< July 19	July 21 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete, with WP:NOT#NEWS being the more powerful argument than WP:N. WP:BLP cannot apply as earthquakes are not people, let alone living people. —Kurykh 01:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake[edit]

This article, if kept, would potentially open the door to many insignificant articles cluttering up Wikipedia. Earthquakes of about the magnitude of the one described here are a common occurrence in the Bay Area. This is in no way notable enough to warrant keeping. ILike2BeAnonymous 00:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep4.2 earthquakes are not common at all. The occur every 5 to 10 years. This earthquake is involved in newsworthy events. Has caused thousands of dollars in damage. Causes power outages to thousands of people. Shut down the BART system. What articles "open the door to" are not relevant on AfD pages, that is irrelevant. Only notability it. If you google the word earthquake you get this event at #2. If you look at the USGS homepage its on the main page with the list of large and significant global seismic events. Of which only 4 or 5 are there. Not 50 or 20 or even 10 as would be suggest by this happening all the time. Furthermore this AfD seems to me to be in bad faith since this editor frequently has problems with me and only added it up for deletion once i mentioned it on the Richmond, California disasters' section. I have provided citations within the article and on the talk page.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So far as BART shutting down goes, that's standard procedure after any earthquake, and in this case they were back up running in less than an hour. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 382 articles about it on google news.here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cholga (talk • contribs).
- At the time of this posting that number has dropped to 11 articles (or 15 if you include the duplicates). --Mperry 01:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 4.x earthquakes are indeed pretty common. Figure 6.14 here suggests a frequency on the San Andreas fault of about 40 per year at that magnitude. 69.107.78.126 01:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not many caused damage. Okay so there are many, but not many in this area. This is the Hayward Fault not the San Andreas. And it has gotten worldwide attention. CNN International, Turkish news^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about moving it into the article about the Hayward Fault? Although the quake isn't important in and of itself, it does signify activity along the Hayward Fault. --Mperry 02:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep I say keep it...for now. ^{--Komunysta 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
- Explain why?, that isn't a reason for keeping Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 08:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A small article for a small earthquake is OK. To play devil's advocate, however, I should point out that the today's weather is also the subject of international coverage, but it isn't notable enough for a wikipedia article. - Richfife 03:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although weather and climate are mentioned in every place article. Thats a bad example, weather changes constantly and isnt a major event. I think this isnt going to be talked about just today. Rememeber also wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Information about moderate earthquakes may fade from newsites, and hosting an article on such a subject could be helpful to people looking into a regions earthquake history and damage and details that are not included in the statistics of the USGS. I would also add that, all news events only happen once. The Rose Bowl only happens once. A coup détat happens on a single day. Doesnt mean its not of importance to the public record.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seriously there are thousands of those 4.0 earthquakes out there per year, wikipedia isn't the place to list all those earthquakes. Cholga, you have the wrong view for the project, an article isn't created for every news event out there. That is what wikinews was created for. Cholga also see WP:SIG, which your current sig violate. Delete is my opinion, for violating WP:N Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 08:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meh. Minor earthquake, minimal property damage, no injuries reported in the article. At this point it seems no more significant than a thunderstorm. Wikipedia is not WP:NOT#NEWS a newspaper. News media report any detectable earthquake without making a clear distinction of how much the shaking increases for every unit increase in the magnitude. I didn't see any listed at Earthquake lower than about 5.9 magnitude, more than an order of magnitude larger in movement and more than an order of magnitude less frequent.If this is part of the Hayward Fault Zone then there could be a Smerge (slight merge, a term invented by User:R. fiend), in which the article gets shortened and merged to that article. None of the earthquakes presently listed there are lower than 5.6. Edison 04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:Notability ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive."?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but in WP:NOTABILITY it also says "Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events7. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." WP:NOT#NEWS says "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." Items in the day's news are more suited to Wikinews than Wikipedia. Edison 05:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looking for something more notable than the average 4.0 earthquake and not finding it. These are simply too common to be of note. There are around 12,000 4.0 earthquakes worldwide every year. They release less energy than a single tornado. --Dhartung | Talk 07:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Richter scale is logarithmic, and so calling this a "4.0" is a bit more inaccurate than you might think. I'm not sure any of the frequences of occurance listed above are accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipsticked Pig (talk • contribs) 09:55, 21 July 2007
Delete I live just a few miles from the epicenter and slept through the "devatation". This is much ado about nothing by local media. --Kevin Murray 17:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today is July 22 and it still tops the list on a google search for Earthquake. The Cicago Tribune is not local Media nor is CNN. Your personal experiances or better put lack therof are irrelevant since they constitute WP:OR Original Research and emotions and lifer experiances are not policy.71.142.91.34 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR applies to articles, not to deletion discussions. Avoiding personal remarks applies to all discussions, however, so try to avoid commenting on the experience of an editor, which has nothing to do with his actual points. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikinews. I am reminded of WP:RECENT. Earthquakes less than 6.0 with little or no casualties or damage is not significant or notable enough. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So then we will have to do articles on earthquakes that have done no damage at all or having a scale of under 5? I don't know the criterias but only those which caused several fatalities, major to severe damage or having a scale of 6 or 7 or more should have articles.JForget 22:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I view an RSS feed of earthquakes over magnitude 5 worldwide. Every day there are several. This one is just not big enough to be notable on any long-term basis. —David Eppstein 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Merge and redirect to Hayward Fault Zone. Although I would support deletion of an earthquake with no significant impact, this one did cause a power failure to a non-trial number of customers, and more importantly initially shut down BART, and required resorting to manual control to restore service. The article also claims Geologists cited this event in relation to the Hayward Fault, and the content could possibly be merged there (although that article is already quite long). Formulaic criteria for notability have been rejected by community consensus, so arguments that earthquakes of magnutude X are notable or non-notable should not be given any significant weight (see also WP:BIGNUMBER). Dhaluza 19:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Guardian (United Kingdom), CNN, San Jose Mercury, France, Physics.org, Salinas, CA, Tonawanda NY, Russia, Alaska, Observor, WAND Associated Press, KSBW, Akron, Ohio, [1], [2], KFOX, Seattle Times, Reuters, Larrence, Kansas, Winston-Salem, NC, AHN, Turkish.com, Cleveland, Ohio leader I think this goes to show that this isn't trivial coverage, and not local, nor national coverage, this earthquake received international attention, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, why not include earthquakes, I believe people may want to look into this earthquake years from now and an encyclopedia article would be the best place to look, no one goes to the libarary anyone to look through articles in papers.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBasically, you have shown that an Associated Press wire service story went out and that many news services routinely reproduced it in whole or in part, or with minor tweaks. Per WP:N, when a news source reprints a wire service report, that does not count towards "multiple" coverage. Independent coverage by different wire services, and independent reporting by California papers, does help, but if all it gets is a flurry of coverage it is still more suited to Wikinews. Edison 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, true, but this does not mean that we should include everything that has ever happened. Most people here who are !voting delete are not saying that it hasn't been reported, but rather that not every single earthquake that ever happens is notable. Considering how many earthquakes there are every day, even when only including 5.0+ earthquakes, if we were to have an article on all of those, this encyclopedia would be many, many times larger than it currently is. If we were to include every earthquake that ever happened that was 4.0+, as this one is, at 4.2, all our non-earthquake articles would be thoroughly dwarfed by the sheer weight of our earthquake ones. Put simply, this earthquake is not notable enough. You could also count this as me saying delete. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list of links isn't very impressive because the article in nearly all of them is the same. That's because all of those papers are republishing the same Associated Press article. Besides, this has nothing to do with news coverage, which will dissipate within the next few days, and everything to do with the historical significance of the quake. This quake is non-notable because it didn't have any significant long-term impact like, for example, the Loma Prieta or Northridge quakes. Unlike the Loma Prieta quake, this quake has caused no fatalities, no casualties, no loss of homes, and only minor property damage. It's no different from the hundreds of quakes that happen around the world every day. --Mperry 02:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is notableMchadsac 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC) — Mchadsac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete Can't figure out if the author has never been in an earthquake, or whether he/she was in Oakland on Friday. I agree entirely with anonymous that keeping this article opens the door. This article states: "Some people said the damage it caused was worse than the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake" For the record, the 1989 quake caused six billion dollars worth of damage and killed 62 people. Mandsford 22:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and that statement is sourced, for some people the damage was far worse, oaklands, Montclaire District bisinesses suffered large losses of merchandise.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are more sources.Boston Herald, USA Today, Pensacola, Florida, it has received widespread coverage nationally.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Boston Herald and USATODAY links are to the same AP story, which does not count as "multiple" coverage, per WP:N, and the Pensacola link leads to an unrelated story at this time. Edison 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT a 4.2 earthquake is NOT a 4.0 earthquake. A 4.1 earthquake is 30 times stronger than a 4.0 and a 4.2 is 30 times stronger than that! There is not policy stating that 4.2 earthquakes are too small and not notable, and what might happen is not wikipedia policy. Even if there were 2,000 earthquakes such as this every year, they wouldnt all have an article, there isnt even an article for every language or high school all of which are automatically considered notable, this encyclopedia has over a million articles, the potential for a few thousand more a year would hardly be eclipsed by the tens or hundreds of thousands added annually on various other topics^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 01:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. You're wrong. Each whole number is about 30 times more powerful. This is something like 4.5 times more powerful than a 4.0. Cool Hand Luke 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way my point is that a 4.2. earthquake is not a 4.0 earthquake, not even close.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I made my post above, I realised that 4.0 is not the same as 4.2. I used that number for the sake of using a whole number. To have a compromise, allow me to use this sentence instead: "If we were to include every earthquake that ever happened that was 4.2+, as this one is, at 4.2, all our non-earthquake articles would be thoroughly dwarfed by the sheer weight of our earthquake ones."

I changed 4.0+ to say 4.2+, and my point largely remains intact. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, minor quake with no historical significance. There were no injuries and minor property damage. I live in the bay area and we have small quakes all the time. This is only receiving news coverage because it's a recent event and is just a bit stronger than most quakes in the area. I agree with other commenters that this would be better served by moving the article to Wikinews. --Mperry 02:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is very much a historical significance here, people remember these things, they want to look into them too, yes in the future. The property damage was in the tens of thousands of dollars. This will stay in the news as estimates begin to be reported.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This quake is not notable and shouldn't be in wikipedia. But it does belongs in wikinews. Regarding the notability of a 4.2 quake, it is too small compares to some other destructive quake like a 6.9. Therefore not notable. Chris! _{my talk} 02:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it is too small? What WP Policy states that an earthquake must have a minimum magnitude for it to have an article? Sure it was not 6.9 but Hurricane Beta or Alpha or Delta were similarly tiny in comparison to Katrina and even tropical storms get article when they don't even cause any damage whatsoever. What does it matter what this quake wasn't shouldnt it matter what it, is?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even at 4.2+ there are thousands of such earthquakes a year. This is just a one-off news story that will never again be the subject of non-trivial coverage. If it ever is, write about it then, but we're not news. Cool Hand Luke 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are so many thousands of them (ones just like this one) shouldnt a few more have happened allready and have ursurped this one in the news? A lot happen in very rural areas and go largely missed, no damage nor calamity.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikinews. Unless there's some long-lasting significance to this earthquake, as happened in Northridge earthquake, it's more of a news story than an encyclopedia article. If there turns out to be a longer-lasting significance (like improved building codes, lots of structures needing to be rebuilt, and others), we can always move it back. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The large number of reliable sources provided in July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake#Notes establish the notability of this event per Wikipedia's notability guideline, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:NOT#NEWS, cited in support of the deletion of this article, is primarily concerned with articles which give excessive publicity to negative incidents in the lives of otherwise non-notable people. It is not an appropriate justification for deleting a well-referenced article concerning an earthquake that obviously has no WP:BLP problems. John254 00:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment against the guideline WP:N which might seem to be satisfied by a flurry of news reports on one day or a few days about a small earthquake, we must balance the policy WP:NOT#NEWS which says "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." This flurry of news coverage just the sort of "15 minutes of fame" which distinguihes between newspapers and encyclopedias, wich look for more long term coverage of an event, or for it to have some enduring effects on society. Merchandise thrown off shelves and people being inconvenienced does not make the cut. See also the essay WP:NOTNEWS which reflects the views of some editors on the difference between events being "newsworthy" and them being "encyclopedic." Also WP:N says "Note 4: Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." Are all the quoted sources independently writing articles, or are they just reprinting news service releases? Edison 19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is completely irrelvant, it is original reasearch and it is only the opinion of an editor and those whom agree with him/her, it is not policy and cannot be conisdered in this discussion. The fact that they may have had similar sources is original reasearch and conjecture on your part. You are speculating which should be avoided. Furthermore that goes for any story, anyone who has interviewed scott peterson who writes a story would be writing the same story according to that (which i feel is flawed) logic. And the fact is they are/were not and the same goes for this case^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although several of the references in the article credit AP, which would be covered by Note-4, CNN, Tribune, and LAT did not credit AP, which indicates independent reporting, so Note-4 is moot. All of the refs are from the same day, which would raise long term significance issues. I went looking for other refs, and found this one which would raise further concern. I did find one follow-up article, but the only thing there was this: "Geologists have long said the Hayward Fault is primed for a major (magnitude 7 or higher) and that the chances of one happening within the next 30 years is high." So I have changed my vote to Merge and redirect to Hayward Fault Zone, because the event is notable in that context. This will also preserve the history in case the event does become notable later. 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - a 4.2 earthquake is not uncommon, but will of course generate news coverage. Absent any significant after-effects from earthquake, this is no different than many other earhtquakles of the same magnitude thus making it a wikinews article and not a wikipedia article. -- Whpq 17:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they happen all the time worldwide, they don't happen here in the Bay Area all the time nor this fault. The last time this area had such an earthquake was in 1987, 20 years ago![3]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nihiltres^(t.l) 12:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon - chaos black[edit]

Article that cannot be verified by any reliable sources. No reliable publication has ever seen fit to comment on hacked versions of Pokémon games. In any case, it does not need its own article, and nobody is likely to type this exact string in. hbdragon88 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, does not assert notabiltiy. --Sigma 7 02:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not notable at all. Realkyhick 03:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Although a google search shows that it is possible to verify the contents of this article, I am not too sure whether it is notable enough to warrant an article by itself. Also, it must be noted that there are over 32 000 hits for the subject matter. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This kind of article denigrates the respectable field of cartoon character research. ~ Infrangible 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non notable--Zxcvbnm 18:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Where did the user who created the article get this information from? (Woggy 19:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Coment The user most probably got the information from this website. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreation of deleted article. This guy may be a sock, because I think the guy who originally created the aricle ended up being banned because he kept remaking it. This was a couple of months ago, so I don't remember much, but this was here before and was speedy deleted HalfShadow 23:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. I tried reading through the paragraph, and couldn't really understand what's going on - especially when I get to the last sentence. --Sigma 7 09:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Similar to the rationales at List of Star Wars clone trooper legions: a list of non-notable make-believe clones. One citation to a reliable sources and entirely in-universe. The Cody figure might be worth mentioning somewhere on Wikipedia for the dramatic effect of his order to fire on Kenobi -- but it's not done any service here. EEMeltonIV 22:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Send out the clones. Not notable. Realkyhick 03:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cloning a notable character does not make the clone notable (See WP:CLONE). ~ Infrangible 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slavlin 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete it? These are (presumably) existing characters in a widely-known milieu. The clones being given specific names makes them notable, given the nature of cloning within the Star Wars universe. Wikipedia contains numerous lists from other fictional milieu, such as Borg starships, List of Pokémon characters, Geography of Xanth, Minor characters in 24, etc. IMHO, all of these are legitimate articles. --greenmoss 00:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrm... I just read the "legions" discussion referenced above. Moving to Wookieepedia seems like a good middle ground if it is decided that this article should be deleted. However, I still feel that this list is on par with the other lists that I mentioned above. So if this list should be deleted, would it not be logical to delete all such lists? --greenmoss 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - getting a name may give them in-universe notability, but that doesn't translate into out-of-universe Wikipedia notability. Yes, there are many List of... amalgamations that should be deleted. --EEMeltonIV 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Not notable at the present time. First four keep votes were page creator and three SPAs. No prejudice to re-creation should the organisation become more notable in future. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Campaign For Life[edit]

Sourcing and notability issues. The only independent source sited is The Christian Post, which may have reliable source/verifiability issues (i.e. just because something is notable to report on in a religious source does not necessarily make it notable for wikipedia). A google search of "The Campaign For Life" gets 69 hits. "A Light In The Darkness" + "National Sanctity of Human Life Day" gets 4 hits. "Christian Benefit Alliance" + "Ride for life" gets 3 hits. I also went on Lexus Nexus and found sources from the late 80s that mentioned a "Veterans' Campaign for Life", but couldn't find any news reports on this organization. WP:ORG notes that we should have multiple independent reliable sources. The article describes what the organization does, but doesn't explain why it is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory for people to list info on their favorite organizations, but instead an encyclopedia. Andrew c ^[talk] 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree…Given another year or two the organization may at that point be a “Notable”/”Noteworthy” cause…but at this point sorry to say; has not reached the summit. Shoessss | Chat 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient verification of notability, blogs and self-referential websites are neither independent nor reliable. Other than the tiny 69 hits on regular search, a Google News search provided zero results. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neither the group nor its events are notable, compared to say, Birthright. Bearian 01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The internet is not the only place sources are found. The above arguments only describe actions to locate sources online. In addition, isn't a lack of other online information a case to keep an article rather than delete it? Wikipedia should be a place to turn for information when it cannot be found anywhere else. I believe the entry is noteworthy. It is a national campaign affiliated with CareNet and Heartbeat International which both have Wikipedia entries.Dragon224 12:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[4]
[5]
[6]

Keep All the above dissenters are personally biased as evidenced by their own Wikipedia user pages. It appears to me they want this article deleted because it is not in line with their own views. That is not what Wikipedia should be about.

Keep This article is very noteworthy in my opinion and the sources seem respectable enough. The dissenters appear to be personally biased on the subject. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it contains information from regular people that know something about a certain subject, knowledge that could never come from a book, magazine article, or other "source." We should embrace unique articles that can show sources, even if those sources aren't scholarly journals. It seems the people who wanted it deleted are pro-choice and most certainly the people in favor of keeping it are pro-life. The larger issue is that the organization is notable, the sources verify it, and it embraces the notion of Wikipedia being the best source for all information.Rburk41 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both users who have voted keep seem to not understand the policy of assuming good faith. As they are new around here, I shall explain quickly. This means that we assume all users, whatever their personal beliefs, are voting with the best of intentions and not in an attempt at a smear campaign. This is one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Another fundamental policy of Wikipedia, and the most fundamental part of the decision to keep or delete an article, is the concept of notability as verified in reliable, independent sources. Unlike the articles on such groups as Focus on the Family or Birthright, this group has no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Thus, they are unfit for inclusion. In the future, I suggest all users try harder to stick to content, not contributors in their comments. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know how the "good faith" is policed or enforced. At any rate, I found the article worthy of appearing in an encyclopedia. The sources appeared credible and the limited availability of other online deposits of information on the subject make the article more appealing for the Wikipedia catalog in my opinion.

*Comment After reading the KEEP requests of this article, I took a second look, and thought to myself; “…did I miss something in the piece….did I overlook a “Noteworthy” event in the organizations history or just disregard a prominent journalistic article on the organization.” Sorry to say no! After reviewing the organizations history, searching the Internet for additional sources and combing the library for unbiased opinions, I still cannot find a “Noteworthy” instance this organization was involved in or participated in organizing. I am not here to point fingers at the authors of the “Keep” comments and say they are pushing agendas, though they feel the right to subject other editors of their biased opinions. (Moreover, I say, they surely did not read my Shoessss | Chat page, or they would not have made these comments)). However, I will state Wikipedia is not a list, collection, “Yellow Pages” or forum to express any, and yes, I will repeat, any point of view. The Organization is trying to evolve to an encyclopedia level of “Noteworthy” individuals, organization, places and instances in history with unbiased articles. To quote an old TV show…”just give me the facts Madame…just the facts” and let me make my own mind up. Again, to repeat myself, this article does not clearly state the “Note-worthiness” of the organization. Hence, does not belong here. Shoessss | Chat 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep on the condition that the article be re-written, properly sourced, and wikified. A cursory search for 'The Campaign for Life' alone is insufficient. There are numerous independent reliable sources for Birthright International, CARE, and the Ride for Life, all of which are (apparently) affiliated in some way with the topic. I agree that it requires further clarification. MrPrada 08:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete both, g11 advertising. NawlinWiki 01:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sispoidis[edit]

Unreferenced autobiography of a nonnotable person. I am also nominating the author's userpage:

Fire him. Blatant, shameless self-promotion. --Targeman 21:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gave me a good chuckle, anyway. Cap'n Walker 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - borderline speedy per WP:CSD#G11 —Travis ^talk 21:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {db-spam} or {db-bio} Shoessss | Chat 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for both The userpage is a pretty blatant G11 speedy, while the article could be an A7 or G11. Either way, nuke them both now. Blueboy 96 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both as ((db-spam)), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, again this is a case where a category serves better, the red-links artists doesn't meet WP:MUSIC after a quick google check. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian American Hip Hop Artists[edit]

Pure cruft, no sources, mostly red links. Rackabello 20:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add the pages for those artists asap to eliminate the red links and I also plan to add sources as well. --thefunk42 20:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, Keep. I would let thefunk42 have time to create the articles and source it and if then it still doesn't come up to standard, it should be deleted. I believe I shall be helping with the links and such.Silver seren 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I believe this will end up much like List of wild mammal species in Florida?Silver seren 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, maybe we should have a list of Asian rappers, though I am Asian and I don't like rap. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace it with a category. List is not beneficial in this case. Corpx 23:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually since being Asian has little to no bearing on one's hip hop career, that would be overcategorization. Weak keep but it needs serious help. Look here. It requires a clear header: North America or either America continent or USA or what can go in, it's not supposed to ambiguous whether Asian Canadians can be added, yet someone did and felt like qualifying it. The headers seem kinda arbitrary, and there's no lead paragraph. But it seems very savable to me. Spriteless 03:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize as Corpx suggested. It is more appropriate to have a category instead of a possible incomplete and unmaintainable and unsourced list.--JForget 16:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize I have started a category Category:Asian Americans in music since there isn't an overall category now and frankly there are still only a few "breakout" Asian American hip-hop artists. Wl219 12:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Hip hop musicians. A category like Category:Asian-American Hip hop musicians could never exist per WP:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Additionaly, a category like Category:Asian Americans in music should only categorize people by ethnicity if this has significant bearing on their career. As an aside, the argument on incomlete lists, needed maintenance and lack of sources is extremely weak. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes states clearly that categories, lists and series boxes can co-exist. It isn't a competition. So many lists get nominated here just because they have a category also, and such nominators and voters systematically vote for deletion on such matters. It is my belief these participants are guilty of WP:Point#Refusal to 'get the point', as they understand the guideline states categories and lists work in synergy, yet continue to assert an either/or argument. Additionally, categories are never sourced. A few simple references at the bottom of a list is a good thing, and is more reliable than a category filled with no references. Maintaining lists should really never be a factor, as the argument assumes an inability to do so that by nature can not be scientifically proven. (Mind meal 01:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, similar lists have been deleted before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rappers notable for their race. musicpvm 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath's 19th Studio Album[edit]

This aborted project has been nonexistent since 2001. There has only been hearsay and talk about the band possibly doing another album. A studio session in 2001 was cancelled. Black Sabbath is out on the road with another singer and Ozzy just put out a solo album. Again, there is no evidence whatsoever that there will be another Black Sabbath album. SabbathForever2007 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep the album, because on Ozzy's website he has stated that he has been busy writing new songs to be included on a brand-new Black Sabbath studio album, and it should be released in 2008. Check out his website to see if it still says that. Dark Executioner 18:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

Delete -WP:NOT a crystal ball. Write the article if and when it comes out. MSJapan 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per MSJapan, WP:CRYSTAL. Usually, artistic endeavours don't get pages until they are out in the marketplace. But it would be neat if Ozzy was back with Black Sabbath. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we really need a comment. Shoessss | Chat 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even such album exists in future, it will be not with that name. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dear MSJAPAN, the oiriginal lineup is still together but on hiatus. Duh. Keep the album, cuz you'll all feel foolish when they announce word and the article's gone. Why don't you guys just check Ozzy's website like DE said? 68.211.183.10 23:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they're on hiatus, then how can they be releasing a new album? It is not on BLACK SABBATH's website, nor is it on the websites of Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler, or Bill Ward. No title. No recordings. No plans. Nothing more than a blurb from Sharon Osbourne who is simply doing as a publicity stunt to counter the Heaven and Hell project. SabbathForever2007 23:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, it's speculation/crystal ball-gazing. Additionally, the article provides no sources whatsoever, so it cannot be verified. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. premature article. Resolute 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. A album that does not exist! --Malcolmxl5 13:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in a black sabbath - fans, man, fans... WP:CRYSTAL *yawn* ;)--Cerejota 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of WP:CRYSTAL especially due to the "mystery" released date.JForget 15:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This album will probably get made, but it might be a year from now, or three, or five. Future album articles are fine, but it might be prudent to at least wait until some actual recording sessions are underway. --Bongwarrior 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This album is not a confirmed project. Ozzy's management said it'd happen, the lsat word on Black Sabbath is Tony Iommi, and all he's said is 'options are being considered' as to the band's future. Geezer Butler has been similar. Lets look at the page sentence by sentence.

"Legendary heavy metal band Black Sabbath have been planning to release a 19th studio LP in 2008, making it the band's 1st new album since 1995's Forbidden, and the first in 30 years to feature the original line-up of the band (last time was 1978's Never Say Die!)."

They've talked about the idea of writing stuff in 2008. A release date's not been discussed at all, the lack of new material since Forbidden is already discussed in the Sabbath article proper. The band has released two new songs on the Reunion album infact.

"This album has been in the making for at least 7 years. In 2001, during a reunion tour, the Ozzy-Iommi-Butler-Ward lineup debuted the new song "Scary Dreams." The exact release date for this album remains yet a mystery."

They decided to abort work due to it's lack of quality in early 2001. In late 2001 they had to cancel future work so Ozzy could do solo album. This was followed by a solo tour, Ozzfest 2002, Ozzy resting and recovereing in late 2002...the work just stopped happening. The work in 2001 Butler has said has to be "looked at" and "revisited". It would be starting again effectively, with a few ideas...the album's not been in the works since then, it got put 100% on ice in early 2001.

The article's not even got a single accurate fact in it, that's useful. I hate anything being deleted on here - I prefer long, epic works and vast tomes of information. This is the first time I've ever agreed with an AFD. Do it. (The Elfoid 02:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete I'm going to have to agree with most of the above. This isn't confirmed anywhere. There have supposedly been talks of it, but really there's nothing about it in the public. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Motley ^{a b c qu} 03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as A3. Natalie 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath's 20th Studio Album[edit]

Delete - As above, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Write the article if and when it comes out. MSJapan 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above. And please do not say there is a 21 Shoessss | Chat 22:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and the fact that their 19th album isn't even done yet. Resolute 04:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - the article is empty too. Lugnuts 08:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. Another album that does not exist! --Malcolmxl5 13:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in a black sabbath - fans, man, fans... WP:CRYSTAL *yawn* ;). Part 2.--Cerejota 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:CRYSTAL and the article has nothing so I will tag with db:empty.--JForget 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Carlossuarez46 06:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Seán O'Connor[edit]

Possible hoax by Uraulone a non refrenced article where I cannot see where the article is supported by WP:BIO Kingjamie 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presumably a hoax as Carlisle Uniteds current number 10 is Danny Carlton. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a hoax from both looking at the Carlisle United web site and looking for a player with this name playing for this club using Google. Slightly confusing things were many hits when searching by the player name and club, but these reference a different player Seán O'Conner who plays for Morecambe.--Mendors 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - {Speedy] no refernces no cites Shoessss | Chat 22:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I note that he signed for Carlisle United in "August 2007"! Even if he does exists, as he hasn't played for the first-team in the FL, he is not notable. --Malcolmxl5 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As per nom, it was created by a Single Purpose Account and an unregistered user, possibly a sockpuppet. Bearian 01:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that Irish Musician mentionned in Google hits is this football player, otherwise there is no mention of a Irish soccer player with this name.--JForget 15:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - litany of lies, badly presented (apart from superb userbox, shame about that). Non-existent, therefore non-notable in the extreme. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. Even if it's not, he hasn't played in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 09:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete both. —Kurykh 01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taynikma[edit]

Delete both per nom. The book is interwikied to the Danish Wikipedia, but that's not our problem. Shalom ^Hello 21:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete both. Taynika does not seem very notable as there are know outside sources. The author fails WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article denigrates the respectable field of comic book research. ~ Infrangible 16:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Doubt compilations[edit]

Everything in Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Videos: 1992-2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boom Box (No Doubt box set) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(View AfD) All the articles essentially amount to track listings and release information. There is no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, only track listings and release information on other sites. As such, all of the articles fail Wikipedia:Notability. 17Drew 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. That's not a valid reason for deletion -- it's just a reason for expansion. According to WP:MUSIC#Albums: "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." I have "No Doubt" (sorry!) that No Doubt is notable; therefore, their albums are all notable themselves. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, changing my mind. I see no reason to delete, but I can't really find a solid reason to keep, despite WP:MUSIC#Albums' statement that "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you provided hardly makes a case for these articles. Notice that it states they "may have sufficient notability". The section itself is controversial and is regularly disputed, and it doesn't apply nearly as much for compilations like these. The second sentence there states that there should be independent coverage, of which there is none. The next sentence states, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting." Simply put, these articles are just about all they'll ever be. With a normal article, you can put information about its conception, recording, production, critical reception, style, themes, response from music critics, and chart performance. None of these will ever be in the articles since they don't apply. 17Drew 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that none of those apply, but I still see no reason for any of this stuff to be deleted. The video compilation, at least, has one source, so at least it might be good to go. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One source does not make an article. From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The one source that it does have doesn't even qualify since, ignoring the fact that it's a broken link since the RIAA got rid of the database a week ago, all it does is produce a search result. It doesn't provide any information about the music video save for a "G" for gold, which isn't anywhere close to "significant coverage". 17Drew 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad, didn't check to see if the link worked. I still see no reason to delete, but I can't come up with a valid keep reason, so I'm changing my vote to neutral, pending further discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's no reason for their deletion and they are informative and valuable articles. -Anthony- 06:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what was above? If an article does not have significant coverage from multiple third-party sources, it needs to be deleted. Not everything "informative and valuable" belongs on Wikipedia (see WP:USEFUL). Wikipedia is not Discogs, and track listings are not articles. 17Drew 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the band is notable and well known and albums were released on a major label. Boom Box and Everything In Time both got an AMG review - something that shows notability and variability. The Videos went Gold (500,000 units sold) and is verifiable through the RIAA link. I believe it is enough to justify a page. -Halo 01:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC hardly justifies the articles. It states that an article with little more than a track listing should be merged elsewhere. WP:NOTE states that notability is significant coverage from multiple sources. One review at AMG is not "multiple sources". A listing in an RIAA database is not "significant coverage", and it only shipped (not sold) 50,000 (not 500,000). 17Drew 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also love to see the Everything in Time review. The site has it listed as three stars, but I'm only seeing a track listing and a grey link indicating that there's no review there. 17Drew 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – That’s right. let me pile on! The individual albums in of themselves are “Noteworthy”. There are articles and websites, too numerous to mention here, that are featuring and/or are devoted to either the lyrics of the individual song or the album itself. Shoessss | Chat 22:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then please show me some reliable sources with significant coverage of the albums. Since they're "too numerous to mention", it should be insultingly simple to do. 17Drew 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry are we taking this a bit too personal; http://www.metrolyrics.com/everything-in-time-los-angeles-lyrics-no-doubt.html. Shoessss | Chat 22:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sites that infringe copyright (re: almost every lyrics site) cannot be used in an article. Plus, WP:NOTE defines sources as secondary sources; the lyrics of a song are a primary source. 17Drew 22:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 17Drew, and yes I may get blocked for my next comments, but to be honest, I am not going to get in a pissing contest over this article. I expressed my opinion, gave you a site and now it is time to move on. Have a great day either way. Shoessss | Chat 22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that if you're not able to show that there are numerous reliable sources about the articles, then you probably shouldn't say that they just do exist. 17Drew 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So, yes, the coverage needs to be improved and expanded. I fail to see how albums released by a major band fail to meet any conceivable notability requirement. Simply needing improvement, however, isn't a valid reason to delete them. matt91486 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the nomination? It seems pretty straightforward: "There is no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, only track listings and release information on other sites." Notability means significant coverage by multiple sources; if the articles don't have coverage, they're not notable. 17Drew 22:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, but I also think that it's a guideline, not a strict rule. The album is for sale at dozens of online stores. While that's certainly not unbiased material that one can site, that is a wide enough scope to establish its notability. As for an article, here's one. http://www.channel4.com/music/music-core/album.jsp?albumId=533024 There's a review of "Everything in Time". matt91486 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last words on this. Yes, I read the nomination, and “YES” even read the articles and my opinion still stands. You got to “LOVE” Wikipedia, I do, it is a consensus rather that a majority rule!Shoessss | Chat 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoessss, that comment wasn't referring to you. I'm a little confused as to why you're bringing up the fact that AfD is not a vote. The comments above yours were more votes than actual comments. Regarding the review, that's definitely a step in the right direction. But an article needs multiple sources to be considered notable. One source does not make a subject notable, much less all three. Because the albums are compilations, it's incredibly unlikely that there are sources that cover any of the major aspects of an album: recording/production, style/themes, and sales. 17Drew 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 17Drew, I’m sorry for getting pissy, you are right. The comments are not directed at me. Call it a long day – fingers typing before brain engages, or what ever. No matter the outcome, I am happy to say it does not effect my paycheck. Once again, have a great day, and "Yes" I do appreciate your efforts here at Wikipedia Shoessss | Chat 00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it shows there are sources out there if you are willing to look. The best way to do that will be to look at archives from around the album's release. A lot of newspapers review discs that come out, and there might be magazine reviews that aren't readily available without an archival search. It's not as if coverage of the album is limited. What's missing is coverage that can be cited. Music articles are not really my cup of tea, so I don't want to get entirely too involved in actively digging up any more sources myself (sorry if that sounds lazy or callous, but I just don't have a terribly lot of Wiki-time to devote right now, and I'm trying to put it where I'm most useful), but I'm pretty confident that it can be done through searching around its release. matt91486 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, my personal thought would be to keep the Videos and Everything in Time, because those will have the most sources, and to merge Boom Box in to both the Singles and Everything in Time, because I think that won't have a ton of independent coverage. Boom Box can be easily rendered redundant, where as the others can't. I'm not terribly against keeping Boom Box as an independent article, but I am less in favor of that than the other two, which I definitely think should be kept and maintained. matt91486 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find nothing wrong with these articles. They are informative and the video album article is a must. It was even certified Gold. User:Luxurious.gaurav

The result was Keep ~ Anthøny 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Magazine (UK)[edit]

Non-notable, unsourced. Whether sources exist is hard to judge because a Google search yields lots of different Fact Magazines, but searching for "Fact Magazine" and "Barry McGee" gives only their Website, Wikipedia mirrors, and blogs. Huon 05:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete zero reliable sources proving notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A vaguely notable incident occured regarding an advert placed in this magazine ([7] [8]), and the magazine is occasionally cited in British mainstream press on music issues (e.g. [9]). JulesH 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the advert controvesy, this atcile could do with a lot of work though. Adjective Noun 08:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely needs references, advert controversy likely notable. Cap'n Walker 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Harlowraman 22:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there are several sources for the advertising controversy, and the magazine does seem to be frequently referred to. DGG (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep like to know more about the controversy. Needs refs. Anthony Chidiac --Achidiac 12:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 23:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Mack[edit]

Article makes claims of notability, but claims cannot be verified. Indy wrestler who has appeared in non-notable feds. Biggest claim of notability is hosting a local TV show, but even that doesn't meet with WP:BIO Wildthing61476 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... this reads like nonsense, to start with, and there's nothing in here to indicate that any kind of notability has been met. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: makes crazy assumptions, no credible claims that can be verified and certainly doesn't meet the entertainer section of WP:BIO. - Kneel17 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlike Monster Mack's face, this article is not too beautiful for Wikipedia. Fails WP:BIO and is completely silly... possible hoax, anyone? Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 20:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surprisingly enough I found this site [10], so it's not a hoax, but I'd say it's promoting a nn website. Wildthing61476 20:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article denigrates the respectable field of fake wrestling. ~ Infrangible 16:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete WP:coi, WP:N. Primetime Wrestling may be notable, but I'm not seeing any proof he worked there. Calling the other two non-notable may be an understatement. ACW has Angelfire and Tripod pages that haven't been updated since Oct 2004, and only list 3 total cards. I can't narrow EAW down from a group of backyard wrestling groups with myspace and agnelfire pages.

Google searched for the writer of article [11] [12] ~~and it appears he is also the subject~~.Horrorshowj 02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to editor he's not the subject, he just works with him. Still WP:COI issue. This ACW does have a website, although it's not showing up on google which is bizarre. Another one does, but that's beside the point. I still don't think the subject is notable.Horrorshowj 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letsrun.com[edit]

delete - site doesn't meet notability requirements for web sites IPSOS (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Article discusses the nature of the site, and that's about it. No hard evidence as to popularity, impact or anything else that might make it notable. Cap'n Walker 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB notability standard. -- MarcoTolo 20:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was suspicious of WP:COI and WP:SPAM, but it's ok on those fronts, still fails on WP:WEB. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not so sure about WP:COI, but I say we have a case of spam. Fails WP:WEB. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; also, a single cite. Bearian 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This site is notable enough that international athletes use the message board. Unfortunately the good stuff gets diluted out by the massive amount of noise from teenage runners. It is certainly one of the best known and most popular track and field message board on the internet. I don't have a cite for that statistic but I doubt it is hard to find one. For the record this is what the IAAF says about Letsrun on their own website "LetsRun.com is the premier website in the United States for fans of the top end of the sport."[13] I should add that this link could have been submittted to the IAAF by letrun themselves, although, the IAAF presumably vetted the link and deemed it appropriate. Again, I don't have a cite for that.

On the founders biography, hosted at USATF, the fact that "[Weldon Johson] and his brother created and maintain the distance running Web site LetsRun.com" was deemed worth a mention.[14]

In a case of bad news is publicity (not exactly how one would want to frame this article) there was a controverey involving Letrun with regard to deep-linking carried by USA today and Wired.com.

There is no doubt that this article needs to be improved but it certainly passes the notability bar IMO. I think it is important not to confuse the lack of popularity for track and field in the states (i.e. how many US wikipedians care about track and field), for a lack of notability for things track field. David D. (Talk) 04:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does appear to be some COI there, normally first names about ownders or websites/organisations aren't put on unless it about say the founder of good, the notability of websites criteria is not met by this article. Rlest 14:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. All of the refs that were added were blogs. Sr 13 07:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Seckbach - The Embedded NBA Correspondent[edit]

Appears to be an advertisement as it is just an external link dump, is a dead-end and orphaned page, and the only 2 main editors only mainly edited just this article. --Old Hoss 20:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of times user:76.166.23.110 has vandalized this log: 18

Number of times user:76.166.23.110 has removed this log from the AfD page: 1

Delete - Not a link repository. MSJapan 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet article. Keep. Do not deleate Seckbach is one of the leading NBA reporters in America

this vote vandalized page by deleting previous votes. This vote by user:76.166.23.110 at 21:16, 20 July 2007

Keep very informative article double vote by 76.166.23.110 at 12:59, 21 July 2007
Keep It's not an advertisement -- Do you know what adds are? there are no item for sale :) triple vote by vandal user:76.166.23.110 at 12:59, 21 July 2007
He is know as "the embedded nba correspondent" -- do your research, one example check out - www.dailynews.com/seckbach - the website of the LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS... this comment by 76.166.23.110 at 01:55, 21 July 2007
Comment if kept, this should be renamed to Elie Seckbach. 132.205.44.5 21:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
grrrr the user:76.166.23.110 keeps removing the AfD template etc. I have warned him.Merkinsmum 22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable, independent sources to verify that this person is notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NeoChaosX. Resolute 04:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 70.55.85.148 13:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? AfD is not a vote. You need to offer a reason. Resolute 05:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, forgot to add that. ... reason is "this appears to be promotional material" (perhaps by a fan) 70.55.91.131 08:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's a interesting article. I don't see why not to keep it. this vote by user:12.101.236.88 at 07:28, 22 July 2007
Delete and salt per NeoChaosX. Note that this page was also duplicated today in a copy & paste (and speedied): see deletion log, User talk:Ebberbogey and edit history for Stella Inger. Clicketyclack 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey Neochaosx, or is it neona this is your third delete post. How many times are you going to vote in here? then complain when other do the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.166.23.110 (talk • contribs).
- I have placed a final warning on your talk page. If you continue to vandalize this AfD, including altering the comments of others, you will be blocked. Resolute 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't voted three times. If you had actually read those entries, they're basically saying Delete per the reasoning NeoChaosX gave, which is not at all the same thing as me voting three times. The history of this page also shows that I have only voted once, with my other edits to clean up the formatting errors you've been introducing and this comment here. I suggest you re-read the discussion carefully rather than mindlessly sling around accusations messing with the votes. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bro, I have a question for you... I have been following the NBA for years, there is no nba reporter like him - what's the deal with killing the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.23.110 (talk)

It doesn't matter how much we like him as a reporter: what matters in an encyclopedia is verifiability, and reliable sources: see Wikipedia:Citing sources for more info. Can you please find and cite some sources in the article verifying his Emmy awards etc.?

Also, please sign your comments on talk pages, using ~~~~. Those four ~ will automatically turn into your signature when you hit the save button. Thanks, Clicketyclack 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I found this link of the :~~~~76.166.23.110
So I just googled his name and found one on the site of Academy of Television Arts & Sciences

I am sure if you someone was to contact them they could say if he got them or not. :They must keep records after all you can't buy or sell them, I don't think. :~~~~76.166.23.110

Don't use the nowiki tag, just put the four ~s on there.

If you've found evidence of his Emmy award, then please post the link proving it onto the article. Clicketyclack 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, will do. Thangs again for the breakdown.76.166.23.110 17:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some info. Check it out. Thanks76.166.23.110 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ten Lists of Gene Siskel[edit]

The article consists only of a collection of lists, which are simply copied and pasted from its only source. The article has no added value to those copied lists and is therefore entirely redundant. Atlan (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would suspect the original lists are copyrighted by the Chicago Tribune, which is a problem; the source is an unofficial collection of those lists. And, as the nom says, there's no added value to this collection of lists. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12. This is in direct copyright violation of Gene Siskel's estate. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Eliz81. Agreed, a blatant copyvio. Might want to alert Caltech as well ... the author says that this was taken from a Website hosted there. A copyvio of a copyvio ... good grief ... Blueboy96 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was going to tag the article for speedy deletion, but I couldn't find any copyright at that time. Let's speedy delete this.--Atlan (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So tagged. I also warned the author earlier. Hopefully an admin will speedy this soon ... this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Blueboy 96 00:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Top Ten Lists of Roger Ebert should be deleted for the same reasons (and many other copyvio film lists). Crazysuit 01:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Snowball keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Square[edit]

Feigning notability by association; geographical location apparently features a monument to a notable personality. The idea of merging the content seems reasonable, but having a redirect does not. --Aarktica 19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Nomination withdrawn; I hope that the energy of this snowball is used to improve the entry. --Aarktica 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I'm willing to have my opinion changed. However, this is a town square in front of a cathedral in the capital city of Malta. As such, I suspect that, within the context of the people of Malta, this is a notable square. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. Note: I have added a Malta-geo-stub and link to the article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I've added the square's geographic coordinates. This is an important square in front of an outstanding church in central Valletta. Clearly notable. Needs a pic though. --Targeman 19:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My gut says keep. Admittedly, I'm not finding much on the English web, but the place is home to a fountain by the notable Maltese sculptor Mariano Gerada. I strongly suspect that more information exists in Maltese-language sources (or even English paper sources).Zagalejo 19:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find any guidelines for inclusion about articles on geography, guidelines for their notability or otherwise. Does anyone know of any? As of now, I feel we'd need an expert on Malta to verify notability. I'll abstain until I hear more about the deletion/inclusion process for geographic articles. Eliz81^(talk)^(contribs) 21:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would contacting members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Malta be appropriate? If so, I will gladly contact them. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be a good idea. As it stands, Malta's so small, and so under-represented, I'd think that it'd be pretty harmless to keep any reasonable article on the island. But then again, it may also be harmless to merge this article into Valletta, or the article on the Cathedral if an article exists on it, until such time as there is more subject matter.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they'll probably be pleased to help out. I've ask all sorts of wikiprojects for help or advice - people like sharing their expertise. Ask away! Totnesmartin 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malta project contacted! Can't wait for their input. And until then, why the heck isn't there a WP:GEO to cite for AfD yet!? Geography is a major portal, I can't believe there's no official Wikipedia policy on this. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm mostly focused on geography articles and from what I see even the tiniest and most obscure hamlets are considered notable, as are city districts, large squares, major thoroughfares, etc. Articles on geography are rarely AfDd. So I'd say that a large, several-hundred-years-old square in front of one of the most important churches of a capital city passes the notability test with flying colors. --Targeman 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no need to delete. We have stub templates for a reason, and notability is not an issue. --Son 21:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major plazas and squares in capital cities seem to have a general precedent for inclusion. I will agree that a picture would be very beneficial for inclusion, as obviously would any text expansion. matt91486 22:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and lets actually make this stub into an article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeeeep! — I sure ain't ready to see this kind of subjects disappear. Richness of our Encyclopedia would certainly not benefit from deleting such topics, but would rather come from expanding those. What would Valletta be without St John's Square? I've been there only once, during a few days — as many sailors — and St John's is engraved forever in my head. I can guess what this would mean from Maltese… This article should be expanded by competent writers (what I am not in this case). — Іван Коренюк ψ Ivan Korenyuk 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-County Titans[edit]

Not notable per WP:CORP. Pats1 18:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - seems like an attempt to use Wikipedia for the team's website, complete with front-office staff photographs. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - looks like an attempt to promote the team and get a good-looking entry onto Google - includes a full list of non-noteable people. Lra drama 19:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a webhost for non-notable amateur league teams. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consider restoration when sources can be found. Sr 13 07:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Air[edit]

Non notable air line. ~ Wikihermit 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - seems non-notable, private start-up charter with no external references. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a proper airline, as it has just one plane, and that's VIP-airtaxi. Greswik 18:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just one plane? Seems like a private set-up. Non-noteable as of yet. Lra drama 19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete Did a little bit of digging on this one. It seems that Pegasus Air is indeed only a single jet, and even then it's for the sole purpose of privately shuttling customers to and from the Ritz-Carlton hotel on the Caymen Islands. Every four star hotel in world has at least one of these, and this one is no more notable than they are. Trusilver 19:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ground it per Trusilver. --Targeman 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain We are trying to build a comprehensive world airline info source here. It is notable enough to feature in a major world aviation magazine (Flight International - world airline directory) from which it is referenced externally. Delete this and hundreds of similar airline articles will also have to go by extension, thus defeating the purpose. There are many airlines from all over the world listed with only one aircraft, including air-taxi services, medevac services etc. This is also a stub and should be given time to grow eg Trusilver should be adding information discovered, not seeking deletion. Perhaps all need to understand wider Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines context. Ardfern 22:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does that include non-scheduled, one-aircraft operations? This airline doesn't even have a website. There is no mention of it at Airliners.net, arguably the most exhaustive online aviation database/forum. Should every rich guy with a Cessna and a pilot be mentioned on Wikipedia? Just asking. --Targeman 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ardfern, as a pilot I appreciate the work you do in the writing of aviation articles for the project. But in the case of this, there is no grounds to keep the article, there are ZERO reliable external references aside from Flight International in which all you have to do is hint at having a business license issued by some banana republic to be listed. The entire reason for deleting this can be summed up in with WP:NOT#DIR. Trusilver 22:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding We are trying to build a comprehensive world airline info source here. No, we are not, because that would be a directory of everything related to airlines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable things, not of every airline with just one aircraft, and you will definitely run into opposition if you create similar articles. Suggesting that articles which violate our guidelines would fall by the wayside is saying that there would be no great loss (to the Wikipedia project as a whole, that is). Of those one-plane companies surely some are notable for some reason and should be kept, but generally I would be cautious of this line of argument. --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - further comment. I cannot see how a company proposing to operate a 30+ seat aircraft is not notable, particularly in the Cayman Islands which has a small aircraft register. My main point, however, is that this is a stub article (it is not meant to be the finished product)- it is a start off article to be added to and grown as information is found and others collaborate in the article. The stub concept is fundamental to Wikipedia - to delete articles like this, giving them no chance to grow and no chance for others to contribute, seems fundamentally unsound. The energy expended on this debate would be substan tially better used to create articles and to add to stub articles (which is what I am off to do). Ardfern 13:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find that an acceptable argument, but tell me... what are you going to do to expand the article? What source material are you going to use? There is none. I know this because I don't come to a position on an AfD unless I have pretty well sourced out the subject. And being that I am in the industry, I can do a pretty good job of sourcing out aviation articles and there simply is nothing to this. It fails to meet the standard of having "multiple non-trivial resources". In fact, the only third-party source it has is Flight International, and that is nothing more than a directory entry. Not to make light of the situation, but unless the plane crashes and kills someone really interesting, I don't see anything that is going to make this company notable in the near future. If it expands in the future (it won't, it's a taxi that has incorporated for tax reasons), then perhaps it can be revisited. Ardfern, read WP:ORG and look at this article objectively, you have been around way too long and have written too many good articles to not see that this fails notability. Trusilver 14:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like yourself I have scoured the web etc looking for other refs. I agree there are none today, but there could be some tomorrow or next week - this is the whole purpose of this being a stub, so that it can be expanded later (this is a core Wiki concept). As you acknowledge I have been about this area for a while and I can point to hundreds of airline articles which have even less info in them than this one (not written by me), but this is also because they are stubs and exist to be developed. My last word - other work to be done. Ardfern 10:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because it only has one aircraft is not grounds to remove, all operators have to start somewhere. A SAAB 340 is an airliner bit bigger then the normal Piper/Cessna's used as air taxis. MilborneOne 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is not because it only has one aircraft, it's because it's non-notable. If you can explain how this passes WP:ORG, I will happily change my position to keep. The only source is Flight International, which is nothing more than a directory entry, something that WP:ORG clearly says cannot be used as a source. That being said, there's nothing at all to source this article with. And just because something may one day become notable, doesn't mean it should be included because of that possibility. Trusilver 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A non-Flight link [15] - although still only another list. MilborneOne 12:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment quoting directly from WP:ORG, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The coverage of this organization couldn't possibly get much more trivial and incidental than two little directory entries. And just for the record, all kinds of planes are used as air taxis. If this company were flying a Citation or a Gulfstream, I'd still say slam dunk it because it STILL wouldn't be notable. Trusilver 15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep And Close. WP:POINTed nomination. Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fence magazine[edit]

I created this article, but I now think it is non-notable. Insufficient media coverage, little independent material Formulafiftypoet 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- Contains numerous sources, Formulafiftypoet is just trying to prove a point (see the users talk page) ChrisLamb 18:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. Never mind that the nominator is also the article's author, I think that this article passes WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I won't comment on the intentions of the nominator, but the subject does indeed pass notability requirements. Trusilver 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elliptical poetry[edit]

Non-notable term, little independent coverage. Note: I created this article. Formulafiftypoet 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Also contains WP:OR. Should be speedy delete, as author/nominator requests deletion. ((db-author)). --Evb-wiki 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, term seems to be accepted and understood in the appropriate circles (e.g. mention in Poetry Magazine). --Eyrian 18:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems meaningful within the field. Perhaps it could be merged somewhere, but I'd hate to see us lose useful, verifiable content. Friday (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Formulafiftypoet (talk · contribs) has been filing a whole mess of AfD's recently and has been accused of WP:POINT. Morgan Wick 18:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep is noteable. FormulaP, please don't despair and delete your work, which is admirable.Merkinsmum 19:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the WP:POINT nomination. NawlinWiki 20:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with User: Eyrian ("term seems to be accepted and understood in the appropriate circles)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onceonthisisland (talk • contribs)
Keep per others - needs to be formatted to give refs a separate section. Shalom ^Hello 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Reference section complete. Spazure 09:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, notable term per the field. User has been repeatedly accused of WP:POINT, so I doubt the validity of this nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and from what I can tell the nom knows better. --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate the author/nominator's honesty. I still don't know anything about elliptical poetry after reading this article. Mandsford 23:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. --Eyrian 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Deresiewicz[edit]

Fails WP:PROF; note I created this, but now agree with the speedy tag. Formulafiftypoet 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close. His publications in the New York Times and The Nation alone - multiple times, no less - dictate that he is, indeed notable. Speedy close becuase I'm seeing a pattern: based on his nominations of other articles here in AFD and his protests of another AFD (see his contributions), I am unable to assume good faith on this nominator, and do declare that he is attempting to prove a point. This time, since he can't get his way elsewise, he wants to delete his own creations. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per above. Like the tiger above, I can't assume good faith here due to the nom's actions. This person is indeed notable, and VERY well sourced -- that's probably the highest ratio of sources to article length that I've ever seen though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, even ignoring the votes from disciples, there is no consensus to delete. Article should be watched for NPOV and spam. NawlinWiki 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurumaa[edit]

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

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

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

Was prodded and then tagged for WP:BIO. (Both were removed by article creator.) Also appears to possibly be spam. -WarthogDemon 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems impressive in its amount of hits and references. Don't fancy single-purpose creator accounts much, though. Greswik 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Also appears to be WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been established. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeilN (talk • contribs).
Weak Keep seems that there are some references, little spammy. Took the liberty of removing the 'Buy my books and CD links at the bottom of the page'. Montco 23:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does she know they drew on her face when she passed out? ~ Infrangible 16:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean and how does that apply to the discussion? -WarthogDemon 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's discussion page mentions sources to establish the notability. Thesatyakaam 07:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:BIO and WP:SPAM. Also the preceeding Keep comment seems to have been left by the article's creator (and topic?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saganaki- (talk • contribs).

Comment Why can't the creator of the article participate in the discssion? Thesatyakaam 09:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why to keep... i have read WP:BIO and WP:SPAM, i didn't find anything in the article violating the wikipedia policy, content is very informative and impressive. Smileria 09:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC) — Smileria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep. I don't see anything spammy about the article. Gurumaa is a famous pesonality and there should be an entry for her in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.0.158 (talk) — 122.160.0.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Must be there Anandmurti Gurumaa Ji is a revolutionary , world famous personality. She is working for so many noble causes in India and Helping millions in making their life celebration. This post should remain . Every thing stated is truth and we should help the good work to be there in this encyclopedia.Gurvinderonline25 09:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC) — Gurvinderonline25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Rewrite completely There are plenty of reliable sources (newspapers, mentioning the subject of the article) However, the tone still sounds like an advertisement, hence violates WP:SPAM, needs a thorough rewrite.--Kylohk 10:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has to be thereThe aforementioned comments are probably because of less information on each sub-topic and references to works(books and CD's).Gurumaa ji is an enigmatic mystic and there are many people who would want to know more about her.Since not many people can attend her meditation camps,for someone wishing to delve deeper into her philosophy and teachings the books and cassettes can be of enormous value.Mentioning her works thus,should not be taken as advertising,this is how gurumaaji can reach millions of people.The article does not ask you to purchase anything.You can simply listen to gurumaaji on television.So one can view it as advertising or simply as an effort to aid seekers.The article is thus neither a spam nor an advertisement.tripba 18:33, 22 july 2007. — tripba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment spam also includes pure promotional material, and promoting seems to be what this article is doing. -WarthogDemon 16:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is gem It is not to be just manipulated in terms of mere "data".. It is not a mere ad. It's not a promotional gimmick, not at all. It is just as any other great mystic's page, describing what its surrounding people can.. ""this page's deserving list should not contain deletion"" I hope people will try to understand. I know at first there will be resistance but I'm destined to see good and it'll be there(.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harinderdivine (talk • contribs) — Harinderdivine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep conditional on the article being rewritten to reflect what the sources say rather than what the subject would like it to say. There does seem to be some evidence of notability, but at the moment it's unreferenced and much of it borders on spam so delete if not improved. Iain99 17:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on recent edits. This version is just about OK, but edits like this one are pure promotion. Note that to comply with NPOV her teachings need to be clearly labelled as teachings, not described as fact. Iain99 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query How does a discussion for deletion concluded generally? Is there any time bound on that? As this is a new article, it should be given time for improvement... Users please point out what exactly is objectionable/unsourced in the article then it would be easier for the content contributors to improve upon that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.121.158 (talk • contribs).

Answer to query - The Afd discussions usually last 5 days or so. Please see WP:AFD for the complete info on the process. --Evb-wiki 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article edited refernces has been given from gurumaa's official website and other sources to make the article authentic. Let us know if you still see anything objectionable about the article. 59.176.121.158 09:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article is kept or deleted when an admin determines the consensus of the people's opinions. However, it should be noted that the usage of multiple single purpose accounts in order to support an opinion is frowned upon here. Hence there may be a chance that many of those comments above will not be taken into account. Also be aware that if an article is written like an ad, it might still be deleted, so better tidy it up more.--Kylohk 11:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete A mystic cannot be described by words. So there is bound to be some trouble in putting thoughts into words here. The creator of this article should be given a chance to modify the article, rather than just delete it thinking it is spam. There is no spam in it. It is an attempt to share information about a master, about her knowledge and meditation. Thats what it is aimed at doing. So the article should be given a fair chance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remoteuser (talk • contribs). — Remoteuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment As a neutral third party (I originally prodded the article but now believe some of it can be kept given the references) I am attempting to build consensus in order to remove the non-NPOV sections. --NeilN 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let me know which section seems likely to fall in non-NPOV. I will give more refrences for that or rewrite it to make it NPOV. --Thesatyakaam 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first issue was notability, we provided sources for that... then came refrences issue, we gave refrences also... now its NPOV issue, I am trying to fix this also... It would be great if other users can help us in improving the article rather than deleting it. Thesatyakaam 10:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - it still reads a bit spammy, though I just went and edited the article to clean things up a bit to make it less POV. Most of the footnotes seem to be from non-neutral sources - e.g., her website. I still suspect that this article is only here because her supporters want it here, and not because the subject has enough demonstrated outside notability. Still, when it comes to non-Western articles, I like to err on the side of caution, so I'll vote a borderline keep on this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Williams[edit]

Non-notable local radio DJ. Hut 8.5 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I say local radio-DJs are non-notable. If not, it's Unverifiable, and he also seems to have edited his own entry, based on the edit history. Greswik 17:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Asserted notability relates only to his status as a regional DJ. The supplied links are to his website, his MySpace page, and a profile he apparently prepared for some kind of voice-actor clearinghouse. Cap'n Walker 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a local radio DJ does not make one notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, only a local DJ. _TheIslander 18:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ProPES Championships[edit]

Non-notable video game contest. Fails WP:ORG due to lack of seconary coverage; only source given is a blog. Tagged with notability concers since Nov 2006, no sources added. Had been PRODded, but tag removed by nominator.

I also nominate the following related article:

-- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Claims that the ProPES Championship is the premier video game tournament in Norfolk, England"?? Wow... :) Shalom ^Hello 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local competition - No notability outside the area (or within that area, apparently) Corpx 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1700 East 56th Street[edit]

A non-notable unnamed 38 story building with no independent media coverage; its claim to fame is being the tallest bulding in a part of Chicago without any very tall buildings. Formulafiftypoet 16:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced to establish notability. Note that "here's a source saying it exists" counts for very little. Friday (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor media coverage at construction (1995) but nothing since. Most interesting thing about it besides height is that the five different layouts are named for Chicago architects. Whee. --Dhartung | Talk 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You may have the wrong building. This one was built in 1968.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The building was converted into a condo ca. 1994. See [16]. Zagalejo 05:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I see now it was the condo conversion that was in the coverage. Thanks. --Dhartung | Talk 08:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, this one's actually pretty uncontestable. What is the notability criterion for buildings, anyway? And why is there an infobox on "Chicago Skyscrapers"? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The template exists because Chicago has a high concentration of important tall buildings and this is a navigational tool. There is also a dedicated list page for the Tallest buildings in Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, the article is well put together, with a photograph. Very weak media coverage though, and not a noteable building in the world, just in that state. However, Google does bring up a handy number of results, even Google Images, so the building has at least some notability. But Google shouldn't determine what goes or not on Wikipedia. To be honest, if the article was bigger, and there were lots of references, I'd be tempted to vote for a keep. Lra drama 17:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a luxury apartment building, claim to notability is it's the tallest in the neighbourhood. OK, it's big, but it should need something more than that to stay here. And to Lradrama: if you disregard Wikipedia, it looses two thirds of it's hit- and that seems almost odd. Seems like someone is promoting their town here. Greswik 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC). **Comment not its neighborhood. More than half of Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral, if they can expand even more in the article this can be a fine article, if this can be done without making it look like an argumentation for why it should stay, at least. Greswik 18:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing notable about this building except that it is the tallest in a very specific area. And that's not anything notable, really. This one doesn't even have a name, just an address. I don't think any other buildings have articles based on their address, except 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Useight 18:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Plenty of buildings at Tallest Buildings in Chicago, Template:Chicago skyscrapers and Template:Chicago Landmark skyscrapers are known by their address.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tear it down per nom. The building is not a historic landmark, its architect is not notable, it's a purely residential condo, and it has had no coverage worth mentioning. --Targeman 20:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Weak keep. Changed my mind. It's fugly, but I think it can be considered somewhat notable as residential condos are usually much smaller. This eyesore sure stands out of its surroundings. I'd make it a regular keep if someone could prove that this is one of the tallest 100% residential buildings in the USA, which I think may be the case. --Targeman 17:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, who's its architect/s if he/she/them're not notable? Someone you don't know or they just don't advertise? Just spell it. greg park avenue 23:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The architects were Loewenberg & Loewenberg. Speciate 17:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but it sounds more like a lawyer's firm to me. Maybe lawyers were the principal occupants of this building and have custom built it - and have named it something like the Loewenberg Concourse or the Loewenberg Tower? greg park avenue 17:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, they're no lawyers and even notable. Request for Loewenberg and Keep this article as per The 800 Apartments also designed by Loewenberg. I've already added the references and suggest if someone know how to redirect this article to/from the 1700 Building. greg park avenue 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Make it instead 43 Flatbrook Road - 2 story frame house, built originally in 1900, only three houses like that plus YMCA compound on this stretch of hard paved Flatbrook Rd, north of the US Route 206 in Sussex, NJ; the rest is gravel, but it's part of a major highway leading to the Stokes Forest in the Delaware Valley known by the motorcyclists as the Park Avenue Road. Lots of fishing and hunting over here. The main game is fly fish, black bear, deer, racoons and turkey.

greg park avenue 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what the standards are, but I was extrapolating from Tallest Buildings in Chicago with the tallest of each community area. Basically this building is the tallest in the Southern half of the city. That is pretty notable actually. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont believe that buildings 20 stories or bigger are automatically notable Corpx 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about that one, or this one - still to small? It doesn't look like twenty stories to me. greg park avenue 23:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The White House is notable because the President of the United States lives there and there are tons and tons of instances of coverage by independent media. How does the white house relate to this building? Corpx 00:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that President's house is more notable than this house, but this one may still be notable. It's old enough, tall enough, a landmark in an otherwise poor neighborhood (South Side), and not another dilapidated HUD projest for Section 8. But before I vote I'd like to know what purpose it had before being converted into the apartment building. greg park avenue 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is 40 years enough to be considered historic? Corpx 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. The style of sixties is unique. They don't make buildings like that any more. See here how the same architects design residential buidings these days. And all these buildings starting with "Aqua" are pretty new. Just say if they're notable or not? greg park avenue 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. Chicago is the Polish town or what? greg park avenue 23:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Buildings seem notable. Prove me wrong with a policy... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say buildings are notable? This building is lacking "significant coverage from independent sources" per WP:NOTE Corpx 23:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consider the map of Community areas of Chicago. 12th street is the border between area 32 and 33. 138th St is the is the farthest south. Between 13th and 138th this is the tallest building in Chicago. Off topic, considering my track record (see my user page) I think it might have been more appropriate to slap a ((notability)) tag on the article and have some discussion. This might give me a few days to explain why this unique article is notable in the context of the interest in tall buildings in the Chicago one of Americas two homes for supertall buildings. That aside I will get to the policy issues tomorrow, but I think this building should stay.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't the Sears Tower technically the tallest building on the South Side, since it is south of Madison? That said, I'm going to say weak keep, since the building did get some media coverage in 1994-1995. However, I don't think it's a good idea to make articles for the tallest building in every community area. I live in Norwood Park, and our tallest building is probably a hospital. Zagalejo 04:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply For those of you not familiar with the South Side of Chicago, see Template:Community areas of Chicago. The Sears Tower is considered part of the Loop, which is Chicago's central business district.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Are those groupings official? CityofChicago.org defines them somewhat differently. In any case, the Loop would still be considered "Central," but still...we have to be clear what definition of the "South Side" we're using. Zagalejo 19:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I see you've clarified that point in the article. Thanks. Zagalejo 19:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claim of notability for this building seems to be that it's the tallest building south of 12th Street in Chicago, which happens to be a part of Chicago that does not have any really tall buildings, and that does not seem particularly impressive. Note that 1700 E. 56th Street is not listed in List of tallest buildings in Chicago as one of the fifty tallest buildings in the city. If it were a hundred feet taller, it still wouldn't make the city's top 50 tallest buildings. Thus, the building's claim to notability does not even extend throughout its own city. Independent reliable sources that discuss this building are not significant enough to establish this building as notable for its height or for any other reason. --Metropolitan90 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For buildings, it does seem that height is a sufficient notability criterion judging by List of tallest buildings in Chicago, List of tallest buildings in the world, List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, List of tallest buildings and structures in the world by country, List of tallest buildings in New York City, List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris, List of tallest structures in the world & List of tallest structures in the world by type of use. It is up to us to determine if the tallest building in the southern half of a city with 10 of the tallest 100 buildings in the world is a value added contribution to the encyclopedia. I believe it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I think one question that should be asked is, is anyone ever going to care about this building? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That actually goes to the heart of "notability" - what has this building done that it deserves to be written about in an encyclopedia? Does it hold the record for containing the most unauthorized FBI wiretaps? Is it a fine example of some kind of architecture? Does Sharon Stone live here? Do the neighbourhod's residents complain about the shadow it casts over their backyards? Was it the first building in America to ban hamsters as pets? If we can't find any assertions of notability from third-party sources, why does the building need an article? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment many arguments at Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Arguments_against_deleting_articles_for_non-notability apply to this building. Its height superiority for the larger half of the city it is in is its claim. This is the best policy section for a defense of this page from what I know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unfortunately, the tallest building south of downtown is, well, kinda boring. But please keep in mind that it is the tallest building on the entire South Side of Chicago. So the argument that it "only" the tallest building in the side of the city that doesn't have tall buildings could be taken as a reason to keep the article. Purely residential buildings are notable, Emporis even has that as a listing. I am unable to find internet sources for the many things I have heard over the years (about its being the 2nd tallest apt-only building in the world at the time of its construction, tallest condo conversion etc), but perhaps someone else can. Speciate 17:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The chance that 1700 E. 56th Street was ever the second-tallest apartment-only building in the world seems very slim to me. Note that on the list of the 100 tallest all-residential buildings which you cited from Emporis, there are four buildings older than this one on the list, all of which are at least 200 feet taller than this one. In fact, three of those four buildings are in Chicago, so this building may never even have been the second-tallest apartment-only building in Chicago. Granted, I don't know whether those three or four buildings started out all-residential, but there's still a 200-foot gap to make up before this building even gets into competition. By the way, Emporis lists 1700 East 56th Street as the 182nd tallest building overall in Chicago. --Metropolitan90 16:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Is not the fact that the tallest building on the South Side of Chicago is the 182nd tallest building in Chicago interesting? It shows the disparity between the North and South Sides very well. Speciate 18:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The condo coversion story of this buidling in the Chicago Sun Times is significant secondary coverage from an independent source. --Oakshade 06:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it is coverage from an independent secondary source, but what establishes that story as significant? It's only 355 words long according to the Internet link. --Metropolitan90 16:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why does condo conversion make it notable? Notability doesn't simply mean "being written about in the press". Certainly condo conversion happens all the time, everywhere - it's like saying a person is notable because he had a Baptism and Confirmation. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I love this. If the building was notable then the condo conversion story about it in the Chicago Sun would be news, right? What about news about converting the White House into a luxury condominium complex in the Washington Post? And there's another story about hearing bells tolling but not knowing in which church. greg park avenue 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a significant building from a viewshed perspective, and the notability claim is taken from a reliable source (Emporis). Obviously a recognizable local landmark, and an exemplar of high-rise residential buildings. As a side note, I find the dismissiveness of many of the comments disturbing. Dhaluza 16:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if South Side was a county in Chicago like Brooklyn (Kings County) is in New York, than this house would be like Brooklyn Borough Hall - the only landmark in Brooklyn you can see from all over the place, just like once Twin Towers have been in all New York City. And if you got lost in Brooklyn, that's the only sight you see and can orient yourself to find your way home. Unfortunately, Cooks County's seat is somewhere else, so when you got lost on South Side, and ain't got any GPS, this building is all you've got. Isn't that enough? greg park avenue 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a couple of worthwhile external sources, complementing a well-written and informative article. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found two more refs in the news archives, and added relevant info to the article with cites. Dhaluza 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's clearly part of a template that lists numerous other similar articles, none of which are up for nomination. It seems to conform to ever policy I know of. Should be improved, rather than deleted. MrPrada 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for this particular building, I think it's a sufficiently prominent building ass an apartment complex, and I think there are now sources to show it--other similar articles should of course be checked to see that they are notable.DGG (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable

One of many hundreds of thousand of books published each year. No case made for notability (author not himself considered notable enough for a page.) Formulafiftypoet 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, WP:POINT, ban user. Article is a tiny stub, "What Is Your Dangerous Idea" included a lot of very good interviews on important modern thinkers including (if I recall) Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Containing text written by notable people does not make a book notable; you should make an argument as to why the book itself is notable. Please assume good faith. Formulafiftypoet 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble assuming good faith given your contribution history (or lack thereof). It seems you may be upset by Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Smith_(poet). --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, considering many placed an opinion of "delete" on that discussion, including myself. Slartibartfast1992 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep This is definitely not "one of many hundreds of thousands of books published each year" and in fact, the closest thing to the author in this type of book (editor) has an article: John Brockman (literary agent). I may have created this article when I had little knowledge of guidelines, but I now understand these and will acquire references for it notability in the near future. I also know, thanks to these, that this book is indeed notable. Slartibartfast1992 17:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, notable authors/contributors. --Eyrian 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is insufficient reason to keep an article on a book [17]. Formulafiftypoet 17:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am a bit confused by the arguments given above. The guideline applicable to this article is WP:BK. Could you specify more in detail which of its criteria you think this book fulfills? Why do these justify a "speedy keep" (i.e. terminating the AfD process prematurely)? --B. Wolterding 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Formulafiftypoet (talk · contribs) has been creating a boatload of AfD's recently after having an article of his, Jessica Smith (poet), listed on AfD, so they believe he's simply trying to prove a point. Whether or not he is, and whether or not this article should be deleted or speedy kept as a result, I don't know. Morgan Wick 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad has left me concerned for WP:POINT as well, but I can't exactly see what the dispute is and won't get into it. There is a point about there being a lack of notability here as the nom said, so I say weak delete unless more sources and material about the author himself can be made along with the book. -WarthogDemon 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment A Review from News & Observer. Also, edge.org (who were associated with the publishing of the book somehow) had "Danger – brilliant minds at work...A brilliant book: exhilarating, hilarious, and chilling. (The Evening Standard (London))" as one of their reviews.

Other review kickers they use are: "A selection of the most explosive ideas of our age." Sunday Herald "Provocative" The Independent "Challenging notions put forward by some of the world’s sharpest minds" Sunday Times "A titillating compilation" The Guardian "Reads like an intriguing dinner party conversation among great minds in science" Discover.

So, given reviews in the Independent, Evening Standard, Discover, the Guardian and Sunday Times, I have to assume that it meets criterion 1 in WP:BK. If you agree, and if you also note that this AfD's nom went on an AfD-nomination spree to prove a WP:POINT, then you'll hopefully conclude that this is a speedy keep. Unfortunately there's not that much content in this Wikipedia article right now, but considering there's also a large number of online interviews (with Pinker and Dawkins and so on) that are related to this book, this can become a good article if we let the creator Slartibartfast1992 take care of it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep attracted large amounts of media attention when it was first released. JulesH 23:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hypersonic Keep has been reviewed all over the place, author/contributors notable... I mean this has all that notability requires! I simply cannot phantom why people argue for deletion.--Cerejota 15:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite showing up in 203 libraries according to Worldcat[18] and thus falling under the exlusionary criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Other considerations, finding reliable third party reviews of the book has proven difficult. Unfortunately, the established notability of an author does not make for a notable book published by them; not automatically, that is. The book has several things going for it that do establish some slight notability, though none that are included in the strict crtieria at WP:BK. The publisher and author is notable, as are some of those interviewed. For this to be kept, current guidelines must first be changed. I happen to think the criteria is far too strict, but that is just me. I am considering proposing changes at WP:BK to the criteria on the project's talk page. So delete per guidelines, unless more than one reliable and noteworthy third party review and/or critical commentary on the work can be produced as a reference. Then i will happily change my vote to keep, per current guidelines. A case where I don't even agree with my own vote. (Mind meal 23:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The result was Speedy keep, obvious disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Avery Shooting Facility[edit]

A non-notable shooting range with zero independent media coverage. All independent sources cited in article serve to establish only that it exists, in Phoenix. Formulafiftypoet 16:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the Arizona Game & Fish Dept says it's the "largest public operated shooting facility in the US", according to a broken link (footnote 1). Phoenix Pride Commission has chosen it as one of the Phoenix Points of Pride. Also, the "facility was selected as the 1970 host of the ISSF World Shooting Championships". "Competitive events are held at the range". I don't know exactly what could be suitable notability criteria for a publicly-run facility, but I think these above points are pretty good. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being nominated as a local tourist attaction by the city that owns it does not count as independent coverage; not does once being the site of a competition in 1970. Formulafiftypoet 16:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - also, at this point, Formulafiftypoet, even I'm getting suspicious of your motives. Please read WP:POINT and explain why you think you're not going to be banned in the next 15 minutes. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Please actually read the article before nominating for deletion, otherwise it looks like you're disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Friday (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide direct, non-trivial independent media coverage of the facility? Pleae engage in discussion. Formulafiftypoet 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, location of first "mounted shooting" competition. Touted as the model for shooting ranges in Reno & Denver, considered to have a national reputation, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage people to read the article provided; also to note that, whatever mounted shooting is, it's not itself notable enough to be on the wiki. Formulafiftypoet 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close. First, notability is well touted in the article. Second, the International Archery Federation lists this as a permanent location for themselves - something that they don't do to just any location. Considering these details and some of the responses from the nom, I call bad faith on the part of the nom. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looked through the user's contributions. On this grounds alone, I'm highly suspicious of WP:POINT as well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like an advert to me. However, I have to concede that the largest public shooting facility in the US is probably notable, particularly given the history noted above. What's the deal with this Formulafifty person trying to bump off all these articles? Cap'n Walker 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Smith (poet). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. Formulafiftypoet, please change your vote. Sorry, couldn't resist. Cap'n Walker 17:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete both. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolved and Cracked Pepper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails to satisfy the notability guidelines. According to the article, it was posted on his blog, and I don't see any contract with a major label, or significant press attention, as required by the guideline. SalaSkan 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it's posted on a blog does that mean it is notable? Certainly not! R_O (Talk) 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Revolved got a speedy delete last time, and should get it now. Cracked Pepper deserves the same. NN-artist making a personal version of Beatles, and posting it on his blog? Hopeless case! Greswik 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be an exact recreation, because the previous page was deleted as "no content, therefore ((db-empty))".1 Still, this fails to satisfy the notability guideline. SalaSkan 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you have to delete it. It would be one thing if you were trying to delete the page because you actually thought there was a problem with it other than your personal opinion/preferences. it is obvious that the nominator has a heavy opinion against the subject matter. It is an abuse of the system to delete a page because of a personal bias.(Mrfreakyinastar 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I have no personal bias against this page or its subject. I do not know this DJ, but I do know that he fails to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Sorry. SalaSkan 19:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 23:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sr 13 23:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlyLady[edit]

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

This article was originally speedy-deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability, and declining to classify the article as CSD G11 spam. Still, delete, given notability and WP:V concerns (as the sources do not appear "independent".) Xoloz 16:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not notable. Why is this yahoo group and so on notable? Maybe their book will be notable. I can't see how this is notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the website is amateurish, the article is ramshackle, but flylady has received extensive coverage going back several years. --Dhartung | Talk 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, provided someone adds those references to the page. Some footnoting and stuff would be swell. General clean-up of the article to make it encyclopedic, you know what I mean. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs a lot of work, but this article clearly documents a number of points that argue this is a significant cultural phenomena. I know, self-help movements or fads are always suspicious, but the people behind the website have published 2 books with mainstream presses & run a large email list. It meets my critereon that someone coould be expected to consult this article. -- llywrch 20:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep even with a mainstream press, the books have to be noticed. Keep if there are reviews to include. (and edit, to omit the description of the system. Better to read the website.) DGG (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, I placed a Wikify tag on it. Bearian 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some references. 202.54.176.51 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fantastic job, 202! Around here we call this a WP:HEY and I think it's a noble calling. The formatting on the references is perfect. But I see you've been doing good work for a while. Consider getting a username. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I use the Flylady system and have found this article to be a useful summary. Sanders2378 06:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's actually completely irrelevant to whether this article should be kept or not. The issue is notability, not utility. Xtifr _tälk 01:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly due to the excellent work by the anonymous user at IP 202.54.176.51. WTG Anonymous! And don't let them pressure you into getting a useless username! (Especially not if you've got a static IP.) :) Xtifr _tälk 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FlyLady system is one of the more useful self-help techniques, based on a relatively simple idea, with no expectation of a cult following. It's common sense on a mass scale. Mandsford 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's actually completely irrelevant to whether this article should be kept or not. The issue is notability, not utility. Xtifr _tälk 01:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, shut up. Mandsford 02:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, be civil. I don't care if you want my help or not, but if you really want this article kept, you should listen to experienced Wikipedians, rather than merely being rude to people who are trying to support you. Xtifr _tälk 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be civil, huh? I don't take it upon myself to tell other people whether I think their argument is relevant or not. You're not trying to "help" anyone. You're showing off, and looking more foolish in the process. Lesson to you, son. NOBODY wants your advice. You're not experienced, you're not civil, and you just think you're impressing everybody with your skills. Mandsford 11:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to eon. Sr 13 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eons[edit]

With great respect for the article's writer (who was kind enough to take this off "Requested Articles", I cannot fathom how a band with a "rumored record deal" that later "fell apart" can meet WP:MUSIC requirements. Delete. Xoloz 16:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It has two more references than the typical band article, but that's not enough to allay the concerns about lack of notability. Shalom ^Hello 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, fails notability with a sail on its back. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delte and redirect to eon. 132.205.44.5 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 06:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PappaWheelie[edit]

This is an unsourced biography of a living person. It has been tagged for references since September 2006 and makes numerous exceptional claims without supporting evidence. I have been unable to locate any reliable independent sources to substantiate the article. Suggest deletion per WP:BLP and WP:V as unverifiable. --Muchness 16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Muchness 16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Rambutan (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting claims - but where's the evidence, man? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom... Greswik 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aardwolf (game)[edit]

Tagged with a request for any independent references since February. Good claim for notability ("one of the most popular MUDs in the world") unfortunately not backed up with references per WP:N. My own search for references only turns up with things like directory entries (OMGN, for example, with no staff-written review) or trivial mentions (about.com, for example). I hope that someone can change my opinion on this, but the article does not satisfy WP:V. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. Only point of notability is its listing on top mud sites. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems cool but not notable ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 17:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Weak delete - My googling turned up what seems to be a staff written review [19]. The nr 1 listing at top mud sites of course can't be used as reference for the "most popular in the world" statement, that has to go. But that listing and all the forum/blog posts recommending it I just saw in google also tell me it at least is more notable than many other MUDs. Also its age makes it somehow seem notable to me, it's been running over 10 years. I don't know anything about MUDs, so if someone tells me that there's 100ds or 1000ds of MUDs running that long, my keep vote is really weak. --Allefant 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just looks like the promo text provided by the submitter :/ Marašmusïne_Talk 21:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, probably that's what they do on that site, just copy the promo texts. Then I trust you know a lot more about MUDs and which ones are notable and changed my vote. --Allefant 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the claims it makes are true then it's a pity, but with no references to back them up it has to go. Miremare 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've known about this game for probably close to nine years (in fact it was not only my first experience with telnet, but it also was the first mud I ever played). And while I am not sure how popular it is now, I can say that it was still very big back around 1999. from what I can recall, most of the information seems to be accurate, but with the 'original research' craze going around the wiki, it is possible that my verifying any information would be counted as original reasearch and only serve to drive another nail into this article's coffin. But even so, a game that has lasted over ten years (on telnet none the less) deserves SOME form of article. vanis314 04:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used to play it while it was still "Sleeping Aardvark", so I can personally confirm its longevity. But like you say, these things count for nothing, WP:Reliable sources and all that. Marašmusïne_Talk 08:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 06:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Cardenas[edit]

Nominating for several reasons: A) Completely unsourced article about a living person. Google is no help, there are many people of this name. B) Fails WP:MUSIC: Albums are apparently self-released. No secondary coverage cited, no tours reported in reliable media. C) Most probably promotional; written by an WP:SPA, who created this article and a number of links to it. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, WP:SPA making WP:VSCA that fails WP:N and WP:V. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - btw, if you Google "enrique cardenas" +tibet, you get nearly the same text at dozens of other sites. It saddens me to see Wikipedia turn into little more than yet another free advertising medium. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've heard of this guy, from NM. The article is an unredeemable mess and may need to be started from scratch. Bearian 01:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and barely per WP:MUSIC, if the individual does squeak enough in the notability It would need a complete rewrite or recreation of the article anyways.--JForget 15:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Carlossuarez46 06:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negative End[edit]

WP:VSCA article on non-notable band, fails WP:N. No sources, fails WP:V. It's very well-written, though - in the very first paragraph they direct you to their homepage and MySpace page. And in the last paragraph they let the reader know that, even though they've broken up, they'll be posting something on Wikipedia soon to let us know what their future holds. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I suspect a conflict of interest by Valleysboy1978 (talk · contribs), and anyway there is no credible assertion of notability. Shalom ^Hello 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BAND and WP:NOT#MYSPACE. -- MarcoTolo 20:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Guess[edit]

Nominated for deletion, band fails WP:N. They have only received local press in the Detroit area, and have one self-released album. Also, the article reads like VSCA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it looks like if they stick around there might be some potential in the future, but only when they sign with a notable label and get a couple of discs out that generate buzz beyond the Detroit metro area. Fails WP:MUSIC at present. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per failing WP:MUSIC - No notability established Corpx 22:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manatee Records[edit]

Tagged for notability since January this year. Non-notable record label, no sources, seems to be a one-band label of an indie group. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-publishing label for a band who's non-notable as well. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. -- MarcoTolo 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge. Mango juice^talk 16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centralia (album)[edit]

Album fails notability. Prod contested by Chubbles1212. I agree with him that record reviews of this album must exist, as it was released by Relapse; I also think that since the band is signed to Relapse, that's probably enough to establish the notability of the band. But, I've gathered in previous AfD discussions that album reviews are not sufficient to establish the notability of an album enough to fork the album out of a band article. Feel free to discuss. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. I don't mean to be impolite, but I don't think it makes much difference whether an album is kept as a separate article or is merged into the main band article. I've seen it done both ways. Shalom ^Hello 21:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I see no need for this information to be deleted; if you feel really strongly about it, merge it back into the main page and redirect, but album track listings are certainly encyclopedic. Chubbles 01:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Car Bombe (presumably the group) article.--JForget 15:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JForget. The Car Bomb (band) article could whatever extra information that may be out there. --Evb-wiki 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep, obvious WP:POINT nomination here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald R. Mitchell[edit]

Non-notable football player. Formulafiftypoet 15:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Passes WP:BIO's section on athletes. ChrisLamb 15:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per BIO, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Nothing notable, except for showing up and drawing a paycheck, has been asserted about this player's brief and uncelebrated career. Formulafiftypoet 15:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If he had sat the bench for his entire career I would agree with you but he played in 44 regular season games and 6 play-off games he did more than come and collect a paycheck, I stand by my Keep vote. ChrisLamb 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close. Seems to be a pointy nomination, as the nom's only other presence in AfD land has been in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Smith (poet) (immediately below this in today's log). Deor 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your only argument seems to be your inability to assume good faith. Formulafiftypoet 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that WP guidelines and ample precedent have established that any athlete who has played even one game at a professional level is notable. Nominating an obvious keeper because an article that one has created has been AfD'd is, however, not acceptable behavior. Deor 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my attempt to create articles on poets and critics, I have been told numerous times that citing "precedent" is invalid. See [20]. Formulafiftypoet 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so why do we have a page that list some AFD precedent? (See WP:AFDP) ChrisLamb 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to DGG, an administrator, on this one. Formulafiftypoet 16:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - played two full seasons and most of a third at his sports highest level in the world. Kicks WP:BIO through the uprights, not to mention super strong precedent on Wikipedia. -CosmicPenguin (Talk) 15:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, easily passes the criteria listed in WP:BIO. The timing and substance of this nomination does cast a pretty heavy shadow of WP:POINT and should likely be closed as soon as possible. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - American Football is the top level of his sport, and he has played a few seasons. However, as I've been led to believe, Wikipedia's general notability criteria (WP:N) usually supersedes specific notability criteria within genres. What I mean is, a US football player is notable only if he's been the subject of third-party non-trivial coverage. I've even had it explained to me recently (in AfD) that the prevailing opinion is that simple coverage is not sufficient - there must be third-party assertion of notability, such that we could assume that (say) 10 years from now this person will still be considered notable. And as well, note that WP:BIO is only a guideline, not policy - "a fair test", as it says. So, is there any proof that he's not just a football player (of which each team carries what, 70?), but that he's a notable one? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete comment - also, regarding Formulafiftypoet: this person has over 500 edits in Wikipedia, as of now-ish. Perhaps the AfD nomination of Jessica Smith (poet) has just driven this user to become more involved in the deletion side of work here, instead of just content editing. It may be that this article was nominated just to prove a point - but, at the same time, I think the point brought up is illustrative. If a poet isn't notable just for writing poetry, why should a football player be notable just for being on a roster? Instruction creep has been infecting Wikipedia a bit, I think, to the point where soon we're going to have dozens of different criteria for notability depending on genre - until, 5 years from now, the harried editors that remain will finally see a problem and start a tedious task of deleting 100,000 articles on unknown poets, indie bands, and athletes. Anyway - I'm not voting, I just wanted to inspire some friendly discussion on this. Yeah, I should actually vote on this. Prove he is a notable football player, and I'll change my mind. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has played in 44 regular season games and 6 play-off games that clearly meets WP:BIO's requirments for athletes ChrisLamb 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that that's in WP:BIO. However, WP:BIO even says that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Also, notability is not temporary, according to WP:N, which I've been told by others was a more important criterion than WP:BIO - so then the question is, will he be remembered as a notable player, 10 years from now? I'd be happy to change my vote if there was some assertion, somewhere, that he's a notable player, and not just a player. Is he, like, as good as Joe Namath? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Boeing 787 better then the Queen Elizabeth 2? Its very difficult to rate players at different positions in different eras, and besides we don't do that here. All we determine is if the player has met a certain level of notablity, and given that the player meets WP:N and WP:V, we've further set that bar at "playing in the highest level". You might disagree that the bar is too low, and thats a discussion for another place, but generally, where do you draw the line? Super bowl players? (which omits Barry Sanders). All-stars? Starters? What is your standard for notability, if simply making it to, and playing in, the league isn't enough? - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't know. I'd say WP:N requires permanent notability, not just being listed on a roster or in daily game stats (which I'd think would be considered "trivial mention"). Has anyone, say, written a full-page article on him for the local paper? That might prove at least transitory notability. Did he tackle someone hard enough to break the guy's leg and end his career? That'd prove notability, especially if it was a name player that was injured. At the same time, okay, I admit: now I'm arguing about Wikipedia policies, and not addressing the merits of this particular article. The closing admin will probably discount my vote, anyway; and I'd rather the speedy keeps win this debate anyway, given the WP:POINT situation. But I did want to present my own opinion, so I did. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close. Two parts to this. I am calling keep in this !vote because of a precedent I've observed: players in pro league sports become notable when they leave the bench for the playing field. Mr. Mitchell has. I'm calling speedy keep and close because of teh nominator's actions - very much WP:POINT, and because of the actions from the user (review their stuff in his contributions log), I can no longer assume good faith on this user's part. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

despite my own vote above, I also completely agree with you re: WP:POINT. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly meets WP:BIO standard for athletes: "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis", as demonstrated with sources provided in the article. notability has been demonstrated. Alansohn 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Sr 13 23:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Smith (poet)[edit]

Nonnotable young selfpublished poet. Only references are to blogs. NawlinWiki 14:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Heh, I just clicked the "afd" button and it said that there was already one up. 765 Google hits, no references. One peer review isn't enough for inclusion imo. SalaSkan 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. --Eyrian 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Keep, has been reviewed by a significant publication. --Eyrian 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have sourced. Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note that blogs are not reliable sources. My statement stands. --Eyrian 15:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source is to the press packet for the book, this is not a blog. Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 15:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not an independent source. Sources need to be independent of their subject to count for notability. --Eyrian 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're shifting the goalposts. You wanted a reliable source -- we use information from a publisher all the time. Now you want a notable source; I have provided numerous testimonies from notable members of the poetry community about Smith's work. Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 15:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Forgive me; I'm not trying to shift the goalposts, I just don't want to dump all the Wikipedia notability requirements in one AfD. Please read WP:NOTE, it tells the whole story. What is needed is a reliable, independent source. Blogs may be independent, but are rarely reliable. Cover matter is reliable (and can be used as a source for several things), but is not independent. What is needed is a review (or some other substantial coverage, I just suspect this is most likely) in a reliable publication, independent of the author/publisher of the work. --Eyrian 15:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK -- here is a review by Joelle McSweeney [21]. Is this sufficient? Formulafiftypoet 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Marginally. I am leery about the importance of Joelle McSweeney, or Fence Magazine, but it will suffice. --Eyrian 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete unless properly sourced to establish notability.~~ Friday (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have sourced. Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If her work has legitimately been reviewed by significant reviewers, this counts for something. No vote on this anymore- she may well be notable, I don't know. Friday (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Smith is a significant presence in the poetry scene. Four Square, her magazine, publishes many notable poets [22]; her book Organic Furniture Cellar has received great reviews from important poets including Ron Silliman, Lisa Jarnot, Charles Bernstein, Juliana Spahr, ... the list goes on and on [23]. I would like to assume good faith on the part of NawlinWiki, but she has already speedy deleted the first version of the article entirely out of process (claiming, incidentally, that I am Jessica Smith, which is not true). Formulafiftypoet 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google brings up a number of entries for Jessica Smith (poet), but whether they are this particular person or not, I don't know. But WP:BIO states that creative professionals must be regarded as an important figure in their trade, created a new theory/concept/technique or written a well-known work, non of which can be attached to this person (yet). There is also POV in the article, but this isn't an issue really. I still think it should go for now though, because of the reasons I've given. Lra drama 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not sufficient reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability here. Fails WP:BIO as stated above. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many reliable sources would be sufficient for you to reverse your vote? Formulafiftypoet 15:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the amount of sources that make it suitable for deletion. See my point above as to why I think it should go. Look at the Jarno Trulli article. He is a famous F1 driver, but the article is in poor state with just one reference (which I added). That stays because he is a noteable person. Lra drama 15:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have only provided vague opinions; you have not responded to the actual article, which cites a number of important poets on Smith's notability. Your response is "I googled her but didn't even check to see if the results actually referred to her, then I decided that she is not sufficiently important." Formulafiftypoet 15:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the number but the quality. A single good source is infinitely more useful than a dozen poor ones. Blogs and the like are generally unacceptable because they lack any kind of independent, editorial oversight. That you can quote a couple of other poets' blogs does not demonstrate notability. However, if you were to find a review of her work from a professional, reliable source - or even better, coverage in mainstream media - that would do a lot more to establish that Ms. Smith really is notable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the review from Fence Magazine mentioned above qualifies. --Eyrian 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the disclaimer on the site that specifically states that the content does not reflect the views of the editors of the magazine. It is not an endorsed or reviewed critique. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that fairly standard fare for critical writing? --Eyrian 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, although I am unaware of any official standard on which to go by. In any case, the fact that the information comes from a source that is "brought to you" by Fence magazine and is not found either on the magazine's website or printed in the magazine itself (as far as I can tell) does not instill a lot of confidence in me as to whether this is qualifies as a reliable source. Just my take on it, of course. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not believe that the praise is independent of the work. It sounds like it came from the back cover of the book. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided independent reviews of Smith. See, e.g., [24]. Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Arkyan. Slartibartfast1992 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided independent reviews of Smith. See, e.g., [25]. Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you, I will not change my vote to Keep because I hardly believe that a Keep is adequate. Slartibartfast1992 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - I see people reviewing her work, but I don't see precisely where they're saying she's notable - i.e., that she's a young poet who is notable for her contribution to American poetry, or who is notable because critics agree she will be important. Also, have you found any scholarly study of her in print media? - a "notable poet", to me, doesn't just write self-published poetry - she not only gets published by respectable press, she also gets written about by scholars. Feel free to reply that I'm stretching "notability criteria" beyond what you see in WP:BIO - but I think what should be paid attention to is WP:N, which states: Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The quotes provided in the article -- for example, Ron Silliman's -- make explicit claims about her notabiliity (Silliman claims, for example, that it "may be the most important book of the year".) As for "scholars" writing about Smith, well Joelle McSweeney, the author of a review of Smith, is a professor at the University of Notre Dame [26]. Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One - this is not a vote, it is a discussion. Two, stop badgering everyone by telling them to change their "vote". Make your case, and if people agree with it they will agree with you, but it's presumptuous to instruct people to change what they have said. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks make it clear that you have little idea of how to judge the notability of a poet. You should not be participating in this discussion. Formulafiftypoet 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's little more than an ad-hominem attack that has little to do with what he said. Please read WP:CIVIL. Morgan Wick 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I will not be changing my vote, as your rude behaviour towards people who disagree with you, and your subsequent WP:POINT AfD nominations, have proven you're simply trying to be disruptive. I don't even think you'll be posting to this particular discussion, soon. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should vote according to the merits of the article, not based on whether or not you like the person who wrote it; doing otherwise is itself WP:POINT. Formulafiftypoet 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a vote, that was a comment. Your response is a non-sequitur. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom has it right, this pretty much falls over on WP:BIO. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This is the first time that I have ever invoked WP:IGNORE. The fact that she's self-published made me initially skeptical, but I have picked through each of the 90 unique google hits for this individual and I'm inclined to agree that she is notable. I don't feel that she fulfills WP:BIO as Dennis had noted above, however considering the medium, I would be willing to give her a certain amount of leniency there. Poetry is not something that gets a great deal of popular media attention, and therefore it's going to take a great deal more for a poet to be declared notable than it would someone new to the film industry. I relented and gave a keep !vote in that case, and I do in this one too. I don't see any harm in leaving this article where it is. Trusilver 19:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous delete arguments. She just doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Wildthing61476 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hard one. On one hand, there are a lot of signifcant poets who wouldn't make it past Wikipedia's standards for inclusion -- either those codified, or the informal, unpublished biasses that emerge from time to time. Poetry is an advocation, it brings one less respect than being an editor to Wikipedia, & almost every poet -- good or bad -- self-publishes. Those who get published by established houses either have done so thru extraordinary effort or sucking up to the right people. Lastly, from the first external link to the biography, I think there might be some grounds to argue that Jessica Smith is one of the better poets at this time.

However, there are some items here that not only balance these positives but tip the scale against. First, the article defines Smith as "a significant young visual poet", with the last 2 words as a red link; remove the two adjectives, & we are left with the statement that she is a "visual poet" -- a school of aesthetics apparently similar to language poets or Imagists -- but of which she is the sole member. And I can't help avoiding the sense that all of this is expressed in terms of possibilities. Her CV consists only of undergraduate training & some graduate training. I know many artists with MFAs or MAs who would fail inclusion, & Smith isn't even as far along her career path as they. The external link I mentioned above discusses her abilities in terms of potential. Just how many 20-something poets were able to change the world? Yes, there was Arthur Rimbaud & Keats but they were ignored during their lifetimes, & their critical value assessed after their deaths. Shakespeare didn't write his first important play (Taming of the Shrew) until his thirties, & his best work came much later. In short, while this poet may one day be significant & maybe we'll all be kicking our selves five years down the road for deleting this article, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A person's significance is based on what they have done so far, not what they might do. -- llywrch 21:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I dont see any "significant coverage" from independent sources here. The reviews are from iffy sources too Corpx 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment to facilitate discussion, I edited the article to make the sources more visible. Whether what one poet says of another in his blog would seem to depend on the notability and authority of the guy writing the blog. DGG (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have achieved some degree of notability, as indicated by the independent coverage linked from the article. JulesH 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are independent sources. I fail to see why poets have to be world famous like Rimbaud or dead to be included. Nick mallory 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not talking that all poets had to be "world famous" -- only those under the age of 25. -- llywrch 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that, sorry. Why should poets under 25 be excluded? A lot of poets, like Dylan Thomas, do their best work when aged under 25. Where does this arbitary cut off point come from? Does it apply to anyone else, any other writers or just poets? Nick mallory 09:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Thomas lived past his 25th birthday. His ability as a poet is graded on the work that he created over many more years. -- llywrch 06:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am Jessica Smith; I did not write this article, but I am happy that it exists. The article needs to be expanded; there are plenty of reviews of the book. NawlinWiki perhaps doesn't know the terrain of contemporary American poetry, or he would know, for instance, that Ron Silliman's blog is a major source for reviews of avant-garde works. Similarly, some of you might brush up on your knowledge of visual poetry, which has a long history (you may have heard of the calligram). I am not under 25, but it is true that many major poets have been under 30 when they produce their most important works. There is a long history of self-publishing (or publishing through a "patron," which is basically the same thing) so I don't think that the book's origins should discount it. Although I am not "world-famous" by any stretch of the imagination, my poetry and poetics have been published in Norway, Britain, Canada, Sweden, and Turkey, and will soon be published in Switzerland. The foreword to Organic Furniture Cellar was published in the peer-reviewed journal Literature Compass. In the foreword I establish a new poetics of plasticity. (You can buy the book at Amazon if you want to know more about it.) Perhaps the most instructive reason to keep the article is that hundreds of people a day search for "Jessica Smith poet," arriving at my rather popular blog and website, sometimes arriving at them from Wikipedia. Evidently, people want to know who I am, and want an objective critical source like Wikipedia to provide that information. Poetry cellar 22:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC) — Poetry cellar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Her work has been reviewed and published by reliable independent sources recognized by the poetry community. notellbooks Notellbooks 00:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it is increasingly looking like reliable sources exist and that other poets deem her notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, defintely keep. Her work is recognized in the experimental poetry community as well as in her many ambitious efforts as a publisher.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusieli (talk • contribs) — Dusieli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep Work is notable, regardless of publication route. I see no problem with the independent sources cited, and Wikipedia/ns need to understand that a mere 0.01 per cent of poets are going to get any mainstream coverage. Comment I find it funny that someone presumed she was under 25 and used that presumption negatively when Jimmy Wales himself states: To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters.' Kevin Doran 21:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Self published work is not reliable as a means to establish notability unless thhe publisher also has released work of others deemed noteworthy. None of the references are particularly good, although I admit she turns up several search results on Google. The problem here stems not from her likely notability, but from the inability to produce solid sources to make that notability clear. I do sympathize with the creator of the article, but as of now Jessica Smith seems to be somewhat of an underground sensation. Usually the best of poets suffer similar fates. (Mind meal 22:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Shalom ^Hello 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Robertson (diver)[edit]

Diving's not a sport I'm qualified to comment on, but this bare stub of an article about an Australian diver appears to be autobiographical, having been started and abandoned by User:Robbo33, his only contribution - so COI. A brief Google search reveals a diver of this name was named diver of the year 2007 in Australia, so perhaps there is notabilty enough for a decent article here, but this is not it. Emeraude 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Robbo 33 is his brother. Emeraude 14:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nomination is a request for cleanup and references, not a request for deletion. I have edited the article, so it is now a viable stub. Shalom ^Hello 16:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well actually, in my ignorance of the subject, I was questioning notabilty. Well done, though. Looks like it ought to be viable. Nomination withdrawn' in the hope that it can be expanded. Emeraude 16:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of Military And Mathematics[edit]

I've nominated this band article for deletion, as it seems to fail Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:N). The band has only ever self-released anything, there are no external sources asserting the band's notability; also, the article itself reads like a band bio. I tagged this article as db-spam last night, but the spam-tag was removed by admin User:Shell_Kinney. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well wide of the notability mark. Only hits are their MySpace page, Christian metal fan forums, and YouTube. Blueboy 96 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It certainly is wide of the mark. Unless there is a significant achievement that was somehow omitted by the author, not one of the criteria at WP:BAND can be met. The nearest that it gets to a claim of notability is the acknowledgment from indievisionmusic.com Adrian M. H. 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The band seems to be on the "up-and-coming" spectrum of music, but the sources provided are fairly weak- two geocities sites and two reviews with questionable editorial oversight. No prejudice against recreation if better sourcing appears in the future.-Wafulz 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frosthold[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I have nominated this band's page for deletion because I suspect they fail WP:N. This page was originally prodded, but the prod was contested by regular editor Chubbles1212. However, I was later surprised when trying to create this AfD, as it turns out the page was AfDed before, and the outcome of that vote was delete - does that make this a speedy deletion per CSD:G4? Anyway, sorry to the editor who'll have to fix this nomination up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether the content is substantially identical and that the previous reason for deletion has not been addressed. If both of these criteria apply, then it can be speedied. Either way, it still fails to meet the strict interpretation of WP:BAND, so it should be deleted. Adrian M. H. 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the previous article pertaining to the first AfD - it seems the page history was deleted along with the page. I'd say the article's assertion of their notability is substantially identical to what it was before, though. Anyway, I'm not demanding a speedy, I guess; a good long AfD discussion provides me with more social interaction. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only an admin can check the history of deleted articles. The logs link on this page can confirm that it was deleted (and subsequently re-deleted as a repost back in May). Morgan Wick 16:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest salting if this AFD results in another deletion. Adrian M. H. 16:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted before because it was an advert. The page is completely different this time, cites sources and is written from an independent viewpoint. Your prod was removed because Chubbles1212 stated that the article has "enough press references to show at least a little notability", so instead you just nominate the article for deletion? That says to me you just don't like the band... In fact, even your talk page says "I'm here to read about stuff like the origins of the Pamirs, or about Wifi jacking - not about your stupid band and stuff." I think perhaps just because they're a band, you want it gone from Wikipedia. I think that's a little unfair to those who have actually found articles like this a useful reference such as myself. --LowerTheFlags 01:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as there is no evidence in this article, either, that they pass WP:MUSIC. If they become notable at a later date they may petition deletion review for an opportunity at reinstatement. But reliable sources are needed. --Dhartung | Talk 17:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any notability being built through reliable sources at this point, and I'm getting pretty good at turning stuff like that up for British bands. WP:MUSIC is not satisfied. I suppose salting would help in keeping us from this exercise again, but don't think it's all that necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - are those reviews reliable or not? I don't know. Bearian 01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city;". Despite this is what the creator stated to back up the existence of this article, don't you think the fact that some-one creating it a second time is reason enough to keep it? People obviously want this page to exist. I think the independent sources put on the page warrant to keep this article under notibility, don't you? I believe the original page was just an advertisement, but this article is written in a third person perspective etc., and I believe should be kept. --LowerTheFlags 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact - I believe it satisfies Criteria #1 in WP:MUSIC. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." --LowerTheFlags 01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - after a little more research, I can find several reasons why this article meets the WP:MUSIC criteria:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. (have been in Zero Tolerance magazine, and several other zines [27] [28] [29] [30] which I believe are reliable and well known in their genre)
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable (Ben Hayes of Enochian Theory used to be in this band)
Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city (Playing with Cradle of Filth on 30th April 2007 is a pretty major gig, and says to me that they were the top choice for local support, despite being unsigned)

--LowerTheFlags 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - every band receives press, unless they are totally out of it - it's hard to even get a gig unless you can prove to the promoter that you're good at getting some local press. I've received press, yet I'm not notable - it's fairly easy to do as long as the band is rather professional in their approach. Also, I'd argue from experience that specialist-mag CD reviews are similarly easy to get, and I'd also suggest that opening for a major act's local gig doesn't exactly entail notability - they could be willing to "play for exposure (i.e. free)", or be friends with the promoters, or the band may have a local draw of 100 people which the promoters wanted to add to their pull for the night. Also, as far as band members go, I'd suggest there has to be some independent notability for this band that requires us to have more than a passing reference to them in the Enochian Theory article (i.e., notability is not inherited). To me, notability should suggest that someone outside this band's country, with only a passing experience with their genre, can be easily persuaded by sourced statements within our article that this group is notable, because the outside sources assert reasons why the group is notable. Just because you're mentioned in an article doesn't make you notable - press mention is really only an indicator of possible notability. Anyway, I've always found the notability criteria for Music to be very loose, compared to Wikipedia's general notability criteria, and that's what's informing my opinion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You make valid points there, but as you saw when creating this AfD, this is not the first time this page has existed. Surely the fact that this is not the first time this page has been made indicates that people want to share the information. The article itself is well structured and nicely laid out, but of course that is not reason alone to keep the article. I don't want to start WikiLawyering, but quoted from WP:N, A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right., tells me that WP:MUSIC would in a sense "over-ride" WP:N. That's the way I interpreted it anyway... so I didn't really look at WP:N. Regardless, I still maintain that Frosthold should be kept as I (believe me or not) found this article useful... and I'm pretty sure that's what an Encyclopaedia is for... --LowerTheFlags 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found the notability criteria for Music to be very loose, compared to Wikipedia's general notability criteria, and that's what's informing my opinion. Well too bad, that's what we're using in this discussion. Morgan Wick 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LowerTheFlags: You have made some sound, persuasive arguments with regard to the MUSIC criteria – almost to the point of convincing me to opt for at least a weak keep !vote – but then you undermine your position to some extent by falling back on the "I like it" argument, which is not valid. Wikipedia does not have to be a complete compendium of things that some people may find interesting; it instead strives to be a tertiary source of noteworthy, previously published knowledge. Stick to the notability angle and you will likely be more persuasive (and that, unlike votes, is what counts). Adrian M. H. 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This article was AfD'ed before and the result was Delete. However, in the year since then, this article was edited and it seems that it has met the critera for survival. That said, the other AfD still is enforcable. Steve J 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Napier[edit]

Bill Napier does not appear to meet the standards of WP:PROF. He is not nearly as accomplished an academic as his more notable contemporaries in terms of publications, awards, or notoriety for contributions. Nondistinguished 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his academic work may be less well known, but some of his novels are quite well known. Splintered Icon, particularly, seems to have been quite popular. JulesH 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His popular fiction appears sufficiently notable for inclusion, eg Splintered Icon was reviewed in several sources. Espresso Addict 15:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Five published novels from notable publishers and academic works seem to be fairly solid notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If he's notable, it would be for the fiction or the popular books. What is needed to support the article are reviews. Five important science fiction books is notable. Five that nobody bothered to review would not be. DGG (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The popular science books are very unlikely to be notable--apparently self-published, judging by the name of the publisher given.

The article omitted the name of the publisher of the novels: Splintered Icon was published by St. Martins, an well-known general publisher; others by "Headline Feature" -- apparently a recognized UK fiction publisher. DGG (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headline is Hodder Headline [31], one of the bigger fiction publishers in the UK. They seem to publish three of his novels: [32] Espresso Addict 15:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn by nomintor with no objections Corpx 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go Vegan[edit]

~~I don't think it is that big or important SLSB talk 14:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Delete - as nominator SLSB talk 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Withdraw[reply]
Keep. This is a show on a national network, Air America Radio. I just started it yesterday, and haven't had the chance to expand on it. I started it initially to get rid of the red links from associated pages. Since it is a show on a highly notable network, I say give this one a chance to expand. Other shows on the network have their own articles. I don't think we should kill it so soon. Let's flesh it out.--Fightingirish 14:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, selective distribution by a notable publisher. --Eyrian 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of many radio-show stubs (Clout (radio show) being a random, selected example). Producer is noteable, as pointed out above. Keep. Lra drama 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marashino[edit]

I'm nominating this article for deletion, as I'm not sure it satisfies WP:N. It seems to be a local-area band with no notability outside Wisconsin; they have played a local festival, got a bit of local press, and were involved in Emergenza (a pay-for-play "battle of the bands" competition). The article also reads like a bio (i.e., spam). A prod was placed on the article, and was contested by a regular editor, Chubbles1212. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep. This band may actually scrape through by criterion #9 at WP:BAND, although independent source material is required. See comments below. Adrian M. H. 14:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian - Emergenza is a pay-to-play contest. I know, they've solicited me, and I've had to send them angry letters to make them stop sending me spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then this band does not make the cut, based on the available information. It meets no other criteria. Delete Adrian M. H. 15:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no evidence presented of passing WP:BAND. I would accept an Emergenza win as provisional notability, but not a Milwaukee win feeding into a Detroit regional semi-final that they lost. --Dhartung | Talk 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, does not appear to pass WP:BAND. -- MarcoTolo 20:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete under criterion G3. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Skye[edit]

No references. The car on the photo is actually a Plymouth Acclaim. High on a tree 13:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Absolutely no ghits for this car, so it's safe to say this is a hoax. --SunStar Net ^talk 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search shows no hits for this subject. Thus it is impossible to verify the contents of this article. Could be a hoax as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant hoaxes like this qualify as "silly vandalism" and can be run over per WP:CSD#G3. The author, Silverbackslope (talk · contribs), has created another hoax about a car--I've warned him with ((uw-hoax)). Blueboy 96 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a hoax -- I owned this car. Just need to find sources. TonyWonderBread 13:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete under criterion G3. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Calrema[edit]

No references. The car on the photo is actually a Ford Sierra. High on a tree 13:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. There are no ghits for this car. --SunStar Net ^talk 13:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant hoaxes like this qualify as "silly vandalism" and can be run over per WP:CSD#G3. The author, Silverbackslope (talk · contribs), has created another hoax about a car--I've warned him with ((uw-hoax)). Blueboy 96 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Bettcher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Talia Bettcher

This biography was written by the person's partner. It is, and reads like, a slightly altered copy of the person's CV. This philosopher may be notable enough to have a page - I don't know - but this is not the page. Anarchia 12:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 14:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's so much irrelevant material in the article it's hard to navigate, but I don't believe Bettcher yet meets WP: PROF: only an associate professor, bare handful of peer-reviewed papers, books are both listed as 'forthcoming', no awards/honours. The fact that the page was written by the subject's partner doesn't help. Espresso Addict 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF. Even if the article did pass, it would need drastic reduction — many sections e.g. teaching and service can just be deleted, and others are way too long and detailed. —David Eppstein 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Looks like the person's resume is on the page - Delete per lack of notability Corpx 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom - also, WP:COI. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no obvious claim to academic notability. --Dhartung | Talk 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the talk page for User_talk:Susanforrest, as it appears she created the page in January and it was speedy deleted for a direct copyvio of a website, and it appears it looks like the exact same thing. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons laid out by the first two voters. JamesAM 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now The 2 books are to be published by a publisher previously unknown to me, but apparently a recognized specialist publisher. But as neither have been published yet, there are no reviews. There's one article in a good journal, 5 book chapters, and the rest are merely symposium presentations. But there is a remarkable amount of other activity, and some recognition for it--I can't judge that part. DGG (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as it asserts notability and notes she has gotten some awards, certainly more than this professor. But this Autohagiography-cum-C.V. needs so much revision it will be painful. Bearian 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, this assistance professor does not look to meet WP:BIO and the article reads much like a resume. Yamaguchi先生 04:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masakazu Takahashi[edit]

No references at all, no indications of the notability of this person or his company. High on a tree 12:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I hope I'm editing this in the right place). I've added a link to Takahashi's website. I have trained with him for over 20 years. There are very few online references in this space - I'm not sure what more I can add. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregmarch (talk • contribs) 07:08, 20 July 2007
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Gregmarch, please read WP:Notability for information on the guidelines. —Travis ^talk 14:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not sufficiently notable. "There are very few online references..." – How about offline sources? Any available? They need to be independent of the subject and provide a non-trivial treatment. Adrian M. H. 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment Last attempt... Karate, and traditional martial arts in general, have been very secretive. As such, they don't tend publish their accomplishments (Funakoshi's Karate-Do Kyohan - The Master Text and Karate-Do Kyohan - My Way od Life were a big deal when he wrote it). I was hoping to begin to at least point out some of the core traditional instructors, starting with one that is close to me. As such, if it is still deemed to be a "Delete", I'm thinking that I could create a section under the Kenkojuku entry for "Kenkojuku Instructors". Comments? -Thanks Greg March 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have verifiable sources to show that Masakazu Takahashi is notable outside Amityville, Mt. Kisco, or Haddon Township, I still find no basis for notability. Also, although the article appears to be rather neutral in tone, it is not a good idea to write about people you have a close relationship to. —Travis ^talk 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It matters little if they decline to write about their accomplishments, Greg, since it is required that other people have seen fit to write about them. If that has not happened, then WP:N (and WP:V) cannot be met. Adrian M. H. 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you for the tips. I think I will just create a section under Kenkojuku that starts a list of instructors with a brief bio. Hopefully, if I understand the standards, this should be OK. Greg March 16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can verify your additions, per WP:V. Primary sources cannot be used on their own, partly for reasons of reliability and partly because WP would fail in its intention to be a tertiary source. 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

comment - I think I found a page via Google that says this sensei is 8th Dan? [33] It also says he was the "Association's chief U.S. instructor". I don't know how to apply notability guidelines to this, and know nothing about martial arts, but if he really is 8th Dan and a "chief instructor", does that make him notable at least within American Karate? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment also, at the same time, I'd agree a section within Kenkojuku may be the better way to treat the subject - especially if you think his notability is mostly in the context of Kenkojuku. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be enough to verify a brief section (in which notability is much less important than verifiability) but a dedicated article would need "multiple" sources to establish notability. Adrian M. H. 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I've added it to Kenkojuku. Thanks again. Greg March 19:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 08:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Running one or two dojos does not make someone notable. If he is 8th Dan Shotokan and has a wider influence a case could be made but it is not our job to do the research. As the article stands, especially since his teacher does not even have an article (how can we assess the importance) I think the case for deletion is strong.Peter Rehse 08:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, notability cannot be established in this instance. If permitted, than every karate instructor out there deserves an article. Has he had any articles done on him or written any in notable martial arts publications? Has he won or fought in any major competitions that are recognized as noteworthy? These sorts of things will help assert notability, otherwise it reads more like an advertisement. (Mind meal 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The result was delete both. Sr 13 07:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North-East Texas Wrestling[edit]

PROD removed incorrectly (by which I mean they left half the warning behind), clearly a backyard fed despite the "This is not a backyard wretling federation this is an up a comming independent federation. We are wrestlig ECW and WWE top superstars" message placed at the top of the page. Two myspace refs does not bode well, I am also nominating their "wretling" champion. Darrenhusted 12:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.

And their champion:

— Dlc478 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete both per nom and WP:N. Only Ghits point back at WP. —Travis ^talk 14:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, nonnotable "up a comming" group, probably consisting of one person, Mr. Campbell. NawlinWiki 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both When apparently autobiographical non-notable organisations and individuals appear on Wikipedia, it lowers it to the level of MySpace. Adrian M. H. 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, backyarder. Pure Josh 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Davnel03 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - R_O (Talk) 16:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, as the original prod'er. Thanks for AfD'ing it for me. Both are non-notable. Nikki311 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nomination.--ProtoWolf 19:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Powerbomb-through-a-table delete both as backyard fed. Yeesh. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Stephen Day 22:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Clearly non notable. DrWarpMind 02:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no mention of any other wrestlers on the first page to be deleted, with the exception of the second. --SteelersFan UK06 03:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources to backup any notability claims. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, Wow. 5 ghits for their champion? No coverage of any kind. Although their Yahoo fan group does have 2 members. Incredibly nn.Horrorshowj 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles It is unsourced and also a non-notable regional and promotional (so minor division) wrestling league.--JForget 16:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 18:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roland AX-7[edit]

Fails the general notability guideline in Wikipedia:Notability: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." User Oakshade (quite properly) removed a speedy tag with the comment: "Not speedy candidate. Being a Roland keytar in itself is an assertation of notability". I suggest not: Notability is not inherited. I have no difficulty over the article on Keytars, and it may be that some individual models are worthy of a mention in that article. Springnuts 12:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs some work, but unless everything else on List of keytars is to be deleted, this should stay. —Travis^talk 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Morgan Wick 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless notability can be established. Just being a product from a notable company does not imply notability. I suspect there may be some reviews from reputable sources that could help elevate this to a notable level, but as it stands this is nothing more than a product description and is not appropriate as a Wikipedia article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keytar models are notable, as they were very popular with New Wave/Synthpop bands in the 80's and not a lot of models were produced. This one is produced by a very notable company and is particularly notable as it ~~s still in production and~~ uses rather updated technology, a rarity for keytars. And found at least one secondary source about the topic here --Oakshade 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per Oakshade. Especially as it can (apparently) be used as a midi controller as well as a standalone (which was all the old keytars were). Needs references, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~Merge - I lived in the 80's and keytars had me in awe when I watched Music TV shows with Pop Groups using these things for lip synced takes of their hits. Anybody remember A-ha? Merge is a good idea, maybe comment about its use as a funky looking thing that pop stars used in bands in the 80's that they played while standing up and they almost never were plugged in! PS - Where can I get one? :) Anthony Chidiac --Achidiac 12:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Achidiac, you bring up an interesting point. This article could actually be merged into a larger article on keytars, if all the other keytar articles also got merged. That would certainly provide for one large central article, where historical development and comparison could take place. It would also improve the main keytar article, which looks a bit forlorn right now. Unfortunately, I suspect that might be beyond the scope of this AfD, and I don't expect anyone is volunteering right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From these hits, it seems notable to me... Giggy _U^CP 07:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Carissa Project[edit]

Surely a film made with laudable intentions, but the article does not establish its notability. 3 Google hits. High on a tree 11:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. It needs some 3rd-party coverage, as the article has no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 12:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above. Springnuts 12:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable film. NawlinWiki 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found more info about a mining project in Wyoming and a condo in Singapore than independent coverage of this film. Delete unless the necessary verification appears in due course. Adrian M. H. 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN per above. Lots of law students, me and many of my classmates included, had heartbreaking tales. Bearian 01:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sultans of Sulu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This POV nightmare was kept in the previous AFD, seemingly under the assumption that it would improve. Well, it has not. I, for one, cannot sort out unreferenced POV material, and OR from fact in this list, and I think we would benefit from starting this over from scratch, if this list needs to exist at all. Note the further POV stuff I removed shortly before nominating it as well. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 12:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite strongly. The subject is surely worthy of an article, and this admittedly poor article is better than none, and would not be useless to someone who wishes to improve it. Lists of office-holders are quite common here. Now this is a rather obscure subject, and the chronicles of the Sultanate may not be widely distributed in English. There is apparently some controversy over the succession; this too is pretty common. Given this, a cleanup time of months, years, or centuries may not be achieved: but fortunately, there is no deadline. Prior AfD was in December of last year. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable subject. Thanks Taprobanus 13:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep per above. Clearly a notable subject. —Travis^talk 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this meet the speedy keep criteria? I know the rationale is weak and there is a clear consensus to keep, but it doesn't appear to be pointy. Morgan Wick 16:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point taken. —Travis ^talk 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it has not improved since the last AFD (that recommended a keep) does not mean we now delete. Pedro | Chat 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have tagged the article as needing expert help. If anyone can see s suitable project to put it into be bold. Pedro | Chat 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sultanate seems to be a notable government position and having a list of those who served in the position is encyclopedic. That the article is problematic and needs cleanup is not a reason for deletion - it could use better sourcing but what exists is at least adequate to warrant keeping. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a subject of obvious historical importance. Please use normal dispute resolution avenues to grapple with the POV editing issues. --Dhartung | Talk 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yumondo[edit]

No reliable independent sources establishing the notability of this new web site. No hits in the English Google News archive. According to this little article in German (the only independent media report found via German Google News) the site was first presented two weeks ago, is still in beta and will officially start in late summer. No hards facts like revenue, profits or number of users. High on a tree 10:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources"Corpx 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comment. Fails WP:V. Adrian M. H. 16:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 15:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik dux[edit]

Sources are missing. High on a tree 11:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax. Neither his name or the name of his most famous poems gets any g-hits (other than Wikipedia). Completely unverifiable. --Evb-wiki 12:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of Google hits and the fact that the creator's only other edits have been vandalism strongly suggest it's a hoax. Iain99 12:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense hoax —Travis ^talk 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete obvious hoax/attack page. Hut 8.5 14:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of states by date of self-determination[edit]

This page is a duplicate of List of countries by date of statehood and List of countries by date of independence. It was even created explicitly as a protest page under the name Alternative List of countries by date of independence. The article has no references and contains several items of disputed information. Inge 10:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not a duplicate of the other lists, since the information is different and the purpose of the list as well. It was not started as a protest page. Both other lists don't have any references, so i don't see why you don't want to delete these other lists as well. All information is disputed.--Daanschr 10:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been debated on 1.5 years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative List of countries by date of independence. There was no consensus back then on what to do. Deleting it was a minority view. I am in favour of merging instead of deleting. I dislike the overall quality of Wikipedia, so i don't understand what the fuss is all about.--Daanschr 11:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion ended with 7 votes to remove the page either by merger or deletion and 3 votes to keep the page under a different name. Inge 11:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line for me is that I believe the retention of three separate articles on in effect the same topic is a display of a break down in the wikipedia conflict resolution process. Even if statehood, independence and self-determination might have slightly different academic definitions. We are supposed to work togeather to create one article of supreme quality for the benefit of the readers. If we disagree on the way to get there we can't just split up. Now we have three articles displaying a slightly different wiev on the same topic. So let's get back to just one article again.Inge 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can supreme quality be reached if the low amount of experts on Wikipedia are being chased away (Wikipedia:Expert retention)?--Daanschr 13:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion essay and not really germane here. --Dhartung | Talk 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this appears to be a POV fork from the lists mentioned above. Lacks sourcing, as well. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "self-determination" is a subjective aspect. It's quite bizarre, for instance, to describe Turkey's "self-determination" as the beginning of the Ottoman Empire. I just love the warning about "tricky dates" -- that applies to half the list. --Dhartung | Talk 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see above. Inge 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the data to my user page, so i don't mind the deletion of the article. Though, i will miss the discussions about the data with users who frequented on the article.--Daanschr 19:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & above. This list is unbelievably subjective. No sources, pure original research. --Targeman 20:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was creative with the sources. I deliberately put in links of the head of states at the time a state came into being. Details about the date of self-determination can often be found on the biographies of the rulers, or by reading into the history of a state. I used data from Wikipedia itself, which can all be found in the subsequent articles. So, the claim of original research is unfounded.

Subjectivity is a problem in all articles, that is why i am in favour of an intellectual debate. I had started a project for it, but due to a lack of time and a low amount of participants, the project didn't came into fruition. Hereby i invite you all to participate in it, than this bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo can be forgotten. What do you mean exactly with "unbelievably subjective?" Do you think that you are helping Wikipedia further by expressing such an opinion on a page designed for deleting an article?--Daanschr 09:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think Daanschr has the right idea in moving the article to his UserPage, but I question the nomination. The statement "This page is a duplicate of List of countries by date of statehood and List of countries by date of independence" is clearly false. Second, neglecting to mention that this list was nominated for deletion before runs counter to the good faith presumption. However, that previous debate has not been preserved for review, so I don't know whether the nominator and author exchanged words in that one either.

Essentially, the three lists consist of three different views of when a nation came into existence. The Turkish nation was certainly around before 1923, the date given on the other two lists as the "independence" of Turkey. I'm not sure which of these lists has to be the official "date of creation of states" list of the NFL or of Wikipedia, or why this is a matter of choosing which two lists to delete. Mandsford 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for making the Turkish independence start before 1923 is that the republic of Turkey has been founded by the Ottoman Turkish army. I think the date 1923 is a mark of a regime change and can't be seen as a date of self-determination. This has to do with the use of the idea of Max Weber that the state is an institution with the monopoly of violence. This monopoly of violence is in the first instance represented by having an army, like the Turkish army. Turkey is the state with the longest period (from the start of the state), in which the own army was in control of at least a part of its own territory.--Daanschr 06:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By duplicate I mean that it is in effect the same article, but it is not an exact copy of course. We now have three articles on the same topic. All three articles aim to inform the reader on when a particular state came to be. We started out with one article and then people disagreed on the content of the article. They were not able to resolve the differences and started a new article. Now I thought I'd try fix that. The previous AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative List of countries by date of independence like Daanschr has pointed out and like I pointed out it shows a large majority for removing the article, but noone took any action then. So lets work togeather on one article in stead of all of us writing one article each conforming to our particular view.Inge 12:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to participate in an attempt to merge all three articles to one. Though, i have to note that there is a difference between the date of independence and the start of nationhood. It would be easy to come with trunkloads of arguments to make a merger possible though. There is a chance that the two other lists are not active anymore, that nobody guards the contents.--Daanschr 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Inge, how about it? Are you going to organize something, or will we do nothing?--Daanschr 07:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know these things can take a frustrating amount of time. :) Now we'll have to wait for an administrator to close this Afd. Inge 00:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys really know how to keep people enthusiastic for this project.--Daanschr 10:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 18:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinos of Mexican descent[edit]

Absolutely no sources for this information other than personal thought. Very vague. I am a Filipino myself and this is farfetched. Anyone who knows the history of The Philippines knows this is innacurate and misleading. Jandela 10:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scholarly sources discuss the presence of Mexicans in the Philippines. See for example Holm, John A. (1989). Pidgins and Creoles. Cambridge University Press. pp. 319–320. ISBN 0521359406. According to that, a military garrison manned largely by Mexicans was established by the Spanish at Zamboanga City. The soldiers married local women; in 1870, about two-thirds of the people there could still speak Spanish, and even a century later, their Spanish-based creole language was still used in radio broadcasts, in schools as a medium of instruction, etc. Further sources in the Google Books search (most not viewable online) [34][35]. cab 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Taprobanus 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per above. Good sources provided by cab. —Travis ^talk 14:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ethnic groups are notable, also per above.SpecialAgentUncleTito 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, anyone who knows the history of the Philippines knows that under Spanish rule the trade route to Mexico was of critical importance and migration is always a part of that. Quezon appealed to a "racial bond" on his first visit to Mexico, for instance. Vigan is a "Spanish-Mexican" city. And so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, rubbishy article, SqueakBox 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billmon[edit]

Bio article should be deleteed. Subject's blog has been deactivated for over six months. Subject no longer meets (and may never have met) the Wikipedia criteria for personal notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Principle (talk • contribs) 2007/07/18 03:14:48 — Peter Principle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy strong keep Billmon was one of the absolutely most notable profile of the blogosphere, in the same class as Steve Gilliard, Matthew Yglesias, and Kevin Drum among others.--Victor falk 11:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this meet the speedy keep criteria? Morgan Wick 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Just because the reason a person is notable is no longer current is not a reason for deletion. Should Don Imus's article be deleted because he's no longer on the air? I note that this AfD is the only edit of the nom. —Travis ^talk 14:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can easily pass WP:N and WP:V. Not a fair nomination. Adrian M. H. 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, primary topic of articles in WIRED and Philly Inquirer, passes WP:BIO. Notability is permanent. --Dhartung | Talk 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to defective nomination, which calls for deletion based on non-currency of notability. Wikipedia says notability is permanent, and there is no basis for nominating an article because the subject is no longer active in his area of notability. WP:Nis satisfied by the award he won as a left of center blogger, by widespread discussion on the web, and by two press articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer. I will add 2 sources to the article which have substantial coverage and satisfy WP:N and WP:A, namely "'Blinq | At Whiskey Bar, was it last call?' Daniel Rubin. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News (wire service). Washington: Jan 3, 2007. pg. 1 which said "Russ Wellen, writing in OpEdNews, called Billmon 'the man who may have done more to bring respectability to blogging than anybody.' " and "'Blinq | As blogger burns out, his fame fades, too.' Daniel Rubin. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News (wire service). Washington: Apr 15, 2006. pg. 1" which said "Two springs ago, Billmon won a Koufax Award when the place he calls Whiskey Bar was voted the best-written lefty blog in America." and "his name carried weight in blog and political circles." I found both at Proquest. The OpEdNews is a blog with signed contributions and editorial supervision with selection of what is printed [36] and appears to satisfy WP:N. There the article referred to in the Inquirer is at [37] and could alos be added to the article. Edison 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep and tag for improvement. Non-admin closure. Shalom ^Hello 16:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz![edit]

Too small, Little information, No notability Woggy 07:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. As part of a successful series of games it is indeed notable. There is more information in the articles on the individual games themselves. The article could be expanded to give brief descriptions of all the games (with main article links for more detail) and the series as a whole. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the speedy deletion notice (For Now) but if it is not improved in 1 Month, I will nominate it for deletion again. I will remove the notice when you reply (Woggy 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have changed my mind. This article is a small article and does not deserve to remain in an encyclopedia i feel it needs to be improved because it has been the same size for a month. (Woggy 13:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

- Comment How can the article be so small, if it is not even a stub? SpecialAgentUncleTito

Comment. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of AfD here. An article should be nominated for deletion for its subject, not its content. Just being short is not valid grounds for deletion (unless it's so short that it gives the reader no context at all), and nominating for deletion should not be used solely to give other editors the impetus to improve an article "or else". Articles can be tagged for improvement using various templates like ((expand)), for example. To make two smallish articles a bit more worthwhile, I have boldly merged Buzz! Junior's content (which you also nominated for AfD) into Buzz! and closed that AfD. The article looks a bit better now, with more detail and a fairly-used cover image for good measure. I stand by my comment that the article should be kept and the debate closed early, because as a popular video game series it is worthy of an overarching "series" article to tie everything together (cf. Castlevania series, Metroid series, etc. etc.), but in the interests of not acting totally unilaterally I will leave it up to someone else to decide how this debate should be closed. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Nominator should familiarize him/herself with the deletion process. —Travis ^talk 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Ditto. SpecialAgentUncleTito 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: boldly merged to Buzz! so there is a single article about the series as a whole (plus the individual articles about each game). Non-admin closure. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz! Junior[edit]

Reason: The Article is small and demonstrates no notability. Woggy 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC) cat=U Debate not yet sorted[reply]

This Article is a very small article, And includes little information and no notability. An idea would be to improve this article and expand it. (Woggy 07:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep If you think an article only needs expansion, you should not take it to AfD - articles should be deleted if the subject is not viable, not because of poor/lack of content. As part of a successful series of games it is indeed notable. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the speedy seletion notice (For Now) but, If the article is not improved before 20th August 2007, I will renominate it for deletion again. I will remove the notice when you reply. (Woggy 12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Look, I made a mistake, (I thought notable meant descriptive) I only joined 1 month ago. But this article, Which was created on May 27th is a small paragraph long, And i believe it should be improved. I have changed my mind, I will not remove the notice, Until it can be improved. This article has been like this for 1 Month, And nobodys Expanded it. But i think that this article is in need of some improvement. Because it is a paragraph long, I think it should be deleted. (Woggy 13:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. Nick mallory 13:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sr 13 07:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Green[edit]

Non-notable gospel singer Fanficgurl 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non-notable gospel singer. Just because she is a contestant on America's Got Talent, does not make her notable just yet. What has Ms. Green done outside the show? Until someone can bring up her notability, this tag will have to stay for now. Fanficgurl 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Had to check that the article had not been substantially revised since nomination: I was expecting a stub. There is plenty of material here to estabish notability. Also, lots of references on Google - on the first few pages of hits many are simply press release material, however dig deeper and you find independent reviews. Springnuts 12:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to say she's done plenty outside America's Got Talent. Of course the material needs more reliable sources. Recurring dreams 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant changes in the article and its references since the nom would suggest to me that the nominator should take another look and consider retracting the nomination. This subject flies by WP:MUSIC without a problem. Trusilver 16:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The disconnect between Fanficgurl and the keepers on her notability is disturbing. Either she (Fanficgurl) needs to read WP:MUSIC or she has bad intentions. Morgan Wick 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand your reasoning, but there's no reason to not assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Trusilver 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as there's no evidence any of her albums were released on important labels (redlinks all) nor any evidence of a national tour, but the awards won independently of the TV appearance do indicate some domain notability in the world of gospel music. Tagged for more sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. None of the albums were on notable labels, but her other contributions seem to suggest more than enough notability to pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Dhartung, my thoughts exactly. Bearian 01:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep due to lack of an actual nomination for deletion. Non-admin closure. Metropolitan90 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jao de la Porta[edit]

DE LA PORTA BROTHERS. Moses (Morin) and his younger brother Jao (Joseph) De la Porta financed the first settlement by Europeans on Galveston Island in 1816. The brothers were born in Portugal of Jewish parentage and found their way to Texas by a circuitous route. At a young age they moved to Paris, where they received their schooling. They later sailed to Brazil, to the British West Indies, and to New Orleans. The brothers financed the privateering venture of Louis Michel Auryqv and José Manuel de Herrera to San Luis Island, later called Galveston, in 1816. Aury set up a privateering camp on September 12 and was named military and civil governor of Texas and Galveston Island. Jao may have served as Aury's secretary of state. In December, Gen. Francisco Xavier Minaqv arrived and persuaded Aury to join him in invading Mexico. They lost the battle, and Moses lost heavily in the enterprise. He left the island and died soon after.

Jao took over his brother's interests. While Aury was away, privateer Jean Laffiteqv sailed down the Texas coast and set up camp in Matagorda Bay. Jao arrived at the camp and sold the De la Porta-Aury expedition's camp and supplies Laffite. The Laffite commune took possession of the island on May 15, 1817, forcing Aury to abandon the Galveston camp. On May 15, 1818, Laffite appointed Jao supercargo for the Karankawa Indian trade. When Laffite left Galveston Island in 1820, Jao became a full-time trader. [38] Bhaktivinode

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am really confused. What is the nominator trying to do, nominate the article for deletion, or write the article on the deletion discussion page?? The editor who posted the AFD tag on the article is not the same editor who created the discussion page (this second editor being the sole contributor to the article nominated). Can someone figure this one out? Failing that, merge deletion 'nomination' to article. -- saberwyn 11:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the Jao de la Porta article and somebody posted an AfD nomination onto it. They failed to post anything on my talk page and they have a short wikipedia history of no more than a few days. I thought it was just vandalism, so I responded onto the discusssion page with the quote from Texas Handbook Online (the first entry above) to show that the article has both notability and is referenced. I still think this is a notable and cited article that should remain. Thanks for considering the above. Bhaktivinode 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no-one has actually said why they want this article deleted, and the user who tagged the article also did this, so they're not taking AfD seriously. (If a user tags an article for AfD and doesn't write a nomination shortly afterwards it's better just to remove the nomination statement.) Hut 8.5 14:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Menne[edit]

does not meet WP:BIO CruiserBob 01:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "up and coming" model, nonnotable. NawlinWiki 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack f notability Corpx 15:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. One magazine? Bearian 01:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 6 ghits for her name in quotes. Pictures are not on gimg, after 2 years it should have shown up there by now. I question the Maxim appearance. So all I'm seeing is a myspace page. Completely non-notable.Horrorshowj 02:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manycore processing unit[edit]

Original work, I have been in the computer industry for 20 years and have NEVER heard this term used Dyl 04:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- So whether or not you personally know something is the arbiter of whether it's real or notable? Morgan Wick 16:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The term seems to pass the Google test. However, I have OR and V concerns about the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OR or verifiability concerns should be addressed by removing content in the article that cannot be verified. Several reliable sources for this concept were easily found in less than a minute using google: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] JulesH 12:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article certainly needs a cleanup, and some more reliable sources. I find the nominator's argument for deletion unconvincing. Recurring dreams 12:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exactly how is this original work? The article appears to be okay to me, and just because one has never heard about something, doesn't mean it's not notable. And if it is, I'll be the first one to nominate...*clicks Random article* Magog River for AfD since I never heard of it either. -WarthogDemon 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My "concerns" were just that the article could be improved-- I don't see enough problems for it to be deleted, as the term is clearly used whether or not the nom has heard of it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I was actually just referring directly to the nom. I don't disagree with your comment, given that I don't have extensive knowledge about this subject . . . just enough to know that the article itself appears to be fine or could easily be made fine. -WarthogDemon 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, perhaps snowball keep. Article needs cleanup and sources, not deletion -- obviously a notable term. Nominator's rationale of "I've never heard of it" is not valid at all. I'd fix it myself, if this weren't outside my area of expertise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google check shows Intel has been using the term, and even though I have 35 years in the computer business and have never heard of the term (and I find the dichotomy of "multicore" vs. "manycore" to be irksome), it appears to be valid and appropriate. But the article does need some clean-up and good references (hey, can i vote on this thing too? :o) - 69.235.255.45 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per several of the above. I haven't heard of this term before reading this article but after a little searching around, it appears I just missed the reference. Turlo Lomon 13:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. Sr 13 06:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mii (Jungle de Ikou!)[edit]

This article seems to have been created for the sole purpose to provide an excuse to fawn over the breasts of a ten year old girl. Thoughts? A gx7 05:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jungle de Ikou!#Characters. A large chunk of the article's content is copy-pasted from the main article anyway. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bust it per nom. LMAO, though. :-) --Targeman 20:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per Matticus Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, let's redirect it. A gx7 08:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until the five days pass and someone who is not the nominator makes a judgement. Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Kyaa the Catlord 13:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article per Matticus. BTW, think there's enough pics in the main article? Geez... Snarfies 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology Sorry, I didn't know there was a five day rule. And yeah I agree, the main article has a very leering tone.A gx7 09:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the show is kinda... a leerfest. Kyaa the Catlord 10:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response It's still an encyclopedia. A gx7 12:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it is. I didn't write it and, if you were paying attention, I voted for deletion on this one. If it bugs you that much, you could always clean it up. Personally I don't care enough about the subject matter to waste my time doing so. Kyaa the Catlord 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peniel Revival Ministries Inc[edit]

Non-notable organization, per WP:ORG. The only cited sources are websites of the organization itself. A quick google test gets 49 hits from 14 unique websites. Notability isn't asserted and the article reads like a promotional piece in places. Andrew c ^[talk] 14:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of those fourteen unique websites, none of them provide any unbiased information. There are no multiple, non-trivial sources. Clearly does not satisfy WP:ORG. Trusilver 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep I believe consensus of editors can believe the article is encyclopedic or has encyclopedic value. The sited sources can be fixed if the need be. And The notability is correct and fixed. The reason why the organization website opens up is because that is the only way i can open up the PDF files that supports the work of this organization. Please do not delete this article as it is a stub to the Christian non-profit organizations article. This article about a Christian organization is a stub. Also it can be considered a Christianity-related article stub. This article is just like the Lakewood church article or the Global Pastors Forum article. This is about a Christian organization/church. It is worth encyclopedic value!!--The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apfaq (talk o contribs) 17:12, 17 July 2007.

Comment - Honestly, I don't think you can claim that "consensus" has anything to do with it- the article is barely 6 days old, and you've been almost entirely the sole editor. The only edits from other editors have been to place deletion tags (two occasions), and to specify a link to avoid a disambiguation (which you reverted, claiming that the user was adding some sort of spam link, although considering the edit history is right there, I don't know what you're talking about). The article is simply too young and too obscure for one to use the "silence equals consensus" argument.--C.Logan 19:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentwell Logan, it is after all a new organization and a new article. All the more reason to leave it be and let it be edited and rated by others. It is worthy enough to keep and the references seems to be ok. That hongooi did something like Punjab and it redirected the page to some popup ad. So i simply got rid of it. Anyway the current tag punjab links to the very same article so his edit was not needed. By the way this is what it said: 05:18, 17 July 2007 Hongooi (Talk | contribs) m (8,803 bytes) (Disambiguate Punjab to Punjab (India) using popups) . Its not a good idea to use popups especially since it lead to advertisements. So that edit was deleted. However getting back to the topic at hand, This article is worth Keeping--Apfaq

Comments - Apfaq, this is a little humorous to read. "Popups" are a Wikipedia tool which allows for easier editing. It doesn't have anything to do with "Pop-up Ads" like those you run into on other websites. For a better understanding, read this. Concerning his specific edit, it does not lead to a popup ad, so I'm not sure how you're claiming that it does. And in fact, Punjab and Punjab (India) do not link to the same place. If you're unaware, the article currently has the latter link, with a tag which simply says "Punjab"- therefore, the link goes to the article you want because Hongooi changed the internal link to the correct page. Punjab simply links to a disambiguation page, which includes several places and things which bear the name "Punjab". Generally, we should avoid linking to disambiguation pages, and this is why Hongooi changed the link (and why I re-applied his change after you'd reverted it). Concerning this AfD, it is good to know your own opinion, but I'm certain that others will disagree. I'm uncertain about what should be done, because I haven't yet reviewed the sources and the information present. If one can verify notability in accordance to WP:ORG, then this discussion will be over. From what I see, however, no such standards have been satisfied.--C.Logan 20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well This is a new organization and it is mostly based in India. So in India, they do not have the best of online information systems especially for a charity organization working in wilderness and remote village areas. So i would expect the internet references to this organization to be few. But i think since it is a 501c organization registered in the US, it does have the right to classify as WP:ORG. The references cannot be changed in the URL form because it is a flash site so you cannot go to specific articles. Anyway, i think this is a great organization and it should be kept around. ApFaq 1:31 July 17 2007 (EST)

Comment Thank you for signing your comment. Ok, first of all, I understand your passion towards this subject matter, and I ask you to please not take my nomination for deletion personally. I just believe, at least in the current state (coupled with a little internet research done on the organization) that his organization does not meet out notability for organization inclusion criteria (WP:ORG). The main point is the articles does not contain information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. The source for nearly all of this information is the organization's website. Notability has to be established through secondary, independent sources. thinkingaustralia.com is a wikipedia mirror, and thus cannot be cited per WP:RS. The letters of support were never published in a secondary source, so they are problematic as well. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well i am not taking it personally but you see, All we have are paper sources and sources that were directly send to us, such as newspaper articles,letters of recommendation, authorization forms from Indian government etc. How are these be published?? If you can, can you remove this article from the deletion criteria? Give me time and i can scan all these documents and upload them to wikipedia and then cite them. Remember, i just started this article yesterday. Please give me time to edit it and make it worth the 'notability standards'. I am frustrated because i started this article as a stub and all of a sudden people want to delete it. It has not even been 24 hours since i started adding content to this article. Please give me time, i need more than 5 days to access the records and pull up information to be scanned and then uploaded. Some records are in India in paper format so that will also take time for me to receive.

Very Strong Keep. This is a valid non-profit organization that has done numerous things in the past. Notability is asserted and Notability is not an issue in this article. This article clearly does satisfy WP:ORG. AONServers.com 2:55, 17 July 2007 (EST)

Comment - Would you like to cite anything specific, or are you going to remain entirely vague concerning how it satisfies what you say it does?--C.Logan 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the Guide to deletion, it should be noted that MicGoogle/"AONServers.com" has a sparse edit history (visible), and the only other article (barring a third article which is of a related topic) on the individual's history at voting time was an article which user Apfaq, the creator of the article listed here for deletion, had also been editing. It appears that the user still lists, as his signature, the name of a deleted article (AONServers, which he had created), which was speedily deleted for reasons of "spam/advertisement". Given that one of the issues with this particular article is its promotional tone (derived from a lack of independent sources), and given that the article with which both individuals were involved with was of local importance and interest (a high school), and given that the last edit (as well as all of the user's visible edits) before MicGoogle's vote here was made on February 14th, I find it reasonable to cast a critical eye on this user's involvement in this voting process. Again, this note is presented per the Guide to deletion, and therefore it should be taken not as an attack on MicGoogle (as all could be coincidence or misunderstanding), but simply as a set of circumstances which should be considered by the closing administrator.--C.Logan 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MicGoogle / AONServers.com. TonyWonderBread 13:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons cited by Andrew c and Trusilver. I've worked to improve the article in the last article, if at least to make it presentable (it was previously a mess of promotional material, filled with praise and such). As it is, this article seems to have been created to promote an organization, and as it stands I haven't seen anything which makes the organization notable in accordance with WP:ORG, even if it is relatively small. Any shade of notability here seems mostly forced, from my observation. The user involved in the articles creation and development has created 2 (IMHO) useless and deletion-worthy categories in conjunction with this topic and has placed these category tags on articles to which they do not even apply, in addition to placing inapplicable categories into this article as well, This leads me to believe that regardless of the actual notability of the subject, the article (and the categories which accompany it) were placed here for the purposes of promotion, and therefore I would suggest that any arguments of notability be viewed with a discerning eye.--C.Logan 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apfaq, you're missing an important point here. We really don't care what online resources this organization has. The point to a Google test is to see who else might have taken note of it. If virtually no one else has, then the organization really can't be said to meet the de facto criterion of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to promote obscure organizations. The article claims it's been "...recognized by numerous other Christian organizations, denominations, churches and other religious missions as one of the leading Christian Charity organizations committed to reaching to teach...." If that was true, then it would be mentioned in many places, not just a few, and you'd have no lack of independent sources. Instead, of the sources cited for the article, only two of them are not created by either you the organization itself, and they're both letters that don't actually support the statements for which they're cited.

But it's just a little disingenuous of you to plead low-tech when one of the organization's websites is so slick. Plainly you have at least adequate online resources available. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments That site was created via donation by a generous supporter. We are on the low tech end here. I am not pleading it, because that is the reality. That site was updated and hosted earlier this year. apfaq

Low tech? You don't need any tech beyond a PC and an Internet connection to make a website of any complexity, and you plainly have access to both. But that was a side issue. Where can we find anything said about this organization other than itself? That's the crux of the matter. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments well Logan fixed this article up ALOT. Can it please remain as a stub? Also, you Americans do you understand what life is like outside of the western countries so please do not get me started on low tech and about not having internet capabilities for recommendations or recognition on search engines.

Yes, he did quite a bit of good work on it, in my view an act of extreme good faith on his part. It can only be out of his innate sense of fairness that he wants to ensure the article is judged on the merits, as he explains below. Nevertheless he didn't fix the main problem with it -- not for want of effort, but because it's not possible for him to. It needs independent sources, and it doesn't look as if there are any. In my view, you could possibly justify at least a mention of this organization in a broad, general article on this kind of outreach, but I just can't see it as an article standing on its own. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed, the lack of non-biased sources was a problem. It was curious to go over the text and hear how wonderful and effective this organization is, because if this is truly the case, then it would seem that we might find more third-party sources which state as such. The inherent flavor of the article, which I'd hoped to tone down, was that of a mild propaganda. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, Apfaq, not a bulletin board or a commercial spot. As it seems that you are involved with this organization, I'd like to make it clear to you that we are here on Wikipedia to present things in an encyclopedic manner. This is why we are asking for some good third-party sources- you may have all the information in the world on your organizations website, but that information, like it or not, has a specific purpose, and is thus inherently biased. I'd be glad to help you develop the article if it manages to pass this AfD.--C.Logan 03:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm just being fair, so that the article will be judged on notability rather than presentation (and it's easy to convince people to delete an article when it's full of peacock terms and whatnot). Concerning the stub thing, I'm afraid that the article is no longer a "stub". A stub article is generally 1-2 paragraphs long, and offers just enough information for other editors to expand upon. Just because the article can still be improved at this point doesn't qualify it as a stub. And anyway, let's not get off topic with cultural divide discussions about technology.--C.Logan 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pardon this side comment, but I would suggest that you log in before you begin editing, Apfaq. Additionally, if you want to sign your comments (and please do) easily, just insert this at the end of your comment: --~~~~ .--C.Logan 20:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that I did properly list this per step 3. It was Apfaq (talk · contribs), in this diff that removed it after I had listed it.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of unbaised independent sources. Article can be re-created if it becomes, in wiki terms, notable. Springnuts 12:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at the sources given; some are self-generated, and others such as the police memo, are rather trivial, and none have the sort of public accountability required by reliable sources. While this may be a quite worthy evangelical ministry, it isn't ready to go into an encyclopedia yet. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might be worth keeping around, especially if more resources and references can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.213.238 (talk • contribs) — 71.190.213.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete All references are to sources that do not qualify as reliable sources - No notability established. Corpx 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it would seem that more work can be done on sources. I was confused with it because there has been a Peniel Mission in the Seattle area for many years. Given that Google has over 46,000 hits for Peniel Mission, if nothing else, this article allows for some distinctions of the different areas of focus of the these groups with a similar name. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N; no reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject are provided proving notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability has not been established through independent attribution. --Dhartung | Talk 19:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no more point to this discussion. The reason why this article was tagged because of having less than satisfactory references. Well i dug through some old papers and came through some documents that i decided to cite. There are plenty of references for this article, especially when considering its length, and notability is no longer an issue. This article does satisfy the reference requirements and they are of reliable source. As i mentioned earlier, due to many technological difficulties etc., some of these did not make it to the internet, but i do have document and physical paper proof of these references. I was advised by an Wikipedia user not to upload these documents as they are violation of copyright laws and wikipedia terms. I hope every user that has commended here, including the user that tagged this article, visits and reads the new references. Thank you and hope this helps. If i need to add more reference, please tell me and i will be more than glad to do so. ApFaq 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, let me suggest ((Infobox Non-profit)) instead of ((Infobox Company)), which is really designed for profit-making enterprises. As far as references go, I'm afraid you need a few more or at least you need to provide more complete citations. You give article titles (they can hardly be standalone publications) but the names of no publications. We can't tell if these are just church newsletters, personal letters, or articles in widely-circulating magazines. And you still rely too heavily on your own material. The article also cannot stand as written even if the citations were good. You have produced a promotional piece, not an encyclopedia article, even going so far as to write in the first person. We don't do this (in articles -- discussion pages such as this one are another matter). This isn't a reason to delete the article as such things can be rewritten, but they don't predispose anyone to a "keep" decision. I very strongly suggest you review Wikipedia policy on these subjects, beginning with the neutral point-of-view and what we mean by reliable sources. You might also find the Manual of Style helpful, and if you look at an explanation of what Wikipedia is not you might see what the problem is from our perspective. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've noticed the changes, and I've fixed a few. The formatting problems alone filled me with a gasp of fear, but I've set most things in line (although I'd rather not be the one to change to infobox type). I agree with Csernica's comment above, anyway. Ultimately, I'm not sure we should be supportive of this article at all if it's going to turn into a promotional pamphlet every time one of the third-party users neglects to check up on things.--C.Logan 06:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please review the category deletion debates ongoing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_17#Category:Peniel_Revival_Ministries_Inc Scarykitty 21:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One way to verify some of a charity's assertions is by IRS Form 990, the tax return required of all non-profit, 501c3 organizations. The article states that Peniel Revival Ministries Inc was founded in 1989, however, according to [[45]] the main online depositoty for 990 forms (free registration required), the charity only received its 501c3 status in 2006, and thus there are no 990s on file online to review and verify the articles assertions (e.g. if the charity had $10,000 in income, it is doubtful it would have enough impact to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, especially when notability is very much in doubt here. Further, the IRS produces Publication 78, listing all charities for whom a taxpayer can deduct a donation. When you search Publication 78 for Peniel Revival Ministries, you find that tax deductability of donations to Peniel are limited to 50% of the donation. I believe that is because it is in a kind of "probationary status" due to the new application of the charity. Note that some charities are allowed full deductability right away. Because the article still fails to be adequately sourced to establish notability, and my attempt to assist the article has failed due to discrepencies between the text of the article and the records of the reputable website Guidestar, I am urging delete. Scarykitty 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article more or less makes clear, the organisation (though probably not the entity of the article title) was founded in India in 1989, and only had a US arm from 1999. The lack of older US tax returns is therefore not so surprising. Most activities still seem to take place in India. If regarded as essentially Indian, the lack of other web-accessible sources appears in a rather different light, given Indian conditions. If kept, the article should probably be renamed without the "Inc". Weak delete, but rename if kept. Johnbod 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank YOU!!!! Someone actually read the details. Scarykitty, please do not make conclusions without all the knowledge please. Thank You.

As Johnbod states and in response to scarykitty, if you would read the article or take time to review it, you would know that the organization was registered in India first and then moved to the U.S. in 1999-2000 and then received 501c status. So next time, i urge you people to atleast take the time to read the article before you start firing off about deleting it.

Thank You -- 96.224.244.190 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC) — 96.224.244.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The first three items in the info box are Founder: Abraham Soman. Type: Christian 501c3 Charity organization Founded: 1989. "So next time, I urge editors to take time to make an infobox that is not misleading before you start firing off about what other people should do."

Thank You Scarykitty 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failure of WP:ORG. The IRS information is quite telling, though if they do later meet the basic requirements of notability, we can always have an entry later. Tewfik^Talk 05:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wickman[edit]

Non notable writer. Only claim to fame may be acting in an independent film which won an award, but I do not think he comes close to meeting WP:BIO. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN Daniel J. Leivick 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if movies were his claim to fame, then he certainly doesnt have many Corpx 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly seems to fail WP:BIO. Not enough achievements of note. Adrian M. H. 17:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 01:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirected to The Princess Bride. NawlinWiki 15:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S. Morgenstern[edit]

Article is about a fictional character, but purports to be about a real author. It is unencylopedic in tone, and contains several nonsensical portions. If any information about this character needs remain, it can be placed in the articles for The Princess Bride and/or William Goldman Juansmith 07:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to The Princess Bride, which already states everything that is important about this character. JulesH 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Princess Bride, as above. Doesn't look like there's anything here worth merging. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted under CSD G7 as the original author blanked the page and was the sole substantial contributor.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud massartic[edit]

Sources are missing (no, "Sources infos USA NY times/Forbes/LA Times Sources infos Europe La gazzetta,Mediaset,Rai 1 Park hyatt paris Vendome" does not satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Citing sources). High on a tree 09:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an outright hoax. "Sparta Wealthy Clients" and "Metropolitan Global Corp" do not exist, and you would think someone written about in Forbes, the New York Times, LA Times and other high profile news sources would garner more than two (count 'em!) Google hits. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author attempted to blank the page, so I have tagged it db-author for speedy deletion. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete all g1 nonsense/hoax, g10 attack, a1 empty (after unsourced material is removed). NawlinWiki 22:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bennett Invitational[edit]

This article does not satisfy the notability guidelines as identified by another editor, has no sources, and has been like this for some time. In the absence of any real reason to keep it; I nominate that it be deleted.

The Rhymesmith 08:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added the following articles to the AfD as players of the tournament; if the article on the tournament itself is deleted for lack of notability, then by extension these articles should be also:

Joe Slark
Dale Fastnedge

~Matticus ^T_C 09:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - an amateur competition with no indication of being documented in third-party sources, so failing WP:V and WP:RS. Tournament winner articles also fail WP:V and WP:BIO, with some unsourced controversial statements (allegations of cheating, etc.) providing WP:BLP violations to cap it off. Perhaps even speedy the bio articles as WP:CSD#A7. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy all three The tourney in all likelihood doesn't exist ... searches on Yahoo and Google turned up exactly zero hits apart from Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Translation, a hoax. The winners' articles are clearly attack pages, and should be spiked per G10. Blueboy 96 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local golf tournaments are not notable Corpx 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the tournament and the golfers as non-notable.

OK I tagged the latter two as attack pages. We'll see if others share the oppinion. 68.39.174.238 21:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to List of Star Trek races without prejudice for content to be removed altogether if sourcing/notability is not established in a reasonable amount of time.(non-admin closure). Cerejota 06:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centauran[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article is entirely plot summary with no assertion of real-world notability. Does not identify, let alone cite, any of the "novels, sourcebooks, and role-playing games" in which the species "features prominently." --EEMeltonIV 07:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief summary to List of Star Trek races. In fact, the Memory Beta article ([46]) might be a better starting place for the merge than the current article, which is way too detailed for a minor race that hasn't appeared in any of the TV series. JulesH 12:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JulesH, pure plot summary. --Eyrian 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above, although "Centauran" is in common sf use for anybody hailing from Alpha Centauri. --Dhartung | Talk 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aha! Time for List of notable Centaurans and Centaurans in popular culture. Clarityfiend 21:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Centaurans (disambiguation). Don't want these guys mixed up with the Centauri. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - absolutely no sources. Also, OR. Nothing in this article is proving that this is any more than something made up in some guy's head, or something someone made up for a role-playing game one day. Wikipedia's not for something made up in school, nor is it a game sourcebook; this type of article is very close to that line, I think. It has been noted that this is an "official" race within the Star Trek universe, so my vote changes ever so slightly. This article could be kept if it gets properly sourced and trimmed to "official" facts only, as obviously someone's put a lot of work into it and Wikipedia already carries all sorts of "in-universe" material. But the non-official parts of the article must be eliminated, as Wikipedia still isn't for things that people make up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - also, please read the previous AfD for this article. That suggests that this is a fanfic creation. Why does Wikipedia need articles on anything invented in fanfic? Should we now have an article on Kirk and Spock's gay love affair, which was a famous and important "non-canon" topic? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The memory beta article linked above provides details of official star trek novels that contain characters of this race. The suggestion in the previous AFD of this being restricted to fanfic was, apparently, mistaken. JulesH 12:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, we do have an article on Kirk/Spock. JulesH 13:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the suggestion above that this is not appropriate for the list I suggested merging to, I've left a comment on the talk page of that list requesting feedback from its maintainers. JulesH 13:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources are provided. Slavlin 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make mention of (merge) in List of Star Trek races, then redirect. Giggy _U^CP 07:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere if and only if it can be sourced; the subject doesn't seem to deserve an article of its own (in terms of notability), so it should be in a bigger article if it's anywhere. The material is currently unsourced, so it really shouldn't be anywhere, but that can (presumably) be fixed as part of a merge, if anyone cares to. SamBC 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Reform Treaty referendum[edit]

not even scheduled yet, only requested by some groups Od Mishehu 07:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a merge with United Kingdom European Constitution referendum seems sensible considering the huge overlap between the two articles and the likelihood that no referendum will be held. However I am not sure what title such a merged article would be under. Davewild 07:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having had time to go back and add content, context and references to the article, I think a merge is not out of the question, though for users that thread would tend to be seen as a 'dead' issue (the Constitution having been dropped) and so unlikely to go there looking for the present position. Google will give you plenty of references to the present debate in the UK on whether or not to hold a referendum; this is a noteworthy topic and should be covered. Merging it or including it in another article would tend to unbalance that article or hide the topic from view. PolScribe 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree to some extent but think the overlap between the two articles makes a merge still the best option, however given the good rewrite just undertaken would strongly oppose just deleting the article with keeping being my second preference behind a merge. A merge of both articles to something like Proposed United Kingdom referendums on European Constitution and Reform treaty (though would welcome a better title!) seems sensible. Davewild 16:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion What about a United Kingdom referendums on the European Union top page, linking to the past referendum, the proposed referendum on the Constitution and noting debate on a referendum on the Reform Treaty? In fact we could rename this page and add in the references and links to those two others. PolScribe 12:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — campaigning, PoV, unreferenced. The introduction begins in moderately unencyclopædic style though, so it's possible that an informed, referenced re-write could make the subject matter notable. Then it might be worth considering a merge. – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improve I'm responsible for starting a new article on this. It's not perfect, but it is (I think, anyway) noteworthy. There are equivalent pages for the referenda on the former Constitutional Treaty; this is an important issue in the UK with a number of broadsheet newspapers (and campaigning groups, and at least one political party) forming a debate on the topic which could have serious and long-term domestic and international implications. If I weren't trying to keep the Kosovo status process pages up-to-date I'd have put more time into making this perfect. Merging it into another article would end up giving undue prominence to the debate in the UK as opposed to all EU member states. PolScribe 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article.--JForget 16:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or delete, unnecessary at this point. —Nightstallion 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary per Nightstallion and above. Giggy _U^CP 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm really not sure where to go with this... my first reaction is, "this isn't about any referendum, it's about the treaty". As such, it's a POV alternative to a proper article on the subject. Then again, maybe it's just a piece of writing espousing a political opinion, in which case it shouldn't be on wikipedia. There's other routes of though I take, but it always ends up with saying "delete". The only thing to note is maybe some bits about the contention should be in an article about the treaty itself. SamBC 23:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of street gangs[edit]

A category can serve this purpose fine and a list of street gangs will be impossible to maintain due to the sheer number out there Corpx 06:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SqueakBox 19:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot it down, then kidnap the author and silence him for good. Now seriously, the sources are 100% amateurish, this is WP:OR and listcruft. --Targeman 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially Targeman. Bearian 01:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Gogo Dodo 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft stuff. Categories should be enough.--JForget 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and above.--JayJasper 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Asia[edit]

Newly-coined term. The Philippines and East Timor do not and are not recognised as a "Latin Country". Even if there was a term/region/culture called Latin Asia the page is innacurate in not naming all the countries of Asia that have any significant influence from a "Latin Country" (whatever that means). Jandela 06:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism with no sources to assert that there is any wide use of this term. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable neo logism Taprobanus 14:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per above ChrisLamb 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SqueakBox 19:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, too few uses let alone substantive references in independent publications, per WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, zero notability. --Targeman 21:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Gillis[edit]

Fails WP:PROF. Just another professor, and at an obscure college. His publishing history is actually kind of sparse, if anything - one book, one book with a co-author, one book edited. All by obscure academic publishers. The two written being on obscure subjects. About half of the journals he contributed to, he contributed book reviews (see brief bio here. A doctor or lawyer etc. of his level of accomplishment would not have an article; he's in a field where you have to write stuff, but so? Unless we're going to include about every professor (and we aren't, thus WP:PROF), he doesn't rate an article. Herostratus 06:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 06:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no apparent notability per WP:PROF. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP Prof criteria as with (1) significant expert in area regarding westward expansion history for US, haveing a recent published work as co writer and haveing a trusted collegiate position as editor. Such works also speak for criteria (2) - (4). Criteria (6) is addressed through his honor of presidency of ANCRR. (5) might be said to be addressed through the Overland journal article. I see no need to diminish these achievements nor to remove the balanced article.DDB 09:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP:PROF bar is set pretty low as is; no need to engage in hard squinting (as above) to try to distinguish notability. This fails the WP:PROF standard and should go. Eusebeus 11:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relatively few publications, articles (ex-book reviews) not published in high-impact journals, no evidence that I can uncover of wide citations of his books, Association for Northern California Records and Research doesn't seem a sufficiently notable body for its presidents to be automatically notable, and no other awards/honours. Willing to change my mind if anyone uncovers enough of a citation history to meet WP: PROF. Espresso Addict 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3 books for an entire academic career and articles in several minor reviews don't make you notable as an academic. --Targeman 21:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The first book of the books was merely editing a collection of essays; the second is held in 97 libraries, but the 3rd in only a few. Contrary to the nom, Bidwell is a significant subject, his diaries are a major source, and there have been at least have been several other books about him. But still, not enough. A diligent local historian, but not an important one. DGG (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eusebeus.Montco 05:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sr 13 07:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novichok agent[edit]

Lack of convincing sources to even prove this exists, much less what it is/does Alvis 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There must be sources. TonyWonderBread 05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So fix up the article with reliable sources. A google scholar search [47] shows that the concept exists, and can be verified with sources Recurring dreams 05:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty in Google Books and Google News Archive as well. Basic Google is never enough with specialized topics. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job tracking down these new potential sources Recurring dreams&Dhartung, but looking over a handful, aren't many just repeating Mirzayanov's original account? Alvis 08:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's more than obvious that most of the info is pure speculation, including the sources. There simply is no (unclassified ?)hard evidence on even the existence of Novichok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lost Boy (talk • contribs) 10:52, 20 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible it's notable because of the speculation, like UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster? Morgan Wick 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents gives it a three-page treatment, if only as professional speculation, indicating that experts take its potential existence seriously. --Dhartung | Talk 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this stuff may or may not exist, but the amount of speculation makes the topic notable - compare red mercury. Totnesmartin 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep looking for more sources. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is famous binary chemical agent. There are numerous sources, I will try to include some of them.Biophys 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whatever you suspect it is, it' _not_ binary. Lost Boy 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Lost Boy, while I appreciate your healthy sense of skepticism on both this and the article's talk page, you seem to imply that you have sound knowledge of this topic. Do you have any good sources to add to the article? I'm stopped in my tracks trying to figure out what's a trustworthy source and what's not. Alvis 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply.The existence of Novichok agents has been openly admitted by Russian state authorities when they brought a criminal treason case against Mirzoyanov. According to expert witness testimonies of state prosecution, the agents did exist and therefore the disclosure by Mirzoyanov represents high treason. Mirzoyanov made his disclosure out of environmental concerns. He was a head of a counter-intelligence department and did measurements outside the CW facilities to make sure that foreign spies can not detect any traces of the production. To his horror, he found enormous amounts of CW that represented danger for people who lived there.Biophys 16:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. The books by Birshein and Albats (reliable secondary sources) claim this to be a binary weapon.Biophys 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this source: "the talk [by Mirzayanov] about binary weapons was no more than a verbal construct, an argument ex adverso, and only the MCC could corroborate or refute this natural assumption. By entangling V. S. Mirzayanov in investigation, the MCC [Russian Military Chemical Complex] confirmed the stated hypothesis, advancing it to the ranks of proven facts." [48]Biophys 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Katz[edit]

No assertion of notability, vanity, conflict of interest. Created by Kevin Katz. Speedy and prod tags removed by what appears to be a fellow band member of his. Resolute 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey Dominion. Resolute 05:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Authors who write for local magazines, and have not recieved any independent coverage are not notable. And what really gets me is when people write vanity articles...and use their real names. Doesn't that just make it obvious? Calgary 05:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many people innocently believe that Wikipedia is something like Geocities, and it isn't entirely their fault that they do. Others may just take a "throw against wall, see what hits" approach. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. Edit summaries hint at notability, but not with enough specificity or WP:RS, and what they hint is far from substantial notability (rising notability, might be viable in the future but not now, etc). If they really are more than meat-puppets trying to build a WP:GARDEN and can give us some substantial documentation for present notabilitity, I might overlook WP:COI, but the clock is ticking loudly. DMacks 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean WP:WALL? Morgan Wick 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Shows some notability, but is written by himself (supposedly), and lacks information that makes the person good enough to be on a encyclopedia. --H irohisat ^Talk 05:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Anyone you writes an article about themselves deserves to have it deleted. In any case, he's not notable yet. Wikipedia is not a method of predicting who will become notable. I might be famous one day, but that's no reason for me to go and make an article about myself just in case. Anyway, did I mention Strong Delete? Mr pand 09:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Writing an article about yourself is discouraged, but not forbidden. WP:COI is a reason for concern, not a rationale for deletion. Please don't indulge in instruction creep. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess he can write about himself (it's recommended not to, but not banned). He just isn't notable Recurring dreams 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence he is notable, writers for local newspapers generally aren't. Also conflict of interest, which doesn't help. Hut 8.5 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't people who write about themselves feel silly? Cap'n Walker 19:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. All editors above, please read Don't bite the newcomers. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if writing for local papers and magazines is notable, then I'll start on my own article right away. National and international publications, maybe - but right now, this person isn't notable enough to meet WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more snowball for Mr Katz. --Targeman 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'd like to see a re-write before a deletion. Something needs to pique my interest, raise a bit of controversy, or create debate. That all needs to be in the first paragraph to keep me reading. People wrote about me on here and I have edited their writing about me for verity in facts. Hardest thing about writing for yourself is that its hard to write as a third person about you, thats why Wikipedia doesn't recommend writing for self but its not illegal. Rivet me to read about this guy, and I'm sold! Anthony Chidiac--Achidiac 12:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Peer review. We aren't making decisions on whether or not it's a good article to read, we're making decisions on whether the subject deserves a Wikipedia article. Morgan Wick 17:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurispedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article does not cite any references our sources, and seems useless to me. 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of sources is a reason for improvement, not deletion. And the article does include several links. Edward321 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward321. This nomination was incomplete. I have finished it. --Maxa megalon 2000 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lack of sources does not automatically mean that the article should be deleted, to the contrary, it means that more sources should be added. And I don't se how it's useless either. Calgary 05:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Calgary.--H irohisat ^Talk 06:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DEFINITELY Keep I don't see why this has been nominated. Mr pand 08:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward321. Hut 8.5 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Lack of sources is a problem when there is no notability established for this site. I dont see enough references from independent sources for this to be notable at this point. I think this fails WP:WEB Corpx 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Impressive sponsorship, and developing into a major resource. DGG (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has 2 academic sources. Wl219 12:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Dominion[edit]

Badly fails WP:BAND (even asserts own lack-of-notability). Appears to have been created by one band-member (User:Kcatz), and a speedy was quashed by another band-member (User:Haydenvan). So we have some WP:COI perhaps clouding judgement here, but could be two independent like-minded people not literal meatpuppets. DMacks 04:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. Also vanity, WP:COI. The same new editor also killed the speedy tag on Kevin Katz, which appears to have been created by Kevin Katz, who created this article. I've prodded that article. Resolute 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD a7. Iknowyourider (t c) 04:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per that thing...WP:CSD#A7...it's astounding, and rather tiring how often non-notable bands create articles about themselves...do they think they can get away with it, or do they just not realize that they're not notable? Calgary 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Usually they simply aren't aware of any Wikipedia policies. Iknowyourider (t c) 05:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, there's no real reason it would be obvious to people that not everything can have a Wikipedia article. Delete, obviously.--P4k 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local bands wouldn't have enough notability, and the article is most likely written by one of the members. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND... they do have some pretty repetitive music, though. - Kneel17 06:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Johnson (author and Christian evangelist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don Johnson (author and Christian evangelist)

Subject is not notable when considered outside of a particularly narrow audience and is, at best, a minor evangelist in southern California with no significant following. Fails WP:BIO standards for notability. No significant publication record or record of activities outside of the narrow sphere of southern California evangelism, an already over-crowded field. Inclusion in WP is likely fancruft - Nascentatheist 04:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I dont think being a local radio show host is ample to be notable Corpx 15:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS is not satisfied.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn;t look notable reading the article. Without sources, its hard to assert otherwise. Montco 05:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN per above. Uranometria 09:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted by DragonflySixtyseven as nonsense. Resolute 04:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baberoth[edit]

this page is a hoax, there is no such thing as a "Baberoth" (looked online and in dictionary's) Tiptoety 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as vandalism and/or nonsense.--Absurdist 03:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is such a hoax. Calgary 04:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Long[edit]

This subject fails WP:BAND and has COI issues as a probable autobiography. The record label is non-notable, and a top result of a google search on "Statue Records" is a page from Rip-Off Report. Absurdist 03:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND - doesn't asser notability. Giggy _U^CP 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it seems this is an autobiography. Evidence here. @pple 04:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Doesn't seem to assert notability. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are MANY MANY pages dedicated to such players who don't rival the Clapton like notability but helped shape an era. Statue Records Group does exist (http://www.statuerecords.com/t-about_statue.aspx) and was a former label of the pages subject. 151.213.91.248 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There needs to be non-trivial third-party references from reliable sources that this subject helped "shape an era." Also, I believe Statue Records exist, but don't believe they are a major or notable label.--Absurdist 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should the page be placed under US: guitarists instead? A brief WP search turned up many less qualified guitarists who never released anything and never signed to any label, major or minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.91.248 (talk • contribs)
- Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Morgan Wick 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could you indicate some specific articles of less qualified guitarists/musicians? It will not help this debate (see above comment), but I am interested to see if those also qualify for deletion.--Absurdist 21:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Delete or at least re-write. I was the original editor who issued a prod on this. I did so because there were no sources to support the article, I didn't find any via a search engine, and it was an autobiography written by a single purpose account. In reference to the above, 151.213.91.248 may be the same user as Beaulong, and the Statue records page shown above links to a page that is mostly empty, presumably an indie label that has not yet "taken off." Community editor 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One would think that there would be more coverage of a band that's described as a "staple" of the alt-rock scene in the '90s, as Human Zoo is described in the article. I can't find it. I'm also not finding anything about Beau Long himself. Essentially, reliable sources are unavailable, and without those, any claims of notability are void. If someone sources this, I'll reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you all for your kind explanations. Unfortunately, the magazines, Kerrang and Metal Edge, that Human Zoo were in the most, don't online archive the mid 90's issues and articles that would most definitely contribute to the notoriety of the band. Short of scanning the articles and royalty checks and emailing them to each of you, there is nothing more that I can do at this point. A search of Pigsaw Janet still brings up bits left in cyberspace being it was more current. Would this be more appropriate in the WikiProject Musicians area as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale? Thanks again for your help. Beaulong 03:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa! I don't think anyone said reliable sources had to be online. In fact, print sources are inherently more notable than online sources, if cited properly. Morgan Wick 03:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, if the subject has been covered in those magazines, the articles should be cited. Depending on the depth of coverage, that might satisfy WP:BAND.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How does one go about inclusion of the articles in the page? Do you quote and reference or just mention and reference? Thanks again for your help. This is most enlightening.151.213.91.248 17:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any facts that came from other sources should have a footnote. This is from WP:Cite:

1. Place a <ref> ... </ref> where you want a footnote reference number to appear in an article—type the text of the note between the ref tags. EX: <ref>Miller, E: "The Sun", page 23. Academic Press, 2005</ref> 2. Place the <references/> tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article—the list of notes will be generated here.

Just do your best, other editors can help with cleanup if necessary. -- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 23:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse and the Rippers[edit]

Full House by itself is, in fact, notable; however, notability is not inherited. This article hasn't gone beyond stub-length in the two years since it was created, which supports the idea that it isn't really encyclopedic - no credibly sourced information has been added to the article. The information contained in Jesse Katsopolis is really quite satisfactory as to what is encylopedic, and isn't much shorter than this entire article, so there won't be much loss of content. bwowen ^talk^•^contribs 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fictional topics have to receive real world coverage for them to be notable - Nothing established/found for this Corpx 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information is trivial at best. Calgary 03:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Iknowyourider (t c) 03:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Bucketsofg 03:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. @pple 04:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real world coverage, trivial information. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Full House and/or Jesse Katsopolis. Bands that only exist on TV shows don't merit their own articles. Blueboy 96 15:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeval[edit]

This is a non-notable novel released in July, written by an author whose article was speedy-deleted last night. It's listed on Amazon, but is printed by BookSurge Publishing, a self-publishing house affiliated with Amazon. A Google search for the author's name comes up blank. Searches for the book itself on Google come up entirely blank. There are no reviews, nor are there reliable sources. I explained this to the article creator and another editor on the article talk page, and suggested they produce sources ASAP, but the PROD tag was removed amid some edits that did nothing to convey notability, so I bring here for discussion. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reviews/analysis/criticisms etc that would give notability Corpx 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. Without any verification or reliable sources, the article in question should be deleted. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bucketsofg 03:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because Amazon.com has two reviews on the book, I think a plot summary and a major character section is fine. I deleted sections that couldn't be verified that were posted by the creator (who is a questionable recourse). Concerning the Google search: most books from self-publishing houses typically take 2-3 weeks to come up in search engines. This is not unusual for something as new as this title. The fact that the article is too new to have any other resources besides the ones provided in the "see also" section, and the fact that it was published through a self-publishing house, shouldn't be held against the title. Geeky Randy 06:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazon reviews are reader-provided, and are not produced under any kind of editorial scrutiny. Please, as I pointed out on the talk page, take a look at the notability guideline for books, which lists five criteria - none of which are met by this book. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N not satisfied by this unencyclopedic book review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Targeman 21:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Please don't take offense to the following because I don't mean it as an insult. I'm a very busy person and am unfamiliar with a lot of computer stuff. Therefore, taking the time to create and add this article was a lot of work for me. I would've figured you people would be flattered to have another article added to this site. Instead, I feel like I'm being dictated by people who are browsing the “Articles for deletion” category and have likely not even read the book. On top of that, the only person who does agree with me suspects I somehow know the author. I'd like to add that this accusation isn't true either. As I have said before, I found this novel through the recommendation of a mutual aquainense who actually hasn't even finished the book. I have never met or spoke with Schultz. Also, you people won't even edit the article to make it satisfactory. All you suggest (some of you with less than a sentence) to completely destroy the whole article. Please give it a couple weeks. The book was released on July 5. What do you expect? Again, I apologize if I sound rude. YevalPro 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then the thing to do is to keep a copy of the article, expand it when there are significant published reviews in reliable sources, and ask at Deletion Review whether there is enough to justify the resubmission. Whoever writes the article, the book has to be recognized as important first. DGG (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly qualifies as “important”. While we’re having a discussion on qualifications, let me take this opportunity to quote from the guideline section Tony Fox linked to this discussion: “It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception”. I don’t mean to sound irate, and I’m not by the way, I just don’t understand why the rules for this are so damned strict. It is a book. You people let Cleveland steamer, felching and rusty trombone have an article, yet you criticizes and try to delete a controversial novel that makes a statement about graphic violence in America. This is a joke. Again, my sincere apologies for acting so confrontational about the subject. YevalPro 01:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No judgment is being made on the quality or the content of the book, but on the level of notability it has achieved. At this point, it fails that test. This book is one of many on earth. What makes it important? Montco 05:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important? Well, let’s see. The book is important to me because I agree with its message, its an interesting and original subject, and frankly I can relate to a lot of what happens throughout the story. But I’m sure that’s not what you meant when asking about its importance. The best answer I can give you is that it’s a book that exists. People have read it. Without the article, Wikipedia is incomplete. YevalPro 01:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As DGG states above, when the book's notability can be verified, when it's been reviewed by multiple reliable sources, then perhaps it will merit an article. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything in existence; if it was, we'd have ten million articles, eight million of which would be spam, attack pages, and high-school garage bands, in my experience. The policy of verifiability must be met. Reliable sources must be provided to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Stanton Samenow, for example? He has an article that hasn't been picked on and also doesn't have a single source that's been cited. Why does he get a page? He is just one of many American psychiatrists, just like "Yeval" is one of many books. Also, comparing this book to "spam", "attack pages", and "high-school garage bands" is an insult. Somebody has written and published a great book. Don't discredit it because it's self-published. With all do respect, you haven't read it. In fact, I'm sure everybody who voted "delete" hasn't read it. It's sold at Amazon.com, "one of the first major companies to sell goods over the Internet" according to Wikipedia itself. That's a pretty reliable source. Amazon.com doesn't sell CDs by "high-school garage bands". Geeky Randy 04:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; basically, it doesn't really matter what other articles are out there, as this discussion is about THIS article. Stanton Samenow may be a bad example, I should note; he has a number of published books (at least two of them through Times Books) and papers published in major journals; the article also asserts notability, through his work being used on The Sopranos. The article does need sourcing, and I'll tag it as such. I did not compare this book to those other types of articles; I simply said that without the notability requirements, that's what Wikipedia would turn into. Amazon does, in fact, sell many self-published books and CDs that fail to meet notability guidelines. Once again, what you and the other editor defending this article must do to ensure that it's kept is provide reliable sources backing up its notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 04:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I did not see the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS section. Thank you for providing that link. This is much more clearer. Hopefully some better sources will pop up before this article's time is up. I took the liberty of saving the article seperately, if it gets deleted, and repost it when better sources come about. I expect article's creator has already done the same as well. Thanks again for your patience, Tony Fox. Geeky Randy 06:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical model of the guitar[edit]

A7 I believe... anyway just look at the article Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage by independent sources Corpx 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly an unremarkable article. It does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7 it is Giggy _U^CP 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know much about Wiki policies but in 25 years as a professional guitarist and music teacher this thesis has never come to my attention, it is extremely obscure. RichardJ Christie 09:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We learn that the string length and successively the fret scale are directly connected with all the other dimensions of the instrument, as are the body length, bout and waist widths, soundhole diameter etc. affecting considerably the acoustic resonance output of the constructed guitar. In other words, the size and shape of a guitar determine the way it sounds. I suspect the paper may go into a bit more detail, but these matters might be more profitably added to the guitar article in chief. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for random admin Snow or speedy take your pick ;)--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 15:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Possibly this could be developed into something interesting if it actually explained the content of the proposed model. Michael Hardy 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Snow or speedy" is an inappropriate comment when so little time has passed since nomination. Michael Hardy 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re:original nom AfD is not necessary for speedy deletions, as one of the templates in the ((db)) family should do. Unless this was a contested speedy. Morgan Wick 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Snow may be inappropriate, speedy is not, as the article does not assert notability, fails A7. I just wanted to make sure with an AfD--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree this is an A7. It could have been speedy deleted, but the nominator was unsure and looked for other opinions at AfD. He is to be commended for doing that, rather than criticised. It doesn't really matter whether you call it "speedy" or "snow": there isn't much point in continuing this AfD. Geometry guy 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of this article has commented on the talk page of the article.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 19:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He also commented in the article text. He writes:
The article "mathematic model of the guitar" which I wrote and has been proposed for deletion is referring to an international matter where the inventor published this work In English and German bearing the title "The Physics of the Guitar" in a recognized and music orientated German magazine: "DAS MUSIKINSTRUMENT" in 1984 and also he presented for five days this work at the international music exhibition: "MUSIK MESSE" in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1983. He also gave a press conference in the events of the exhibition where Jose Ramirez who was present confirmed that this work is mainly scientific and it is directly connected with the tradition of guitar construction, possessing mathematic constructional data useful for the acoustic behavior of any guitar. The inventor also gave seminars concerning this work to respected teachers and students at the "College of Furniture" in London in 1983 and also gave a seminar to more than 80 luthiers and guitarists of England, invited by George Clinton of "GUITAR" magazine. Jose Ramirez has also written a critic note as a dedication to the inventor and his work. All these are facts and your editors can check them out. My answer to your editors remarks that they never heard of this work is exactly this: just because one has never heard of an important event concerning his own work does not mean that the event did not take place". Any time I can supply you with recorded, published data concerning all the above, if you eventually decide not to delete the article. It will be a pleasure for me to receive the feedback of your editors on the matter. Thank you for your time and remarks.Blazaki 19:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My further thoughts are that the author may well know something about the acoustics of guitars, but that still, this is information that belongs to the article about guitars, generally; the paper may well be a valuable reference, but not in itself a good subject for its own article. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your further thoughts dear editor, I would like to inform you that I had written this exact information of the article in the article which you propose "guitar" and specifically under the section "Neck". As you can easily check this out although I was very specific, bold and informative and as required by the Encyclopedia's standards within the specific scope of the subject, everything which I wrote was deleted from the article "guitar". The general impression I get is that there is a lot of confusion on a very clear cut matter. Furthermore, I had also written an article entitled "Yorgos Kertsopoulos" and in this article iI was very clear cut and bold defining that this person is the inventor of the "mathematical model of the guitar". Also this article was deleted by your team and as an outcome this specific name is recorded as continuous "stubs" by your computerized system, something which is not nice to happen for a specific name which has a recorded history of specific factual donations to public knowledge.Your editor Siva 1979 remarks and criticizes as unremarkable a work which has gained international acclaim and recognition already since 1983.If you do not want me to write any more information either for this work or the inventor I would appreciate it if you could boldly inform me because my only intention is to support with my efforts the general information and communication of knowledge through your very respectable encyclopedia. I am not in any sense trying to promote a promoter. It is out of my intentions. Thank youBlazaki 20:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have an article, "physics of the guitar", which covers guitar physics. Given the musical interests of many physicists and mathematicians, it is hardly surprising that there is a body of research into stringed instruments, including piano, guitar, and especially the violin. (See Catgut Acoustical Society.) One of the pioneers was Max Mathews, originally at Bell Labs, later at Stanford. Then the Karplus-Strong string synthesis algorithm dealt with the plucking used for guitars. That was elaborated by Julius Smith in his digital waveguide synthesis. Since Smith is, himself, an accomplished guitarist, it is hardly surprising that he has paid special attention to the study of that instrument. The point is, there is a great deal to be said about physics and mathematical models of the guitar, but we see no evidence of such knowledge in this stub; if we did, it should be merged. --KSmrq^T 21:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the best thing to do would be to contribute the additional reference to the article just mentioned. DGG (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment on A7 The nom was right not to speedy it, for A7 (non notable) does not apply to books, or to theories, just real people, groups, bands, clubs, companies, and websites. See WP:CSD, and if anyone want to propose additional criteria , the talk page for that policy is the place. DGG (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article said something specific about the mathematical theory, I doubt we'd see all these "delete" votes. Michael Hardy 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrary to what some people above assert, this does not appear to overlap with physics of the guitar. The latter article is rather weak, so I'm surprised to see people acting as if it already covers everything. If this gets deleted and if I every learn anything about the theory, I'll restore the article and put specifics into it. Michael Hardy 01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by "some people" you mean me, I agree that the physics article is weak; the line of research I described is not covered, which is one reason I mentioned it. If you are arguing that a physical model and a mathematical model might be distinct, FM synthesis would emphatically support that claim; but I would still argue that it would be better to augment the physics article than to retain the article in question. --KSmrq^T 04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWell, certainly that would be the best case scenario(having a good article on this subject). If the current article is improved to the point where it is actually about the mathematics, I am sure the delete votes would go away. However the current article simply isn't encyclopedic. It basically says that if you change the way a guitar is made, the sound it produces is different...and apparently there is a mathematical correlation to each type of change. This information alone does not deserve an article and can be found already elsewhere.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 01:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just that there is a mathematical relationship; it's that someone knows what it is and wrote a book about it. Michael Hardy 03:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The book, whatever its worth, is but one source (uncited). Contrast that with the recent Ph.D. dissertation of Erkut. While it is not unheard of for older masterpieces of mathematics, written before their time, to be rediscovered, this stub is very poorly written, and absurdly focused on one work to the exclusion of a long history of research. (Chladni's work is surely relevant; Helmholtz is a pivotal figure; and Pythagoras himself is often credited with the discovery of the mathematical relationship between the length of a vibrating string and its pitch.) --KSmrq^T 20:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: publication of an article does not render the article itself notable. This content would only be notable if its thesis had been the subject of discussion in other independent reliable sources. As it is, this fails the notability criterion. In any case, we have an article physics of the guitar for dealing with guitar physics already, so a new article is not needed. -- Karada 22:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have contested a speedy deletion; I think this one should be discussed. I agree with the nominator that it should be deleted (useful comment can go to physics of the guitar). CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you people ought to seriously consider the possibility that Yorgos Kertsopoulos and the writer of the article, Blaziki, are one and the same person (see how everything added points at Kertsopoulos, the article he wrote about himself has already been deleted). Check out the contribution dates of both editors. I thought there were guidelines in regard to using Wiki for self-promotion and in regard to sock puppetry. 121.72.245.220 06:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC) RichardJ Christie 06:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One reason to doubt they're the same person is that the article says so little. I'd expect the author of the book to say a lot more than that. Michael Hardy 05:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are the same person. Blazaki rolls up on 12 July and adds links to Kertsopoulus videos on youtube, Kertsopoulus thesis (subject above), inserts photos of Kertsopoulus , writes an article on Kertsopoulus. Stops editing on 14-16 July and suddenly Kertsopoulus arrives as editor and carries on the process even going to extent of writing an article on himself playing Albeniz. These get rightly deleted. Then Blazaki resumes on 17 July and re-inserts the Youtube links to Kertsopoulus performances disguising the fact that they are played by Kertsopoulus . Go figure. RichardJ Christie 09:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The writer of the article is Blazaki and not the inventor himself as remarked by an editor. Yorgos Kertsopoulos did try to edit at wikipedia and had many deletions of his editing, but that does not mean that he writes as Blazaki. I happen to be an associate of the inventor and this hopefully justifies my writing in meeting the standards of the encyclopedia. Is it unacceptable for someone associated with the inventor and his work to be able to edit specifically concerning this factual recorded and published important work and its inventor? Please excuse me for taking much space in “text” and “gallery” Kb’s, but it is necessary to support my case for non-deletion of the article. Please find below .jpg format information of the English publication of the “Mathematic model of the Guitar” by DAS MUSIKINSTRUMENT. I prepared this exclusively for the “discussion page” (and not the article since the article is tagged for deletion): a) a summary, b) full readable pages and the magazine front cover, c) a .jpeg showing all the pages and the front cover of the magazine grouped together and d) Mr. Jose Ramirez’s dedication to this specific work of the inventor. All these are recorded facts and what seems difficult for me to understand is what is really more “obscure” as one-editor remarks concerning my article. Is it my writing of the article or is it really the ignorance itself that one guitarist or many aficionados of the guitar, might today possess (year 2007) (as already expressed by the editor himself) on a subject so closely interrelated with mathematics, guitar making, acoustics etc.; even so, when this subject has been internationally presented in an international exhibition: MUSIK MESSE (Frankfurt-Germany, 1983), at the College of Furniture in England (1983), at seminars to English luthiers and guitarists (1983), published by an international magazine in English and German (1984) and received publicity by the international press conference where it was presented (MUSIK-MESSE, 1983) and also received such a recognition from Mr. Jose Ramirez (April 8, 1983), all of these happening 24 years ago (year 1983)? I have posed a question; it is up to the kind editor who remarked about my “obscure” article to answer if he wishes. It would be helpful I believe for all people in the discussion to realize what exactly would end up to be more “obscure”, in the end of this discussion, no matter what your respectable final decision for deletion or not will be. Many of the editors have never heard of this work and this is natural. This happens in many if not in all of the situations for any work in any field. However, many guitar makers have made their work better by using and applying this mathematic model in their guitar making and work, because they have read about it and because it certainly possesses many acoustic functions. From the first page of the published work which I have uploaded for you one can read: …At the press conference given by the author (Musik Messe, February 1983) Mr. Jose Ramirez stated: “This prospect here presented, has all the traditional measurements and proportions of Torres. It is the starting point and the basis, which leads to the ideal guitar. The way though to the ideal guitar is through this basis». Therefore, the question arises: what is the real scope and prospect of an encyclopedia? Is it not to record specific important works and facts, which have been proven helpful to science, to the arts, to tradition, that provide concrete new information to specialized with the subject people and also to make these facts known to the rest of the world, specifically to those people that had not as yet the opportunity to learn about them? This was the intention behind the writing of this article and the facts that support my case can easily prove this. If you delete the article, all of your editors will have become richer in knowledge and experience from the information I supplied specifically only to you and then you will have deleted this knowledge from the rest of the readers of the encyclopedia. You really think that the loser will end up being the inventor of the work or the writer of this article? Please allow me to humbly say: I do not think so. Of course, the article can be deleted; this though will not delete the historic facts. These remain calm and relaxed in their presence. I recommend non-deletion of the article and also to give me the permission to enrich it with only limited informational facts, which will in my opinion, upgrade wikipedia’s offer to its readers. Whatever your decision will be in the end of this discussion, Best regards, Thank you.Blazaki 12:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I happen to be an associate of the inventor" - yeah sure. I rest my case. It's up to Wiki if they want to be taken for mugs. RichardJ Christie 12:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final answer[edit]

All the .jpg's that were uploaded to this page specifically for supporting the non-deletion of the article were deleted. The question is more than obvious:why? All the editors involved with this specific page cannot view the information which supports this matter. Why were these .jpg's deleted when it was specified that they are exclusively for the encyclopedia readers and they were uploaded and linked to this specific discussion page and not to the article? How can an editor support the case for non-deletion of an article if the material which supports and proves the correctness of the case is deleted? Isn't there any editor who can see that at least in my case you have not provided a fair play in a just discussion? That is the least that should be able to be provided on such a matter. Under such conditions I would vote myself dear editors, for the deletion of the article. Again and lastly, Best regards and thank you for your attention and time.Blazaki 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, take a look at the images' image pages and click the log link. For the most part, they seem to have been deleted because of bad licencing. We have strict restrictions on the use of images in order to avoid legal problems; FU images in deletion debates does not appear to be kosher at all. See WP:FU and Wikipedia:Images. Morgan Wick 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kawa no dansu[edit]

Non-notable - I just got 35 ghits and worse one of them (although in the summary it looked like a copyvio) was, when I followed the link, a page on a type of dog breed. There is no information in the page on who founded the art, when and who practices it. The original authors only other contribution is to a High School page which makes me have all sorts of deep dark thoughts. Peter Rehse 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 02:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Cant find anything on google on a quoted search - Non-notable until proven otherwise! Corpx 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also note that it has equally few GHits in Japanese, none of them relevant, either. [49][50] cab 02:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've searched google, and haven't found anything. I've searched some online martial arts indexes and haven't found anything. I'm assuming that this martial art is either terribly obscure or completely made up. Calgary 02:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Bucketsofg 03:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax. I found one ghit that didn't contain this same text. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Riverdance". Ha ha, very funny. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ogh God (slaps forehead) I am sooo thick some times.Peter Rehse 06:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete Ve haf no humour.Peter Rehse 06:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, is it appropriate to add a speedy tag after an AfD is already under way? if do do it.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't stick; there isn't a CSD that applies to hoaxes. ("Patent nonsense" only applies to articles which make no sense at all.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it were real (which I doubt), it would not merit an article. Fg2 10:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:SNOW. Morgan Wick 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate for BJAODN -- llywrch 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sr 13 04:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangere United[edit]

not notable Shnib 02:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not without evidence it's playing at a notable league level, it isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This club is a member of the Northern League Premier Division, which is a notable soccer league in New Zealand. It is thus vital to keep this article. Moreover, all the other league clibs in this league have their own articles as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siva1979 Giggy _U^CP 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be a notable team in a notable league. It is in desperate need of expansion, however. Resolute 04:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 06:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siva1979. Number 5 7 08:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every other team in the same league has an article that isn't up for deletion, so why shouldn't Mangere United? If there are individual articles for teams playing in the North West Counties League Division 2; why not for this league, which is at a higher level? --Steve Farrell 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article did not indicate why the club is notable. I have added a little text + refs to assert notability. Note that it is playing in the Northern League 1st Division this year[51] and not the Northern League Premier League. In the absence of a national league (as I understand the situation[52]), the Northern League 1st Division presumably represents level 2 in New Zealand, which ought be sufficient for notability. The article does need more work though. --Malcolmxl5 18:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The template needs updating, of course. --Malcolmxl5 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a national league, but it is run on a syndicated basis - NL Div 1 id therefore the third level on NZ soccer, and, given the number of teams in the second and third flights in NZ soccer, this ranks Mangere United in New Zealand's top 50 soccer clubs. Oh, and keep, BTW. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. --Malcolmxl5 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News Archive indicates that this team achieves some coverage. [53]

Capitalistroadster 01:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable club. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JForget (talk • contribs) 17:05, July 22, 2007

The result was Speedy delete a1, a7, g1, you name it. NawlinWiki 04:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skerlnik[edit]

non-notable slang, not a dictionary superβεεcat 02:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. No context. SalaSkan 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. Word not in any dictionary, Tiptoety 02:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its just German for great. Drtillberg 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly a very short article providing little or no contex. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1 and A1, tagged Rackabello 03:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 03:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete tagged Giggy _U^CP 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A1. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, this should have been tagged ((db-nocontext)). @pple 04:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Olsen[edit]

prod contested by author; numerous edits but no real changes to content. Author still says he has had minimal success as a singer which the way I see it equals admitting he is not notable. Author also vandalized page in that she/he removed stub tags, uncategorized page tags, etc. while editing. Postcard Cathy 01:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nuttin' out there but MySpace. Fails WP:BIO. The word "underground" does not have magic qualities that escape normal notability standards. --Dhartung | Talk 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability Corpx 02:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO - no sources Giggy _U^CP 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD a7. Iknowyourider (t c) 13:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "...has gained the interest of other musicians & minimal success with airplay on local radio stations." could be construed as a remotely plausible assertion of notability. Morgan Wick 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Delete so other local musicians know who he is, and "minimal success [ie none] with airplay"? This is just another chancer. Come back when you've made it, Kevin. Totnesmartin 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He he I thought the same thing when I prod'd him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.181.177 (talk • contribs)

Delete, could have speedy'd, per db-band, also, per blanked as author blanked page--Jac16888 11:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Phone[edit]

Almost every sentence in this stub is based on rumors and speculation. Google confirms that one out of eighteen current R&D projects involve mobile technology... and thanks to tech blogs we get this. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Remove All Rumors, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until some actual details are confirmed by Google, this article should either be deleted or cut down to only list any known facts. Useight 02:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Removing all rumours will leave nothing. Resolute 02:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a rumor, and one which Google declines - Delete per lack of notability for this item Corpx 02:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and virtually every "fact" in this article is speculation surrounding something that, as far as we know, does not even exist. Calgary 02:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Rackabello 03:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Iknowyourider (t c) 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Giggy _U^CP 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing here which is not a rumour. --Haemo 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL.--H irohisat ^Talk 06:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Carlosguitar 08:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Alliance definitely won't like this. TonyWonderBread 12:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Speedy Close as it is pure speculation and now this is becoming WP:SNOW here.--JForget 16:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Cornwall, Ontario. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone Public School[edit]

NN elementary school that consists of little more than contact info Rackabello 00:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Cornwall, Ontario, unless additional information can be uncovered to establish a claim of notability. Alansohn 01:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Alan.Postcard Cathy 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no good info to merge - this is basically a directory entry. No notability established either Corpx 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory, and this article provides no context or notability. Ali ^(t)_(c) 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cornwall, Ontario...just in case Giggy _U^CP 03:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worth redirecting unless there is a school district page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:V. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 04:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it looks like it is a directory here and also anyways public schools are mostly not notable and doesn't look like this one has anything special.--JForget 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep for the mere fact that thousands have probably visited this school and it likely has a rich history which many may find relevant or may wish to do research on.sources can be found, ratemyteacher, school guides, newspaper articles, i think it should stay. transwiki to a relevant wikicities maybe?71.142.91.34 23:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Cornwall, Ontario per the suggestion of Alansohn. Yamaguchi先生 04:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per WP:LOCAL and Alansohn. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zuby Udezue[edit]

Rapper who has recently released a single album does not qualify under WP:BAND. Also has a limited Google presense of less than 200 hits. Was prodded and removed by anonymous user. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have now found Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zuby, so there was an earlier discussion. Recommend salting per [54]. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as ((db-band)), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-repost per Ricky81682 Giggy _U^CP 03:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimkins[edit]

Page lacks reliable sources, fails WP:NOTABILITY. All sources I turned up were promotional material. WLU 00:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources Corpx 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Starve it per nom. --Targeman 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable fad diet with no mention in reliable sources. CynicElle 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lyal's Witchery Tour Party[edit]

A joke political party which was presumably founded as a promotional stunt for an Edinburgh "ghost tour" company. Now prank parties can be notable sometimes, but this article doesn't establish notability (the vote numbers are not really impressive) and doesn't quote any sources at all. High on a tree 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject appears to be WP:NN, and the article does not provide any WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 00:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is a hoax, no references. Tiptoety 00:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Harlowraman 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very dubious, no references. If I removed everything that was unreferenced and highly dubious I would be left with a blank article. Gee, sure wish we could speedy this. Until(1 == 2) 00:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all deletes. NHRHS2010^Talk 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very likely to be a nonsense article. No references. Slartibartfast1992 01:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't assert notability, no sources, seems non-notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it seems non-notable. Also unattributed. Carlosguitar 08:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I know from personal experience that this is a 'genuine' party. They did get more votes than UKIP or the Christian People's Alliance in the last election, and three times as many as Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers. Minor mentions in the news; for example [55].--Nydas^(Talk) 12:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you may have the wrong link, or the Scotsman redacted their article; but if there is evidence, please add this to List of frivolous political parties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned lower down in the article.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is no references which is the main reason of the weak delete option, although this is not a hoax or nonsense article based on the Google hitsJForget 16:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete at author request. Author was the only substantial contributor to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanMS (talk • contribs)

Impel (Eve Online)[edit]

The user continually removes CSD tags from his/her article, i do not believe this meets the requirements for a stub Tiptoety 00:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question:Tiptoety, if a one sentence article doesn't meet the qualification for a stub in your opinion, what does?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.149.231.232 (talk • contribs)

It's fine that you nominate this article for deletion -- I have no problem leaving that tag on the article. But you can't call it a bad stub after 30 seconds of editing. Give me a break -- and maybe an hour or two... You are also violating the three reversion rule yourself. Just relax for a day -- that's all I'm asking. ThreeE 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator is not in any danger of violating WP:3RR, as reverting vandalism does not count, and removing speedy deletion notices, as you have done, is vandalism. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks sufficient content and context. You have five days to improve the article, but I doubt there's much to add about this vehicle from a fictional universe. --Evb-wiki 00:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Tiptoety not notable. Harlowraman 00:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will beat you to the punch and delete as I have found an extant article on the subject: Spaceships of EVE Online. You all need relax a bit though -- I get threats 30 seconds after putting an article up.ThreeE 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CSD tags are not threats. And they can properly be contested by using a ((hangon)) tag. --Evb-wiki 00:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was threatened with blocking.ThreeE 00:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: Are you an admin? Because only admins can delete. If you are not, the best you can do is blank the page which will cause a speedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.149.231.232 (talk • contribs)

Good point -- I have blanked. Now I am sure I will be threatened with blocking again for deleting the tag...ThreeE 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Very non-notable. See also WP:WAX. GreenJoe 00:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elendor[edit]

The article fails WP:NOR, and it's not notable. Delete GreenJoe 00:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources Corpx 02:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable video game, fails WP:N and WP:V Giggy _U^CP 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the article? It's not a "video game". It is an online roleplaying game. Carcharoth 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable game and violates. WP:NOR Oysterguitarist 07:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ (changing, see below Carcharoth 12:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)) along with any non-notable content in Category:Middle-earth role-playing games (which I just created). Keep the notable ones as separate articles. I would ask the people discussing here to tell us which of the games in that category are notable. See also Category:Middle-earth video games and Middle-earth in video games. I propose that a similar article (maybe Middle-earth in role-playing games) be started as the merge destination. This process, although it will take longer, and will involve some work and writing, will be more productive than nominating individual articles for deletion. See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Carcharoth 10:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changing as I'm convinced by CBD's comments below, though a merge may ultimately be best. The article says "Established in October 1991, Elendor is the oldest and most popular Tolkien-based MUSH on the internet." - "most popular" may be overstating it, but "oldest" is definitely notable. On a brief Google search I found the following and I'll add them to the external links: [56], [57], [58]. That last one is not the best source, but the other two look OK to me. Some quotes "Founded in 1991, Elendor is the oldest continuously-running Tolkien role-playing game on the internet." and "Elendor is famed as the largest MUSH on the net." Carcharoth 12:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs an 'unreferenced' tag, but being unreferenced does not make something 'original research' or 'non notable'. Look at any list of 'top ten' MU* servers in existence and this one will be on there. It may not be the most notable MU* in history, but it's close enough that the matter would be subject to debate (personally I'd say that PernMUSH was more significant overall). We have articles on hundreds of computer games less notable than this. I'll try to dig up and add some references, but c'mon... must we really go around deleting everything which isn't extensively documented? --CBD 11:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Call me old, but I pottered in this a long time ago and it weaned me off Hammurabi. cheers. Anthony Chidiac--Achidiac 12:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a new user. GreenJoe 14:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who was editing other topics before this AfD existed. --CBD 13:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The links above aren't reliable sources. For instance, the game review isn't made by a reasonably authoritative website like GameSpot. The other 2 appear to be directory links. In fact, that's what I see when I use the search engine, hence reliable sources aren't avail. (And it fails to satisfy WP:N)--Kylohk 10:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yahoo! Internet Life was 'reasonably authoritative' when they named this the best Tolkien community site on the web. Obviously you aren't going to find a GameSpot review because they only review commercial games... not free MU*s. The sites which DO review free MU*s rate this as one of the best... but as they don't cover commercial games they apparently aren't 'reasonably authoritative' about the things which they DO cover... that those commercial game sites DON'T. Or something? --CBD 13:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, but in the hope of finding more sources, is any of the stuff in MUSH or in the articles in Category:MU* games helpful for the more reliable sources Kylohk is looking for? Carcharoth 10:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In such a borderline case, they ought to present a source with a link. Also, they should have at least listed its "Access date" so people may roll back and see for themselves. Had the magazine been on paper, it might have been a different story since a back issue can be ordered to verify it.--Kylohk 10:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you willing to accept what it says on their website? See http://www.elendor.net/ where it says "15th anniversary, truly making it one of the longest continually-running games on the Internet." and "GAME OF THE MONTH" ON MUDMAGIC" and "Elendor was declared the "Best Tolkien Community Site" on the net according to a poll conducted by Yahoo Internet Life magazine!" and "We were featured on German and Austrian television in December 2001". If you are willing to accept that MU* sites should be covered at all by Wikipedia, then what standards do you hold them to? Oldest? Most popular? Most notable? How do you measure notability for an MU*? Carcharoth 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it depends on whether a specific notability guideline has been set for "games". But I won't take the official site's word for it. I have a tendency to trust sites like GameSpot, IGN, or any equivalently authoritative website or magazine in a country. Having won an award is important, but the fact that it's won an award must be mentioned by reliable sources that can be easily verified. (There may be a chance that it's made up). I've seen articles related to games that get deleted even though it claims to be mentioned by PCGamer, because the "Keepers" can't dig up the exact issue and page number where the mention exists.--Kylohk 12:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two independent reviews listed under external links now and the Yahoo Internet Life mention (well, have to believe that of course) are enough to satisfy WP:N. --Allefant 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I edited it to clean it up, give it a more encyclopedic reading and a NPOV. Like any other article on this site, more references will eventually be added. Just because you don't know about this game, doesn't mean it should be deleted. There are tons of articles on this site that are just snippets or snubs that someone may want to know more information about by searching for it on Wikipedia. - Cyborg Ninja 04:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Although the claim of notability (the Yahoo award) is strong, there is still a problem with verifiability. The theonering.net review by "Smaug" does not appear to be staff-written ([59]) so I suppose that makes it a reader-written review (which brings WP:Reliable sources into question.) The Mud Magic link is for a directory entry ("trivial" per WP:V). For the time being, I can give the benefit of the doubt. Marašmusïne_Talk 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of the Jedi[edit]

Fails WP:NOR. Non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 00:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 00:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The mud averages around 50 to 100 players at peak playing times". That shows you just how notable it is. Slartibartfast1992 01:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it funny is the sentence before it "...it has grown from a small MUD to one of the largest Star Wars oriented MUDs on the Internet."

Yeah, I was pretty surprised once I realized what the two statements put together meant. Slartibartfast1992 03:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severe lack of notability. Delete. Calgary 03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources Corpx 03:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may not fail WP:NOR entirely, but it definitely fails WP:WEB. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability. Oysterguitarist 07:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
d - get rid of all OR. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no independent external sources are given to assert its notability. Remarkably, though, this is the first article that I've ever seen here that included telnet connection info. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sixtieth biggest MUD? So what? this MUD is not glorious. Totnesmartin 21:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Krimpet 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FurryMUCK[edit]

The subject in question isn't notable. Delete GreenJoe 00:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy keep. Like heck it's not notable. It passes WP:RS and WP:V with flying colors. I smell a WP:POINT here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject looks notable enough, Google shows 39,000+ hits from many different websites. Useight 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. FurryMuck is notable (and the article should be longer). The proposal to delete gives no justification for this action. There are doubtless many mucks that aren't notable; FurryMuck is not one of them. Wyvern 02:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on notability through those articles Corpx 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. You know, the article could use some tidying up - but the subject is certainly Notable. ZZ 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It passes WP:RS. It has definitely been covered independently. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all above. @pple 04:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DikuMUD[edit]

Non-notable. Fails to cite sources. WP:NOR Delete GreenJoe 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 29,000 ghits (unique name, would expect all hits to be on subject) 5 Google news archive articles. Any reason why you think it's not notable? Could be better sourced, might be worthy of tagging. CitiCat^♫ 04:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some sources - I don't know if they are enough for guidelines, but they are enough for inclusion. Shalom ^Hello 04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Edit conflicted). This is one of the most influential MUDs ever. With all due respect to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it's worth noting that CircleMUD, SMAUG, Merc (MUD), ROM (MUD), and several others are all DikuMUD descendents (try Special:Whatlinkshere/DikuMUD). The creators of EverQuest have even acknowledged the influence DikuMUD had on that game, see the first paragraph of EverQuest#Development. In searching for reliable sources, this and this may be a starting point. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how it fails to meet the notability criteria. It does need better sourcing, but that alone is not criteria for deletion. Calgary 04:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Err, nn? Seriously? Diku is about as notable as notable gets as far as MUDs are concerned. -Phorteetoo 05:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article has references. It is the founding father of most of the current variants of MUDs, not to mention the interesting accusations with Sony. How is this not notible? Turlo Lomon 12:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, Article needs imrovement and not deletion. I don't know much about MUDs but this one seems to be very much notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I am a former MUDer and this is very notable in the MUD community. Many modern MUDs are derivitives. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 01:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow. I'm officially adopting DikuMUD, ROM_(MUD), Merc_(MUD), SMAUG, & EnvyMUD to clean up some sources so this doesn't happen again. I just assumed these articles would be near-perfect by somebody else already. Spazure 10:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cuz I'm a sheep - but a fan too. Never thought people would remember this stuff. Anthony Chidiac--Achidiac 12:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arrrrrrgh. Of course, it's easy for nominator to come to the conclusion that this is not notable by our books; we don't have notability criteria for MUDs (and our notablity criteria for all on-line services are vague to say the least)! My heart should, at this point, be lead-hard and heavy and say "damn all articles without any sources to Hell", but even after a long time, I refuse to accept that mere lack of sources is a deletion offense. The bottom line is this: this is a notable MUD. They can't do anything about it. Our problem is creating an article about it. Having unsourced material exist in article history is NOT HORRIBLE (if you think it is, we need tons of new admins to handle thousands of extremely darn selective deletion/undeletion requests). So yeah, let's keep it and improve the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DikuMUD has spawned any number of derivative games from it and is responsible for expanding text gaming in general. There are numerous sites out there devoted to it and its kin. Not to mention it's been mentioned in the Everquest dispute with Sony. Arthmoor 11:11, 22 July 2007 (PDT)
Strong Keep DikuMUD has spawned dozens of codebases, and there are over a thousand games derived from its code, as well as countless others that have been heavily inspired by it (including graphical muds such as EverQuest). You don't get much more notable than Diku outside of the commercial games. KaVir 19:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No Consensus (list has been removed). CitiCat^♫ 03:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-villain[edit]

Delete. This is like all those "List of heroes" or "List of villains" that were deleted a while back. Its pretty much a list of various characters, and not all of them fit the description and a lot of it could be fitted as WP:POV. For example someone (before I edited it) listed Sandman as an antivillain, but only in his movie form. Why not in his comic form? As it is it just seems a dumping ground for people to list their favorite characters.

I suppose, that if this article could be categorized and sourced like List of fictional anti-heroes, I might retract my deletion but I don't see that happening. CyberGhostface 01:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually Keep well, actually, this isn't just like all those lists, as the article itself opens with a description of the concept, and it would seem to me to be the obvious thing to write an article on this subject, the same as one for the concept of the anti-hero. Well, not the same as that article, since it's rather poor too. If the only concern about the article is the list, then remove the list. FrozenPurpleCube 01:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually find it eligable for deletion. It's pretty informative and helps us with how an opposite of an anti-hero works. ZeroGiga 22:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with anti-hero. The term is out there, but I found very few reliable soured usages, let alone anything to use as a definition. --Dhartung | Talk 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWhere is notability established for this term? I searched google a little bit and couldnt find any "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term" - WP:NEO - Corpx 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source and Keep When I frist read the article what struck me was the lack of sourcing, leading to me questioning the truthfulness of the article. It seems to be an existent term, but it definitely needs some sources attributed to it (which probably exist somewhere). As long as we can establish factuallity, I don't see any reason to delete it. The list is a pretty bad assortment, so I would suggest either removing it entirely (which I may do), or keeping a very small, select few (maybe two or three), simply as examples, with a full explanation of how they are examples (the list is also pretty incomplete, I can't believe it leaves out The Brain from Pinky and the Brain). Calgary 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The term has been used, but I could only find a handful of references on google scholar + books, plus maybe a couple of reliable sources on the web. Recurring dreams 05:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the non-list part with anti-hero. It fits rather well: Anti-hero#The Anti-villain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs)
Delete: A google search for either "Anti villain" or "anti-villain" comes up with 7,390 hits. A good number of these seem to be for a band called Anti villain, with others from sources like urban dictionary, and a good number from fan sites for comic books. So, as one editor says above, the term is in use. However, the issue here is whether we can establish that the term has a fairly consistent meaning that is in widespread use. My limited research leads me to believe that the term is somewhat new. The term "anti-hero" is regularly employed by groups as diverse literary theorists (and other academics), comic fans, and movie critics. AND, it is used in print. (There are 3,550 hits for anti-hero on Google Scholar alone. A regular Google search yields over 2 million hits.) "Anti-hero" is in the OED; anti-villain is not.

"Anti-villain" may be a useful term (I happen to think it is) that is being used by a good number of people. However, there seems to be a lack of sources (electronic or print) of either the scholarly or popular type with which we can document the use of the term. Further, amongst those using this term right now, there seems to be a lack of consensus as to what exactly an anti-villain is. This can be seen by looking over the list in the current Wikipedia article or reading through some of the forum posts a Google search will bring up.

Unless someone can come up with solid sources (whether they be in a comic book fan magazine or scholarly journal) that can document this term, it needs to be deleted. So far as I understand, Wikipedia is not in the business of helping to define new terms. So once again, my vote is delete for now. If use of this term continues and makes its way into a documentable source, I have no doubt we'll see this term back on Wikipedia in a year or two. Fixer1234 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but without prejudice to recreation. I do not think that we can call a Google search of any kind (even and especially Google Scholar) evidence for deletion in any case (there are plenty of things in this world that are not on 'the google'). Alternatively, the article just doesn't have enough information yet. If somebody wants to do some research, I'm fairly certain they'll find print on 'anti-villains' and that the information will be able to be moved back into its own article. CaveatLector^Talk 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Victor falk SLSB talk 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the list. The term is in reasonably common use in reliable sources, but the list is unsourced OR. There are a few characters who have been described as anti-villains in reliable sources (e.g. Jon Kavanaugh from The Shield [60] [61], John Travolta's character in Swordfish sourced from this book), and Krogstad in Ibsen's A Doll's House [62] [63]), and these should perhaps be used as examples in a text paragraph, including descriptions of the characters, rather than the current list format which attracts OR. JulesH 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of my main problems was the list. If it can be removed or changed so that all the people are cited as such (again, like the antiheroes page) I won't have much of a problem with it.--CyberGhostface 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure OR. --Eyrian 15:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, Delete the list. The concept is notable, but this needs a sorting out. Totnesmartin 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I went ahead and removed the list from the article. Calgary 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would vote for this to be kept if someone can supply a source for the term other than one tv show's DVD and interviews. Slavlin 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I supplied three further sources in my keep rationale above. Some work needs to be done to integrate them with the article, and I haven't had time to do so yet, but they do exist. JulesH 16:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Overhaul This concept is culturally notable, however it needs quite a bit of fleshing out and many more examples. There is a lot of room for improvement, but I believe that these improvements are forthcoming, so I believe that this AfD is premature. Archon of Atlantis 05:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and overhaul - if JulesH and others were interested in improving this article, and if there are sources that discuss the concept of the "anti-villain". However, this'd require third-party sources discussing, and not just using a neologism; just wanted to point that out. Anyway, this article was only started April 2007, so perhaps it's a good idea to let it be developed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was hesitant keep. The article is sourced well enough, but production is shaky as of now. Sr 13 03:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)[edit]

too much of a crystal ball for now - no release date, no screenplay writer, and only the main three characters explicitly confirmed (yes, I know Bonham Carter confirmed a role, but I'm wary of that source as it would imply she was one of the twenty that had early access to Deathly Hallows) Will ^(talk) 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WE all know that there will be a film adaptation. It is very well sourced. Cartoon Boy 18:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the Deathly Hallows is an important film which will definitely come out and any information available should be accessible on Wikipedia Shnib 22:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more information can be found. WP:CRYSTAL. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now without prejudice per CRYSTAL. This is just a vandal target for now. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number one vandal target is whoever the current president of the US is. That's not a valid reason for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there will almost certainly be a DH film and people would search Wikipedia for information about it. I don't understand why there cannot be an article until the release date and the screenplay writer are confirmed.Xammer 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; meaning that we don't contain information about events that supposed to happen in future, but are not confirmed in reliable sources. A film that doesn't even have a screen-writer yet is pretty wobbly, and what's more, this can be re-created when substantial information is available. It's just too soon. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People may search Wikipedia for info, but they won't actually find any in that article. Or at least very little. Target for wild speculation and vandalism. Restart when morei nfo is known. _TheIslander 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so that it can be updated with more information as it becomes available, without having to recreate the article and then debate whether the new info is enough to justify having an article. This event is certainly notable and near-certain to take place, and it doesn't include speculation, so it doesn't really fall under a strict interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL, though I'll grant a looser interpretation might kill it. Sly Si 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment arguing that this is going to be significantly expanded in the near future is pure speculation, and the possible future status of an article is not a sufficient reason to keep anything. It's about the article as it stands, here and now. If you can improve it within the span of this debate, then it might be worth keeping. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Wikipedia is not a crystalball. Greswik 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All the info is sourced, it contains no OR and no crystalballing. We have the "future film" template to warn people its in preproduction. Crystalball says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." My emphasis added. A movie is officially in preproduction when it is listed in IMDB, as this movie is. We have a history of articles on future events, so long as they are sourced properly. See: 2012 Summer Olympics --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IMDB is hardly a reliable source. Will ^(talk) 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who says so? Every movie article, and every actor article in Wikipedia links to IMDB. Show me something unreliable in IMDB thats not part of a user's comments, and I'll show you more than one in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we're saying IMDB is a user-contributed database, and as such, does contain errors and it may well contain speculation, especially in regards to as of yet unreleased films. Wikipedia having IMDB links is not an endorsement of the facts presented in IMDB, nor does it mean in any way that IMDB constitutes a reliable source. IMDB material has, however, been found useful as supplemental material, hence external links. As for your challenge: I had a look at [64] and found myself looking for edit button to add a quite a bunch of ((fact))s in. Deep Impact was so inspired by FF7? Yeah, suuuure, And I guess I need to watch The Matrix and Shrek umpteenth time to figure out how the heck they "reference" FF7... And hey, this is a released title - speaking of prereleases, did you know Eminem used to be listed for quite a while in Advent Children credits as "Mr. Coates" (whoever that is?) until the movie was actually released with an English soundtrack notoriously lacking any Eminent talent. Now please point out where them Wikipedia errors are so I can throw around some ((fact))s - though I really hope you can add them yourself, because it saves both my and your time and energy... =)

Comment That is one of the user comment fields in IMDB, I think there are 8 fields that can be user submitted. No one can add a film, or add actors, but there are at least 8 fields for quotes, gaffes, plot summaries, biographies, that are user added. Should they be better distinguished? Yes, does that mean IMDB as a whole is unreliable? No.
Speedy keep as 3 characters have been confirmed, Warner Bros are doing it etc and you dont need to be a psychic to see this will be a film, SqueakBox 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need an encyclopaedia article telling us nothing. Anyone can guess there will be a film, and the characters will remain, but until there is actual information available, there seems little point there being an article. While there may be little or no crystal balling, there is also little or no information. Toon 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This movie has already been confirmed. PEOPLE WILL WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT!!

Comment Thats why it is a stub. Wikipedia has always recognized a stub as legitimate, and there is no valid reason to remove a stub that is properly sourced to IMDB and Warner Brothers and Entertainment Weekly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All this information is verified; as per Richard Norton, other future events have articles, such as the 2012 Summer Olympics. And since when has being a vandal target qualified as a reason for deletion? Trust our revert skills. More info is bound to follow on the film. Its production has been confirmed and there are actors who have already signed contracts to be in it. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - when I nominated this article for deletion, there was one reference to the confirmation of a character we don't know is going to be in the book yet. Compare it to the 2012 Olympics pages, which, combined, has upwards of a hundred references. Hell, the 2016 Olympics have 30 references. One reference to a future event is not an invincible shield against deletion. Will ^(talk) 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting this article is a waste of time, as it will just have to be created again at some stage in the near future anyway. --Bobbymadden 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There will most certainly be a seventh motion picture based on the seventh book. --Camptown 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesn't fall under WP:CRYSTAL, as the picture is contracted to be made. In the event that the film was never released, it would justify the article as well. Joe User NY 22:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others or wikify until nearer the time. Simply south 23:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball. Look at what the keepers say: "will most certainly". It's crystal balling, plain and simple. Wryspy 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's passes WP:V. I realise that WP:CRYSTAL could be a consideration, however we do have articles on future things which are planned but not yet being made (rail lines, building, etc). Since there is solid sources available, I'm ok with this. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 01:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a film on this book HAS been signed to happen
Keep Actors have been signed to the film and the film is in pre production.harlock_jds 02:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the film will happen --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 03:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the film will happen in any time so there's no point of deleting it--SuperHotWiki 04:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per Hotwiki. RockerballAustralia 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bart133. --FireV 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment Wiki is a user friendly information site dedicated to the people who use it for personal interests if they choose to, consider the votes so far 14:6 (keep/delete). Add that the rules states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" - I'd say there is enough verified evidence to suggest the production of the film. If this page were to be deleted users would eventually question the pages existence or even attempt to create a new one. User:Arccorp 16:43, 21 July (AEST)
AFD is not a vote. The "it's going to happen" delete rationales fail to account for the fact that it's a target for crystalgazing and unlikely to be unstubbified until at least they finish on the sixth movie. The 2032 Olympics are going to happen, yet they don't have a page, as there isn't enough verifiable information for an article. Will ^(talk) 06:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies just as much to articles that don't exist as it does to articles that do exist. in other words, the fact that the 2032 olympics doesn't have an article doesn't mean you can't cite that as precedent for this article. and if you don't like the fact that it doesn't have an article, be bold and create one!

Keep as per HotWiki. --Credema 06:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- agree with "keepers", although I probably never will look any of that stuff 8]] -- any IP. 08:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This film will definately going to be produced as WB has registered the name.

Bunty Rocks 08:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since, while not the most informative of articles, it does have sourced statements and I can say that I have learned something after reading through the article. --pie4all88 09:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... as User:SqueakBox said, if you look at the article for the film based off of the sixth book, three actors have been confirmed (by verifiable sources). This information should be reflected in this article to give it greater completeness. While I disagree with the reasoning of many of the keeps (e.g. "the film will happen" still fails WP:CRYSTAL), the lack of information is not that the information isn't available but no one with knowledge of the subject has added it to the article. Utopianheaven 11:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no clear boundary on exactly how much 'solid' evidence/proof from sources is needed for it to qualify for WP:CRYSTAL. One's thing's for sure, this movie is going to happen. There is enough verifiable evidence to prove the production of this film in my opinion. Any article that documents a future event is a target for crystalgazing and you can't delete all articles on future events now can you? Mysterial 11:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no doubt that the film will be made (except if some disaster takes place until then, of course). References are going to increase in number; sooner or later this article should be created anyway. Adam78 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I find the reason to delete flawed. This movie is in prodcution and information as been confrimed. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 14:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was concerned as well when I noted that this article existed already. Having checked it over carefully, however, I don't think that it violates WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL: all of the information is sourced, and it seems obvious that there will eventually be a movie, given the rampant commercialization of Harry Potter as a franchise. I'm no big fan of the books (they're overrated, somewhat formulaic, and ultimately not as great as everyone says they are), but I'm inclined to agree that this article, while definitely stubby, contains only what is appropriate and can, as information becomes available, be expanded appropriately. Nihiltres^(t.l) 15:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't violate crystal ball; it's confirmed that there will be a movie, and that at least three (and perhaps more) of the characters have been confirmed for it. That's good enough for me. Ral315 » 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't matter if there are sources on this yet, the fifth movie was just released, the seventh film won't be even in serious pre-production for at least a couple of years. Not appropriate for Wikipedia at this time. No prejudice to recreation when this goes into pre-pro or starts filming Rackabello 17:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which exact part of Crystal are you referring to? Can you provide an exact quote that convinces me? Your telling me to go look it up in the bible, but just giving some fuzzy idea that the rationale is in there somewhere. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's really not enough information available to warrant a separate article. It's like creating an article for Hurricane Arthur; we know it's going to happen, and it'll turn counterclockwise. But there's no point in having an article at this point. This article should probably just be merged into Harry Potter (films). 17Drew 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess thats because we really don't know there will be a hurricane named Arthur in a particular year, the rules for naming the storms changed when they included male and female names, and changed again when they included more exotic names. And of course we know zero about the storm, except maybe a tentative name. The film of course is not speculation, it represents the preproduction facts known up to this time, and is sourced to reliable media. For other examples see Pixar for multiple projects and their progress in development, such as Toy Story 3. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we know Arthur's coming in 2008. The information that's there right now is more or less a rehashing of information from previous films. There's very little here that isn't contained in Harry Potter (films) or related articles, even when they're written in summary style. The fact that there will be more information means that it should be written about in the main film article until a separate article can be spun out. 17Drew 06:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Storng and speedy delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Dalejenkins 18:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:JUSTAPOLICY
Keep. I do feel there's enough information for an article here, and that it will expand further. Come on, we all know it will happen. Ab e g92contribs 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we know the end of the world will happen, but we aren't making an article about that. Dalejenkins

Comment See: Eschatology. People have been writing about the end of the world for over 1,000 years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable.
Keep and semi-protect. That takes care of the vandal-target problem; I do see where you're coming from. It is a very notable subject, and with the book coming out, is very relevant. Neranei ^T/C 23:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's as legitimate as any other upcoming film page. Kuralyov 23:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There enough details to justify the article.--JForget 23:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and valid, seems all right to me...Ravenmasterq 02:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article will exist either way: if the movie is not made it will be notable in it's absence. Deleting it is quite an over reaction, at worst, maybe a redirect. Ariel. 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have citations to prove the main actors are in it and who's distributing it etc., proving that it is in fact an upcoming film and should have an article. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not OR, not a crystal ball, etc. Sophy's Duckling 07:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fair amount of sourced info already; more is sure to come in the near future, and there should be a place to put it. Hqb 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film has been announced. Actors are being cast. There's some information now. Sooner or later there will be a page on the subject, I don't see any point in removing the page. Nfitz 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any doubt this movie is going to be coming out, honestly? $3,500,000 in box office through five films says so. plus in pre-production already Freedomeagle 05:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hardly an encyclopedic material. It belongs to IMDB & Co, not Wikipedia. Alex Pankratov 07:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep This film is almost 100% assured. CRYSTAL does not apply here Mysekurity 07:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Some of the cast are already signed on, of course there is no screenplay writer yet - the book just came out, so there isn't much they could've done until yesterday. It's a notable part of a notable series of movies, based on the notable book series. Gradually, you'll find more sources, especially now that the book came out. --theblueflamingo^Squawk 08:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong and Speedy Keep and Protect - Though the movie has a tentative 2010 release date, the release of the movie is certain nonetheless, and the recent release of the book makes this a topic to keep. ShawnIsHere 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Well sourced and definitely not a crystal ball...Kanamekun 10:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It will gradually fill out as information comes out. Anthony Appleyard 12:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as per Ariel. Tphi 14:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Warner Bros would never miss out on such an obvious source of income, the film's release is undoubtable. Vint 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Harry Potter (films). There is no clear reason why this topic should be split off when there is very little to say about it. It reads like a Summary Style section of what should be the main article, and will not be fleshed out for at least another year. Zun aid ©® 14:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is already flagged ((future film)), and will be updated as details about are discovered. People will visit this page to learn about the film, and I see no reason why it should be deleted just because there's little fact known about it at the moment, regardless of WP:CRYSTAL. -FeralDruid 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless the apocalypse happens between now and 2010, there's going to be the movie. They can't just stop at number 6.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sidious above. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It will come out and all those who wannt information on it can look here and see what we do and do not know. Rembrant12 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have all signed contracts to appear in this film. Release is certain. Not a case of WP:CRYSTAL (in fact, I believe that at one point WP:CRYSTAL used "Harry Potter Book 7" as an example of a product to be released in the future which was acceptable). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 02:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge/redirect. 0utright deletion seems like worst option. Donnie Love 06:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the above reasons. It HAS been confirmed by numerous sources, and is not crystal balling. All of the article is well sourced. And for those of you saying IMDb is not a reliable source because users can contribute, why do you even bother editing Wikipedia? There are more restrictions on IMDb, yet you seem to have no problem here. 65.162.59.80 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." It is indisputable that the seventh HP film is both notable and certain to be made. If the article is deleted now, it's just going to keep getting recreated over and over again, as more information becomes known. There is enough known now to justify the article as it stands. Marc Shepherd 14:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. The article will need to be created again soon, and since there is (albeit a small amount of) confirmed information there, there is no need to delete it. The list of 'Previous roles' should be removed, though. Mark ^(Talk) 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Julien Foster 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per others. The more information the better.--Drboisclair 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Why delete it when it will be needed again in a few months (or less) when information begins pouring in? This seems to be part of the recent vendetta against all Harry Potter related articles. -Inventm 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. The fact that this movie will be made has been verified. In addition, this article is notable. Chupper 21:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable to have and the section for the returning characters can be turned into a returning characters list with the actor and actress info removed to avoid speculation aside from the confirmed roles and since the character pages already have the info on the actors from the previous movies. -Adv193 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neutrality^talk 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sr 13 03:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect[edit]

AfDs for this article:

entire article is a violation of WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO, etc. the closing admin of the last afd violated WP:JUSTAVOTE since most of the keep arguments presented are violations of WP:NOR and therefore should be ignored. the most compelling argument for keeping is the Forbes reference, and that lone reference isn't enough. Andy Greenberg - the author of the Forbes article - doesn't get to violate WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO any more then any one here does. plus, it seems very likely that this Andy Greenberg based his Forbes article off of this wikipedia article. if a mainstream source uses an article violating WP:NOR as its source, the wikipedia article doesn't, all of a sudden, magically become justified. Misterdiscreet 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I'm sorry, with this 2nd time, I'm getting aggravated now. How do you mean, WP:V, WP:ATT? It's full of freaking LINKS to the credible sources, and quotes from thereof! What else do you need??? Please present *exact* objections on any of the points you brought up. Like, with quotes and everything. I'm not a mind reader, and I'm not seeing what you might be seeing as a violation. -- Wesha 20:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

techdirt.com, mooreon.org, www.slashdot.org are not a credible sources. the thesmokinggun.com article only discusses the event that this article has been named after - it does not discuss the effect and can no more be used as justification for an article then the Tylenol Crisis of 1982 could be used as a justification for the tylenol effect. www.whyaretheydead.net does not discuss the streisand effect, either, nor does cnsnews.com, tvacres.com, theregister.co.uk, news.com.com, theage.com.au, latimes.com, nytimes.com, or news.yahoo.com. to assert that all of these are an example of the streisand effect is synthesis, is considered original research, and is a violation of wikipedia's policies. Misterdiscreet 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot is a news source with editors and a publication policy. They passed to a credible source before wikipedia.org was even registered. Joe User NY 21:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the only parts of the Slashdot site that mention the streisand effect are comments and comments do not count as reliable sources Misterdiscreet 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were making a comment on Slashdot in general. Joe User NY 21:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the single Forbes source is, to my mind, quite reliable. However, many of the other references do not mention the "Streisand effect", making their inclusion OR. A single source, though less than what I would like, may well be sufficient for inclusion in this case. --Eyrian 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Forbes magazine used the term in an article, if that's not a valid source then nothing is. Besides, how do you think words and terms get added to the English language?

Also, I suggest that you avoid violating WP:NOR. Do you have proof that Mr. Greenberg used the wikipedia article? You can't just jump to conclusions to justify your argument.

Finally, if we delete this, then we should add truthiness to the list as well, or does one need a comedy show to add new words to the language?

Summary: WP:NOR , WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:RS, - Argument is void, published in national respected magazine as well as several online magazines.

WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO - Argument is void, the term has been in use for several years and returns over 800 results in Google alone. Joe User NY 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blogs do not count as online magazines and if they do they likely violate WP:NOR. google searches are also not sufficient for keeping an article. there is no article on miserable failure (the article that does exist is a redirect). truthiness should be deleted, too. finaly as i already explained, Andy Greenberg does not get to violate WP:MADEUP anymore then you or i. whether or not he stole it from wikipedia is irrelevant (although i believe he did) and i should not have mentioned it. Misterdiscreet 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I disagree, some blogs should count as valid sources, Google searches should be used as an indicator of use, and WP:NOR applies to wikipeida itself, not a third party. As for truthiness, if you hold to your convictions so much, add it to AfD. Joe User NY 21:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add, WP:MADEUP does not apply to third parties writing articles off Wikipedia, that is how new terms get put in use. Joe User NY 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

truthiness is not an article i'm going to nominate for deletion right now because i cannot handle simultaneous uphill battles. further, truthiness may or may not have more reputable sources then this. i have not looked nor do i want to right now. finally, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Misterdiscreet 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I look forward to your AfD on Truthiness in the future. Also, there was more to my comments above, feel free to respond to the other parts as well. Joe User NY 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree with your first two points. i concede the WP:NOR point, but i still do not think one single notable source (the Forbes one) is enough to establish notability of any sort Misterdiscreet 23:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if Forbes magazine is considered a notable source for any one article, then it's valid for all. Joe User NY 23:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is a reliable source. i'm not saying it isn't. what i am saying is that one article on one reliable source is not enough to establish the notability of a subject. rather, multiple articles are what is needed, and that's not something this article has Misterdiscreet 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your opinion that Forbes is the only source that can make this notable. The Forbes article is the sign that brings the article out of obscurity and into notoriety. The other sources have a supporting role in this and cannot be completely discounted even if they are not considered valid sources. If a dozen blogs say 'x' and then the NY Times says 'x', you can bet that 'x' is now notable no matter what your opinion of the blogs are. Joe User NY 03:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree. if NY Times says 'x' only once and no one else does, then the NY Times is simply jumping the gun. Ippimail was mentioned in The Independant [65] yet it was deleted. do made up words deserve special treatment over that which organizations get? Misterdiscreet 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that you equate unverifiable sources as no source. Other sources need to be added to the equation in this debate. (not in the article). As for ippimail, well, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Joe User NY 05:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One additional comment. Under your guidelines, the first publisher will always be jumping the gun. I think you need to give them some credit, they don't just write 'x' without editorial oversite. Joe User NY 13:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editorial oversite didn't catch the Killian documents or Jayson Blair Misterdiscreet 18:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it eventually did. Or else you wouldn't have known much about it. Joe User NY 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i suppose you also think that Enron is the perfect example of big business policing itself? though the fraud went undetected for many years, it was eventually discovered and thats all that matters, right? Misterdiscreet 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not taking your bait. Like I said before, if a reputable source published information, and in this case, at least two did, then that meets the criteria to void your reasons for the AfD. Joe User NY 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. ive said i agree. two reputable sources is enough. yet you insist on trying to convince me that one should be enough. "[the first publisher didn't] just write 'x' without editorial oversite", you say. why does that matter when a second reputable source reenforced what the first one said? its like your trying to pick a fight. now that your losing, tho, you try to cop out. take some responsibility Misterdiscreet 01:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you agree? You fought my argument the entire way. I'm still not taking your bait, invoking Enron to argue Blair/Killian is inane. Joe User NY 01:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you didnt present a second reputable source - User:Edison did and i agreed with him. stop trying to cause a fight. read WP:CIVIL Misterdiscreet 02:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, pot, kettle, black. Joe User NY 03:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a second reputable source and I'll a third but you keep on butchering teh article to remove sources. It's time for a WP:SNOW keep of an article that clearly meets all qualifications of notability with a rather clear consensus. Alansohn 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW is reasonable. your edits appear to just be reversions. did you actually add new material? if so then my own reversions were in haste and i apologize Misterdiscreet 02:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep nothing changed since the last afd, it might be made up and new, but it's reality none the less -- --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the deleting admin violated WP:JUSTAVOTE by keeping this article. AfD's are not popularity votes despite what you and that admin may think Misterdiscreet 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the previous afd is more than Just A Vote. It's a clear consciouses to keep that article. In fact only one person in that AFD acutally agreed with the nominator to have it deleted.RiseRobotRise 01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with RiseRobotRise. There appears to be a good consensus about the article. I believe your comment was in good faith but a strong word like 'violated' seems inappropriate in my view, again because I WP:AGF. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RiseRobotRise is right - the last afd was more then "Just A Vote" - it was "Just A Violation Of WP:NOR". most votes to keep went along the lines of "obviously notable", as if articles on wikipedia don't need to establish their notability. well, they do. read WP:N. but maybe you think mob rule runs wikipedia - not policies? maybe you should create an afd for every WP:* article then. Misterdiscreet 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, perhaps you need to WP:AGF and lighten up ...? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you selectively ignore wikipolicy. WP:AGF does not excuse that Misterdiscreet 15:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forbes, techdirt, and some other sources verify the information. I think is good enough for me. RiseRobotRise 01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

techdirt isn't notable nor are "other sources". check out my user page. you see all those articles? "other sources" verify the information contained therein, but those "other sources" weren't enough to keep those articles. of course, this article is obviously different because you, RiseRobotRise, have set your foot down and decided it is? Misterdiscreet 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my !vote in the last AFD in re this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in your last afd you said you remember seeing some notability here. how about instead of making colorful allusions you try backing your claims up with real evidence? establish this article's notability without violating WP:NOR Misterdiscreet 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's not merely a list. Bearian 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no - it's merely a violation of WP:NOR Misterdiscreet 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:N and WP:A by the Forbes article and the Globe and Mail article [66] which says "The Digg-DVD donnybrook is the latest example of what's come to be called the “Streisand Effect,” in which efforts to squelch a bit of online information lead to that information being much more widely disseminated than it otherwise would have been." This coverage by two reliable independent sources satisfies WP:RS and WP:V. The phenomenon of trying to suppress something resulting in the unintended consequence of heightened publicity did not originate with Streisand's attempt to suppress an aerial photograph, but recent discussion of the phenomenon, especially on the internet, has used this term as more specific than "unintended consequences" or the coldwar term "blowback." I could not think of an article to merge it to or to redirect it to. Nixon's efforts to prevent major newspapers, via injunctions, from publishing the Pentagon Papers, is a previous instance of the same phenomenon. Additionally, Wordspy [67] cites' "The "Streisand effect" is what happens when someone tries to suppress something and the opposite occurs. The act of suppressing it raises the profile, making it much more well known than it ever would have been.—David Canton, "Attempt to suppress can backfire," London Free Press, November 5, 2005' which would be a third reliable newspaper or magazine reference if someone could confirm it. Edison 05:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nice find with the globe and mail source. you've convinced me the article should stay. i'll be content with removing the specific WP:NOR violations in the article Misterdiscreet 15:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per just about everyone else here. — OwenBlacker 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just about everyone here thinks that WP:NOR is an argument to keep instead of to delete. just about every argument here (there are a few exceptions, but not many) is a violation of WP:JUSTAVOTE, because their arguments willfully ignore wikipolicy, and if your argument is the same, it should be discounted with most of the rest.

afd's are not the venue to set policy. afd's exist to apply policy. like the united states supreme court. the supreme court doesn't base its decisions on its own personal preference - they base it off of the original intent of the law. afd's are not decided on your own personal preference - they're based off the original intent of the policy. if you dislike the policy, debate it at WP:NOR - don't pretend as though it doesn't exist in afd's Misterdiscreet 18:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, wikilawyering is not becoming of you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, wikipolicy is not becoming of you. Misterdiscreet 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting us nowhere. You can debate sources until you are blue in the face but it won't change the fact that there are at least two major sources using the term. (Forbes and Globe & Mail). Any debate on them past this point is a debate by Misterdiscreet on the policy WP:NOR and not on this article. Joe User NY 20:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

knee-jerk reactions are not becoming of you. my response to OwenBlacker and my response to Rawr has nothing to do with WP:NOR. i'm not citing a source or refuting one that's been cited. i am simply calling out a bad argument when i see one. yes, good arguments have been made. OwenBlacker and Dennisthe2 / Raw, however, have not made them. if you think WP:NOR address that, i suggest you read WP:NOR, because you obviously haven't Misterdiscreet 21:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, and revert this edit. WP:N and WP:V/WP:ATT are satisfied, the list of examples is not WP:OR (hint: once the effect is defined using reliable sources, an article doesn't have to mention the exact term to be an example of the effect), and WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO are not the case as we have reliable sources using the term. I've also read the previous AFD, and WP:JUSTAVOTE was not the case. However, I do think the nominator here may be violating WP:POINT, particularly the sections WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:GAME. Anomie 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the list does violate WP:NOR, despite yourself, and is the main reason why i called this afd. your accusation of WP:POINT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME is laughable and is a violation WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. if you disagree with my reversions, take it up with WP:ARBCOM Misterdiscreet 01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess I'm just going to have to disagree with you on the WP:NOR issue. As for the rest, I called it as I see it. Anomie 03:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. Rob T Firefly 00:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Adequate reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish notability per the Wikipedia:Notability standard. You've got to love the claim that the article should be deleted because "Andy Greenberg - the author of the Forbes article - doesn't get to violate WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO any more then any one here does." We Wikipedians are the only ones under a WP:NEO restriction; we are perfectly entitled to create articles based on what other people have "made up" as long as reliable and verifiable sources are provided. Even better is the claim that "if a mainstream source uses an article violating WP:NOR as its source, the wikipedia article doesn't, all of a sudden, magically become justified." which implies that Wikipedia is "really" the source of the term. Doc, isn't this the plot of the move Back to the Future?Alansohn 01:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep -- this is a phenomenon in propaganda that is worth documenting. The timeline is stellar.Gregbard 01:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created the Streisand effect/Timeline after I nominated the article for the first AFD and it failed. I wanted to see how prevalent the phrase is on the Internet and maybe improve the article but I still don't think it's that widespread, or notable. In the timeline I highlighted media mentions of the phrase in yellow and blogs in aqua blue and bolded information I found significant. I still don't think there's an actual "effect" at play here. Yeah, The Smoking Gun publishes lawsuits and other media outlets repeat news stories. So? That's what the media *does*.

It's not some physical effect like the Casimir effect. The term "Streisand effect" was created as a joke.[68] And the definition of the term has also changed over time. Originally, the blogger (who we shouldn't be quoting anyway) Mike Masnick defined it as lawyers attempting to remove information from the Internet and instead bringing widespread publicity to said information.[69] What if publicity was the lawyer/agent's intention? Does Masnick think that lawsuits don't generate publicity? There's no such thing as bad publicity. Later, Masnick changed the definition and defined it even more vaguely as "the more you try to suppress something, the more attention it gets." [70] Is that "Masnick's Law"? Did he just invent a synonym for anti-censorship or teenage rebellion?

What exactly is the "Streisand effect"? Is it the effect Barbra Streisand has on people? On February 13, 2005, Janet Street-Porter[71] spoke of the Streisand effect when reviewing the musical Acorn Antiques and said it's when one person tries to do everything in a production. Or do we go by Masnick's definition(s)? Is it a causal relationship between prohibition and popularity? Is it a *correlation* between prohibition and popularity? When speaking of popularity, is it only limited to Internet popularity? Is it when any Internet user behaves in a way you disagree with? Is a cease-and-desist letter a necessary component of the "Streisand effect"? Are lawyers a necessary component? Why does the PKZIP article link to the page? Is it any disobedience or rebellion or unintended consequence? Andy Greenberg[72] defines it as a "backlash that occurs when someone tries to muzzle information on the Web." Here, no lawyer is mentioned. So is the "Streisand effect" just a synonym for backlash?

The article still has no clear definition and as time goes by, the Notable cases section will accumulate more and more speculation by editors who come up with examples that they personally think fit the definition, but that is all assumption and should be deleted. This is exactly why neologisms should be avoided in articles. Neologisms often have different meanings to different people. Plus, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. The phrase appears on neologasm.com and also urbandictionary.com and I think it fits just fine there, but I think it does not belong on Wikipedia. Everyone should read about articles on neologisms.

David Canton and James Nguyen and Rebecca Dube used the term, but we must cite reliable secondary sources ABOUT the term, not articles that merely USE the term. So far, there is one article about the term, the article by Andy Greenberg of Forbes. I don't think you can make an encyclopedia article based on one article. Andy Greenberg is the only reporter who has interviewed Masnick about the term and Masnick said they talked for an hour and most of the time was spent trying to come up with examples.[73] Only 3 of those examples are present in the Forbes.com article, the rest are in a slideshow (whose authorship is unknown). Is Andy Greenberg a reliable source? Is he employed by Forbes? Is he a freelance blogger? Did his article appear in Forbes magazine or only online? Even if he is a reliable source, that is still not enough sources about the term. I personally think the Greenberg article is a veiled plug for a company called ReputationDefender (who will help protect you against the dreaded "Streisand effect"), but that's just my opinion. If the Greenberg article is used as a source, the Wikipedia article would just be a definition and a list of 3 examples -- not quite encyclopedia material.

The only non-blog reference in the Notable cases section that contains the phrase "Streisand effect" is the Forbes article. If an incident is put in the list of examples and the reference does not contain the phrase "Streisand effect", it counts as original research, assumption, and speculation and is against Wikipedia policy. Also, who are we going to cite for claims of widespread Internet publicity in the examples? Blogs aren't reliable sources. Nielsen NetRatings? Alexa? Technorati? The number of Google hits? Youtube views? Define "widespread on the Internet." What's the threshold for claiming the information is widespread? Or do we just need to cite a reporter who says a piece of information is popular on the Internet? So far the only citable reporter would be Andy Greenberg (if he is a reliable source and if it was Greenberg, not Masnick, who came up with the examples) or perhaps Paul Rogers of the San Jose Mercury News (who said that the photo of Streisand's house was an Internet hit). [74]

The phrase "Streisand effect" may also be derogatory to Ms. Streisand. Material found in blogs should never be used in the biography of a living person and that should also apply to phrases that contain the name of a living person. You can't just create a Wikipedia article for any person and suffix it with "effect" and call it a real phenomenon. The phrase itself damages her public image.

The mentions of the phrase in Red Herring, The Globe and Mail, and Forbes all come *after* the creation of the Wikipedia article (which should have been deleted in late 2006 because it relied solely on a blog for a source). It's unknown whether the Wikipedia article itself contributed to the belief that the "Streisand effect" is an actual phenomenon, although I have seen links to the Wikipedia page on Slashdot, etc. If you think it's an actual phenomenon, you'll see it everywhere you look. That's called confirmation bias. Yes, information spreads quickly on the Internet. Am I supposed to believe that it's the "Streisand effect" at work? I have also noticed that the Red Herring article with entertainment and copyright law attorney James Nguyen now requires a subscription to view and it's likely that The Globe and Mail article by Rebecca Dube will also require a subscription to view soon. business lawyer and trademark agent David Canton's comments appear in the London Free Press (which costs to view) but also on his technology law blog--not a reliable source.

I agree with Misterdiscreet's nomination. As it is now, the article violates the policies on original research and verifiability and also the guidelines on reliable sources, things you made up in school one day, and neologisms and the phrase is also defamatory to Barbra Streisand. Masnick admitted the phrase is a joke and the article should be deleted. If the article is not deleted, it needs a serious overhaul. --Pixelface 10:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did somebody notice the recursive irony of this AfD? The article Streisand effect potentially might be hit by the Streisand effect itself -- if the NOR'ers get their way and remove it, there's already enough following to take it out of Wikipedia and spread it all around :D -- Wesha 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You know, the thought's crossed my mind. =^^= See Murphy's Law, btw, for a similar effect. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. —Kurykh 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard PHP Library[edit]

phpcruft. wikipedia does not need a new article for every chapter of the php manual Misterdiscreet 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - C standard library, C++ standard library, if you're going to include other popular libraries, this should be included as well. Google returns 41,000+ records for this, it's not like it's obscure or not in use. Joe User NY 20:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- there are 103,000+ records on Google for fgetc(stdin). let's create an article on that! there also is precedent for deleting phpcruft. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHP Data Objects (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHP Data Objects, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BCMath Misterdiscreet 21:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Be careful what you wish for, the consensus is that being a unix command is already a valid basis for an article, so individual C, C++, and C# functions will surely follow. Spazure 10:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comparing a function to an entire library is not a valid comparison or argument and you should know that. I don't think it's phpcruft, I think it's a library on it's way to becoming a certified standard. Joe User NY 21:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be expanded into a good article and has no problem with WP:NN. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for volunteering! Misterdiscreet 16:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This is a stub, it can be turned into a decent article. It doesn't necessarly have to be turned into one in the next few days, as Wikipedia does not have deadlines. Joe User NY 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nom is Cruftcruft. Dhaluza 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal christianity[edit]

Theological essay. Unreferenced except for an apparently self-published book. Alksub 22:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smite Obvious soapboxing. Blueboy 96 22:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 01:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Wikipedia is not a publisher of personal essays. I've also had some interchange with the author regarding the lack of notability and the perceived conflict of interest on the article's talk page which, in the interest of mercy, I shall not repeat here. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete the article duplicates other better articles, but is not primarily devoted to the book. DGG (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and above.--JayJasper 21:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Showers 04:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Missions in 3-D Pinball Space Cadet[edit]

Highly specialised data on a computer game, trivial, violates WP:NOT#INFO. Alksub 23:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though in cases like this I'd be more inclined to redirect to the main game article (in this case 3D Pinball Space Cadet). hbdragon88 23:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom., also WP:NOT#GUIDE. I don't think a redirect is necessary, seeing as I don't think anyone would look up something so specialized. ~ Oni Lukos _ct 00:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, guys! I find the subject very interesting, and when I came to Wikipedia to look for the information, and saw it wasn't there, I put all the information I could. - E2MB the museblogger 00:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete it though. It took a while to compile. - E2MB the museblogger 00:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to the main article in questionJForget 16:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy into E2MB's userspace and then safely delete - From there he can archive his information, or merge into the main article. Deletion without preservation would be out of the question. I'd like to WP:AGF in instances like these, as well as take WP:BITE into account.--WaltCip 04:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment unfortunately I agree that this is not wikipedia material, however is there no other wiki this can be transwikied to? If not then it should be moved to the users area, and not deleted outright. Ariel. 04:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zak El-Ramly[edit]

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. The gentleman has been and engineer and corporate executive. No refs. Article reads like a resume. 30 or so unique google hits, mostly conference agendas, couple of directory sites. Montco 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Wryspy 01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, and reads like WP:SPAM. The user who created the page has one other page they edited/created, ZEMA, the company M. El-Ramy works for. I think this suggests serious WP:COI concerns and thus both may qualify for a G11 speedy. At the very least, I suggest the ZEMA page be included in this AfD. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. CitiCat^♫ 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogcast[edit]

violates WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO, etc. Misterdiscreet 03:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean This article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Blogcast is in use by sources such as Microsoft and CNet, it's mentioned in the NY Times as well. Joe User NY 03:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[75] NY Times mention of blogcast. Joe User NY 20:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:RS - Sources in NY Times, CNet and Microsoft. Joe User NY 20:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MADEUP WP:NEO - Term in use since at least 2005, obviously in use for a while (Source Google) Joe User NY 20:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wimpy keep needs cleanup, and this might be better suited for Wikitionary.--Cerejota 15:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially WP:NEO and WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 16:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - seems like it can be more than just a wiktionary entry, if the article goes into more detail about the development of the tech. I've flagged facts needing footnotes, but this doesn't seem like it's bad enough to delete anymore - certainly not worth 6 policy references in the nomination. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]