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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YA Entertainment[edit]

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

Sorry, this article was earlier nominated for deletion, under the name YA Entertainment (Entertainment Company) on 12 January 2007. The article was then deleted on 19 January 2007. The results of the previous delete can be found here. Basically, the reasons are very similar. In summary, the original contributor of the now-deleted article was copying text and images from YA Entertainment's web site, and was not providing sufficient information to prove that she indeed obtain permission from YAE to use the material. The behavior of this person was suspicious, where at times she even attempted to socket puppet the editing. To add to the reason, several of us suspect that one or more users have grouped together and are trying to re-resurrect the article for only professional gain of the company. According to User:Oncamera in the discussions page, he's observed similarities between the users working on the article, including the IP addresses, as well as the timing of the edits being so close together. It appears to be a group effort. Groink 06:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although everything about this article's re-creation is suspicious to me, the reason for me saying delete is the lack of notability. User:Oncamera has made a sound argument for it on YA's talk page. Also, I think List of YA Entertainment Releases should be nominated along with this page as well, for the exact same reasons. SKS2K6 07:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:CORP, and talk page response by me. This company isn't notable with most references to the site's press releases and was created five days after the old page was deleted by a "new user" who has perfect wiki-editing skills. List of YA Entertainment Releases should also be deleted for lack of notability. on camera 07:31, 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, Nishkid64 01:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom & Oncamera. Fails, WP:CORP, reposted content is speedyable, and WP:COI seals it. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable niche media company, article cites only one satisfactory independent source. The award won was given out by Korean cultural organizations, which does little to establish notability outside that community. Caknuck 04:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for recreation of previous deleted article that still fails to meet requirements. Mathmo ^Talk 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a recreation of previously deleted material. Take away the press releases and there isn't much left of the sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:01, 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 Withdrawn - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outpost Island Mine[edit]

Outpost Island Mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable geological feature and/or Non-notable business per WP:CORP - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Great Slave Lake. Not that notable on its own, but seems to me to be notable enough to put in Great Slave Lake. delldot | talk 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added references from a museum in Yellowknife and from the Northwest Territories Geoscience Office, which is part of the Government of the Northwest Territories. --Eastmain 22:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The historical references supplied by Eastmain show notability. --Oakshade 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Historically significant mine site in the Northwest Territories. Other mines have entries in Wikipedia. --Ryansilke

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above votes. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment don't mean to be a jerk, but I am not going to read all of the references to figure out if this place is actually notable. Can some of the material in the references make its way into the article? Because the article, as written, does not currently assert notability. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Rayis 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but, like Dmz5, I'd love if the historical significance of the mine were better reflected in the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, historically significant mine site, just needs some expansion on its history and some sources cited in the article. Terence Ong 13:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 14:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cain's Lair[edit]

Cain's Lair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB, WP:V and asserts no claim to notability. I bring this to AfD because I felt it didn't fall under CSD and that a prod would be contested. BJ^Talk 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no real assertion of notability. - Richardcavell 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. John Vandenberg 14:29, 27 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, Nishkid64 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 99 Ghits for "Cain's Lair" Battlefield - and please forgive for stopping after the fourth page, but they all seem to be generated from the site itself, forum references, and very few blog references - you know it's bad when not even the blogs are talking about it. On top of that, the article is a POV nightmare, full of unsourced spammish claims. Despite an unusually long listing here at AfD, nothing has been done to improve this article. -- Antepenultimate 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if no one has bothered in two weeks of AfD to clean this mess up, it certainly won't ever happen. In any case, with an average of 100 or so players connected at any given time, it's most definitely not worthy of note. Pascal.Tesson 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing to pass WP:WEB notability test. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terence Ong 13:10, 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 but I will undelete if anyone can show me coverage beyond an op-ed mention. W.marsh 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing is Giving[edit]

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

This article does not appear to show notability. --Alex 16:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse than that it appears to fall foul of Wikipedia:Autobiography and appears to have a dose of spam about it as well - X201 16:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the page removing some of the AUTO stuff and also the related links which are mostly represented in the regiving category and have no purpose in this article. --Razmear 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to fail WP:WEB; no sources other than the website itself. Walton monarchist89 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no independent references. delldot | talk 21:40, 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, Nishkid64 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There is clearly a grass/netroots movement in which Sharing is Giving matters, if you read several of the results from Google. The only real news source is an op-ed from The Chattanoogan [13], an online only newspaper with decent circulation. Very tough decision, but I'd err on the side of keep here. —siroχo 07:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - per Siroxo. Appears to have some sort of base notability and importance in its field, so I say keep for now. Better to err on the side of caution, as it may be notable. Part Deux 10:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. Turgidson 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete article, but a redirect seems useful W.marsh 23:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedd's House[edit]

Wedd's House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

• Delete - An article has been created at Upper Canada College houses, which combines information on all ten houses at UCC, instead of ten stub articles. The article up for deletion has already been questioned for its notability. --G2bambino 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:03, 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, Nishkid64 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't this be a redirect there, then? Why bother with AFD? --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article has NO claim of notability; why even keep a redirect? Out!!! --Brianyoumans 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unremarkable student boarding house. MER-C 13:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Upper Canada College houses, since there is information about it in that article. That's one of the reasons we have redirects. -- Whpq 13:05, 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Shredd and the Good Ol' Homeboys[edit]

Travis Shredd and the Good Ol' Homeboys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No assertion of notability under WP:MUSIC. Walton monarchist89 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly weak keep. The article is a total mess, but they have appeared several times on Dr. Demento's show [14] and on one of his albums [15], which, given the good doctor's importance in the world of comedy/novelty music, may constitute notability. The albums in the article mentioned do exist [16], though I don't think that counts as a major label. Pinball22 20:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - OK fair enough; I know pretty much nothing about this genre of music, so I didn't know whether they were notable or not. As it stands, however, the article itself makes no assertion of notability; if anyone adds clearer information, the article might be OK to keep. Walton monarchist89 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - As the author of this article I understand all about nobility and I cannot prove anymore than what I have given. I would like to mention that this group is unique and should be kept. I don't think that they will ever reach nobility under wikipedia standards, but when everything else has been written that is nobile, all that is left is uniqueness. for you who have to edit and scan these documents that can be a big pain. Delete it if you must, but please consider the uniqueness of the group. Duffylaudick 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if that's the total citations that can be provided. Does not satisfy WP:BAND. -- Kesh 04:17, 26 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, Nishkid64 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pinball22's notes about Dr. Demento seem to make the band pass WP:MUSIC point 11. —siroχo 07:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - According to WP:MUSIC, Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. would be the closest criterion to apply for comedy music. Dr. Demento would place them into national rotation through his syndicated show. -- Whpq 13:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up big time per Pinball22 Krimpet 09:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the notability assertions are added, along with reliable sources. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:35, 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. - brenneman 10:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Horizons[edit]

Subject has been previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South horizons, but does not qualify as a speedy per ((db-repost)). From what I recall, the previous incarnation was a much better article than this. Nevertheless, the subject is just one of hundreds of housing estates in Hong Kong, as these are the "norm" mode for residences in the territory. It is a middling development, probably no more and no less notable than any other housing estate. Ohconfucius 03:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - appears to be a direct copy of the China wikipedia article which was deleted on September 19, 2005 and recreated in December 2006 - No assertion of notability especially as per the comments here and in the previous AfD that this is not an exceptional development for the area. A bit of searching shows no english news articles and nothing that lends verifyability from reliable sources. Peripitus (Talk) 05:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sourced to show that this particular development is notable. From its description, it seems unlikely third-party sources will be found. Trebor 23:42, 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, Nishkid64 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAK Comedy Lab[edit]

SAK Comedy Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

disputed speedy for NN-comedy club in Orlando, FL. one notable alumnus. delete Cornell Rockey 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Explaination please![reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article fails to assert notability. Also fails WP:WAYNE BRADY'S COATTAILS. Caknuck 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, claim seems overblown as Brady worked hard on the road and in Las Vegas, Hawaii, and LA before being "discovered" by TV.[17] They have a list of alumni that's short of anyone else interesting. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 13:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyMoody[edit]

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

disputed speedy for website that fails WP:WEB delete Cornell Rockey 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable website.--Tainter 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:00, 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, Nishkid64 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. yandman 10:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability. --Dweller 12:28, 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 no consensus to delete W.marsh 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hellman[edit]

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

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

• Comment. Appears there are more than one person with this name: [18]. John Vandenberg 15:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GreenJoe 17:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Article does need expansion, certainly, but he does meet WP:MUSIC: has performed across Canada and in Europe and China (criterion #4), playlisted on Espace musique, Bande à part, Sur La Route and Air Musique (criterion #11), profiled in Le Devoir, Ici, the Montreal Gazette, CanWest News Service and Chart (criterion #1), two-time Félix Award nominee. Cleanup, but keep. Bearcat 01:30, 29 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, Nishkid64 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest Rewrite insufficient information for an encyclopedia article, but not suitable for immediate deletion, there is hope to make it better. Wooyi 02:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Most definite keep fairly well-known in Quebec (see among numerous kinks in French [19]). Was nominated for three different prizes in last year's ADISQ (Quebec music industry) prizes. Pascal.Tesson 03:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep could at least pass borderline but we need verifiable sources or we will be back here next month Alf photoman 13:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of references although few quality ones in English. I've added one from Radio-Canada. In any case, Thomas Hellman isn't a "borderline pass": he's gotten plenty of media coverage in Quebec in English and in French. Reliable third-party coverage is abundant and this debate should be closed. Pascal.Tesson 13:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment I'd also like to suggest that whoever put up the prod tag with the rational "NN-artist" should do his homework next time around. The external links that were there at the time all contained perfectly verifiable references to multiple shows in Quebec and in France, as well as perfectly reliable links showing that he had recorded two albums. Pascal.Tesson 14:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending independent published references provided in article Per above, it sounds like there are probably some independently published articles about this person that can be used as references. However, they should be included in the article. As the article currently stands, it has insufficient independent references within the article to establish notability. Dugwiki 20:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I added one link in French which is from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is third-party and meets all our requirements for reliable sources. What else do we really need? Pascal.Tesson 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link you added is a start, but are there any published articles or interviews with this guy (aside from blogs, etc)? Also, the link looks to be a short paragraph about the musician but (as my French is lacking) I can't tell if it's something written about him by an independent source or is a blurb submitted to the site by the singer's publicist. Normally you want to have multiple (ie more than one) independent published references talking about the person to verify the information is both notable and not autobiographically biased. Dugwiki 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I really don't have any interest in developing the article. All I'm saying is that there is clearly more than enough third-party coverage to justify keeping the article. We can tag it with ((unref)) if need be. Pascal.Tesson 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're not developing the article, then someone will have to. I'm personally getting out of the habit of using unref tags, though, since technically unreferenced articles are supposed to be deleted. Dugwiki 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you might want to review the deletion policy. If the article is lacking in references, the article should be tagged as such and references added by whomever is bothered by that absence. If, however, it is established that sources on the subject are so scarce and unreliable that the content is unverifiable, then the article should be deleted. As people keep saying: if we start deleting unreferenced content on Wikipedia, you can say goodbye to 50% of the database. Pascal.Tesson 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And saying goodbye to the unreferenced and unverified portions of the database would be a problem because...? Dugwiki 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing. It's not the responsibility of the person tagging the article to add references. It's the responsibility of the author of the information that is unreferenced. "The burden of evidence lies primarily with the editor who adds or restores material" And unreferenced material can be, and often is, deleted. Dugwiki 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all I'm saying is that the overwhelming consensus and practice is that unreferenced articles are routinely kept and tagged, whereas unreference-able articles are not. You may or may not agree with that practice but that's not what this debate is about. Pascal.Tesson 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the author has a responsibility to provide the references up front as much as possible. The original author does not, however, own the article, and therefore does not necessarily have any special responsibility to monitor the article on an ongoing basis to see if his or her work is being challenged by others. Especially when the original author was an anon IP — you can invent all the theoretical responsibilities you want, but do you really think an anon IP's going to honour them? If you find it insufficiently referenced, then nothing's stopping you from taking on the job — maybe it's not your responsibility to do so, but it sure as hell ain't mine or Pascal's, either. So if somebody has to do it, but nobody has any particular responsibility to take it on themselves, then where does that leave us? It leaves us at "if you see something that needs doing, you may as well go ahead and do it yourself since it's right in front of you", that's where. Bearcat 11:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folly Fellowship[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, previously deleted by WP:PROD, but contested by the author. The original prod nomination was unencyclopedic, non-notable Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I added the prod for this article originally. The article is not in an encyclopaedic style - it reads like an extract from an 'about' page, and seems to be largely self-promotion of a small organisation and not really part of the encyclopaedic (it doesn't link to and isn't linked from many places). Wibbble 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:51, 27 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, Nishkid64 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing in the article indicates that anyone else is interested in the organization. Saligron 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This organization seems notable and well-known. They fulfill the requirements of notability. They have been the primary subject of an article in History Today, the president is a published author on the topic, seem to caretake a number of notable "folly" sites (see example) and they appear to be regarded as an authority on the topic (example). The article needs some cleanup. I will put some effort in towards this myself per WP:SOFIXIT. Vassyana 10:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Vassyana's improvements to the article do indicate notability. I've added another, covering the "Folly Fellowship Lawson-Price Measured Drawings Award". The website indicates there are two major publications; one a journal. Worldcat returns many listings, notably their journal ISSN 1474-7669 which is carried in four libraries (inc. Oxford and Cambridge) Also Pieter Boogaart appears to be related but I couldnt find a good source quickly. John Vandenberg 13:23, 4 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 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Treble[edit]

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

Along with his associate Big Deal (recently deleted), Mr Treble seems to be yet another up-and-coming musician who remains steadfastly non-notable until he's upped and come. Note particularly that he has no record deal. As a full disclosure, I'd suggested that this article be bundled with Big Deal's in the AfD I've linked to. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sign of third-party reliable coverage. Pascal.Tesson 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I concur with the reasons given above. --Coolcaesar 07:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not yet notable. --Dweller 12:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 05:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. (AKA redirect and merge at your leaisure.) brenneman 10:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Swim Action Saturdays[edit]

This article is a copy-and-paste recreation of Adult Swim Action, which was turned into a redirect following multiple unexplained removals of merge tags; the subject is a sub-section of a programming block that does not have nearly enough sources itself, and the content is unverified and would be better suited for the main Adult Swim page. —TangentCube /c /t  02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Adult Swim after narrowing it down to about 6 sentences. Although this page contains plenty of information, it's all unreferenced, and it's going to get pretty redundant if any more is added. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, we already have a very long article here of List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim. Doesn't seem so unreasonably to have Adult Swim Action Saturdays. But seeing that perhaps this content is mainly contained elsewhere in articles perhaps it should be a redirect? Mathmo ^Talk 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Adult Swim, per Iced Kola dposse 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge unless independent references provided The only reference is the program's own website. No independent references are provided. Merge unless that happens, at which point I'll reconsider. Dugwiki 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Adult Swim.-- danntm ^T _C 04:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Adult Swim sounds reasonable. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horace mann mock investment club[edit]

Horace mann mock investment club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I had prod'd this and would have thought it would be an easy deletion but the template was removed. Basically, a club from the Horace Mann School, which, no matter how successful, is not notable. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Come back when you have a bestselling book like the Beardstown Ladies, kids. --Brianyoumans 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not even one "reference" other than this one. It doesn't count. Mathmo ^Talk 05:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. "It has tripled in size from 4 members to nearly 12"! Krimpet 08:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, is "nearly 12" eleven? Or does the 12th member only count for half for some reason? --Brianyoumans 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A club with worthy aims, I'm sure. But, sadly, notability is not proven, and references are inadequate. WMMartin 14:39, 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 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay sitges[edit]

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

• Delete. Article is written exclusively as an (original research) travel guide, which seems to be an invalid use of wikipedia as an "<insert demographic here> guide to travel". I don't see any reason for this to exist as a separate article from the one on the Spanish city Sitges- if there's anything sourced and notable enough it should be mentioned/merged to the main article, and not exist as a fork. (Note I'd feel the same if the article were called Nightclubber's Sitges or Trainspotter's Sitges- the intended audience is irrelevant.) cjllw | TALK 02:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obvious case of Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Part Deux 03:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We're not a travel guide or a place where you can create articles in order to have a big fat section of external commercial links. Pascal.Tesson 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though maybe beforehand a very small part of the content could be merged into sitges. Mathmo ^Talk 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Roamingk (talk · contribs) should be make aware of WikiTravel. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT. Jefferson Anderson 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any appropriate content to Sitges. Having visited the town, I can tell you that the current single paragraph about gay tourism isn't nearly enough: it's an important part of the town's atmosphere. JulesH 19:11, 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. - brenneman 10:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Murray Arbuthnot[edit]

Non notable person; assertion of notability is having founded a non-notable (redlinked) law firm. Recreated article after a speedy delete. References only to primary author's website. Argyriou (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I checked out the 'references', apparently this guy is indeed a member of a family. Wow, who knew? SubSeven 04:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - without an assertion of the lawfirm's notability, cannot support the retention of this article. Happy to change to support if lawfirm is shown notable. --Dweller 12:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is nothing in the article that asserts notability. --SunStar Net^talk 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add more references. The red linked law firm has been renamed (blue link). - Kittybrewster 14:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, it's a weblink, rather than a Wikipedia internal link to a notable law firm. If it's a notable firm, please feel free to write an article about it. --Dweller 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Kittybrewster appears to be related to the subject of this article (see here), and Kittybrewster, David Lauder, and Astrotrain have been block-voting on AfDs over the last week. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I beg your pardon? I really do think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself. I voted on AfD's as I felt I should, not because of, or as instructed by, anyone else. Your suggestion of some sort of cartel or conspiracy is out of order. David Lauder 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been quite a bit of canvassing among these editors of late - examples: [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24]. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "block-voting" which is not the same thing. And I have not canvassed anyone. My votes have been my own. I wish I'd never bothered for all the attacks I've had. David Lauder 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster is unaware of any relationship to/with the subject. If Darcy can substantiate this false allegation then several people would be delighted. The article was created to blue a red link. I agree that the article would benefit from additional references and they will be added when time allows (meaning quite soon). The red link was created by another editor and several editors have contributed to the article. I did draw one person's attention to the afd but s/he has not yet contributed. - Kittybrewster 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not sufficiently asserting notability. This is a geneological listing for the Arbuthnot family, and possibly a legal directory listing. However, Wikipedia is not a directory. Also possible conflict of interest, as article is created by Kittybrewster. Ohconfucius 05:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No conflict of interest. Created in order to remove a red link. - Kittybrewster 09:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: founder of a major international US law firm, whose family are also notable. David Lauder 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family doesn't make one notable unless one holds a title of nobility. There's no source that says the law firm is major in any sense of the word. Argyriou

(talk)20:23,2 February 2007 (UTC).

Complete rubbish. There are a great many untitled notable and famous families. If you look in Scottish Supplications to Rome you will see endless descriptions of people as "of noble race" or "of noble family" or "kinsman to".David Lauder 09:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not sufficiently asserting notability. The only source provided not satisfy WP:RS--Vintagekits 11:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- notable individual Astrotrain 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have proof of this notability (e.g. major cases he led), please supply it, as the article is sorely lacking. 128.243.220.22 14:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete he was a lawyer and has relatives, neither of which is notable. Beyond this there are no claims to notability, and more importantly, no sources. Nuttah68 14:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article was created to blue a red link in another article; the subject was a founder and still-named partner of a major international law firm; but perhaps most importantly, this article was nominated for deletion five days after it was created. I think perhaps the appropriate template to apply would have been a stub, not an AfD. This smells of bad faith to me. Laura1822 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the sole red link was created by the author of this article. This article was created on Dec 25 and nominated Jan 30, slightly more than five days. Not even the company website claims that the firm is 'major international law firm'. 'This smells of bad faith to me.' Nuttah68 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Check your math. There are many more than 5 days between 25 December and 30 January.

Argyriou (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have been looking at another page's history. In fact, the article in question was created on December 24th, not 25th. I stand by the rest of it. Lack of sources and needing expansion are not grounds for deletion: they are grounds for a template requesting sources or expansion. Laura1822 06:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not sufficiently asserting notability. Turgidson 21:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.Jersey Devil 03:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Daddy's[edit]

Big Daddy's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A bar near Florida State University. Looks non-notable to me, even if all the references actually mentioned the subject (most of them do not). So this fails verifiability as well. Bar apparently did get a mention in Playboy as their favourite bar at FSU. I don't have this article handy, but it sounds to me like a trivial mention (a list of all universities and just naming a bar at each). Also alledgedly got an endorsement by Girls Gone Wild, but again, the linked reference has no mention of the bar. Written by a spa, and already tagged as reading like an advert. Bar did get a couple articles of non-trivial length in the local student papar. Delete - Aagtbdfoua 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Mathmo ^Talk 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, per mention by Playboy and Girls Gone Wild mikm_t 05:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Here is the total content and context of what Playboy said about this bar:

6. FLORIDA STATE

FEMALE-TO-MALE RATIO: 57 to 43

BEST PARTY: Florida State vs. University of Florida football game

FAVORITE LOCAL BAR: Big Daddy's on West Tennessee Street

"Playboy's Top Ten Party Schools". Playboy. May 2006. p. 115. --75.2.80.38 07:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the above indicates, the mention in Playboy was no more than passing. Nothing indicates national imporatance; every college town has bars where parties take place. Allon Fambrizzi 08:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
• Neutral - ooh, my random local bar was briefly mention in Girls Gone Wild. Can I be on WP? Anyway, I'd love to nuke this article, as it's 80% spam, 19.5% local-cruft, and .5% encyclopedic. But we do include a lot of local information on here, so perhaps we should keep it. Part Deux 10:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — seems notable Rayis 12:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, so what. Terence Ong 13:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Laaaame references Bwithh 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not close to notable by those refs. bikeable (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is simply a bar near a university, and there's nothing notable about that. WMMartin 14:42, 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... but please, for the love of Peat Moss, don't say "cruft" in deletion discussions. People, real people, edit and write articles and it's pointlessly mean to use derogatory terms. </soapbox> - brenneman 10:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto ninja clothing[edit]

This article was tagged ((db-nonsense)), but it is not patent nonsense. Listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge Claidheamohmor 03:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge informative, could include the info on the character pages "this character is usually seen wearing xx, a sign of their membership in yy" or something, but as it is it seems rather a waste -- feb^talk 03:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fancruft, per WP:NOT. JuJube 03:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one of the endless Naruto related articles. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. -Haemo 03:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Lets be kind and give it a redirect to Naruto, but not worth keeping like it is now. Mathmo ^Talk 05:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JuJube. Useless fancruft that doesn't have much in terms of real-world significance. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & Redirect: Not bad for a first article (you used punctuation marks, which is better than some people) :) I think the info. could be replicated in an existing article, and this topic redirected to it. ◄Zahakiel► 05:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Descriptions of clothes that appear in the show is too trivial to even appear in the main article, unless clothing is a major plot point in the show or if the show is famous for its clothing design. Would be more reasonable if each character bio included descriptions of clothes they wear instead of having a separate list. Saligron 11:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced Ignoring "fancruft" comments (since fancruft isn't actually part of any policy or guideline) the article appears to be entirely unreferenced. Delete unless independent published references can be provided within the article. Dugwiki 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trant Batey[edit]

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

non notable actor; bit parts in major movies, larger roles in a few indie horror films; I don't think this adds up to notability. Brianyoumans 02:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless notability is clarified. --Kukini 08:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable bit part actor. yandman 08:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless independent references provided Only references provided in the article are not independent of the actor. Delete unless independent published references provided, at which point I'd reconsider. Dugwiki 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please see IMDb entry at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0061068/ --Eastmain 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Six (released) movies to his name? Yeah. Delete as non-notable. -- Kesh 03:17, 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. - brenneman 11:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JSJ Antivirus[edit]

This article was deleted through WP:PROD in October. It was recently recreated (as a two-line stub) and tagged ((db-repost)); that criterion, however, applies to XFD-deleted pages, not prodded ones. The speedy deletion was challenged, as you can see, on the article talk page. Since I can't really delete it as G4, I think the best thing is to list it here. No vote. Chick Bowen 03:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- but remove all advertisement, such as price. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 05:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just removed the price. =) --HideandLeek 17:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --HideandLeek 17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying yea or ney on the revised article at this stage but I don't see any notability from what I can remember of WP:SOFT. --Fredrick day 19:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I don't see where this piece of software is particularly notable.Improbcat 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Failed to turn up any independent reliable sources about this software on google. Lots of reprints of their press release, however. JulesH 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete if important, there should have been reviews. Totally unsourced so far. DGG 06:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a product info on the Microsoft Windows Mobile page, which should be considered an independent source, as the company isn't related to microsoft. There is also reviews there.[25]--[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 08:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. (AKA redirect and merge at your leisure.) brenneman 11:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olathe East Orchestra[edit]

Delete/Merge, Orchestra for a rather nn highschool, delete or merge to Olathe East High School feb^talk 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the high school's article. A school's notable parts should not be split off from the school's article. --- RockMFR 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Olathe East High School. By merge, I mean mention it exists and maybe include the logo or something. The only sourced information is biographical information about the composers who wrote some of the pieces they performed, nothing about the orchestra itself. ShadowHalo 05:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per ShadowHalo. WMMartin 14:44, 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. DanielCD 03:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus+[edit]

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

Reason the page should be deleted Uthipratuma 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reasons for Deletion:

This album is clearly a fake,or unofficial copy with the following reasons:

1) The album has not been on any official sources/announcements such as on Utada's homepage, or any branch of Toshiba-Emi-including Foozay Inc. Or has been announced on Utada's English Record Company- Island Def Jam.

2) The album's track listing is faulty, the "Hotel Lobby" Remix, is a Fan-made remix provided by a fan from Utada-online.net

3) The picture used for the "cover" of the album, was used for promotion of other materials back almost 2 years.

4) The actual official album Exodus was released almost 2 years ago.

5) This album has already been re-released, did not sell in America, there would be no point in re-re-releasing and unsuccessful album.

6) I have been a fan of Utada since 2003, I have kept up with her most recent materials to date, which would be Flavor Of Life- I have never heard of, nor rumor of "Exodus+ " until I saw this clearly fake article.

7) All of Utada's materials have released on the day countries normally release music, as for US and Japan it's Tuesdays/Wednesdays, this "album" appears to be released on a Monday.All the following was by --Uthipratuma 03:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to those claims (in order)

1. Yes it has. I uploaded a screenshot at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UtadaExodusPlusNews.PNG oh, and PLEASE, Utada Hikaru's official page on wikipedia has SEVERAL missing citations, so should we delete her page too?

File:UtadaExodusPlusNews.PNG

2. Maybe she got a copyright or permission to use the remix, That has happened before in some of her singles (You Make me Want to be a Man is an example)

3. She's probably using old promotion beacause it's a speacial edition of an old album; Many artists use old promotion art for re-releases of old albums.

4. Yes, we all know that, it has nothing to do with the special edition re-release.

5. No, it was re-released for japan. Even if it was re-released for the U.S., making a special edition of an album would make dedciated Utada fans buy the album again, so it's actually a very smart marketing tool. Edit: I MEANT EXODUS, NOT EXODUS+

6. I'm glad your a fan, so you should know artists CAN keep information from leaking. Albeit strange that information wasn't available, it would still make sense because she obviously meant this album to be special release; like a "golden ticket". Releasing information as soon as the album comes out might be odd, but is perfectly believable.

7. Remember, it was not "released" on January 28, it was made available with certain copies of Exodus, so maybe editing the article to say "made avaialble January 28" instead of "released on Januray 28" should be done; deleting the article is completely opposite.

I can't speak for Utada, so if she decides to make a special edition of an album, only able to get through certain copies, that's her business. I do think the article needs some editing, but deleting is not one of those edits. --Artistthatneverwas 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Important response

In response to your claims:

Nope, stop with this FALSE information, you just have a bad bootleg then, because I just checked the official site, you, or someone else, just edited that "source". The exact same REAL site has none of that on it, link below. Also having spelled "Certian" and "Januray" wrong. Also to mention the grammar is horribly set with random capitalizations.

As to the comment on Utada's Wiki....at least it has citation's on at least 90% of the article, your Exodus+ article page on the other hand, does not.

"5. No, it was re-released for japan. --Artistthatneverwas 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

You also said it was only re-released for Japan, if so, why is it on the USA site- to which you gave this as a source, which is proven fake.

http://www6.islandrecords.com/utada/site/news.php --Uthipratuma 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This release is crap. Completely false, untrue, just get rid of the page.

'Screenshot' of the official site was clearly tampered with. There is nothing like that on the official site. And actually, the newest bit of news on the official site says "Japan Tour Confirmed!". That appears in the spot where the 'apparent news' of this 'release' is seen on the 'screenshot'. Clearly, the screenshot was taken from the site, then the "Japan Tour" news tidbit was edited out, and this 'new news' was edited in. If the site was actually updated with news of any new release, the "Japan Tour" news would have been shifted down to where we see "Utada Featured in American Magazine", like all the news updates have done since the site opened. Sora-kara

• Speedy Delete as vandalism (hoax). Rklawton 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OR Redirect and merge anything useful to Exodus (Utada Hikaru album), which I believe is the same album. If I'm wrong, sue me, but we don't need a page of dubious quality when one that could mention this tidbit of info is already in place. --DanielCD 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www6.islandrecords.com/utada/site/news.php --Uthipratuma 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important

• I'm not exactly sure what to say. The screenshot above is an OBVIOUS fake, none of hikki's websites have any information on it, and the person who started this article (Artistthatneverwas) has also started other meaningless articles, like Emily Grutz (which was deleted) and has uploaded copyrighted photos and pictures that aren't used at all, which have also been deleted. So, when I saw that this user made this page, I would be quick to delete it. The only problem is that one of my friends who recently ordered Exodus also got a different album with it, with the cover art as shown, labeled Exodus+. Now, I'm not saying that the Exodus+ page isn't a hoax, but I don't think that the article should be deleted just yet. I actually went back to the post office where my friend's copy of Exodus+ came from, and they said it came directly from the sender (at amazon.com). I'm confused. Is this, or isn't it a hoax?

--Omoidaseba 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your only contributions to this project are to this page. See also WP:SOCK and/or WP:SPA Rklawton 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess I am a WP:SPA as you say, because I only made an account so I could put my input on this page. That still doesn't answer my question. Where did the apperently fake copy of Exodus+ come from? It still can be fake, I would agree with that, I just want to know how it's possible for a bootleg to enter the amazon.com system. --Omoidaseba 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked Amazon Japan,Yesasia-Asian Media,CDJapan,HMV Japan, even Google Japan and Google- all reliable sources for info, and purchases of Asian/Japanese media, none of them had one single reliable result on the Exodus+ So is it telling me Google, especially the Japanese one- to which the 'album was re-released in', which has no results on Exodus+, is false? I think not.

You're forgetting that the album ONLY COMES WITH CERTAIN ORDERS OF EXODUS!!! It is not for sale individually. And you checked all the japanese sites anyway, EXODUS is an American album, so you wont find it on the japanese sites. Exodus+ is like Willy Wonka's Golden Ticket, it comes as a special album with a 20 page booklet inside. featuring lyrics, and additional pictures. I can scan the back of the album and take pics. would you like me to? It will show the copyright info. THEN they're will be official proof that it exists. Unfortunately, I won't have acess to a camera/scanner until after 3:00 (I'm at school right now). So, I WILL HAVE PROOF SOON ENOUGH. --Artistthatneverwas 10:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus was a Japanese,American, and UK release, and you mentioned earlier Exodus+ was only released in Japan, Exodus has already been released there twice, a third wouldn't be necessary. Your information seems to be inconsistent. Simply taking a picture of it wouldn't be up to Wikipedia Standards, Wikipedia:Image use policy, also the Willy Wonka analogy is a bad one, The Golden tickets were heavily promoted, and in this case 'Exodus+' is not.--Uthipratuma 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS RELEASED IN JAPAN. In fact, I stated clearly that it was an American-only album. --Artistthatneverwas 2:09, 1 February, 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me, I misread statement 5. --Uthipratuma 21:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I realized it's misleading and I fixed it. --Artistthatneverwas 2:09, 1 February, 2007 (UTC)

• My friend (artistthatneverwas) was on a school computer, which allow VERY limited editing programs - the screenshot couldn't have been tampered with - at all. Heck, those computer don't even have Photoshop. As for the meaningless article, 'Emily Grutz', he was only testing it and did it in the 'sandbox'.

Also, the CD is all...er...'fancified'. You know, with designs on it, and not just a silver disc that anyone could get. And I'm pretty sure you can't make a fancy CD design with a sharpie marker and a blank disk. ~~Jessica C. Duck~~

Point is, the source that he/she showed above, IS FAKE. Here's the real site for the 3rd time: http://www6.islandrecords.com/utada/site/news.php --Uthipratuma 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'tis not fake. You just haven't seen the news post - however, I'm afraid that the screeshot is the only evidence me and artistthatneverwas (let's refer to him as 'Jacovie' for now) have. Jacovie checked the site just this morning - and the page he took a screenshot of was gone. Of course, he was indignant, as that was some of his only proof, besides his own copy of Exodus+ (which he now keeps in a glass case). And besides, Jacovie isn't skilled enough to tamper with a screenshot - I know this for a fact. As skilled as he is, he's not good enough to do that. And the school computer he used had practically no extra programs at all.

~~Jessica C. Duck~~

Really? Why would there be information on a Japanese release on her English site, and not her Japanese? --Uthipratuma 19:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BECAUSE ITS AN AMERICAN ALBUM!!! --Artistthatneverwas 2:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And you just admitted that there was information in the first place. --Jessica C. Duck 2:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I am disproving the information on the picture of "news" by basing it on the FAKE picture. The real site has no such information, except the "Stay Tuned" .--Uthipratuma 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How odd that the comment, "My friend (artistthatneverwas) was on a school computer, which allow VERY limited editing programs - the screenshot couldn't have been tampered with - at all. Heck, those computer don't even have Photoshop. As for the meaningless article, 'Emily Grutz', he was only testing it and did it in the 'sandbox'. Also, the CD is all...er...'fancified'. You know, with designs on it, and not just a silver disc that anyone could get. And I'm pretty sure you can't make a fancy CD design with a sharpie marker and a blank disk. ~~Jessica C. Duck~~", which was quoted/edited by 'Jessica C. Duck' is done under Artistthatneverwas. --Uthipratuma 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, me and Jessica use the same account (Artistthatneverwas is used both by Jessica C. Duck and Jacovie Rodriguez). We really don't need two seperate accounts. She signs her name under ~~Jessica C. Duck~~ or ~~7lu~~. I go under --Artistthatneverwas 1:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. --Uthipratuma 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - how odd that a record company would create "golden tickets" to drive up album sales and then entirely forget to promote it! Rklawton 17:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Fact - What kind of special re-releasing album would leave out tracks from the original? None. Utada had a one album contract with Island Def Jam, so releasing this as 'Exodus+' would make it a 2nd English album. --Uthipratuma 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Even if it's real, it apparently can't be verified through reliable sources, and WP:V is policy. Shimeru 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're finally the only other sensible person on here. We'll just wait for more sources to come out, then we'll re-up the page with sources. --Artistthatneverwas

• Proposed Decision Maybe this should be merged into Exodus. We need to stop fighting!!! Merging it into Exodus would be best, after the proper citations surface. --Artistthatneverwas

I'm sorry, but I have changed my mind, after reading through the whole debate again. We will just see what happens once the conclusion has been reached according to the deletion process' once the 5 days are up. --Uthipratuma 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you mean Exodus (Utada Hikaru album) and not Exodus. I don't think Moses wrote the songs on this one. What you are suggesting is the same thing I proposed above. If we can all agree to delete this and mention it at the album's main article, we can get this done (aka end this early if it's clear what needs to be done). I don't see any KEEP votes at all. Is anyone arguing to keep this? --DanielCD 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted, even if it's real/official/unofficial, the "additional tracks" are explained in the singles, to which they come from, except for the Hotel Lobby FANMADE remix- which has no single/proof of copyright.

--Uthipratuma 21:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no keep votes, if the author requests deletion, I can go ahead and close the debate here. There's no real argument I can see about actually keeping this article. The debate about what to do with future information can be moved to the talk page at Exodus (Utada Hikaru album). --DanielCD 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can delete this entire article, and mention Exodus+ on Exodus (Utada Hikaru album), ONCE proper citations have arrived. It's settled!--Uthipratuma 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's hear from the author. That's all we need now. --DanielCD 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author Artistthatneverwas. I guess I have to agree. After proper citation reveals itself, it should be added under [[Exodus {Utada Hikaru album)]]. Until then, delete Exodus+.

Case adjourned (hehehe... i just felt like saying that.) --Artistthatneverwas 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperpyrotechnia[edit]

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

Less than 10 non-wiki ghits, and most of them use the article name as a nonsense word. This is obviously a WP:HOAX YechielMan 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced probable hoax. janejellyroll 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT -- MarcoTolo 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I concur with the reasons given above. --Coolcaesar 07:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax indeed. This condition claims to exhibit consistent body temperatures from 40 to 44 Celsius, and that people have survived with this condition into their thirties. Yet body temperatures above 40 Celsius present a substantial health hazard, above 41 Celsius incur brain damage, and above 42 Celsius are a medical emergency called hyperpyrexia. Keeping in mind that medical evaluations of high body temperature generally stem from short-term raises from fever or hyperthermia, the believability of this topic is even futher lessened. Serpent's Choice 10:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this nonsense. Doczilla 07:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nonsense. Jefferson Anderson 16:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there no web references apart from this entry, and no entry in my medical distcionary - it sounds more like some one crazy about fireworks. GB 11:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. But article needs work, preferably by people who don't know the subject personally. "I was there" or "call me" is not an acceptable source for a Wikipedia article, this stuff needs to be sourced to published articles on this person/incident. Those articles appear to exist, it's just a matter of catching our article up to them. W.marsh 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Elliott Sommer[edit]

Luke Elliott Sommer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article needs to be rethought. Reliable sources do exist, though not for much of what is here, which is based on this person's now-removed blog. But when it comes down to it, despite some media attention, this is someone accused of a relatively run-of-the-mill felony who may or not have some very controversial opinions. There is no Wikipedia:Notability (criminals) that I know of, so let's hash this one out. Chick Bowen 03:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually everything in that article is verifiable in reliable sources with the exception of two things:

1.)The "counter argument" to the U.S. attorney's "seed money for larger criminal enterprise" theory. Added by another editor, it may well be verifiable, but I haven't checked the sources yet.

2.)Those things that were directly quoted from the blog but no longer exist.

I know this because I've been working on this on the weekends and my next step was to figure out which sources to cite for which points. I'm also new to wikipedia, and not sure how heavy a citation method need to be employed, citation being very inconsistent over the whole 'pedia, but every section that was revised under my signature can be traced to multiple sources of record that are also readily available online. Again, I'm new to wikipedia, but I find it strange that someone can begin a challenge with an unfounded claim against the article's verifiable matter. Rather than say make a blanket judgement of "much of what is here" why not bring up your concerns of veracity on the discussion page?

As for the "run-of-the-mill"-ness claim versus the participating authors' claim to Sommer's significance, I find the objector's frank dismissal fairly callous. In your book, bank robberies perpetrated by groups consisting of mostly active duty rangers employing automatic weapons allegedly smuggled back from Iraq, possibly under a political pretext (or at least the ringleader is lodging a political pretext as the core to his defense) is somehow run-of-the-mill? At the very least Sommers figures as an illustration of American culture so affected by the Iraq prison abuse scandals and Black site scandel mythology (not to mention the tarnishing of the military's reputation in many eyes post Pat Tillman, and Sy Hersch's journalistic numbers of Task Force 121) that a run-of-the-mill criminal is using that political climate to extradite himself from a extradition, so to speak. In other words, at the very least he's a sort of zeitgeist figure. By the way, there is a List of famous bank robbers and robberies which Sommers could easily fall under, due to his background, media attention, and (at the least) unorthodox extradition defense.

By your logic, I fear all the articles on military personnel facing court martials for run of the mill dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming charges in opposition to the war (Ehren Watada, Jeremy Hinzman, Pablo Paredes etc.]].--Cheesesteak the Impaler 04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination was intended to be measured and as neutral as could be under the circumstances. Please note that an article like this (see WP:BLP for the relevant policy) has to be sourced with extreme care; I would recommend using the <ref> markup described at WP:CITE, and connecting everything to established media sources; I don't see how you can reference the blog. As for the general notability, I stand by what I said--I'm not sure whether this person is appropriate for inclusion, and I'd like to get others' opinions on that. This is a request for feedback, nothing more. Chick Bowen 05:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contestation of your nomination is also measured and neutral, but does find some flaws in the thinking the nomination is predicated upon. I am aware of the extreme care sourcing requires, which is why I have saved it for another weekend (editing it out of its original form into something that resembled coherence was my first priority). I have no problem ridding the blog section that is no longer verifiable (though I'll poke around archive.org before I do so), though a lot of it has been quoted and encapsulated in a lot of media outlets, but what matter is only in the section of the article that directly discusses his blog. Lastly, I believe wikipedia's coverage of other run-of-the-mill military delinquents as I sighted, and a number of pages collecting perpetrators of noteworthy crimes, including bankrobbery, serves as an initial if not definitive counterargument to your run-of-the-mill dismissal. I'm not critiquing your neutrality, I am critiquing your "measure". That is, your estimation of the article's worth.--Cheesesteak the Impaler 05:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My take is that the bank robbery is almost certainly notable (very few bank robbers have been active duty military), and in that article there should be information about all the accused, including Sommer. The information about his blog is trivial and most of this article is of little interest to someone not following every turn of the case. I'm not sure that AFD was the best choice here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Blog portion was started when the blog was still active. Yes it needs to be updated. But deleting this file is not the best method. Lets revise it and continue from there.
• Comment. Your right Chick, there may not be a category for criminals. But that is fine, considering he is not a criminal, he is an accused. The bottom line is this: whether he robbed a bank, or not; he is worthy of note because of the impact he has caused. His getting ruled a Canadian resident after being in the United States for three years is case law that will be cited in future cases for tax disputes and future extradition hearings. The fact that his platoon has had SIX felony accusations within six months, and NINE within his company speaks volumes about a larger problem within our military. I personally have interviewed Sommer and I know a lot of the deeper details to the story, but I will continue to provide facts and nothing more. However it is important to remember that unilateral action taken upon an assumption... is what started the war we are in.Powerofhistory 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. So when Special Operations Commandos, verified to be a part of one of the most protected military Task Forces since the inception of the war, rob a bank with illegal, high powered weapons... alleging that their former unit was involved with murder, rape and abuse... it isn't notible? I know Sommer quite well, I served with him in Afghanistan and I am glad that so many people have taken the time to update this, but will someone please inform me why this didn't get more media attention? North Hollywood Shootout was famous for one reason... someone pulled the trigger... And you want to pull the plug on this page because unlike the idiots in hollywood, he used intelligence and didn't go in spraying rounds... Well my two, emotionally charged cents. I never saw rape or beating, but I saw people killed legally under the Rules of Engagement that NEVER should have died. Do what you need to man.TFredFormer 06:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This is notable, and the key negative info about the subject is reliably sourced. This is major news and there is no basis for omitting it. Even before conviction, this is justifiable BLP, , though of course a good deal will need to be added as the case progresses. DGG 00:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when are we going to decide one way or the other?24.71.204.118 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't believe for a second the media has not given this story enough attention -- they have, but that should not be confused with the fact that the attention has not turned into more published articles. A very big problem with information available (for the media) is that much of it is not verifiable (a hallmark of good journalism). If journalists are having trouble verifying information (and thus not reporting it), it stands to reason that the question of whether to delete this entry from wikipedia (because of lack of verification) has come up. Personally, after having spent scores and scores of hours with Elliott Sommer, I have to say that this is a most notable story and there will be far more coming of it in due course. Sure, bank robberies are every day occurrences, but you have a situation where five elite Army Rangers were allegedly involved in some degree with this particular robbery, plus two Canadian citizens. This occurred on U.S. soil by two Canadians and one dual Canadian/American. You also have the situation where Sommer made it across the border and is under house arrest, protected by extradition proceedings and claiming all the while that "if he did it", it was to draw attention to war crimes. That isn't notable? Writerdave 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)writerdave[reply]

Comment: If these sources need any credible citation, I and many people I know can give it, for I am a friend of his...don't think for a fact that a military serviceman committing armed bank robbery is not worthy of Wikipedia! User: RikerDelta2 04:16, 4 February 2007

Comment: I have been watching this page unfold for a while, and I have to admit, it's amazing how much people known about me all things considered. I will not state an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not, but I will say that I am willing to give the yay or nay to anything people want to ask. My contact information is elliott@hamedia.ca and my phone number is 8664274660. If necessary I will confirm my information on the phone. RIkerDelta2 there are only a couple people I could think of that would use Riker and Delta in their names... call me.ElliottSommer 00:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this and a lot of the military vouching is interesting, nonetheless, getting direct verification from Sommer himself, participants in his alleged action, or people who have served with him would pretty much constitute original research and not something wikipedia can vette. The initial ADF call of the article was based on the false claim that many of the article's assertions couldn't be backed by reputatble sources. Reputable sources doesn't mean from the horse's mouth. It means things like "Papers of Record." The deletionist who opened this discussion is right in what an article needs (and the article needs proper citation), he was just wrong in how unsourced the info in the article is. It looks like the consensus here is to allow the article to continue to exist under the understanding that it will be revised to reflect proper citation of verifiable source material (and again, "just call him at this number" or "I was there" isn't a statement of record. It's gotta be in print or online somewhere reputable. This is why everything in the blog has to be pulled out, since with no blog to cite it's just hearsay.)--Cheesesteak the Impaler 02:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. In the mean time, let us get rid of the hideous label at the top of this page and someone who knows enough about the situation start editing. I do not feel in good conscious that I can have any part considering that in and of itself would cast serious doubt on "neutral point of view." Cheesteak, I have no idea who you are but you have taken a commanding interest in this issue. If there is information you would like put into a newspaper or another article let me know. Rolling stone is publishing in a week and a half and I may be able to answer a question in it for you if you take the time to ask ahead of time.ElliottSommer 05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be in touch with a more experienced wiki editor, who has some more administrative clout to make sure we're removing the tag in accordance with wiki policy, and also mentor us in proper citation formatting (I've seen footnotes, I've also seen just lists of works cited, we'll see what the "right" way to do things is to keep the article's nose clean). Also, as we start editing the article in good faith, I'll be using the discussion section particularly for source citations of various points. A lot of editors seem to have a lot of info on Sommer, I'll see if I can keep an eye on when we need to corroborate what is put forth in the article with a "reputable source." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cheesesteak the Impaler (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 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 Speedied. Tawker 06:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho Speech[edit]

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

It's not an article, it's just the text of a speech. There's a possible copyright concern, since it was lifted wholesale from the website attributed in the article, but one could easily argue that public speeches by heads of state aren't protected by copyright. Ignoring that, though, doesn't some part of WP:NOT say that Wikipedia isn't a repository for speeches? adavidw 04:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, or if there is no copyright problem, transwiki to Wikisource. Texts such as this belong on Wikisource if they belong on any Wikimedia project. --Metropolitan90 04:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyvio. Bucketsofg 04:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as Copyvio of [26]. If memory serves me, this is not the first time I've seen this article speedied - can the closing admin check this and possible salt this if that's the case. Thanks... SkierRMH 06:30, 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 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzanna Brzosko[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. She only competed as a junior and never internationally. Lannamichaels 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO, never completed "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports", which would be internationally at the senior level (ie. the Olympics, Skate America, etc...) in figure skating. Caknuck 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Caknuck Bucketsofg 04:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is her only ever 1st that is listed 2001 - European Criterium, 5th event - 1st (Springs Girls 90). Mathmo ^Talk 05:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Conflict of interest suspected, since the article is the creator's first (and only) edit. Completely unverifiable. --N Shar 05:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Shyam Bihari as "(CSD A7 Not notable article". Agent 86 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gindis[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. janejellyroll 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominated for speedy deletion: fails WP:WEB in a big way. yandman 10:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - unremarkable web content. MER-C 13:35, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MuchTopTens: "Top Ten Out Of This World Videos"[edit]

MuchTopTens: "Top Ten Out Of This World Videos" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One countdown aired one day on one music video channel without any other sources does not an article make. Author blanked article once in the past, so I don't think prod'ding would have had much effect, but it's not speediable. JuJube 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable list per nom. I had tagged for speedy ((context)), which was improperly removed by creator, however there is now some context so speedy is moot. DMacks 05:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable list per nom. Mathmo ^Talk 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Suggest bundling MuchTopTens: "Top Ten Superpower Videos" with this nom. DMacks 05:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mathmo ^Talk

• Delete both theres no need for these to be recorded on WP. How is this encyclopedic? Forbes top 100 or Times 100 are notable but this is not. James086^Talk 12:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per above. Doczilla 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per above. Paul W. 01:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both No assertion of notability or third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g12, copyrighted song lyrics. NawlinWiki 15:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dystentery Gary[edit]

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

The song initself is not notable the current article is orphaned and just consists of lyrics. Should be deleted under WP:NOT#IINFO Ferdie33 04:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - copyvio, lyrics. So tagged. MER-C 13:37, 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 Speedy deleted by Makemi as nonsense. BryanG^(talk) 06:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube verb[edit]

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

The article admits that it's a neologism, and that the use of "YouTube" as a verb took place less than 24 hours ago. At best, this is a dicdef. eaolson 05:08, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chevy Chase Pavilion[edit]

Chevy Chase Pavilion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mall of questionable notability; reads like an ad. It has a hotel and a bunch of stores. Big deal. YechielMan 05:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When it loses a Supreme Court case (I'm thinking of my pet article Pruneyard Shopping Center) then it can come back to WP. --Coolcaesar 07:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability in the article. Suburban D.C. has tons of upscale shopping malls like this one. Allon Fambrizzi 08:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
• DeleteCould not find a reference for the gross leasable area, but nothing was found to suggest it is anything more than a convenient local shopping mall or that it has particular historic or architectural merit to satisfy WP:MALL. Edison 18:45, 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. W.marsh 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 Seconds 'Till Sunrise[edit]

10 Seconds 'Till Sunrise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Speedy tag was removed by an IP editor, so I'm bringing it here. Fails WP:N and there are also no sources. janejellyroll 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless the article can be expanded, delete and merge with Matthew Shepard mikm_t 05:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ditto. The article is currently not substantial enough nor is the play by itself notable enough for a standalone article. Saligron 11:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge with Matthew Shepard, unlesss it can be expanded.Parammon 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sources can be added to prove WP:N for a standalone article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people against the Iraq War[edit]

List of people against the Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - the wrong template was put up - there is a fine (like country sized) line between lists (which are non-encyclopedic) and patent nonsense (which would be if he said, Shitty McFuck is against the Iraq War) - but either way, violating wikipedia standards.--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 04:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, this could be a decent category, and it looks like that was what the creator was going for ...--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 04:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this AFD was originally created incorrectly as an MFD. I have moved it here. --BigDT 05:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clearly overly broad and poorly defined. Is there any way to reasonably reform this list? JChap2007 06:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't list in general unencylopedic, as mentioned above I think that the only alternative to deletion would be a category.--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 07:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:List of lists JChap2007 07:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A)The first and only category I looked at had about 12 entries, all but 2 had been deleted - but either way, I stand corrected. But in an instance like this when a category can be used (I mean really all this list is doing is grouping people together) - WHY NOT use a category?--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 07:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since categories are less targeted by vandals--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 07:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sigh, another tendentious list that has no sources at all. Aside from any other merits of this article in the abstract, it is completely unencyclopedic as the ambiguity of the word "people" renders the list inevitably arbitrary and incomplete. Allon Fambrizzi 08:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
• Delete - I usually don't lists, but this one is going too far. Too broad. (PS: WP:V issues should be handled easily through soft references (i.e., through wikilinks). Part Deux 10:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would encompass an unreasonably large number of people, even if limited to those already included in Wikipedia. Saligron 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessarily POV list which vastly oversimplifies the situation. --Canley 12:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOT#INDICRMINATE, irretrievably POV listcruft. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - how does one define opposition to the war? How does one define person in the case of inclusion here? Who checks the tickets of those wanting to get on the list? Unmaintainable and far too broad. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Things aren't as simple as "for the Iraq war" or "against the Iraq war"; Wikipedia is not the Bush administration. Krimpet 08:58, 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 Keep PeaceNT 09:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omega point (Tipler)[edit]

Omega point (Tipler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A segment of an argument point forth by a math professor to further a religious agenda. No sources. Not a convincing subject. Rejected by science, it lacks any scientific criticism. FGT2 06:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent, related prod, was redirect here[27]. FGT2 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Tipler's Omega point is a fairly well-known idea, regardless of its scientific plausibility or lack thereof. Spacepotato 08:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless independent sources are included. Has the feel of WP:OR. Saligron 11:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Frank J. Tipler. Pete.Hurd 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Jefferson Anderson 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This is to long to merge. It does need sources. There is an additional major reason not to merge it: the article on Tipler is concerned primarily with his religious views. Although Tipler considers it to have religious implication, the omega point theory does not necessarily have them. It is perfectly compatible for the theory to be correct without any religious claim whatsoever. The beings who transmit their information so it exists after the postulated crunch of the universe are not therefore necessarily divine. ( I should mention that the postulated crunch is quite independent of this particular theory, is very widely supported, and does not necessarily lead to it.) This article is somewhat more general about the theory , and therefore justifiable. Whether or not is correct is not for WP to determine. Whether it is scientifically supported is irrelevant if it is widely known outside the science community, for whatever reason. DGG 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep with a quality notice, there is many results on search engines for Tipler's omega point, if we have big mac for mcdonalds, this most certainly should be left or merged, but perhaps modified to rid of the slight breathless hagiographic tone. A "under-standard" written disclaimer or perhaps neutrality questioned notice would be the choice perhaps. As a wikipedia reader i found this article to be worth in singular one million fiction plots written out entirely, do not delete, but put up a funny notice questioning quality instead.Book M 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. --Danielmachin 17:56, 4 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 Merged and redirected. Non-admin closure due to unambiguous outcome. Serpent's Choice 11:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septuplet[edit]

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

Merge into Multiple birth for consistency. There are no articles for triplets (set of 3 babies born together), quadruplets (4), quintuplets (5), sextuplets (6), or octuplets (8). They all redirect to Multiple birth. Doczilla 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can merge without coming to AfD. Just put ((mergefrom)) and ((mergeto)) on the tops of the articles you want to merge. JChap2007 06:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have merged, call for speedy close and redirect. Similar performed for nonuplet. --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but sourcing should be improved W.marsh 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to "All your base are belong to us"[edit]

List of cultural references to "All your base are belong to us" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is one of those times when the first sentence of an article provides the best reason for its deletion:

"The main article on the early-2000s Internet phenomenon All your base are belong to us contains only occurrences/incidents that obtained media coverage; this list is intended to provide a broader inclusion of AYB cultural references."

In other words, the main All your base are belong to us article contains those references to the term that are notable and can be verified This list copies those and adds trivial references. I really don't think we need to document every sign someone holds up at Wrestlemania. Normally I try to avoid using "cruft" in AfD, but this is a textbook example. JChap2007 06:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. All your useful content are belong to the existing article All your base are belong to us. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for great justice. The point in the nom is pertinent; this seems to be not a POV fork, but a V fork. Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia are welcome to handle this sort of thing if they want. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article is on the way to destruction. JuJube 08:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I know what I doing -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - (zomg, someone !voted keep)! Yes, I think this is a helpful list. This is a very culturally significant term, and many of the listings are interesting, encyclopedic, and useful (e.g., In the Futurama episode Anthology of Interest II, a space invader speaks the phrase.). Per WP:LIST: The list may be a valuable information source, I believe it applies (I know, you don't think it's valuable, but is this any less valuable then Santorum (slang) or Stanley Steamer, which the community has decided are encyclopedic?). Unfortunately, we don't have any guidelines on what a list should be, but I think this falls under it, as much as many other lists we have, and have set a precedent on WP for notability: (e.g., much more valuable than List of Ace Mystery Numeric-Series Single Titles). Keep in mind, this was a very culturally significant term in the early 00's (<-- how does one pronounce that?), and the list is pertinent. If you wish to trim out unverifiable terms, I say go ahead, but keep this list. Part Deux 10:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The cultural significance of the term is what paradoxically would make this list an indiscrimate collection of information. There would be just too many references to make this article useful. Saligron 11:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, What you say !!? Many of these items would have been left on the root article without much debate, but the size of that article warranted splitting. I think the list as a whole should stay, but needs to be further referenced, and perhaps pruned. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repurpose. The article's current mission is to include less-notable and borderline notable cultural references to AYB: this is a bad idea. However, if it were repurposed and pruned per Xaosflux's suggestion, it would be a good article. (If not a Good Article.) -Toptomcat 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Well the introduction sentence of the article clearly implies it is intended for cultural references that did not get Media coverage. Isn't it that original Research? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Prune As annoying as the AYB phenomenon is/was, the content listed is verifiable, and follows guidelines for encyclopedic content. Some may question the usefulness of the article, or like me may just not care for the subject, but these are not valid reasons to delete, as per WP:AFD. Some pruning and consolidation could be done to keep the size manageable though. Arakunem 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, if we do as you suggest and prune all those that are non-verifiable and the product of original research, we wind up with a copy of the list already in the main All your base article. JChap2007 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Edison 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nom provided an excellent analysis. That this might be "interesting", "helpful" or "useful" does not make it encyclopedic or change the fact it's trivia and an indiscriminate collection of AYB..."cruft". There is also nothing to back up any assertion that this is a "very culturally significant term". Whether or not one can measure its "value" is questionable, especially by comparing it to other articles. We're not discussing those other articles and whether or not they are encyclopedic does not affect this article. Agent 86 20:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unreferenced As the nomimator correctly points out, the introductory paragraph tells all. This list is the unreferenced uses of the phrase. Delete this entire article as unreferenced and unverified. Dugwiki 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They're somewhat referenced, and it was a notable internet phenomenon. Although some might have to be pruned, I'd suggest a fair bit of this could be salvaged with a bit of effort. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater :P --TommyOliver 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misunderstand. The article All your base are belong to us is fine. The problem is that the article in this afd is an attempt to take all the unreferenced information that didn't belong in the main article and put it in a single list. That's why this list needs to be deleted, but the main article is ok. Dugwiki 00:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "(random webcomic) by (red link to nonexistent author article) mentioned AYBABTU in its January 31 strip" is not notable material. Krimpet 03:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Was quite an enjoyable read, and interesting. I personally think that this should stay. — JeremyTalk 05:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - after comparing the two articles, it looks like the best and most verifiable references are already in the main All Your Base article. It's not a good sign when a sub-article has to reference its parent article. --JohnDBuell 10:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Part Deux. Mathmo ^Talk 14:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list is relevant but to long to include in the main article. /Jiiimbooh 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't if the list is "interesting" or "relevant". It's that the entire list is unverified and unreferenced. Keep in mind that most or all of the referenced items already appear in the main article. Dugwiki 00:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace I'm persuaded by the argument that such a list might be useful as a standalone page. I suggest deleting the current page (an exhaustive list is still indiscriminate collection) and extracting the list of notable references from the main article. Saligron 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support that suggestion, assuming the number of such verifiable references is large enough to warrant a subarticle. If the verifiable list fits comfortably in the main article, then in that case there's no need to split it off. Dugwiki 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge by itself, this page is really not wikipedia material, but it's content would make sense on the page for the meme itself.TheGreenFaerae 10:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep --62.14.149.95 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, the article can be put under the main AYB page, where some other references can be found. Aramjm 22:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The nominator makes a good point. I'm a fan of this meme, which everyone agrees has gained widespread notoriety, so I oppose deletion because WP:ILIKEIT. But merging to All your base, and cutting out all the unsourced junk, works for me. YechielMan 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced. For the avoidance of doubt the main article doesn't constitute a reliable source. Addhoc 15:29, 5 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.