definitely get ghits when those are part of many persons name. The word "Has" gets a lot of ghits too (2.6 billion). Yet its proper place is a dictionary. --Ragib 08:03, 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Munishk Gupta. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical confusions[edit]

List of historical confusions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As far as I can understand, this list is supposed to contain either (1) instances of confusion over history topics, or (2) instances of confusion over placenames/peoples throughout history. I don't think that either criterion is, of itself, particularly notable. In the first case, the list would essentially be a result of something that happened in school one day. In the second case, the list would seem to violate WP:NOR, be potentially unmaintainable, and be (again) unnotable unless the importance of these confusions was specified. My second (or fourth, depending on how you count it) reason for nominating it for deletion is that it adds little or nothing of encyclopedic value (after all, Wikipeida is an encyclopedia) as evidenced by the facts that:

  1. the information contained in it is replicated on two disambiguation pages (Albania (disambiguation) and Iberia) and the rest of the individual article pages it links to;
  2. it is unsourced; and
  3. it provides no context whatsoever. Black Falcon 01:09, 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 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VUPlayer[edit]

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

disputed PROD for NN-freeware media player. delete Cornell Rockey 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - VLC is instantly notable because it is included within Gentoo Linux - a major Linux distribution (as well as other reasons), whereas Foobar2000 has a very large number of Google hits, many of which are independent works regarding Foobar2000. For VU Player, Google only pulls up download links and the VUPlayer article from Wikipedia and its mirrors. --tgheretford (talk) 10:37, 28 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, W.marsh 01:24, 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 keep --Durin 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Pot Operation[edit]

Tin Pot Operation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. The first few attempts to delete were thwarted by a stagnant ((hangon)) and a pro'd removal. John Reaves (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note additional references below that are not included in the article text. 2 articles on Culture Northern Ireland 1- [13] 2-[14]

2 articles on BBC Northern Ireland Across the Line 1-[15] 2-[16] 80.76.203.84 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Please also note that the previous AfD tag was removed at the request of the user who placed it. As shown here [17] 80.76.203.84 13:40, 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, W.marsh 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The article can be considered notable, as argued by User:80.76.203.84--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:23, 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 --Durin 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic Tigers[edit]

The Republic Tigers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Listed for Speedy deletion as a CSD:A7. There is a claim of notability on the talk page and in the article that one member was in another notable band (The Golden Republic (band)). I'm not sure they meet WP:MUSIC but I don't think A7 applies here and the Speedy was contested so I'm listing it here.--Isotope23 18:49, 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, W.marsh 01:17, 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 redirect to Scooby-Doo (character). --Durin 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skippy Doo[edit]

Skippy Doo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A character who briefly appears in one episode of A Pup Named Scooby-Doo. Highly non-notable. FuriousFreddy 01:27, 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, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woofering[edit]

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

Neologism definition. More suitable for Wikitionary Jvhertum 14:25, 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, W.marsh 01:30, 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 11:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of American toolmakers[edit]

List of American toolmakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

By not specifying the notability of these companies, the article violates Wikipedia is not a directory and WP:Notability (companies and corporations). Of the six toolmakers listed, the first four lack WP articles (two are redirects to other pages). Moreover, even if all of these pages were created (presupposing that they are all notable), then they should probably be listed in a category (e.g., Category:Toolmakers in the United States) rather than on a list. Black Falcon 01:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it has the same flaws:

List of British toolmakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime South[edit]

Anime South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion or indication of notability, only the company's own information cited as a source. Significant WP:COI issues (being edited to a good extent by User:Animesouth, who was found to be using socks during disagreements regarding inserting links to the article elsewhere). No indication why this would pass WP:CORP, WP:ORG, or WP:N overall. Seraphimblade 01:40, 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 keep and move to proper name, leaving redirect --Durin 21:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naty Botero[edit]

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

Moved from speedy. Author claims WP:MUSIC 1 and 2 would apply (assuming that she did have a gold record and that Top 40 is a "hit") but no sources. Neutral. ColourBurst 19:13, 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, W.marsh 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, despite above. Most links above are blogs (unreliable and/or primary sources, especially fanblogs), and only one source (first one listed) is nontrivial and appears to be reliable, which fails being the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources, the notability requirement. Number of fans etc. is irrelevant, nothing in the notability requirement refers to "is popular". Looks like she may be on her way to being notable, however-if a few more sources write about her, deletion should be without prejudice to future recreation. Seraphimblade 11:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep per additional sourcing, but move article to subject's proper name (this one should be left as a redirect) to fit formal tone. Seraphimblade 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You absolutely must be kidding me. Did you read what I said? I gave those blogs in addition to the notable sources. Eskpe.com is a blog? Coverage in El Tiempo [27], as well, the most notable newspaper in Colubmia, isn't notable? And [28], [29]. Let's do a comparison: the New York Times picks someone as an artist of the month; this artist has plenty of other coverage (though this isn't as easy to find because it's in Spanish, which has a smaller audience, and is in Columbia). Are you telling me that an artist of the month for the country's most notable newspaper isn't notable? I mentioned several blogs as well, not only blogs. Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And here we go: [30]. This was a top 5 song in Columbia in December 2006 (not just on a specific chart either). Which means it not only passes WP:MUSIC by the multiple non-trivial sources (I've now listed several), but it also passes by the Has had a charted hit on any national music chart (as I've just proved) and [31] (terra.com is another extremely notable site in Spanish), and Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network (in Columbia, and on MTV Latino [32]). Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it not properly sourced? It gave the Columbian top 40 biography right there! Just because you're not familiar with the site because the site is in Spanish does not mean it's not a trustworthy site. But I've now sourced it better anyway. Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amiguette, mi castellano es cerca a perfercto por lo que entiendo la pagina en questión bastante bién. El problema aqui es que se requiere múltiples citas no triviales. Lo que tenemos es una. Alf photoman 15:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic[edit]

Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV fork of material originally in (and deleted and then readded several times see Talk:Rush Limbaugh) Rush Limbaugh ElKevbo 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not possible to license incompatibility. MER-C 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, just for the record, I'd say the same thing if this were about Al Franken or anybody else regardless of political leaning, so don't even go there. --Sable232 05:27, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZAP (motor company)[edit]

Non-notable company as far as I can tell; only links or references are to the sites of the companies mentioned. Article itself just barely contains enough factual-sounding assertions to pass the adcopy test. Opabinia regalis 01:54, 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 11:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fischbach[edit]

Tom Fischbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Largely reposted content previously deleted A7, but it does make a stab at asserting notability. However, '6th out of 100 webcomics listed at topwebcomics.com' may not be the most solid claim to notability. The guy himself gets just over 1000 google hits, with us first, which is never a good sign. Opabinia regalis 01:57, 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 11:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fab Five[edit]

The Fab Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The unsourced claim that this tribute band is currently touring the US is the only concession made towards meeting WP:MUSIC. I have no idea if the standards for a tribute band are any different than the notability standards for a non-tribute band, but I would argue that this band is NN. janejellyroll 01:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we do have a Category:Tribute bands, it's just a matter of whether this one is notable enough. I know of them, I think, but that's not a sign of notability. I don't see enough here, but at the same time I don't think I can make a judgment.--T. Anthony 04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that category out to me. It seems to be kind of a mixed bag, but at least of couple of the bands go much further towards meeting WP:MUSIC than The Fab Five does. Lez Zeppelin, for example, was on the cover of Spin. And West End Girls (Swedish band) have released albums. janejellyroll 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The touring schedule is listed on their myspace website (link fixed), it just needs to be correctly sourced on the page. I'll try to do some research to find when they were established, but they are definetely currently touring. Also several things have been nicknamed Fab 5 as a play on The Beatles nickname Fab 4 (spice girls among them), this is not an impersonation it is the actual name (not a nickname) of the band. I believe TommyOliver's reasons for deletion are completely void. On another note it seems this artice was originally nominated for deletion because it was only made to promote the band. This is untrue, I started this article because I was doing research about them (having heard how great they were), and was suprised to see I couldn't find any information on wikipedia. After finding information elsewhere, I decided to start this page to help users in the future looking for this cover band. I have no connection to the band and have never even seen them play, so I would have no motive to promote them. War wizard90 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is going to have to have sources beyond the band's myspace page or website. Please look at WP:MUSIC to get an idea of what kind of sources establish notablity for a band. The reason I nominated the article for deletion is because it lacks reliable sources about the notability of the band. janejellyroll 08:17, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Vivant[edit]

Sage Vivant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:58, 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 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Road Ahead[edit]

The Long Road Ahead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is supposedly an album from Nicholas Strunk, so if you're interested in the theoretical existance of that subject, please see that AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Strunk. It seems as if a Nicholas Strunk does exist and that he has released at least one single, but these articles have little to nothing else to do with the reality. Sources are very difficult to come by. The author of both articles has repeatedly removed the "hoax" tag I placed on this article without adding sources. Statements in the article to the contrary, billboard.com shows no entries for this artist. Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here it is. [45]. There were also scattered and not very reliable references to him getting ready to work with Timbaland at some vague point in the future, but those references also refer to him as a UK artist, not some teenager from Holland, MI. I think there is a not-yet notable Nicholas Strunk who makes music. I think he has nothing to do with this myspace kid who is hoaxing Wikipedia. janejellyroll 03:52, 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 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montres allison[edit]

Montres allison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability in question. ghits for company: [46]. NMChico24 02:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The person about whom you referred, posted libelous information about Montres Allison and Terry Allison. If my tone seemed hostile to you, please understand that Newt43 caused any hostility that you are perceiving in my tone and comments. Repeating defamatory statements is not a defense against charges of civil nor criminal libel. He should not have continuously posted information about which he had no first hand knowledge and that he knew came from sources that were not accredited members of the press nor organizations well-repsected in the community for consumer complaints. He took disparaging information posted by practically anonymous authors and replaced earlier, accurate information with the disparaging information. He should be ashamed and should be punished for acting in such a manner. Thank you.


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Route 12[edit]

Bus Route 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

They've got five records, but zero sources attesting to WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 03:28, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albo kali silat[edit]

Albo kali silat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Article was requested for speedy deletion by an IP editor, who asked me to start this debate since IP editors can't create the page as is necessary. I am neutral. Mangojuicetalk 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Too interesting" for A7? I laughed when I read that, for some reason. --N Shar 03:59, 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 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Value Cinema Oak Creek[edit]

Value Cinema Oak Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As the name suggests, the article is about a cinema in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The article is very poorly written and could almost be speedied as spam as it includes details on the discount prices on nachos. I suppose I could simply clean that bit up. However, I feel that there is simply not enough in there to build anything resembling an encyclopedia article. Pascal.Tesson 03:38, 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 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yana (name)[edit]

Yana (name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary. NMChico24 03:57, 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 moved to User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science and tagged with an appropriate "non-article" notice per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The page may be moved back to the main namespace when it is brought into compliance with these policies. Complete deletion is not justified, as there is significant interest in improving the page. John254 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and medical science[edit]

Homosexuality and medical science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a common topic name or search term. Artical is a non-neutral mess and contains no references, and has been this way since 2003. Linked to by as many redirect pages as it is other articles. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on this article has been started here, but it appears to be an amalgamation of several articles that need to be either split off or merged to other articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:05, 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 CSD A7 here. Navou banter 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew ceo[edit]

Matthew ceo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Biography of non-notable individual. High school wrestler and college cheerleader does not seem to meet notability standards. Cannot find any references on web. Glendoremus 04:17, 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 Keep.--Jersey Devil 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redhouse Yacht Club[edit]

Redhouse Yacht Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Long established club admittedly but no statement that it has done anything notable and no multiple non-trivial sources. I prodded this but the prod was removed after 6 days with the comment "enough incoming links not to be prodded". In fact, apart from redirects and a DMB, the only incoming link is one that I added to the locality article! Delete. Bridgeplayer 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Only the Centenary reference would be considered 'non-trivial' and even that doesn't show that the club has achieved anything other than longevity. I have taken out the last two because neither meets WP:EL for inclusion. Bridgeplayer 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's way out of line for you to be nominating an article for deletion and then deleting references and text based on your subjective interpretations of the WP Guidelines. I have reverted your deletion. You may be right about the quality of the references, but this should be discussed. I'm sure that you are working with the best of intent, but as the nominator I see implied bias toward the article. --Kevin Murray 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that WP:EL is not the correct guideline for references. We should be looking at WP:CITE, specificaly the paragraph on a "Reference" section.

Discussion of References Proposed to be Deleted:

(1) "SHOOTING THE BREEZE" with Tim Stirk says: "THERE WILL be no organised sailing this week on the Border, as all attention will be focused on the 23rd Coca-Cola Eastern Cape inter-schools sailing championship in Port Elizabeth, hosted by Redhouse Yacht Club." I included this because the mention in this manner demsonstrates that (a) the Redhouse Club is hosting an event which is prestigious enough to receive all the attention in the area, and (b) the Club is "noticed" by independent journals which is among the criteria which WP standards define as Notability. --Kevin Murray 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2) "Redhouse River Mile set for mid-February" says: " This historic annual event, first staged in 1924, will again be held from the Redhouse Yacht Club ... While the first Redhouse Mile attracted 48 participants, the 2003 event is expected to attract nearly 1 000 entrants." This definitely speaks to notability by demonstrating that the Redhouse Club hosts what is considered to be a historic event. Moreover, a 1000 participant swim-meet is a huge event which in and of itself may be notable for an article at WP.
(3) Both of the articles mentioned above are from online reprints of articles from recognized South African newspapers, at the official sites for the newspapers. How much more independent and non-trivial could the sources be?
(4) In and of themselves neither reference above is sufficient to demonstrate notability, but in concert, three sources certainly make an arguable if not compelling case for inclusion.
--Kevin Murray 19:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not suggesting anything more than the appearance of objectivity is questionable when you are the nominator of an AfD. It is good form to discuss major changes which might be perceived as biased. I've not seen a nominator perform editing during an AfD discussion. --Kevin Murray 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that you should withdraw the nomination if you believe that this can become a valid article through your hard efforts. --Kevin Murray 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further review of the Club's website, I found that much of the text here at WP was cut & paste (unless they mirrored us). This was carried into Bridgeplayer's truncated version as well. This expeditied the need to rewrite the article to the form now shown. I suggest that footnoting from the references be postponed until a decision is made on the final text and the AfD. --Kevin Murray 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's history extends back to 2005-09-07. The history at http://web.archive.org/web/20040703095833/www.ryc.org.za/History.aspx from 2004-07-03 clearly belies your theory that "they mirrored us", and reinforces the theory that Stephen Martindale copied the data from their website. Whether or not he had permission to do so is a question for him, as neither that page nor its parent http://web.archive.org/web/20040703094823/www.ryc.org.za/ sported a copyright on that date.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, thanks for your hard efforts to find more sources and put them into footnotes - a lot of work! As to adding more history, I would tread carefully here, as a lot of the history at the Club website is probably only interesting at the Club level. --Kevin Murray 13:47, 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 redirect to List of Kansas State University people. - Daniel.Bryant 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kansas State University Distinguished Alumni[edit]

List of Kansas State University Distinguished Alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Creating deletion discussion for List of Kansas State University Distinguished Alumni because this article was a simple cut-and-paste from List of Kansas State University people, and the latter is the accepted naming format for lists of people related to universities. (To call it a list of alumni it is inaccurate inasmuch as it also lists faculty, etc.) Further, there is a high potential for confusion having two nearly-identical pages, so this one should be deleted. Finally, the original List of People has been updated while the article proposed for deletion has not. Kgwo1972 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC) On second thought, should I just make this a redirect? Kgwo1972 04:37, 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 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cars included in Gran Turismo 2[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars included in Gran Turismo 4. Unnotable listcruft.--PCPP 04:28, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open-lobbying[edit]

Open-lobbying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research and wishful thinking. As well as being unsourced and a neologism. While there are efforts to make lobbying more transparent to the public, there isn't a generally accepted "open lobbying" methodology. And the article's premise that open lobbying is something that NGOs participate in contrast to corporations engaging in non-open lobbying seems to be entirely without evidence. The article is POV and un-savable in its current form. In case it's unclear, I'm in favor of deletion. Siobhan Hansa 04:32, 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 and redirect to The Elder Scrolls, satisfies everyone :) Daniel.Bryant 03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaiden Shinji[edit]

Gaiden Shinji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete In a nutshell: talks in-universe and addresses extremely minor and unimportant character. I came across this article a little over a month ago, and it's in the exact same state it was back then: stub status, POV is horridly prevalent, and it addresses a character that isn't even physically in a game. Needs to be deleted. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 04:38, 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 12:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi Contractors[edit]

Rossi Contractors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'd placed a "notability" tag on this article, but the author removed it without comment. Fails WP:CORP janejellyroll 04:43, 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 12:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ticu Isari[edit]

Ticu Isari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was created within the past 48 hours. It asserts that the individual Ticu Isari is the founder of a television station, but no reliable sources are given to support this fact. In fact, Google gives 200 hits concerning this individual, the first of which is his own website. As no reliable sources can be given, this article should be deleted until any are provided.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:45, 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 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Weathered Underground[edit]

The Weathered Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertisement and challenged. Not blatant in my opinion; listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 05:05, 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 and redirect to Delicatessen. - Daniel.Bryant 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delis[edit]

Delis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, difficult to verify due to the production of other uses of the term in web search results, and does not assert the notability of the surname described. John254 05:13, 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 Delete (no place given to merge to). Cbrown1023 talk 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Tipper (TimeSplitters)[edit]

Harry Tipper (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge The character is not notable enough for his own article. Plain and simple. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Mark D. 09:00, 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 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skot Olsen[edit]

Skot Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist Mhking 05:40, 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. -- Steel 12:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axle (band)[edit]

Axle (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

They're working on various songs and they're going to be ready to play live by April. One guy does guitar and vocals--"sort of." I placed a speedy deletion tag, but an IP user removed it saying they didn't think the article should be deleted. janejellyroll 05:48, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmo Hight[edit]

Ahmo Hight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable actress/porn star Part Deux 07:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable model in the fitness modelling genre, and has also appeared in numerous films in leading roles. Article might need to be expanded, but that makes her notable enough. She is not a porn star so WP:PORNBIO does not apply; the article is wrong in that respect. I'm going to see about expanding it a little. 23skidoo 17:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I said actress/pornstar. She's both. And I probably should have put model in there too. Part Deux 19:46, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danger*gang[edit]

Danger*gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 07:17, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Jefferys[edit]

Pippa Jefferys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement, creator was BGModels (talk · contribs). Contested prod. MER-C 07:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, gsearch turns up less than stellar results. I'm sure she's a great person, but she's not notable of an encyclopedia entry. Part Deux 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, aging part-time model, one of thousands, with no notable accomplishments, likely creating entry for personal publicity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.77.234.75 (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Note above from IP: 142.77.234.75 obviously made with prejudice. Please sign comments. Name of model remains linked from recently edited plus-size model page so apparent merit for entry to remain. BGModels 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (please don't vote twice Part Deux 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC))Page has been updated, more substantial information added. Question what kind of accomplishments would satisfy when business criteria does not demand Ph.D? LOL Suggest retaining to broaden international content under plus-size model banner which is very US-heavy. BGModels 20:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Edman[edit]

Phil Edman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable losing election candidate, fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 07:26, 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 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Bauercrest[edit]

Camp Bauercrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable summer camp, no assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, do any of the camps at Category:Local council camps (Boy Scouts of America) also fail notability? Chris 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They probably do need to be looked at by someone with the time. In general, camps like these are not notable. They are of local importance so moving the information to another article is an option. Vegaswikian 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a point I have been making at the Scouting WikiProject, there is an irascible user who insists otherwise. Chris 03:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Shohola[edit]

Camp Shohola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable summer camp, no assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:27, 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 — G11 (advertising), A7 (notability), G7 (author request - see MacMonster's final coments in this AFD). — ERcheck (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lords of the Nine[edit]

The Lords of the Nine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online D&D resource. Fancruft and WP:NOT#OR #2 and WP:NOT#SOAP #2 and WP:NFT. JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 07:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating related article Bael The Warlord of Avernus. I do vote delete for both. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 07:40, 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 keep and rename. Majorly (o rly?) 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schools in DeKalb County, Indiana[edit]

Schools in DeKalb County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Contested prod. MER-C 07:38, 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 12:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 25 (U.S. series)[edit]

Now That's What I Call Music! 25 (U.S. series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Rumours. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- RHaworth 07:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: that's delete without prejudice to recreation in several months if we can get some WP:RS sources. Part Deux 08:00, 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 information to merge into List of The Buzz on Maggie episodes, so Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pieface (The Buzz on Maggie episode)[edit]

Pieface (The Buzz on Maggie episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The parent TV show is not notable enough to have this level of detail. Crufty. Contested prod. MER-C 08:05, 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 17:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Buddy[edit]

Brandon Buddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO as subject is an entertainment personality with non-widespread recognition. as a quick google search will confirm. Personally, from Australia, I don't know him from a hole in the ground. Contested prod. MER-C 08:09, 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 keep and cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principle of Swiss Cheese Management[edit]

Principle of Swiss Cheese Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not even really sure what this is, but it seems to be an OR essay. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:13, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck The Earth Day[edit]

Fuck The Earth Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. A seemingly non-notable holiday. No reliabe sources are given (and I can't see the Facebook page), and good ol' Google gives 13 results. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You do not celebrate this holiday, as it's never happened before. You may very well celebrate it this year, but that is future tense. If it becomes notable after the fact, write an article, but it clearly doesn't meet the notability guidelines at present. Nathanm mn 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In order to keep this article on Wikipedia, you have to provide reliable sources to prove that it exists. The burden of proof is on you to show that the holiday exists, not on others to show it doesn't. Hut 8.5 14:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand, but IMO we have proved it, go to the discussion page of the article, I've posted a link to our reference where it was announded on national TV. People keep ignoring this source. If in the end, it is decided that this should not be on wikipedia, i guess that is what has to happen, but please dont ignore our source first... -- QuintusMaximus 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "announcement" is a joke, as I'm sure you realise. Your article is not about the joke holiday, it is about a real one, which either doesn't exist or isn't notable. The fact that this is transwikied from Uncyclopedia suggests this isn't serious. Hut 8.5 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, International Talk Like a Pirate Day has gotten lots of national and international press, radio, and TV coverage; it's a part of a few video games; and it's been going on for a few years now. None of those things can be said about this so-called holiday. Nathanm mn 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, this is an important point i agree with. Fuck the Earth Day is part serious/part satire-ironic... It is however significant in the same way MANY other things on wikipedia are... QuintusMaximus 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk Like A Pirate Day, however, is well-sourced and has been widely written about. --UsaSatsui 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was announced on national television! Seriously, that is pretty solid... QuintusMaximus 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quintus, I try to understand the effort you put in FTE Day and the significance it may have for you, but have you ever read the policy about notability in Wikipedia? For instance the fact that a topic is considered notable, and so suitable to be included, "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"? We are not questioning FTE Day in itself (or perhaps someone has, but this is not the point). The fact is, something is notable (be it a song, a crime or an event) if it is widely known, referenced and studied. Give yourself and FTE Day time to grow and become renowned. --Goochelaar 12:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely understand where you are comming from, but i doubt that it is going to get more renound then it already is. To me, it seems like being mentioned on national television seems to qualify it as notable. I agree it is still a bit obscure, but there are many other more obscure articles on wikipedia. Why argue over this one when it HAS been mentioned on national television. Probably a few hundred thousand people heard it announced on the TV. It is true that probably reletivly few have taken it to heart, but there is a group. And since it was mentioned on comedy central, I think it is notable enough for wikipedia. IMO. -- QuintusMaximus 12:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quintus, please, provide some references. Trying to argue in favor of it without providing evidence is futile, we need reliable sources for this. If you can't do this, I hate to say, it won't survive. --Dennisthe2 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a real concept, it was a brief joke on a comedy newscast. How could anybody find intellectual merit and originality in that? I sincerely hope you're not being serious. Nathanm mn 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • gosh, and I thought it came from unencyclopedia. Part Deux 09:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I keep forgetting to reg there. You're going to have to copy&paste the article history if it's about to be deleted, otherwise your link to the article isn't enough under the GFDL (seeing as users can not click on it and see said history). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means crosspost it whereever you want, i wont mind, but I really dont think its very respectful to delete our work on wikipedia..., so please consider this carfully and take off those tags at the top of the page... Thanks QuintusMaximus 09:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm since there seems to be some disagreement, maybe i should add a reason. I dont know anyone who celebrates this day, but I did see the episode of the Daily Show which they say inspired this holidy, and I must say i'm not surprised. If this really is a holiday with different people who observe it, i think it deserves a place here on wikipedia... DirtyJoe 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this isn't really a holiday that anybody observes. It was a joke on a comedy newscast. You know The Daily Show is satire, right? It's not supposed to be taken seriously. Nathanm mn 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTABLE, WP:RS. A small group of friends does not make a holiday notable. Build up some notability, maybe by starting a popular and notable website (as occurred in the cases you folks keep giving), then try again after that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we're getting somewhere here: at least we know where this came from: it is indeed from the Daily Show: [55]. That being said, too bad. It's not notable yet. You can argue til your face turns blue, but until it becomes a widespread pheneomenon with reliable sources, you're outta luck. Part Deux 10:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just sound like a real exclusionist, if it was announced on national television, it deserves a place on wikipedia! -- QuintusMaximus 12:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said before, provide reliable sources and we'll change our minds. Just saying that it was announced on national television is not enough. What network/channel/country talked about it? Can you provide more than one source? --Dennisthe2 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, We have posted our source. It was on the daily show, on comedy central, in the USA. A link to a clip of that moment is now posted on the discussion page for this article. Please take a look. Here is a copy of the link i posted there [56] -- QuintusMaximus 23:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was on The Daily Show... with all due respect, where is it documented that The Daily Show is even conceivably a reliable source?! Putting it on a comedy show doesn't make it notable - and that's pretty much what The Daily Show is. Be that as it may, I'm changing my vote - to Strong Delete with prejudice. PUt a fork in it, I'm done. --Dennisthe2 23:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is only partly serious, but it *is* a real holiday, announced on national television, and being organized. It may be stupid in your opinion, but that doesn't detroy its merit to stay on wikipedia. -- QuintusMaximus 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully submitted, it is not a serious holiday. They know that they'd be screwed royally if the earth just up and left some day. If someday it becomes more than a facetious novelty, it can be on Wikipedia. But right now, it's just silly ^_^ --TommyOliver 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is NOT a real holiday. It was a one-off joke/comment on the Daily Show. Should we make Wikipedia articles for every sentence that comes out of Jon Stewart's mouth? That would be patently absurd. Go ahead, you and your friend celebrate the so-called "holiday." If you can manage to get some press, or even start a sizable meme in the blogosphere, then it might be considered for an article after the fact. But Wikipedia isn't meant to be an advertisement for college parties. Linking to the article from your Facebook group hasn't helped its legitimacy there either. As of today, they added one whole group member! As I posted before, strong, STRONG delete.Nathanm mn 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you. We need the earth ^_^ Earth = Good --TommyOliver 01:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah... It was a joke... Not a joke article, it really is a holiday, but the holiday itself is a joke, We dont really hate the earth. We are simply poking fun at earth day by listing our disapointments with the earth instead :). Its too bad people cant respect this, but whatever. QuintusMaximus 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, i understand, but it wasn't just made up one day, it was on television, and then has been discussed for a long time, I just thought i would start the wikipedia aritcle, but whatever... i wont argue further... QuintusMaximus 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it was indeed on TV. On The Daily Show. The Daily Show is like the Weekend Update from SNL for an entire time slot. --Dennisthe2 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, your references include:
  • A Facebook group you created, which still has all of 3 members, and is only accessible by members.
  • The relevant quote from The Daily Show, "...Because at this moment, I'm declaring april 25th, f*** the earth day!" It was only added January 24th, just a few days ago.
  • Links to two copies of the same clip from The Daily Show, which are obviously copyright violations.
How does that make the article notable? Nathanm mn 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed the fundamental problem that we have with this page - namely that this holiday isn't notable or is a hoax. Facebook pages don't count as reliable sources and your other sources only say that it was mentioned in one TV gag, which hardly makes it notable - you want articles on every line in every TV show? Hut 8.5 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah... I think perhaps this debate really just comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion regarding what should be included in wikipedia... We aren't dealing with an encyclopedia that needs to be printed, articles take up a few Kb at most and as long as they are verrified, add to the wealth of knowlege wikipedia has to offer... -- QuintusMaximus 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except the article in question adds nothing to the wealth of knowlege [sic]. In fact, it detracts from Wikipedia. How can it be verrified [sic] before it's even happened? If, after the fact, you and your friend manage to get any publicity, then it can be considered for an article. As it stands, it's just a poor advertisement for your non-event. Nathanm mn 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do your comments help Wikipedia? And how does this article hurt it? It states clearly what it is, and Wikipedia's size is nearly unlimited (per Jimbo). He's trying to help the project, and quite frankly, I think you ought to read Wikipedia:Civility before you blurt out whatever stray thought you have in your mind. If this were your article, you'd be stumbling over yourself trying to keep it. He spent hours writing it. If you had spent more of your time expanding articles, Wikipedia would be better off.--Abs Like Jesus 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refer to WP:ILIKEIT, and note that articles about bopkes are more harmful than they appear to be. --Dennisthe2 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note: it is going up since the afd started. 13 at first, 33 above, now 43. If John Stewart actually plays this enough, it might become notable. But not yet. :) Part Deux 11:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And not necessarily this variant either, as while it's based on the joke, it is also largely the creation of two "founders". The hits are largely for the joke (and a fair part of them seem to be TV show synopsis sites and Wikipedia mirrors), not this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete TOMMAROW is Maverick423 day! Im ganna celebrate by sitting around and playing games on the computer! (after work of course) Then on April 23 is Maverick423's Birthday YAY im ganna celebrate it and so is my family and some friends. So lets write a article about Maverick423's holidays yes?... i thought so Maverick423 18:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Yaoi Pairings[edit]

Popular Yaoi Pairings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced (WP:RS), unverifiable (WP:V) listcruft (WP:NOT) of "popular" gay pairings of anime characters. Considering 90+% of this list is mostly within a given series' fandom and not at all canon, it also fails WP:FICT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:58, 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 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Moore Live@ShoutBack[edit]

Mandy Moore Live@ShoutBack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article about a single gig played by Mandy Moore. Not an actual live album - no ascertation that this gig is notable in any way. Kurt Shaped Box 09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 2 3 this one is moore peforming cry on shoutback. it fits th date because moore's hair is still blonde Those are just a few. I doubt anyone you did any home work. Or you would have found it. people stop just jumping on the bandwagon when there s something to delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parys (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Michael Jackson SINGLE concert has its own page. Mandy Moore is a notable artist, with notable songs during the performance, ONE A NOTABLE BROADCASTING!!!!!!!!! 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
you must also delete Michael Jackson: 30th Anniversary Special since it IS ALSO a single concert. I am amused how non of you did research. Wikipedians jump on something when it is time to delete.00:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)~
Parys, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Music, Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#What_about_article_x.3F - and please be civil. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 01:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are purposing a merger? Parys
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — A1/A7. — ERcheck (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wyckd[edit]

Wyckd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has no context, nor assertion of notability Ozhiker 09:05, 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 deleted by User:ERcheck (nn-web). SpuriousQ 14:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouSponge[edit]

YouSponge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable site that stores copyrighted videos off the net. The article makes no allusions to notability and doesn't explain what the site is about. The information provided on the Wikipedia page isn't borne out by anything on the YouSponge.com website, and is even contradictory in some cases. Also the page creator is the owner of this site and has been spamming Wikipedia with links to it of late. Ben W Bell talk 09:11, 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 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest 0 to 60 acceleration for a given price for vehicles sold in the USA.[edit]

Lowest 0 to 60 acceleration for a given price for vehicles sold in the USA. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Direct content fork of a table from 0 to 60 mph where there is currently a discussion about the need to include that table in the talk page. I think it's best that until the discussion is resolved there, the article in question ought to be deleted. tommylommykins 09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirected and moved. MER-C 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Grammar School, Lahore[edit]

National Grammar School, Lahore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Duplicate of National Grammar School, Pakistan. I propose further to move National Grammar School, Pakistan to National Grammar School. Shorelander 09:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't realize users could move pages. Silly me. So I did that move mentioned. Shorelander 09:43, 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, WP:V and WP:MUSIC still haven't been fufilled to any satisfactory standard despite five days passing since the plea to "wait for the sources" below. - Daniel.Bryant 03:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Riddler(Rapper)[edit]

The Riddler(Rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This one is pretty good. I was suspicious because he's just 15 or so, but I realized that some rappers are young. Then, while researching I happened to find the Lil Wayne article. Most of "The Ridder's" biography is actually Lil Wayne's. Google turns up a few references to a rapper called "The Riddler," but he'd be older than this guy. Hoax. janejellyroll 09:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is fifteen years old and the lead claims that he is the president or CEO of two different record companies. Yet later, the article states "The two (the subject and a friend) later on went to make plans for a future record label while beefin with rival rapper Royal T." A third record company? There are no sources in this article. janejellyroll 09:55, 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 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian pop art[edit]

Christian pop art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable art movement, no articles link to it. Candy-Panda 09:51, 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 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encounter With God[edit]

Encounter With God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable religious booklet, no articles link to it. Candy-Panda 10:04, 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 12:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing God[edit]

Introducing God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable evangelistic video course, article created for the purpose of adverting. Candy-Panda 10:16, 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 12:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Review[edit]

Bollywood Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be the only mention of this "publication" online, maintained by the author, including a review to which he is linking. So nonnotability, COI, vanity, take your pick. Shorelander 10:30, 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. The discussion was rather idiosyncratic, but anything with zero sources fails WP:NOR by default. Sandstein 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack "Jackie" Mercer[edit]

Jack "Jackie" Mercer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural. I discovered that this article had been tagged and no follow-through had been done. Neutral janejellyroll 10:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize! I couldn't find that a dicussion page had been created after the AfD tag had been placed. I realize that the article's creator had removed the tag from the article itself and I did remind them on their talk page that it was inappropriate to do that. janejellyroll 20:12, 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 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show-off[edit]

Show-off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion after transwiki to Wiktionary Vadigor 10:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary and nom. Jeepday 15:43, 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 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-TREAM Sledsiking[edit]

X-TREAM Sledsiking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only claim of notabilit is a myspace page. Google only finds a few not particularly relevant sites. Carabinieri 11:02, 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 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Bieniarzes[edit]

David Bieniarzes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only claim to notability is having invented sledsking. Its article is currently also on AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-TREAM Sledsiking Carabinieri 11:04, 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. -- Steel 12:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis E. Clancey, Jr.[edit]

Dennis E. Clancey, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

obvious vanity page Chris 11:04, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medowie Yowie[edit]

Medowie Yowie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a spoof. Only hits on Google come from Wikipedia or mirror sites Grahamec 11:05, 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 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory T. McDuffie[edit]

Gregory T. McDuffie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

vanity or spoof page Chris 11:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan Bilal[edit]

Ghassan Bilal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable actor as per WP:BIO Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete also vanity and reads like an advert. Chris 22:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Suspect that it's self written (the photo was "taken by self"), but should be deleted even if not. Waitak 06:36, 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 WP:CSD#G4 – recreation with identical content, and WP:CSD#G7 – Author requests removal. ~ trialsanderrors 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaskan Dog[edit]

Tamaskan Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As before, there does not appear to be any documentation of this "breed" in reliable sources. There is not yet a standard of notability for animal breeds, but this breed does not appear to meet any of the criteria that have been proposed:

Little appears to have changed from the first nomination, except that some of the claims which were proved false have been removed. Most importantly, there are still no reliable sources documenting the breed's existence. Hence, I don't see any reason this article should have been recreated. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Strongish Keep: "Breed" not registered by American or British Kennel Clubs, but Ghits indicate (a growing?) interest. Then, of course, we have the Cockapoo and Labradoodle articles. Both of which are non-registered but popular "breeds." Srebob 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)srebob[reply]

There's a big difference between the Labradoodle and Cockapoo, which are widely recognized by the public and by unofficial sources, and a "new, rare breed of dog" which does not appear to have been independently documented by anyone. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Please be sure you are excluding wikipedia, its mirrors, blogs, advertising sites, discussion forums, etc. when you check for Ghits. I have seen a copy of the article printed in the small Finnish paper that is cited in the article. There may also have been an article published in the journal Our Dogs that the article's proponent removed for unknown as of yet reasons. Please read the article's talk page where I and some others have asked several questions. Keesiewonder talk 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There is a link to the first attempt, up in the nomination, under the hyperlinked word "before." Ghits, in my opinion, are usually useless. Unfortunately, just like anyone can edit Wikipedia, even more anyones can put up a web site. That is all Google is categorizing. Also, please list either here, on the article's talk page, or in the body of the article itself the "multiple hits that would support WP:N"". I have literally searched for hours and found nearly nothing that I consider useful, except possibly a local interest article written only in Finnish and one other article that I will probably have to pay money for in order to see since no one who wants to keep the article has been able to provide me with a copy. Hmmmmmm. Keesiewonder talk 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now have access to the web version of Our Dogs, but have not found anything yet. I think they have only posted through January 5, 2007 on their site so far. correction: Actually, they appear to have posted through January 26, 2007. Waiting to hear from article's proponent regarding the page number and date in which the reference appeared. It seems odd that the citation for Our Dogs was removed by the user who wrote the article. Keesiewonder talk 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original Author Request Delete
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: AfD withdrawn by nominator. -- The Anome 23:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bartleby.com[edit]

Bartleby.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Refused speedy deletion. No ascertainment of notability. WP:WEB failure. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:18, 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 keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Concert Records[edit]

Classic Concert Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Refused speedy deletion. No attempt made to establish notability. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can modify the article to satisfy the guidlines, then I'll hapily withdraw the nom. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 13:43, 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 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

425 Greatest Books of All Time[edit]

425 Greatest Books of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't believe that this list is notable enough for Wikipedia. I just can't see any establishment of notability. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting to note the areas on Wikipedia frequented by vandals. Often these indicate the vandals are high school students, incapable of landing on pages other than those they learned about from school assignments, such as Shirley Jackson and "The Lottery." I felt the 425 Greatest presented a pathway through a vast landscape of literature that might intimidate the vandals. Pepso 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once we delete 425 Greatest, we will be left with a world of YouTubers like this one:
whts da point? u tryin to encourage us to read or or u just tryin to shof off da no of books u hab read? and ir u had da gud intention i m afraid we cant even c da pictures clesrly although u wrote da name of da books on da side
It was a response to a video in which someone showed their favorite books. Pepso 12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that people like that are somewhat ignorant, but how is that in any way relevant to this AfD? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. Is it worth saving? Sure. Just not on Wikipedia. Get a website and post it there. MakeRocketGoNow 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once this is deleted we will be left with Ninety-nine Novels and Great Books of the Western World. But what about Clifton Fadiman's Lifetime Reading Plan which is mentioned on Wikipedia but minus list. However, all three of these were sources for 425 Greatest as were others:
  • The Lifetime Reading Plan by Clifton Fadiman. (l)
  • Great Books of the Western World, Mortimer J. Adler, Editor. (g)
  • Great Books of the Twentieth Century, as proposed by Adler. (t)
  • "Books for the College-Bound Student," in Books and the Teen-aged Reader. (c)
  • The College and Adult Reading List of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (e)
  • Books for You, the secondary-level reading list of the NCTE. (b)
  • "List for the College-Preparatory Student" in Reading in the Secondary School. (s)
  • "One Hundred Significant Books" from Good Reading (Committee on College Reading). (r) Pepso 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That it was based on more notable lists doesn't make it notable in itself. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While Walter Tevis was teaching English literature at Ohio University, he became aware that the level of literacy among students was dropping at an alarming rate. This observation gave him the idea for his science fiction novel Mockingbird. It's the story of a far future when mankind is dying and everyone is illiterate. The central figure of the novel is a man who has taught himself how to read. He contacts the dean of NYU and tells him that he has figured out what "reading" is and can teach others. They're not interested in hiring him. Pepso 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pepso, you are welcome to create articles for the above notable reading lists. MakeRocketGoNow 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did insert a link at 425 for the list of Clifton Fadiman's Lifetime Reading Plan. since that will vanish here, I better move it now to Clifton Fadiman's page. Pepso 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm left wondering: is copying the entire thing a copyvio? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Student Leadership Conference[edit]

Canadian Student Leadership Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable event, comes as part of a larger parent with no article. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even with notable speakers, it still fails notability. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jefferson Anderson 17:07, 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 Redirected to spinal disc herniation. No actual deletion seems necessary here; RFD would undoubtedly agree that this is a useful redirect, and the edit history needs to be maintained behind the redirect for GFDL compliance. There have been claims that this article should instead be a disambiguation page, but no sources have been provided to indicate there is anything to disambiguate between. Discussion regarding shortcomings in the target article or possible needs for disambiguation should be discussed at talk:Spinal disc herniation before reverting the redirect. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slipped disc[edit]

Slipped disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article should have been deleted when a new article (Spinal disc herniation) was created to replace it. The creation was successful and included all relevant material from the Slipped disc article. Unfortunately it was not deleted, and was only replaced with a redirect. Please delete Slipped disc. Fyslee 11:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep the redirect, not the article. -- Fyslee 12:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it does not need deleting, it is a valid search term. Nuttah68 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's why a redirect is appropriate. The concept itself is very misleading, and therefore it doesnt' deserve an article. The new article explains the problem. -- Fyslee 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vandalism is a very serious charge. You are not assuming good faith. You are the one who deleted the redirect, thereby activating an obsolete article that had inadvertently never been deleted as it should have been. I have only restored it to the condition in which you found it. I am assuming good faith by assuming you did not understand the long history of this article. -- Fyslee 12:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new article does mention slipped disc. -- Fyslee 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's why a redirect is appropriate. The concept itself is very misleading, and therefore it doesn't deserve an article. The new article explains the problem. This one is not a disambiguation page. -- Fyslee 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT ABOUT CONFUSION Do not vote keep for the article, only for a redirect. The article should be deleted. This vote is not about the redirect, which of course should be the only thing left in place, so vote delete. -- Fyslee 12:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee, I think from past experience, that people tend to vote Keep, Delete, or re-direct based on which solution they think most appropriate. The fact that people are voting keep indicates to me that the article should remain as an article, rather than as a re-direct to a different article, which addresses a different subject. --Rebroad 12:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new article was created by including all the content from this one, and adding much more new content. I (a Physical Therapist) and Dematt (a chiropractor) did most of the work, and other medical personnel, including MDs, helped. It has been well-accepted. The term slipped disc is a misleading expression for the subject of the new article. It does not describe a "different subject." -- Fyslee 12:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fyslee, can you please explain why the article needs to be deleted and redirected rather than simply redirecting it? Also, you keep saying it "should have been deleted". Should have been according to who? Was there a previous AfD? I don't understand why the article can't be kept under a redirect, particularly if, as others above say, it includes additional information that might be useful in the future. Thanks, Sarah 13:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically what I'd like to see, except that User:Rebroad has removed the redirect that has been in place since August 30, 2006. A redirected article should not be edited. Normally it's deleted, ASAIK. -- Fyslee 13:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen that done. Normally, the article is just redirected; there really is no need to delete the history. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 13:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Just as long as the redirect is left in place, and the article isn't edited. This article hadn't been edited since August 30, 2006, since all the editors back then -- PT, DC, MD -- all agreed a new one would be better. The new article is much better, and a well-accepted improvement here. Articles that are turned into redirects should not be edited or revived, or even linked to directly. A way to use the term, if one has no qualms about perpetuating the use of a misleading term, is to do this:
The term has a long history of misuse, and forms the basis of a billion dollar industry. -- Fyslee 14:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Fyslee, I suggest we simply redirect the page and keep the old article in the history. If Rebroad feels there is material in the old article that needs to be merged into the new one, he is welcome to do so. I think everyone but Rebroad has qualified their "keeps" as redirects so there seem to be consensus here to redirect. If the other party refuses to accept that, we can look at protecting the redirect. But unless there's a particular reason to delete, I think redirecting should be sufficient. Sarah 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that is not the best example as in that case I'd say the redirect from Upset stomach to Indigestion is wrong and very unhelpful. An upset stomach covers a number of conditions of which indigestion is only one.Nuttah68 15:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - definitely agree. Thanks Nuttah68, that was the first example I found. Hopefully you got the idea that the "lay" term is redirected to a "medical" term. --Dematt 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that as long as someone answers the question that seems to be at the heart of this. Can you confirm that the term slipped disc is used only to mean Disc herniation? If it is then the redirect is fine However, if slipped disc can refer to more than one condition a simple redirect will be no more helpful than the current upset stomach article. In this case we need an article at slipped disc explaining how it can refer to more than one condition and linking to the appropriate articles. Nuttah68 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good point and deserves consideration. I would expound by asking if someone can come up with another condition that cannot be covered in the Spinal disc herniation, then I would agree. --Dematt 16:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem at the moment is that not many people will have heard of terms other than "slipped disk", and therefore a) won't search for the other terms, and b) won't understand what other articles mean unless they use this term. I think it was going OTT to change all articles referring to slipped disk to a term that no one would be familiar with. The best way to educate people as to what a slipped disk is is to continue using this terminology but to explain what it means and also what it doesn't mean. Uses of words change over time. For example, "gay" no longer means what it used to. It should not be up to the medical profession alone to decide the future of the meaning of "slipped disk" especially if it is a term the medical profession themselves chose NOT to use. --Rebroad 15:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebroad, maybe you misunderstand. That is the reason for a re-direct; so that if someone searches for Slipped disc it will go to the article that covers what they are really looking for. The medical profession stopped using the term because it misled people and anything that would be in an article with that name would be lay language and unhelpful - all they would be doing is repeating that it is misleading and link them to Spinal disc herniation. They don't need to know what the other words mean. The article that they are re-directed to explains that well, I think. But you are welcome to improve it if you think it needs it. --Dematt 16:15, 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 Redirected to Slipknot (album). Article's context already exists at merged target; no references were provided to assert independant notability. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

742617000027 (Slipknot song)[edit]

742617000027 (Slipknot song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We cannot possibly have an article for every song in existance. It is not feasible. There are some attempts made to establish notability, but their really rather frivolous. If I tried hard, I could do the same for almost any song. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 12:06, 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 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Study[edit]

Quick Study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable television program, has few links to it. Candy-Panda 12:17, 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 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Alive[edit]

Saturday Night Alive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism, has no sources or references, has no links to the page other than a disambiguation page and a user-talk page. Candy-Panda 12:25, 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 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two Ways To Live[edit]

Two Ways To Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, few pages link to it. Candy-Panda 12:33, 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 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Thomas Jefferson Shadden"[edit]

"Thomas Jefferson Shadden" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It seems to be a work of fiction, has no references and is written in an entirely unencyclopedic manner. Localzuk(talk) 13:23, 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 Redirect to House of Shammai Johntex\talk 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shammaite[edit]

Shammaite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparent WP:HOAX. Article purports to describe a modern group described in the present tense with links to articles on 20th century events with only "source" a general quote from the New Testament that appears to require interpretation (from another source) to justify a claim that it applies to any particular group. Shirahadasha 13:26, 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. Reading through the myriad of opinions here it is pretty clear that there is no consensus to delete at this time and no clear consensus to keep the article in it's current form either. Suggest continuing discussion on the article talk page.--Isotope23 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diarmuid O'Neill[edit]

Diarmuid O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable IRA terrorist. Seems to be written to make a POV attack on the British Police Astrotrain 13:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Additonally the "delete" votes immediately follow Astrotrain undergoing a campaign in canvassing!!!--Vintagekits 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more aptly described as raising awareness.--Couter-revolutionary 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raising awareness by leaving a biased messege to those he knew would vote "delete" is canvassing.--Vintagekits 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When they say delete per nom they are saying that it should be deleted per the nomination that this article seems to be written as a PoV attack on the British police. I agree to a certain extent but think it more important to realise he didn't accomplish anything of note. You say it is important as it raises questions of whether the police should've killed him...Surely all the victims of terrorsim deserve individual articles if this is allowed - there are certainly questions over their deaths! This deserves a few lines in another article, it doesn't need an article for itself.--Couter-revolutionary 10:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And something being written in a PoV manner is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to clean-up. Which means they're arguing delete as not notable, yet no reference has been made to the notability guidelines. Their argument, therefore, is essentially baseless. Trebor 15:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Again the above "delete" vote immediately follow Kittybrewster undergoing a campaign amongest those who primarily edit on British Royal Family related pages. Is something going to be done about about the canvassing from Kittybrewster and Astrotrain - is this going to go unpunished?--Vintagekits 11:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have yet edited an immediate member of the Royal Family. I may be wrong. But in any case I was not asked to vote in any particular manner. Surely every Wikipedia editor has the fundamental right to vote on deletions? David Lauder 11:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont we let others judge by looking at you history of contributions--Vintagekits 11:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a dedicated monarchist to me!GiollaUidir 11:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if we look at your histories: [60] and [61], you both look like dedicated republicans, in fact Vintagekits states that he is!--Couter-revolutionary 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: users dedicated to ensuring that there are accurate articles about republican subjects. Precisley in situations like this. GiollaUidir 12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am a republican, I dont see I should hide that, the largest parties in Ireland, north and south of the border are republican parties, its hardly uncommon! However, the issue here is canvassing, we were not canvassed therefore our history is not in question, the question is why did Kittybrewster canvas you and other and therefore we should look at your history. Action should be taken against Kittybrewster and Astrotrain for their canvassing!--Vintagekits 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kittbrewster did not canvass me. I found this page and contributed as he clearly is not notable enough for a Wiki. entry, the article tells us nothing about what he did except that he was shot. Was he an Olympic medalist, author, politician &c. who was shot? If not he is not notable! If this article is allowed it sets a dangerous precedent. Why not articles on each individual victim of the Omagh bombing? You are clearly in possession of a PoV that doesn't allow you to judge this article objectively.--Couter-revolutionary 12:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the same logic then we should delete the Jean Charles de Menezes one. Or indeed ones such as Princess Beatrice of York or Princess Marie Louise. These obscure members of the monarchy contributed nothing to society. JCdM done nothing except get executed rather publicly by the police. Your own POV is getting in the way of assesing this article. GiollaUidir 12:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Members of Royal Houses invariably appear in encyclopaedias because of their status. One of the problems with some of the posters on this page is that they clearly have never read an encyclopaedia. David Lauder 08:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Again the above "delete" vote immediately follows a messege left by Kittybrewster, still not action taken to stop this abuse! why?--Vintagekits 12:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am quite capable of thinking for myself and you should note that Kittybrewster merely drew my attention to this issue and nothing more. What 'abuse' is this, other than someone disagreeing with you? If you bothered to check Kittybrewster's discussion page you will see that I have previously communicated with him on removing some of the more egregious POV comments on the Bobby Sands article. Why don't you address the points that I make instead of shouting 'conspiracy' and calling for contributors to be 'punished'?--Major Bonkers 12:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, maybe you need to familiarise yourself with WP:CANVAS--Vintagekits 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:What is a troll. I notice that you still haven't yet answered the points that I originally made.--Major Bonkers 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try and keep this discussion civil, I have attempted to stick to the facts, there is no need for an outburst like that, please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - also the issue at hand here is WP:CANVAS, thank you--Vintagekits 14:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand here is my support for deletion of this article, and the two points that I raised. Your issues are completely separate.--Major Bonkers 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the points you raised. Point 1 is a non-issue; nobody really thinks Wikipedia is in danger of becoming an IRA memorial site. It's not even close to being a reason for deletion. Point 2 is also not a reason. It says "delete" because "the article doesn't merit a dedicated page". That basically says "delete" because "it should be deleted". We have policies and guidelines to help, so try arguing from them. Trebor 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1: There seem to be a large number of articles, of doubtful worth, about IRA militants on Wikipedia, and Astrotrain has made a start by nominating some of the more worthless ones for deletion. Kittybrewster and I previously cleaned up the Bobby Sands article, which was so POV at that time as to be simply propaganda. As I say above, I have no problem with a general article about minor IRA personalities but I find it suspicious and disturbing to have a series of individual articles, padded as they are with references to POV sources and a strong bias of republicanism and/ or anglophobia. It seems to me that certain contributors are making it their job to list every IRA personality that they can. Point 2: As Douglas Bader had it, 'Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools'. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines are sufficiently broad so as not to compromise users' common sense and do not, in any case, help either side in this debate. You also misrepresent my argument: I do not say, '"delete" because "it should be deleted" ', I say delete because the subject is comparatively trivial and being used to advance agendas, not knowledge.--Major Bonkers 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) How is it suspicious and disturbing? And what relevance does certain contributors' actions have to this debate? The policies and guidelines are not completely binding, granted, but they are established through general consensus and can't be ignored on a whim. This decision is clearly not "common sense" as there is plenty of disagreement.
Added to that, you still haven't constructed an argument. "Being used to advance agendas, not knowledge" is not a reason for deletion as far as I can see. I'm not even sure what's meant by it. Saying it's "comparatively trivial" is also meaningless as you're not comparing it to anything; it's like saying it's "too trivial for an article", which is again essentially saying "delete because it should be delete". When I analyse your argument, I'm still not finding anything that holds up. Trebor 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the feeling, Trebor, that we are simply not going to agree on this issue and that further discourse on the subject is pointless. However, to answer your questions: (1) I find it 'suspicious and disturbing' that what is being promoted as an objective source of information is actually tendentious; (2) particularly so because this article is one of a series; (3) that if someone wishes to construct an online shrine to IRA militants, that is their perogative, but it is not something for Wikipedia, no matter how artfully disguised. (4) I used the phrase 'comparatively trivial' carefully, because life is sacred and obviously his death caused pain to those who loved him. However, frankly and from an historical perspective, the sole interesting feature of this individual is his accidental shooting by the Police and that could be dealt with on a page dealing with that subject rather than giving this individual a page of his own.--Major Bonkers 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the same feeling, and so will let the discussion run its course from here. Trebor 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we allow this article then it is against PoV not to have one for every innocent victim of the troubles in Northern Ireland. I don't think there is any need for it but if we allow this for a terrorist who did nothing of note, at all, in his lifetime then why not for terrorist victims?--Couter-revolutionary 15:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Wikipedia's not censored. That's a non-argument. Trebor 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Mohamed Atta. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant to what? Add anything to what? Again, these aren't arguments for deletion. Trebor 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth did he do in life that was notable? Hitler and Stalin lead nations! This chap did nothing except get shot, or so the article suggests!--Couter-revolutionary 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may well be correct, but it doesn't matter if you are or not. Just as we write from sources, not our own personal knowledge, so we choose our subjects based on what there is enough source material to create a decent article on, not whether we personally think the person deserves to be written about. Sometimes, the media does have a bias toward writing about the sensational and bad. If you wish to try and correct that, you can certainly write letters to editors, start a citizen's group, or use any number of other means. But this is not the place to correct anything-either the sources exist, or they don't. In this case, they do. Seraphimblade 16:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that he was bad! My point is that he is totally unnotable! I would also oppose articles for all the victims of the troubles! Can you imagine every victim of the Omagh bombing, for instance, having an article - they got press coverage too!--Couter-revolutionary 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to this article about a non-notable electrician. Try taking that to AfD and watch the "speedy keeps" fly. Someone can be notable for the manner of their death even if their life is utterly without merit. Indeed, some people can become notable as soon as they draw their first breath. --Dweller 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- is there any reliable evidence he was even in the IRA? The only reliable sources in the article are the Telegraph which just name him as an IRA suspect. I seem to remember an article being blanked recently due to your unsubstantiated claims about murder and terrorism for a living person. Astrotrain 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish Republican source cited in the article ([62]) seems to confirm that he was "a volunteer". --Dweller 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider that to be a reliable source. Astrotrain 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Trebor 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be speedily kept; it doesn't match anything in the guideline. Let it run the full course. Trebor 17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Amnesty Intl. follow the cases of thousands of prisoners, this doesn't make them notable and it doesn't make this chap notable.--Couter-revolutionary 18:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of people is a pretty select group out of a historic world population of over 10,000,000,000. That's fewer than the number of local politicians listed on Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, why don't you start a category for "people supported by Amnesty International" and write about each of them. This is all an absolute farce, I just wish someone would put a stop to the blatant PoV in creating memorial pages for terrorists, especially when they didn't do anything important except go to Catholic comp. in London that Tony Blair's son went to.--Couter-revolutionary 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable because of the news coverage. The notability guidelines do not specify whether or not the person is allowed to be a terrorist, or what the basis for their news coverage must be. If you think the article is POV pushing than fix it.--Dycedarg ж 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not bothered about it because he is a terrorist! I am bothered about it because he JUST DID NOT DO ANYTHING! Where is the guideline specifying the amount of press coverage making one notable????!!! Lots of people are shot dead. The news will report it. They do not have articles, why does he!--Couter-revolutionary 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You ask for the guideline, and I provide. WP:BIO states "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." No mention of whether he had to have done anything to generate said works, only that he must have done so. Explain how he fails to meet that criteria.--Dycedarg ж 19:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact to get more specific:"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated." is mentioned specifically as a usable criteria for inclusion.--Dycedarg ж 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm afraid assassination is what is known as a "loaded term" and should be avoided on Wikipedia (I'm being very ironic), besides he wasn't assassinated because he wasn't famous, he was a nobody, which is my point.--Couter-revolutionary 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said he was assassinated. He was involved in a newsworthy event, which is something the guidelines specifically state is grounds for notability. Assassination is just the example they used. If the event he was involved in weren't newsworthy, than there wouldn't be as many newspaper articles to link to as there are.--Dycedarg ж 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, perhaps there should be an article on the event, as opposed to a shrine to the person, such as the Omagh bombing.--Couter-revolutionary 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he "didnt do anything" why was he shot? Should we delete articles of Harry Stanley, Jean Charles de Menezes, Abner Louima or Sean Bell?--Vintagekits 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All very left-wing anti-police articles which deserve, possibly, a place in, say, the News of The World, but not in an encylopaedia. David Lauder 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the articles don't deserve a place, or the manner in which they are written? The former surely isn't true, and the latter is not a reason for deletion. Trebor 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more references listed by Amnesty International regarding the shooting of Diarmuid O'Neill that you might be interested in if you want ot know more.
There may be lots of sources but the article is rubbish! It doesn't tell us anything other than he was a terrorist who's been shot. He wasn't a senior leader in the terrorists or anything! He was just a nobody, it doesn't matter whether he was good or bad he's just not notable. The list of sources is basically longer than the article which seems absurd to me. This needs mentioned as an aside somewhere else, not in an article of its own!--Couter-revolutionary 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your arguments are for merging not for deletion anyways so it is irrelevent yuckfoo 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you suggest this information is kept? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Generally, as soon as you appear in one newspaper the others all follow suit. Countless nonentities appear in newspapers all the time. By using the arguments put forward her this terrorist gets his page on Wikipedia not because he was notable - he was not - but because he appeared in the newspaper. Its quite pathetic. It is not a question of censorship, just whether or not this complete nobody, who never did anything in life other than join an organisation dedicated to furthing its aims by murdering innocent people and violence, should have an entry in an encyclopedia. I don't believe he should. No credit in any way should be awarded to him. David Lauder 08:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, appearing in multiple newspaper articles confers notability, according to the definition we use; we aren't judging his "importance" or "significance". And the second half is irrelevant - it makes no difference what his organisation does, or about awarding "credit" to him. That's not how we decide these things. Trebor 11:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not. Lt Cmdr Neil Rutherford, DSC & Bar, RN was deleted in spite of appearing in several newspaper articles. - Kittybrewster 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As were the Oxford Monarchists, who had appeared in Hansard no less!--Couter-revolutionary 12:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to David Lauder's comments and !vote earlier, that's the most blatant example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT I've seen on Wikipedia. Your moral outrage isn't a criterion for deletion. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was not flagged for deletion. I merely joined int he discussion and gave my reasons for voting for a delete. If your mother, sister, or child got blown to smithereens by these evil people maybe you'd have a bit of "moral outrage". David Lauder 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may find this shocking, but Wikipedia has articles on scores of notable terrorists. —ptk✰fgs 14:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that some sort of justification for carrying more of them? David Lauder 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is becoming very repetitive, becoming very repetitive - who is the terrorist? how many civilians did he kill? - on the other hand he was dragged out of his bed and shot while providing no resistance by "the good guys" - remind me again who the terrorist's are? As pointed out, you may not agree with what he stood for, you may not like what he stood for but that is not the issue at hand here, notability is! We will have no whitewash on wiki no matter how much you canvass--Vintagekits 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this is getting kind of old. The guy's case has been taken up for review by Amnesty International, he's the subject of multiple independent reliable sources, and the question of notability is an easy one. Please don't confuse recognition of notability with the support of a cause. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and we don't change the notability requirement for people whom we merely believe to be evil. —ptk✰fgs 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Vintagekits 17:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked the above account as an obvious sockpuppet (user's first-ever edit was here, followed by a number of "rv vandalism" and "rv POV vandal edits" edit summaries). | Mr. Darcy talk 19:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and I've taken the liberty of striking that editor's !vote because yeah, this is a pretty obvious puppet... I was just looking into this when I saw you already blocked 'em.--Isotope23 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without any proof of sockpuppetry I see no justification for striking the user's vote. Esp by a user involved in this dispute. I've restored it until such time as someone can prove that the user is a sockpuppet. RE: newness of the account. User could well be a long-term editor of wikipedia but only recently registered. Newness is no reason to dismiss a vote in the absence of sockpuppet evidence etc.GiollaUidir 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. So yes, newness is, in fact, a reason to dismiss a !vote. Now, all that said, the user in question has been indef-blocked for obvious sockpuppetry, so his/her !vote may be disregarded on that basis as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:37, 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 keep per WP:CSK, no one actually wants this deleted, and the idea of merging or redirecting can be discussed in an appropriate forum. GRBerry 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trophy hunting[edit]

Trophy hunting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • When discussing redirects, it's traditional to use the talk-page rather than using an AFD. In any case, the redirect request isn't related to a POV, since an unbiased user would see that the Trophy Hunting section on the Hunting page is much more developed (and has been that way for at least a year when compared to Trophy hunting.) While the trophy hunting page was created first, it seems as the associated contributor to the hunting article was unaware of the subarticle in question and developed the content in the main page instead.
Calling people animal rights activists also undermines claims of POV, especially when they write what appears to be reasonable explainations to their claims or edits. Even though the discussion window was shorter than normal (since Trophy hunting wasn't edited that much), redirects will take place if there's no reasonable expectation of opposition. --Sigma 7 20:54, 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 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Popular Pop and Rock Live Albums[edit]

List of Popular Pop and Rock Live Albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another in the list of ill-defined, hopelessly POV, bordering on OR, unencyclopaedic lists. Nuttah68 14:18, 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 12:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League of Heroes[edit]

League of Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/League of Heroes. The page is non-notable and a recreation, and the subject's existance is questionable. Delete. Grand Slam 7 | Talk 14:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize that. Should we somehow move this discussion there?--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 17:32, 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; notability, verified by multiple independant third-party reliable sources, haven't been provided. - Daniel.Bryant 02:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The T Team[edit]

The T Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, the 'official website' is hosted on freewebs. Delete. J Milburn 14:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, The T Team here to shed some light on this little discussion. Several days ago, a young man named Elijah (see earlier comment) told us about how he had set up this little page for us on wikipedia. We had no desire to join good ol' wiki, but this young chap seemed to think we were important enough. We thanked him. Unsurprisingly enough, the article immediately came under scrutiny, mainly due to our unfortunate.....lack of funds, as it were, to get an actual domain name.

Side note for a minute, a quick message to J Milburn, your comment about free domains being non-notable....stupid. I'll have you know that professional wrestler Rick Steiner (one half of the tag team voted the second greatest of all time in North America by Pro-wrestling Illustrated) uses freewebs, and I'd call him pretty goddamn notable. Stupid comment.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to us that the article is hated, so we're more than happy for you to take it down. We don't need a wikipedia article. It was just something a young man decided to do to give back to the group he so loved, thinking others too would enjoy learning about this team. After all, in an encyclopedia that dedicates an entire article to "Allip" (yes J Milburn, that's a note to you), surely they encourage everyone to contribute whatever they can. Surely a great encyclopedia would cover as many topics as it possibly could? There are some articles with no external links or websites referenced at all, yet this seems fine as long as no freewebs sites are mentioned. We'll pass on the message to Elijah that for all future articles he hopes to set up, to put no websites at all to stand a better chance at not being deleted.

Well, that's all from us. We appreciate you taking an interest in our group, and hope you get a laugh from it here or there. This whole discussion has sort of made us wonder what you guys could possibly get out of scrutinising others peoples works. It makes no difference to you if these articles stay up. You put a lot of time into your articles and they put a lot of time into theirs, yet you say theirs aren't important enough for a website that you dont even own. You're just another brick in the wall. I wonder how many people have left this site in anger after they put a lot of time and effort into their own articles, only to have a Dungeons and Dragons nerd delete it. Sad, in a way. Anyway, that's by-the-by. Take it easy, guys

Signed, The T Team —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.191.159.13 (talk • contribs).

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Hayes[edit]

Kelvin Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, appears to be non-notable. I am open to being proven wrong. J Milburn 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or are you the most boring people that ever lived!? There are many entries that read like a biog, that's part of what makes an encyclopedia an encyclopedia. Also if Wikipedia allows its pages to be moderated by a 16 year old tit that knows nothing about nothing and clearly has nothing better to do with his dull existence, then I would be delighted to remove the offending article myself. Evidence of my books being published are on the Welsh Books Council site if you would care to check. Oh, and my Voyage of Nomad book was reviewed in Buzz magazine, that's a South Wales arts and entertainment guide if you know as much about that as you do Welsh poetry. Who is notable? Certainly none of you pathetic individuals. That probably doesn't meet God knows how many of Wikipedia's idiotic pointless directives which are a complete contradiction on what is a free encyclopedia, but who cares. KH

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Church of Stannington[edit]

Children's Church of Stannington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's no evidence this is a notable organisation, other than a website created by the page author, User:Jlove12, who also claims to a vicar in the Church of England, yet is aged 15 PMJ 15:16, 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 speedily deleted by User:RyanGerbil10. MER-C 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Disease[edit]

Deadly Disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is an apparent hoax, and references an apparently nonexistent medical journal. John254 15:25, 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday (Dilbert episode)[edit]

Holiday (Dilbert episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is comprised entirely of a plot summary, contains no specific references, and concerns an apparently non-notable episode of a comic strip. John254 15:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the nom no longer supports deletion. [63]. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here to be kept-- the article is written at a third grade literacy level. * Keep now that its been rewritten. Allon Fambrizzi 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Since when do we determine deletion because articles "suck ass"? Trebor 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, if you want me to bullshit you and retype my message all Wikipedia-PC with neutral sounding words, ok, but don't tell me people don't think that. Certainly, that should never be the criteria alone, as Wikipedia is a work in progress and we are here to improve rather than delete. BUT, it's not likely that such articles even can improve. Yes, some minor improvements have been made, such as an infobox and the slight rewording of the painfully small content, but it's still nothing more than an episode that is not independently notable, nor information that needs to be split due to size. It's just mindless plot summary for the sake of plot summary (WP:NOT#IINFO #7). You seem to be missing the point of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and other similar pages. I don't like it because it's not a good article nor does it have the potential to be one and because it is needless plot summary, which our policies and guidelines strongly discourage. I actually liked the Dilbert show (wasn't great but I enjoyed it). -- Ned Scott 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to humour me and construct proper arguments, yes. But if you think this article should be deleted, why aren't you nominating all of these? To the best of my knowledge, general consensus is in favour of keeping episodes of a notable series. Trebor 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe for the same reason I haven't corrected every typo on Wikipedia, time. The idea that this is a general censuses is what gets under my skin. It's not a consensus. I'm not saying there's consensus against episode articles, but there never was a real consensus for them. It's so painfully easy to make articles that it makes it appear there is wide support for this. New users come on (and even old ones), see the articles and do the same for other shows. It's not a horrible thing, and everyone was acting in good faith, but for the vast majority no thought was really given to the creation. It was not the result of a discussion, rather it's the result of a misconception on a major scale. Precedent does not help us in this situation. -- Ned Scott 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And nice double standard you have there, considering the "reasons" some of the keeps have made. That being said, I have no problem with further explaining myself. If you wish me to explain more on my reasons then I will. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that, in contrast to what Ned said above about consensus, a consensus to include articles on episodes of notable TV shows was reached at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. It's also worth noting, given his objections to plot summaries, that the very first thing included in a list of items "to include about a television episode, where possible" is a "plot summary of the episode". Furthermore, he should know both of these things, since he's edited both the page in queastion and its talk page. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it should also be noted that that page also says to create individual episode articles "Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes". It certainly doesn't say that every notable show should have an individual article for each episode, in fact it recommends starting with series and season articles first and only splitting individual articles as necessary. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, and ordinarily I would've suggested that this be merged back into List of Dilbert animated series episodes, except that in this case doing so would break that page's table format. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big supporter of WP:EPISODE, so yes, I know all about it. As Milo's note says, the topic of an episode is ok, but not necessarily an article dedicated to an episode. The episodes do not need individual articles, and only make themselves a target for cruft, trivia, and OR. Even forgetting anything about notability or any of those shades of gray, we still don't actually have anything more than a plot summary to write about that is unique to a specific episode. As for the table formatting, the solution to that is easy, just use the Template:episode list system. I would have no problems with a merge. -- Ned Scott 19:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will 2nd Milo's and Ned's comments here. And I would like to introduce a term for this problem "Episode creep" :D. Yes the discussion says that. HOWEVER. It also says that you should not default to such behaviour, but where possible start with Shows -> List of episodes. Then once you establish notability for a seperate article (translated: more then a plot summary and the stuff which is usually tracked in imdb) you can create seperate articles for episodes. This does not say you have to create articles for ALL episodes of a show. The idea here is to improve before you create instead of simply duplicating effort by creating a ton of episode articles. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:44, 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 Merge. Cbrown1023 talk 03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmi Road[edit]

Laxmi Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability is questionable, and this article has been in essentially the same useless state for more than a year. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:36, 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 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Waqar Ali Naqvi[edit]

Syed Waqar Ali Naqvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and written in an unencyclopedic list format. John254 15:38, 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 deleted early, a7 - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Schultz[edit]

Garry Schultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It seems that this article about an Australian high school principal was recently speedy deleted (see User:Mangojuice/a7) but recreated. Not sure whether the recreation was by the same editor but in any case, AfD seems like the way to go for re-deletion. Pascal.Tesson 16:18, 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 13:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mens Sana Research Foundation[edit]

Mens Sana Research Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a directory. Please also see an entry I placed on the article's talk page. Keesiewonder talk 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I notified the creator of this article, User:Mensanamonographs about the deletion debate. EdJohnston 18:42, 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 "Keep". Agent 86 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Audain[edit]

Courtney Audain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Non-notable session musician with about 500 G-Hits to his name. kingboyk 16:35, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leicestershire Combination[edit]

Leicestershire Combination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This league is strictly a reserve league. We have articles for the reserve leagues of the Premier League and the Football League, which are reasonable I think, but the reserve league of the Leicestershire Senior League is not notable. By virtue of it being a reserve league, it's not actually in the pyramid, as it falsely states in the article. Balerion 17:09, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marlboro Blend No. 27[edit]

Marlboro Blend No. 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recommend deletion as per WP:N Piddle 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this article will be deleted as I did create an article on Cafe Creme cigarillos - it was wiped after a week with no discussion which I personally thought was wrong and the Wikipedian who did it should be ashamed of themselves.

Aside from that - people have made an effort with this article, and have put a picture of the brand too. It deserves to have work on it before deletion.

Many articles on this site would not appear in a normal encyclopedia. But this is no ordinary encyclopedia. I think if you delete this sort of article (aside from the arguements on health of this product - lets not forget artciles on BUrger King are bad for your health too) then other articles such as companies, majority of celebrities should be deleted too PrincessBrat 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison was made simply because there are a lot of 'celebrities/sportspeople' on this encyclopedia who are not that famous outside their profession - by all means have an article on someone like Charlie Chaplin they are very well known but other celebrities who are still alive and not that famous, such as some soccer players who are on here is pointless - so on that basis if your going to keep the non celebrities/sportspeople why not keep other brands of cigarettes which are not that popular. Let us not beat about the bush, you wouldnt see this or some soccer player article in Encyclopedia Britannica would you?

I hope that this article is not being considered for deletion due to its content matter -i.e tobacco and someone who hates smokers is proposing its deletion. If it is, can I say that it is unlikely a non smoker would find this article and start smoking based on the content. I for one wouldnt! --PrincessBrat 21:29, 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Karlsson[edit]

Thomas Karlsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO and WP:V 999 (Talk) 17:58, 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. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klay World: Off the Table[edit]

Klay World: Off the Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
Take note of the deletion logs. I am pretty sure there are others, I'll add them if I find them, most have been deleted more than once. Benfer has edited as User:Stillz1, 100% of whose edits were to add articles on Benfer or links to Benfer and his websites to other articles. Most have by now been deleted. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Benfer is a Newgrounds flash artist and claymation filmmaker. He also seemingly has the most vocal on-wiki internet fanclub, having been himself and his related projects being deleted here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Indeed, if you click through to those links, you'll probably find even more deletions. If you look on Talk:Knox, you'll find an unrelated user supporting the inclusion of Robert "Knox" Benfer into the list just to stop edit wars and vandalism. This article refers to Benfer's latest project, his first full length claymation, made and distributed by himself. This is not a notable release, there are no third party sources, it fails WP:NF (film notability guidelines). - hahnchen 02:35, 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, W.marsh 18:17, 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 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat Emptor EP[edit]

Caveat Emptor EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

All of this info is in the Greeley Estates article. I'm not convinced this article will be relevant to anyone 50 years from now. MRoberts <> 18:45, 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 13:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Conspirators[edit]

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

This is a new band that hasn't even sold an album yet. It belongs on MySpace, not in an encyclopedia. MRoberts <> 17:42, 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 withdrawn by nominator. John254 19:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rights in the Arab world[edit]

Women's rights in the Arab world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a POV fork of Women in Muslim societies John254 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true. I just started the article and it is in progress. Muslim society is not equivalent to Arab world. Muslims in india and Afghanistan etc have different cultures and traditions. Many restrictions are not due to religion. Instead it originates from traditions and cultures. This article is going to discuss the issue in the context of Arab culture and Arab social norms. Ioukawa 18:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also Arab world consist of Jews arabs, Christian arabs etc. Ioukawa 18:52, 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 keep and cleanup. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bebe Nanaki Ji[edit]

Bebe Nanaki Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The sister of an important religious figure, but it's unclear how she's notable by herself. Her name, in some obvious spellings, gets low-3-figure Google hits. Also, per the tag in the middle of the article, all or part of it may be a wholesale copyvio from two books (which however don't appear to feature her as the principal subject). Sandstein 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite: although the article needs copyediting, if this woman is credited with being the first Sikh in history as the article states, then I think she is of historical importance. Rosemary Amey 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what is meant with the tortured phrase "There is no doubt that perhaps first Gur Sikh was none other than Bebe Nanaki Ji"? OK, but then undoubtedly we must perhaps also address the copyvio issues. Sandstein 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio - Much/most of the article (such as the paragraph starting "He was named") is lifted straight from [74]. --J2thawiki 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewirte: I agree maybe the article does need re-wording in some places, however Bebe Nanaki Ji, is of great historical importance in the Sikh Faith. The reason for my humble contribution to Wikipedia was to add valuable insight into the life of the first Sikh of the Sikh faith. As well as being the first sikh, she was also a woman, which has far reaching conoltations in regards to one of Guru Nanak Dev Ji's core messages of equality between men and women.

She also played the pivotable part in the recognition of Guru Nanak Dev Ji as an enlightened spiritual leader. There was a unique relationship not just as the first sikh but also as a Sister.

Admittedly there is not nearly enough reference material regarding her life, which is also another reason for posting the article.

If you could all make suggestions in the areas you think that need work, i am sure that the work could be accomodated rather than deleting the article as a whole. I think this would be an injustice to the readers of wikipedia. The fact is people come to wikipedia to learn about something that they did not know before they came to read its pages. I am sure a fair number of people read the articles around Sikhism and Guru Nanak Dev Ji and as such it is a shame that such a prominent Sikh Figure as Bebe Nanaki goes without a mention on Wikipedia.

Forgive me for i am a literary novice with the best of wishes.

Kind Regards, Jaswant Singh Sagoo 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the copyright violation issue? Didn't you just copy the contents of this article from other books? If so, this content at least cannot stay. Sandstein 04:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's a woman. Sandstein 04:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrating why we need a rewrite.Bakaman 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So... you mean the subject of the article is a man? Even though the article talks at great (copyvio) length about a woman? Which means we can usefully keep approximately zero bytes of the present content? This, sir, is one surreal debate. But tell you what? We delete this content first, then you can rewrite the article, about the man. Or you can even do this right now and there's no need for deletion. OK? Sandstein 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I meant that I was incorrect in noting the person was male. The spelling of Bebe is confusing as Sikhs would use "Bibi" instead. That still hardly matters as "Bibi NAnaki" (as she is more commonly known) is notable. See refs like these that provide a better feel for the subject [75].Bakaman 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the gender confusion is over :-) ... but someone's web page isn't a reliable source for notability. I know too little about the subject, but possibly you could at least rewrite the article as a stub? We can't keep the current text around if it violates someone's copyright. Sandstein 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely noting that the web page provided a less jumbled form of the text that may actually be understandable.Bakaman 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this still doesn't solve the problems of (1) establishing notability through reliable sources and (2) removing the current article text which is in violation of copyright. Sandstein 06:25, 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, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaswant Singh Sagoo 15:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Orpheus[edit]

Rodney Orpheus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO and WP:V 999 (Talk) 19:26, 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 Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lon Milo DuQuette[edit]

Lon Milo DuQuette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO and WP:V. It's been tagged as unsourced since August 2006, but no sources have been provided. 999 (Talk) 19:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, of course, that those are only some of what I could find from google--there's likely much more in print-only format. --Jackhorkheimer 06:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis M. Wilcox[edit]

Francis M. Wilcox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Editor of the house paper of the Seventh Day Adventists. No other claim to fame, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect & merge to the article on the paper would meet the situation. DGG 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added sources and expanded it a bit. I hope it helps and will receive further consideration. Thewalkingstick 23 January 2007
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 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 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T39 Bogatyr[edit]

T39 Bogatyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable vehicle from a video game, no reason to have articles on every vehicle from this or any game. Daniel J. Leivick 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

The counter part of the t39 bogatyr is the L5 riesig and it has an article too so either they both stay or leaveDestroyer 65 22:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Rosenberg[edit]

Karma Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

From the article: "Very little is known about her by her small cadre of fans". Quite so. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 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. Robdurbar 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nalzaxx[edit]

Nalzaxx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable game character. Wikipedia is not a game guide, WP:NOT Daniel J. Leivick 20:06, 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, patent nonsense and self-admitted neologism. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bandarousness[edit]

Bandarousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an entirely unreferenced article concerning a neologism. John254 20:06, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Sampson[edit]

Fred Sampson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable indy wrestler. A google search turned up a Fred Sampson (that isn't a wrestler), fan sites such as OWW with Fred Sampson on it, and so on. The TV.com link just lists his WWE appearances: which isn't that notable either. WWE is known to hire indy wrestlers for matches and segments. Because Fred has done a bunch, he is notable for Wikipedia? I don't think so. If we had wrestling bio articles for everyone WWE has used for matches and segments: Wikipedia would be flooded with tons of cruft. This article is better suited for a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Your not entering it right, The search you are performing is looking for two separate terms. You want to do "Fred Simpson" #wrestler because using the # sign looks at the articles for where exactly Fred Simpson is located and finds if it has the wrestler word attached in that same area. This is the better way to search using relative terms. Govvy 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment If I include the '#' I get 93 unique hits in English. It's you who isn't looking for unique hits. One Night In Hackney 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment One Night In Hackney, That search results 1,240. :/ Govvy 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it does not. Did you actually click the link? Do you understand what a unique hit actually is? I've already explained it's unique hits in English, and 356 unique hits in all languages. Looking for unique hits is the true measure of Google data, instead of just looking at the figure on the initial search page. One Night In Hackney 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nope, I really don't get ya, I have no idea what you mean, I know what results I get and know exactly what you entered. And you obviously get different results to me. Also I know that google does meta searches, I've even tried that, but it really is useless results for that. Govvy 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I know exactly how you got that result. You typed in your search string, looked at the first page, then claimed 1200+ hits. However if you keep looking through the pages of results (no need to do it one at a time) you eventually get to the last page which gives you the number of unique hits. See here for more information, it only returns one hit per domain and disregards substantially similar pages. One Night In Hackney 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results your way Govvy 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't my way. Your end of the URL has the "&filter=0" qualifier, so you won't see unique hits. Take off the qualifier and you get 346 unique hits, and if you search for English only we're back to 93 hits again. One Night In Hackney 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, I think the user RobJ1981 was doing this to attack me. Govvy 21:24, 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 12:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petupia[edit]

Petupia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - I read through some of the copyright stuff and I couldn't find anything directly addressing the notion of including text while asserting "all rights reserved" as this article does. If there's something else besides a regular AfD that needs to be done, point me toward it. Regardless, the article is trivia, non-notable and without independent verifiable sourcing so it needs to go. Otto4711 20:27, 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--Jersey Devil 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dupobs[edit]

Dupobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 and deleted, but restoration requested so I'm bringing it here. No evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, sole claim to notability appears to be one member who was briefly part of a barely-notable band before they were barely-famous. There are only 49 Google hits in total, 35 of which are unique, none of which appears to be a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If non-trivial coverage is an overriding criterion, then I agree, as I cannot locate any press about Dupobs, and indeed the google hits are as you describe, for what that's worth.

But since this is a guideline open to interpretation and flexibility, we should consider the case on its merits, and according to criteria relevant in the world of music. The criteria for Notability:Music apply here, don't they? Reading the article would indicate that the crossover in band membership is current (a simple perusal of the relevant band URLs confirms this) - even though that shouldn't matter -, so the charge that the 'sole claim to notability appears to be one member who was briefly part of a barely notable (sic) band' is incorrect (emphasis added).

As regards the band upon which Dupobs relies for its claim to Notability, I don't know what you mean by 'barely-famous', but I had thought fame was not a criterion for Notability. And if said band satisfies Notability (by association with other undisputed notables, and by multiple, nontrivial coverage in independent, reliable sources), I fail to see how you can make the claim that this constitutes "barely-notable". I don't know what that concept means; I cannot find a definition for it in Wikipedia's guidelines. Do we really need to create such categories? --Jeandjinni 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: notability and fame are exclusive. And seeing as fame is not a criterion for notability, the article should not be deleted. I doubt a deletion would be considered were dupobs to comprise a member from a famous (not just notable) musical group. Also keep in mind that searching the internet is not necessarily an effective means to determine notability for musical groups that were in existence, and ceased to be active, before the proliferation of the internet, as was the case for another music group (not the one meeting notability criteria) comprising one of dupobs' members (see article). Consider also the cross-reference to PRISM international, which, according to its website, has published works by highly notable authors such as Jorge Luis Borges and Margaret Atwood. Interestingly, there's no article for PRISM international on Wikipedia. So who's to determine what's notable or not? The article should stay.

Per policy, we can't have an article without sources. Per policy we are not a directory. So per policy we ask for multiple non-trivial sources. We clarify that in the notability guideline, which explains it all in some detail and represents a distillation of many thousands of deletion debates. No sources = no article. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, as has been argued before elsewhere - doesn't the lack of any sources make this a case of verifiability (not notability)? Anyway, if this rule were applied to a jazz ensemble of fifty years ago, would the case be viewed differently? I know what an encyclopedia is; I just want to help make a better one. To me that encyclopedia would include marginal, specialized music that is "notable" in circles where specialized cultural or aesthetic knowledge (like specialized scientific knowledge, which is protected on similar grounds) is required to assess the music's notability. There's plenty of outside music that could be considered "notable" on artistic criteria alone, and which is the result of twice-or-thrice removed collaborations between musicians who work in other projects, written about in respected publications long out of print and never digitized. This music surely did not not exist! I also understand the need to keep out the garage bands, the false starts, and the fictions and I forcefully agree with that reasoning. But surely the Music Notability guidelines (and we can debate how these could be refined on that page to account for this) should reflect and respect the logics of particular music scenes and traditions, rather than rest on a simple reiteration of the "verifiability" criterion, which could throw out a huge chunk of important music.--Jeandjinni 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, the two are inextricably linked. A notable subject will have sufficient sources to be verifiable, a subject verifiable form multiple non-trivial sources is likely to be notable. I have yet to see an example of a subject which has multiple independent non-trivial sources but which is not notable. This is not an article about a jazz band from fity years ago, it's about a band from right now which has no independent sources. There are folk muscians now with negligible Google presence, but these are not folk musicians, theya re argued to be a significant rock band. No evidence of significance is presented. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, plenty of corporate-funded musical entities build whole careers on multiple purportedly 'independent non-trivial sources' without otherwise establishing Notability by any aesthetic criteria. I know that relying on sources is convenient (esp. considering the number of nn band articles that should be deleted), but the problem with using sources as a basis of distinction is that the independence and non-triviality of many sources can be in question. Are we to accept that a magazine such as Rolling Stone deserves its italics when it is arguably not much more than an advertiser-supported PR gallery for large record companies, essentially a "Billboard" with a bit of critical artifice? Secondly, that it's not a jazz or folk ensemble is precisely the point. There are different standards of Notability in different genres, which is (or ought to be) the rationale for the more open guidelines specific to music articles. 'Avant garde rock' is the genre in question, not 'rock'. No one's arguing that the Dupobs are Notable in the same way that Led Zeppelin is. The yardstick used should be different. --Jeandjinni 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be arguing for us to have articles on bands because you think they are good, not because there are independent sources on which an article can be based. It doesn't work that way. A young performer I heard recently, Etienne Cutajar, has more talent in his little finger than the average boy band has in its entire collective body, but there are no sources (well, one, but it's in the journal of the British Horn Society so not widely circulated), so no article. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, where did I ever say I thought Dupobs was good? I agree that Dupobs doesn't satisfy verifiability - that's an objective test. However, I disagree that Notability is the same thing for all musical genres or subcultures. There are other criteria I've suggested (aesthetics, relation to various traditions, coverage in dead press), but no one seems interested in talking about that. I agree with the proposed deletion on the grounds of verifiability, not on the grounds of notability. Further, in the hypothetical example you've cited, why would you think wide circulation mattered? As I've suggested in a more general sense previously, wouldn't the deletion of the Etienne Cutajar article constitute bias of Wikipedia in favour of coverage by commercial publications? Surely you wouldn't go that far?--Jeandjinni 01:40, 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 keep. --BozMo talk 09:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing early: no votes to delete and arguments have convinced me as nominator for AfD.

Jules Siegel[edit]

Jules Siegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No visible notability. Prod deleted by user with name matching subject of article. Looks like non notable author.--BozMo talk 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am interested that these are "important" sites...--BozMo talk 21:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it does seem to be a cult following. Lots of mentions in borderline publications. Except for the last one: mexconnect.com is a notable website. Part Deux 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity books? Are you kidding? Three are in the Museum of Modern Art's Artists Books Collection. Two are reprints of books published by independents, including Straight Arrow. Another of my books was published by Workman. I design and publish my own work because that's the only way that I can have 100% creative control. "Freedom of the press is limited to those who one one." A. J. Liebling. I take that really seriously. Well, what the hell, Wikipedia is all just one big vanity press -- and now it wants to cull out people like me. AlterNet.org is non-important? This is really silly. It reminds me of a fraternity hazing. --Jules Siegel

I'd like to add that Jules Siegel is not only a notable author, but also a notable person, one that should not be deleted. -- Sharon Secor

Listen, all that is required rather than lots of WP:SPAs
You are using the term in a demeaning way that reveals your bias. I was informed about it by an admirer, who suggested that I fix it and inform my friends about it. The people respond who are interested in me, not the rest of your system. They take the quickest opening for defending me. I am not going to go into this at length. Suffice it so say that the Wikipedia instructional system has become obscure and unwieldy. Look at the bureacratic thicket that's growing right here as I attempt to get you to understand that perhaps you might be a bit out of line. A bit. Have you ever heard the term "kangaroo court?" I thought not. Well, follow the link. Shall we have a dreaded smiley here? Why not? :) --Jules Siegel
appearing and declaring that JS is notable is "visible notability"... that means the basis for notability has to be visible in the article. Include details in the article establishing notability as defined by the guidelines and we will rejoice. Jules, I don't think you should edit an article about yourself because of the guideline WP:COI but you are welcome to include things on the talk page which establish this. --BozMo talk 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "visible notability" material has been in the article since I originally posted it back when Wikipedia was young. I don't want to sound testy, but has anyone read it? As far as editing my own article, doing so is entirely consistent with my life and work. As you can see, I haven't glorified myself. I've simply listed a few of my accomplishments with pointers to others. I was unaware of the WP:COI guideline (which I note are guidelines, not rules) when I added a few more items. I really don't get any of this. You've instituted a set of rather obscure "guidelines" and you are now zealously enforcing them retroactively as if they were rules in the most heavy-handed way possible. Does it occur to you that perhaps you should have read the article and looked at the external links first? In my view, Wikipedia should strive for inclusiveness, not exclusiveness. --Jules Siegel
Hmm. Please understand we have to deal with vast numbers of people who want pages about themselves. Yes, I read the article and followed the links. This is not personal please don't feel "testy". In return I ask have you read WP:BIO? I couldn't see anything which met the guidelines hence I tagged it for notability. You took the tag off without answering the question so ending up here is a bit procedural.
I added a link to the Museum of Modern Art Dadabase and Franklin Furnace. --Jules Siegel
Some good independent reviews of your work (i.e. not lulu.com or blogs) would be enough to qualify: I presume you have some, just provide them and I'll withdraw the AfD. Or if the links provided contain such say which: I do not have a deep knowledge of the nature of US publications. --BozMo talk 10:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the discussion, you'll see that I supplied the links to the reviews. Since you've discouraged me from editing my own page, I now have to wait for someone to spontaneously post them, I presume. Oh well, I'll just go ahead and post them myself and you can use that against me, too.
I also want to take exception to your comment about "blogs." You are setting criteria that you have absolutely no competence to judge. A review is a review. Who are you to determine the credibility of the source? You admit that you don't have deep knowledge of "the nature of US publications." In my case, the nature of the publications in which my work has appeared -- not reviewed -- is what actually counts the most and what makes me "notable." So if you aren't aware of the significance of New American Review, Saturday Evening Post, Playboy, Village Voice, Library of America, Rolling Stone, The Rock History Reader, you should perhaps do some research. All of these publications are listed in my cv.
People who come looking for me do so because of the quality of my work, often because they've seen my name mentioned in an online discussion, or because they are historians and scholars who are researching Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, Thomas Pynchon and other celebrated people about whom I wrote articles that are unique original sources of information. The Brian Wilson story has been anthologized several times and is used as a primary source in every book about him. It's usually referred to as a "classic."
Now I can get one of my admirers to write that up and put it on the page, but I don't really feel that would be much different from doing it myself. The basic issue here is honesty. That's what my work is all about. If you can't perceive that from what I've written in this discussion and you can't get the points raised by the people who have written in my behalf, I think that I have to challenge you to defend your credibility and your judgment. Who are you exactly? Why are you tearing around Wikipedia imposing your rather legalistic edicts in areas where you admit you have little or no expertise?
Let's get something straight. I don't need Wikipedia. I posted some corrections in the story on Cancun quite a while ago. I don't recall when I decided to put up a brief item about myself. It just seemed like a good idea at the time. I did not realize that I would later be subjected to a "procedure" about it by an over-zealous administrator intent on maintaining the purity of Wikipedia from the un-notable. I was later invited to contribute by Jimmy Wales after I wrote to him to complain about offensive remarks about me that appeared in the Thomas Pynchon article that I could not edit because my IP address had been banned for unknown reasons. The remarks were immediately corrected by one of the administrators who was responsible for the page and my IP was fixed. So it's really more of a case of Wikipedia needing me, specifically because of my "notability."
If you want to delete, please do so. I've really had quite enough of this absurd and embarrassing discussion which has been an utter waste of my time. Nothing seems to satisfy you. --Jules Siegel

A friend has pointed out to me that the vanity remark refers to the fact that I wrote my own entry. That's right. I am a self-referential artist. My work is about me and what I see. That's the only truth I know. It's the only truth I believe. Anything else is hearsay. I used to write about Very Important People -- Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, Thomas Pynchon -- for very large publications. A time came when I realized that my own life was what I knew best and that was what I should record.

Go ahead and delete it. If someone else chooses to restore it, that's fine with me. Dumped from Wikipedia for writing my own brief bio. From Wikipedia?. It's just the greatest! I love it. --Jules Siegel

I don't profess to be a Wikipedia expert, but Mr. Siegel appears to meet the "notability" test for authors set forth on the Wiki help pages that "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Perhaps he can elaborate, particularly with respect to the "art" and travel books. -- Jack Lebowitz Jackl2400 17:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Lineland: Mortality and Mercy on the Internet's Pynchon-L@Waste.Org. Record. Cancun User's Guide. Mad Laughter: Fragments of a Life in Progress I don't know why I am doing this. I am pathetic. Masturbating in public at 71. Help. --Jules Siegel

Last entry. Now I get it. I'm losing points for defending myself. WP:VANITY. Reminds me of [Bobby Seale]] bound and gagged at the Chicago Seven trial. Interestingly enough, I interviewed Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, and Bobby Seale, four of the seven, for "Revolution," Playboy, March, 1970. But let's not get that heavy. Go ahead and delete me. I give up. Wikpedia has rules. You've got to know those rules. Other people have to point out that I am notable. Other people have to delete the delete Jules Siegel notice. [Slaps head.] How could I have been so stupid! Now I'm not going to be in Wikipedia and I am banished to the dustbin of history. That's what I get for talking back. Will I never learn?

Keep it. Siegel is a noted author with an compelling life story and an established body of work, who has been widely recognized by his peers. It seems to me the wikipedians are getting a little heavy-handed with their wanton purges based on an overencompassing vanity criteria. Self-submitted entries should be scrutinized certainly, but this should not be solely used as a convenient and to my mind, somewhat lazy excuse, to delete. Surely if his work is considered important enough for MOMA, that alone should render the request to delete moot. -- Libby Spencer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.79.132 (talk)

Keep -- his work is in the Museum of Modern Art; that gives him a certain level of notability that at least equals a lot of other people who have articles in WP.--Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I've been reading the work of Jules Siegel for decades. To leave him out of Wikipedia is narrow-minded and misguided. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference. Refer to him. David Goen Dsgoen 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Jules is a genuine person, reputed writer. While it is not proper for a writer to write about him/herself in an encyclopedia, the things Jules has written are sourced and not out of the blue. Nixdorf 08:07, 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 Speedy keep, article about a real town; nomination withdrawn. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sengottai[edit]

Sengottai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a place in India was clearly written by a few users who are unfamiliar with how to write a good article on Wikipedia. I am not making a statement about the notability of the place. However, as it stands, the article needs a complete overhaul at the very least. If an expert on the geography of India can shed some light on this, that would be great; otherwise, it may need to be deleted. YechielMan 21:25, 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 12:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up Town Smoke Volume 1[edit]

Up Town Smoke Volume 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also including in this AfD the rap group and individual artist:

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Miner[edit]

Richard Miner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

contested prod, non notable individual. Natalie 21:33, 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 12:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Crazed Mimbanite[edit]

Diary of a Crazed Mimbanite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article full of original research on a non-notable webcomic. /Blaxthos 22:10, 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 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mall emo[edit]

Mall emo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Low number of Google hits suggest that 'mall emo' is a non-notable neologism. The article seems to contain mostly original research, as none of the sources/references listed contain the term "mall emo". I am also nominating the following as the articles on the listed bands don't mention "mall emo" as a genre.

List of mall emo bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

mikmt 22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Assuming this article does get deleted, be aware that the creator has added this to a bunch of other pages. Those should probably be removed to discourage recreation. Natalie 20:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC) they have apparently removed the article themselves. Natalie 20:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Franklin Johnson[edit]

Thomas Franklin Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced bio of a "legendary" musician, born in 1980, who is now in "early retirement." No sources for anything and it reads as if it was written by somebody with firsthand information of the subject. I did a google search for Thomas Johnson" and "bluegrass" and only came up with a mixer, no mentions of a musicians (The name is common, so I guess I could have overlooked something). Fails WP:N and WP:V and as far as "legendary" goes, I'd even say this might be a hoax. janejellyroll 22:17, 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 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Target Longlife Media Player[edit]

Target Longlife Media Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a very minor modification of the software Media Player Classic, such a minor change does not afford it its own article. In addition, it is not notable enough for an article. Qutezuce 22:30, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newgrounds timeline[edit]

Newgrounds timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A whole list of teenaged vanity namechecks and uncited information, spam links to things whose articles have been deleted and other sundry nonsense. This is the job of the Newgrounds FAQ, not an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 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 as non-notable group of people/spam. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unheard entertainment[edit]

Unheard entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: Little evidence of notability, unreliable sources given.  – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:32, 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 12:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Target Longlife Productions[edit]

Target Longlife Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable company. It lists many "films" based on popular game franchises, but none of them are licensed by the owner of the games, yet they are still "negotiating" to get the rights. The page was created as self-promotion by the company itself. Qutezuce 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add and block from recreation based on entry below by User:Caesar, signed Jeepday 02:49, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Press[edit]

Non-notable company. No assertion of notability. Fails to satisfy any WP:CORP criterion. Valrith 22:51, 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 12:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dániel Erdély[edit]

It does not look like he meet criteria on notability. He is just a student Alex Bakharev 22:57, 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 to delete the page, defaulting to keep. It is very likely that this would survive a new listing anyway. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google tv[edit]

Google tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonsense; nothing more than an elaborate hoax. Technostalgia 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this makes it into major media like the NYT, then it will be a notable hoax. As of yet (January 29, barely three days after the video was first uploaded) there hasn't been that sort of coverage that would allow us to write an authoritative article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all i know is, if this article had been deleted, i would still be trying to get google tv. please keep it up.

How is the very nature of a hoax unverifiable? A hoax is simply a hoax and thus known to be false--otherwise it would not be a hoax.--LoganK 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up[edit]

"If this makes it into major media like the NYT, then it will be a notable hoax." Why should an electronic public encyclopedia use foolish standards of inclusion, when there's no limitation of print, pages, or storage? The notion of a useful standard of "notability" is an idiotic enterprise, on the part of wiki policy. ALL MANNERS OF MINUTIAE are "notable" for somebody somewhere who has cause to find information that particular thing, at some point in time. The Infinite Solutions video exists in the world. Secondly, people have already taken the cell-phone/network video seriously. If anybody wanted to understand whether the videos were "real" or "fake" a wiki would obviously help. To assert that the hoax isn't "notable" because there's no big-media mention, and therefore that it shouldn't be included in wikipedia, is nothing more than snobbish ignorance. (By the way, the suggestion that NY Times coverage somehow inherently lends "authoritative"ness to any issue or topic, or set of facts, is extremely naive.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.132.160 (talk • contribs)

If you think our standards of notability are "foolish", as you so put it, then please also note that we have a very firm statement on what we are - and equally important, what we are not. Before you declare what Wikipedia is for, please note that it is more important to note that Wikipedia has its own statements on what Wikipedia is, and it will stand by that. --Dennisthe2 22:41, 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 Keep No reason to speedy the nomination; but I am closing it per WP:DENY.--Isotope23 17:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPWA Election Day Anarchy[edit]

IPWA Election Day Anarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

what makes these events any more substantial an professional wretsling event than the hundreds of other professional wrestling events? Not sayin i expect em to be a WrestleMania but a separate page for all of these vents seems very weird. Maybe merge them to IPWA EVENTS?

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reason listed above:

IPWA Holy Land Havoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IPWA Kosher Clash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IPWA Passover Bash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IPWA SUMMER SPLASH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IPWA Netanya Havoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IPWA Collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IPWA EVENTS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IPWA WrestleNovella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jarfullofempty 23:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Bad Faith Nomination from now indefblocked user (blocked as a SOCK of User:JB196), and I have placed a db-ban on it with no prejudice towards renomination. SirFozzie 16:41, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L5 Riesig[edit]

L5 Riesig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, serves really no purpose. William Pembroke(talk) 21:20, 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.
More