< July 3	July 5 >

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

The result was Keep, certainly no consensus to delete. NawlinWiki 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek companies[edit]

Don't delete the list of italian companies. It is organized by industry, whereas companies of italy is not.

I am nominating this and every other company in Category:Lists of companies by country for deletion. A category "Companies of X" (where X is a country) already exists. The larger lists are nothing but collections of links, and there is no qualifying statement regarding size or value of business before it can be included. At least the category will only include companies that meet WP notability guidelines. MSJapan 06:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reasons of duplication because a "Companies of X" category already exists:

Keep - Looking through these, especially those of less developed countries, there are hundreds of links (sometimes more than blue ones) that would be lost if these articles were deleted. For some, such as List of Canadian companies, and other lists with companies on which we almost all have articles on, deletion is probably favorable, but for the vast majority of these, it is not. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think that if a company is redlinked, it is likely not in line with WP:N and thus doesn't belong on WP anyway? My feeling is that the links retained by the cats will certainly be notable and useful, as they will be limited to those companies that have articles on them (and thus those companies that have had objective news coverage, business reports, etc., as opposed to say, my neighbor's kid's landscaping business being listed as a US-based business). MSJapan 07:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't feel that way because there are plenty of companies out there that I know are notable but aren't on Wikipedia. This is especially the case for the lists that singled out. If there's a redlink on List of Canadian companies, then it probably has a high chance of being NN. This doesn't really cross over to those lists where redlinks dominate, though. For instance, on the Ethiopian page, I know of a number of companies on that list that are redlinked and very notable, and even more that aren't even on the page, some of which are even more notable. I really don't mind the deletion of the former category, as I said on the deletion page, but deletion of those that fall in the latter would result in the loss of all those redlinks that would eventually become articles. Those lists can often be the starting point for anons and low-level contributors. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I have several of these pages watchlisted because of RC patrol - they are link magnets, with a vast majority of the companies being non-notable. No need to have them when the relevant categories already exist.xC | ☎ 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You can tell by each company just how notable they area. (E.g. are they privately or publicaly held.) IF they are public they are probably notable enough. Since they make enough not to become delisted in their native market. OR Do they have a history section. OR Do they explain their importance for their own native market etc. CaribDigita 07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — We've just been through this a couple weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese companies. These lists are each notable in their own right, and List of Japanese companies is a very good example of how informative and encyclopedic all of these lists can potentially become.--Endroit 08:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Endroit 08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. These lists are far too arbitrary and extremely difficult to verify and maintain. We would be far better with lists that have a more specific focus -- Barrylb 08:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but some or many of the lists may need to be cleaned up. For example, the List of New Zealand companies separates out the companies in the NZX 50 stock exchange index, which are certainly notable and should have articles, and the rest, which need to have some justification for articles. The article could be expanded to include some measure of capitalisation of each company, with a cut-off point, so very small companies are excluded.-gadfium 08:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be happy to see an article List of NZX 50 Companies because it would be meaningful and easy to maintain. A general list is not meaningful and not easy to maintain and not very useful. -- Barrylb 08:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria obviously can differ depending on each nation's wiki-project. But having a list for each nation makes these a very notable and encyclopedic group of lists. You should be discussing how to apply similar standards across the board, NOT arbitrarily & unconditionally delete all such lists like you're trying to do here.--Endroit 09:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find these lists useful because the criteria for inclusion are not clear on any of them. I have no idea what I will find on the page I can't see the lists ever being complete and I don't know how to make them complete. If we keep these lists we need to have clear criteria specified on each list. -- Barrylb 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at his example. It provides a useful index of clearly notable companies both with and without articles. This is the very purpose of such lists. I don't see the need to be finicky about additions; with some sense in keeping the dreck out (as in the Japanese case), it is clear that these lists can work perfectly well. Rebecca 11:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 08:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this had been on the Australian one, I'd have probably voted delete, due to the amount of crud on the list. However, reading the arguments of Endroit, and to a lesser extent, Yom, I'm convinced we should keep the lot. Endroit's example of List of Japanese companies is an extremely good example as to just how useful these lists can be; there are many redlinks on that list that are very clearly notable, and I suspect this would be the case if we actually cleaned up many of the other lists and got rid of the dreck. As such, these really should be cleaned up, rather than deleted. Rebecca 09:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, or move under the related WikiProject. Deleting all of these pages at once is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. I have looked at the lists for Greece, Australia, NZ and Japan and cant see any compelling reason for them to be deleted. John Vandenberg 09:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Lists are of notable subjects and serves an encyclopedic purpose. Lists could be expanded to include more material, such as number of employees, annual earnings, type of company, etc., and then converted to sortable lists. This would include much more information than their respective categories, and would help in researching economic characteristics of a nation. This counterpoints the nominator's argument that they are redundant to categories. But before I close my opinion, I have to ask: if this type of list was discussed before, and the result was keep (not no consensus), why are they still being nominated? If doubt arises over their content or criteria, shouldn't this be discussed here first, and then nominate for deletion based on previous consensus? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because the guideline isn't going to make a difference without maintenance, and at the very least no one is maintaining these lists in general. Not only that, your example is one of the better overall examples on the list of noms, but people know about Japanese companies and know what's what, even without reading the target language. Can the same be said for Estonia and Poland? Maybe, maybe not. Some of the lists are nothing but lists of 100+ links; other are five links, and four are red. So how do we set across the board criteria that work for everyone? (I think we can't). I think there are criteria, and they are very rarely adhered to from what I saw looking at all the lists (I tagged by hand). Therefore, I think it's better to lose the lists and leave the information on companies we know meet WP guidelines in their own cat. Also, if there is a deletion consensus, what's the difference? You can't delete some countries and not others. MSJapan 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: If there is a criteria, then it should be enforced through discussion or changed until consensus is reached. If not, then the criteria should be discussed and duly included in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We should not simply delete all articles until an alternative arises, especially if previous consensus is reached that such lists are useful and of notable subjects. If they can be improved, then they should be kept. If they are not currently being improved, then we should bring this matter to the attention of the community (try WikiProject Business and Economics), not delete them outright. If you believe these lists are unmaintainable due to the large number of companies, then maybe we should take the approach of List of HIV-positive people, which only includes sourced additions while disclosing the fact that the list is not, and never will be complete. The sources could be evaluated to make sure they're independent and reliable. Would that answer your concerns? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted by Yom, these lists can be of great help for less developed countries. And please keep in mind that being a redlink doesn't mean that the topic is WP:N, especially regarding continents like Africa.--Aldux 12:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand why people think these lists are "encyclopedic." I someone going to research one day "companies in Taiwan that begin with the letter C"? These would be properly handled by categories. These are nowhere even near comprehensive, nor is there any way they ever could be. There are over twenty million people on Taiwan, yet there are only about a hundred or so companies on its list, and only ten companies "started by Taiwanese?" There's no criteria for size, market cap, or any other criteria for inclusion on the lists. eaolson 13:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right,Companies in X that begin with the letter C isn't encyclopedic, but that type of list isn't nominated for this AfD, and if you have concerns over list criteria, it should be discussed at the proper Wikipedia guideline. These articles are lists of company by nations, which is directly tied to economic topics of countries; therefore, encyclopedic. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (again) Didn't we just do this a few weeks ago? Since the last AFD I've tidied up several of these lists, removing spam and graffiti. Overall they are either actively maintained or pretty free from spam. I keep three of the lists on my watchlist. Yeah they are link magnets, but there are also plenty of productive edits. In some cases the lists are being used as work lists for articles that need to be created. I plan to do the same with List of Cambodian companies which was deleted once at the end of 2005 (sigh). I'll create the article initially as a list of red links from a good business directory. This function can't be duplicated by a category. A good example of the lists being used this way is at List of Barbadian companies where I had this discussion with the editor watchlisting the article [1]. C'mon MSJapan be a pal and withdraw the nomination - the project needs these lists and the subjects are notable. Paxse 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That would be me- on the Barbadian list to back up the claims by the above person. We did indeed have a discussion about it. As soon as I fill in articles I drop their link. But it is also there incase someone else from Barbados should come across and want to do an article.... Now that I have time off from work today. Go Fourth! I'm going to take the chance to fill in a few more articles. CaribDigita 15:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep up the excellent work :) I'm too scared to recreate the Cambodian list article - it will be deleted for being too brown/poor/communist/3rd world - choose one. Paxse 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These lists are not equivalent to their categories; many contain valid redlinks that do concern notable companies, or other added value in the form of additional commentary information (e.g. company names in the native script). Dekimasu よ! 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all They are merely directory listings. DrKiernan 07:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, how? Rebecca 07:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taking "List of Greek companies" as an example, it is an alphabetical list of companies and their web-sites, i.e. it is a web directory.
Strong Keep. Haven't read the other comments yet, but they are only links to outside websites when editors allow them to be. India is constantly patrolled by Paxse and myself and links only to already established wikiarticles. I was looking for just such a list when I stumbled on India's and can say that I found it useful. I'd like to extend my patrolling to some more countries, but I'm a strong keep for the genre. And I agree with Endroit: there should be a policy that explains what stays and is appropriate for each List, such as we have on India. --LeyteWolfer 09:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comments by Yom and Paxse above.--Vivenot 11:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yom, Rebecca, John Vandenberg, and Paxse.--JayJasper 13:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:desean81
Keep. I had to struggle with the "link magnets" problem as described above but this can be overcome by making the policy of Wikipedia clear to other editors, on the talk page, like here [2], and on the edit page itself, like here [3]. I hope it helps SSZ 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this discussion because List of Chadian companies is one of only two pages that link to my just created article on the Chadian parastatal that provides landline and Internet service to the entire country (the other link is Chad). So I suppose I'm with Yom, as well. - BanyanTree 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are quite useful and interesting pages actually.. Icsunonove 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the lists is eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G4: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British companies. DrKiernan 13:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, however it would need to be 'substantially identical' to the June 2006 version to qualify for speedy - as the page history wasn't merged it's difficult to tell.Paxse 15:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted version kind of looked like the page does now, after my edit. DrKiernan 16:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually an improvement - you may have to change your vote :) Congratulations on the new mop btw. Paxse 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thanks, I'll stick with my lost cause, you never know how things will pan out in the end! DrKiernan 17:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Singapore companies is another ongoing Afd for one of the articles in this category. John Vandenberg 13:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redundant with category is not a valid delete rationale. These lists contain important encyclopedic information. If there are problems with individual articles in this block nomination thay can be addressed separately. AndyJones 13:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal - I am currently working on establishing a WikiProject for Companies, and feel that these lists would fall under the remit of that. I also note that there are lots of opinions and Wikipedia policies on either side of this argument (I'll admit that I'm part on the Delete side). Would it be possible to close this AFD to allow the project to get started and reach consensus within that structure on whether we want to support these lists or not? I'm not sure if that is possible under this process but thought it was worth a shot. If it is acceptable I'll have the project up and running before the end of the weekend. Richc80 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not redundant with categories unless there are some which completely lack annotation and structuring. I note with puzzlement that List of South Korean companies has reached that deletion-worthy state after this AFD began as a result of "cleanup", hopefully this is only the first stage. Kappa 07:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Lists, especially the List of New Zealand companies, which has important information about the listing of New Zealand companies that explains how legal companies get listed in the companies register. These lists serve as useful lists to identify what Wikipedia has not yet written about and give naming convention guidance to new editors as well as allowing information about a country's business sector to be condensed into a single article. Categories can never replace these lists because a category require an article to be written. Lists identify things that are unable to be categorised. We may want to put things on these lists that we would never want to have an article written about. -- Cameron Dewe 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a previously-listed Keeper, but your distinction between categories and lists does differ from mine. This may not be the time and/or place for this dicussion, but my view is that lists such as for companies are naturally link-magnets, both for URLs and for not-notables. Now, New Zealand has a very concise statement regarding what is notable (the title of 'Limited'), but most countries do not; however, there should still be a list dictated by notability for all countries. Otherwise, the Mom & Pop company down the street can easily post themselves with a redlink under the List of Companies in Country X and the list becomes unwieldy and worthless. I've even seen multi-nationals listed in each country they do business. Now, it may seem arbitrary to some, but on the three lists I patrol, I've inserted policies (that haven't yet been challenged) that a company must first have a Wiki article completed before it may be added to the list. URLs and company descriptions are right out (except in the latter case where a list may have started and been maintained not alphabetically, but categorically). Multi-nationals are not to be listed, unless their primarily- (and singularly-)based in that country. I imagine that's a source of frustration for a small business owner that cannot get an article listed for notability reasons, but -as often stated- Wikipedia is not a search engine, and neither should be the lists. My two cents. [stepping down] --LeyteWolfer 14:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would agree that some criteria to limit the list is probably needed. For example, companies should be publically registered or listed, have shares traded or issue bonds, etc. for investments or be capitalised in excess of some value, like $xx million. The exact criteria might vary from country to country, but the list should identify the top xxx counties on the share market or all companies valued or capitalised over some large value. -- Cameron Dewe 11:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. These appear to be proper navigation pages and would therefore meet WP:LISTS. Assize 12:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clean some of them up, but definitely a keep. Jauerback 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some of these lists do contain useful information, but such information should be provided in the individual company articles. For companies that have articles, I see no value in it's entry on such a list. If I search for a particular company, I want to find its article, not a list. For companies for which no article exists, a stub article should be created rather than adding the name to a list. Zubdub 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you search for Greek insurance companies? Kappa 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a directory. Zubdub 05:12, 11 July 200 (UTC)
    - How do you balance WP:NOT#DIR with WP:LIST? I would say, by my understanding, that in order for a list to be informative by its existance, it needs to be in the suggested format of themes, such as List of Iranian companies‎ does by industry. I haven't 'fixed' any lists in such a way, but do patrol some that are in that format. Definitely informative when presented this way and negates having to create lists for each industry in each country. --LeyteWolfer 07:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking only at List of Australian companies, I don't see anything that can't be adequately performed by a category. If there was some sort of sourced, summary information about each company (turnover? staff? founding year? sector of operation?) then I would say keep.

But I won't !vote either way for such a blanket listing.Ga rr ie 06:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major companies are a significant part of a country's economy, and a list over the big ones are a perfectly valid way of covering this aspect. Per WP:LIST, information is a reason for having a list. The list might also serve som navigational purpose, and for those lists with redlinks, they serve a developmental purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. SalaSkan 17:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communism Exposed[edit]

No ascertation of Notability, fails WP:NN Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 15:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hamdija Begović. --Lambiam ^Talk 01:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lambiam. Burzmali 12:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as unencylopedic trivia. Closed after four days per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 02:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bexhill in popular culture[edit]

WP:NOT loosely associated topics. This isn't a page about Bexhill's influence on popular culture, it's two trivial mentions of the town in a novel and a radio show, and a film that has scenes set there. The titles listed cover 70 years, but there are only three references which shows that "Bexhill in popular culture" isn't a notable enough topic for an article. Crazysuit 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable in the least, with only three "in popular culture" examples. This is the lamest "in popular culture" list I've ever seen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no influence in popular culture, it's just using it, trivially, as a setting. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bexhill-on-Sea#Cultural references already mentions all 3. Completely inadequate for a separate article. PrimeHunter 01:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and a duplication. Although it's nice to see a pop culture article that doesn't define "popular culture" as "meaningless and irrelevant mentions on American television", I don't see that "meaningless and irrelevant mentions on television programs from other countries" is much better. --Charlene 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I am going to be so glad when all the in popular culture articles have been weeded out. Kripto 10:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Better stock up on anti-depressants... Clarityfiend 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 12:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword•T•C 10:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krawczyszyn[edit]

To quote my prod which was removed by creator w/out comment: "No references, possible hoax." PS. The only other contribution of the creator was vandalism..._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on the Polish site returned this "Aby dowiedzieć się więcej o przeszukiwaniu Wikipedii przeczytaj instrukcję. Możesz także skorzystać z alternatywnej wyszukiwarki WikiWix. Starszych stron (artykułów) możesz spróbować poszukać przy pomocy Google. Nowe artykuły zostaną zaindeksowane w przeciągu 30-48 godzin." which means "no results found". It looks as if it would be pronounced "crotch-shin" which also suggests a hoax. Mandsford 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 0 hits on internet, uncopyrighted image, delete if references not provided. I recommned to check the spelling, maybe its an archaic name of "Kozaczok" taken for example from H. Sienkiewicz? If so, provide the book title and page number. greg park avenue 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely hoax, the spelling strongly suggests Polish origin which is alluded to in the article, but southern Eastern Europe (per the article) is not historically Polish in population - folk dances are rarely imposed from without. Carlossuarez46 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - Poland never enjoyed sovereignty over SE Europe so the likelihood that Polish culture would have been imposed is next to nil. Additionally, unless one counts Galicia as SE Europe, the region has no substantial Polish population. I am pretty certain this is a silly hoax designed to ridicule Poles. Bigdaddy1981 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, 300 years ago Poland's southern border was the Black Sea, so it could be a Polish or Hungarian, who also use "sz" and "cz" vowels, word for anything from Arab or Turk belly dancing to Cossack or Tartar or Armenian or Moldavian or Ukrainian or Russian or Jewish any dance. No motive for hoax. It's a common family name in Poland and it must come from somewhere or something. greg park avenue 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so! Ukraine is not SE Europe. 300 years ago SE Europe was divided by Austria Hungary and Ottoman Empire - see http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/se_europe_1700.jpg , the motive for the hoax is obvious if you read "Pelvic movements are used to extend the waist and the frequent, yet powerful, gyrations demonstrate the vigour and virility of the performer." Bigdaddy1981 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to play's devil advocate - for a limited time, Poland had influence and control over parts of Europe more southern then Ukraine, see Moldavian Magnate Wars. But I don't expect they are related to this hoax...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accept that they had influence for a time over Wallachia - I still believe this to be a hoax. Bigdaddy1981 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a hoax, maybe not. It could be a new wikipedian who doesn't understand AfD from Barnstar. greg park avenue 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Poland on this map provided by you has borders marked in red, however not properly named as the "Knights of St John" - probably a British name - but as you can see, we've got most of the northern coast of the Black Sea by then, regardless how Britons called it. All this land was under the Polish king residing in Cracow. Regarding that sentence about pelvis gyrations it sounds like belly dancing to me or very close. greg park avenue 19:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, all of that area - which is mostly Ukraine now - was Polish, my contention was that this area is not properly speaking SE Europe. Which on that map is largely split between Austria Hungary and Ottomans. Maybe you are right about the thrusting being belly dancing --- but in the absence of any verifiable references it seems very likely a hoax to me. Bigdaddy1981 20:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hi greg park avenue, if you have time, look at the edits made by this article's creator to the article The_Bishop's_Stortford_High_School.

They are vandalism, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bishop%27s_Stortford_High_School&diff=142286654&oldid=141770141.

I think this strongly suggests this is a silly hoax. Bigdaddy1981 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, Bigdaddy1981. My guess is that there could be a joker from that very high school in Stortford in his mid teens, whose friend sitting next to him is named Krawczyszyn, or his least liked teacher is, and the rest is all his invention. Sorry about that, but if it's so, he looks more all-English to me than you would like if that was true. But maybe I'm wrong. For the record. We've got many of such jokers here on pl-wiki which is good news. The bad news is that some of them became even administrators and run the show, while the other admins just sit back and enjoy the show. What about that? Will you still call that innocent like a newborn puppy Strotford kid, who was even almost right on the target, a vandal? greg park avenue 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame, people amuse themselves with such silly stunts and damage the Wikipedia (and your right, such pranks are unfortunately fairly common in England) Bigdaddy1981 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword•T•C 12:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voiteck[edit]

Poorly referenced bio of a musician of dubious notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are sources for him playing gigs but he doesn't seem to have attacted much media for his work as an electronic artist. The article makes claims about tours such as Big Day Out but I can't find sources for it. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Recurring dreams 08:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Namaste Guild[edit]

Non-notable organization. No third-party references that I can find. (Also, it was just established on 27 June 2007) Sancho 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. None of the external links in the article support the notability of the organization, so it fails notability and verifiability. I'm just shy of speedy deleting it; the fact that it was established so recently is what nearly puts me over the edge to do so. —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- FamedDeletionist 22:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I proposed deletion to give some time to clean up the page--that was perhaps a little optimistic of me. I probably should have simply speedied as G11 based on the original version before I cleaned it a little. DGG 22:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are completely subjective and are opinion, sir. Just like everything else that is written and published. That is not a sufficient grounding for deletion of our article. What would be sufficient is if the article were slanderous, demeaning, violent, defamatory, or blatantly false; for which our article is neither. To prove otherwise you, the editors, just like at the Council of Nicea (325 A.D./C.A.), either have to change the rules to fit your doctrine of literary discrimination or provide a burden of proof. The Namaste Guild 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is so objectionable? It is difficult to correct what is in error, when one does not understand the implication of impropriety, or its source. We are good people, doing something that is a benefit to humanity. Where is the harm in that? And why the insurrection of deletion for a topic that is less than 12 hours in age? There are a number of articles on this medium that I could site as objectionable... however their articles have as much right to exist as ours do. That being said, since we at The Namasté Guild love a challenge, we will hear your comments and meet the community's requests when they are peacefully (rather than adversarially) presented. The Namaste Guild 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion, even when the cause being promoted is a benevolent one. Article contains no reliable sources, and would qualify for speedy deletion if the AfD process had not already begun. An organization that was only started on 27 June might not have had any time to be mentioned in the press. After a few months, if this organization does important things and is noticed in print, it might be time for an article. EdJohnston 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion... an interesting term. Everything is a promotion, regardless. Every article on Wikipedia is a promotion or advocation of a point of view of some sort. From Magnetic Levitation Trains, to BioDiesel, to Dioxins, to Religion... if something is written about the topic, it is a promotion. The Namaste Guild 22:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. Slightly longer answer: hell no.

Fuller answer: calling every article on Wikipedia a "promotion" is only true if you define "promotion" so broadly as to be utterly meaningless. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, no sources, not even claims of accomplishments real-world impact, self-promotion. Nothing here. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Also, no proof of existence... Sancho 02:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt the Red Cross was notable nine days after its establishment. They can come back when they've accomplished something more notable than a website. Acroterion _(talk) 03:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no references asserting it or its notability. The article also admits its lack of notability because it was a recently formed venture. It is also a blatant advertisement for their services, even if they are a non-profit (which I'm not sure of), and there are a lot of peacock words and phrases. Agreement with Acroterion, these might be the most wonderful giving people ever, but until they are notable they don't get an article. Tdmg 05:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This doesn't even manage to crawl out of G11, let alone A7! — Coren ^(talk) 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. Since my company, Broadwave Group, Inc., has been a direct beneficiary of financial kindness from The Namaste Guild, I feel it is necessary that I speak up for this organization. In fact, this organization was only established as a legal corporate entity a week ago; yes, that is true. However, I would like to shed some light on the issue that perhaps is not being considered. The people behind this organization have been contributing to support various projects over the last 10 years; projects that no one else gave consideration to; projects that were on the verge of defeat; projects that were worthwhile. My company is one of those projects. Though we are not required to disclose this, I believe it is relevant; The Namaste Guild over the course of the last 9 months has assisted my company in underwriting nearly $1.2 billion USD in loans, of which that sum is to be infused over a 6 month period. The first $400 million USD of these loans were received on July 2, 2007. The Namaste Guild is an organization of people that do not like 'spotlight' attention; however, this day in age no one takes any organization serious if they don't have some sort of web-presence. Why they picked 'Wikipedia' is understandable. If people want to find this organization, they will have to search for it. Thanks to this organization, and its people (whom prefer to remain anonymous), my company can now grow as it has desired for so long. Andrewdvalles3 18:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Opinion of WP:SPA is disqualified. Shalom ^Hello 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Note: the preceeding user was created about two hour ago and has made no contribution beyond this AfD. — Coren ^(talk) 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a basic, but unfortunately widespread, misunderstanding about this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a means of generating notability. Wikipedia exists to document notability. Acroterion _(talk) 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Broadwave Group, Inc. [4] does not appear to be a charity. Is the Namaste Guild a venture capital organization? Acroterion _(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger Support. I am a copy-editor for the Monitor Weekly in Kampala, Uganda. Educated at Oxford. I have written for newspapers, encyclopaedias, magazines, radio, and television news for over thirty years. I wrote the article now posted, as Reference #4, onto the article in question. To the previous comment made I pose this question: How does anything or anyone become notable or attain notability without being written or chronicled about? According to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia of which I note, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules," and "Wikipedia has a code of conduct," and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" then I must be benign as this article meets all of those requirements. The information therein is neutral in language, tenor, and metre; nothing in it can be considered profane; and if there are no firm rules or legislation, then I substantiate no one can establish a foundation for argument to the contrary. In the words of (the late) Senator Patrick Moynihan of New York, "You are entitled your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts." If someone disagrees with what is said in this article, then it can be edited since "Wikipedia is free content." Before commenting further, gentlemen and ladies, ask yourselves, are you acting with integrity, or as an editorial censor? Monitor-Weekly 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Opinion of WP:SPA is disqualified. Shalom ^Hello 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Note: the preceeding user was created about one hour ago and has made no contribution beyond that article and this AfD. — Coren ^(talk) 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments about account creation are not only irrelevant and elitist, they are also quite petty. The Namaste Guild 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elitism at its finest. When you have no other alternatives to our points of rebuttal, you resort to blatant crass. We gladly volunteer that we asked others to assist us. That is not against the rules (since there are none in accordance with Five Pillars of Wikipedia), and this is a tactic that is practiced everywhere; especially in politics. We could allege the same thing at your attention. We would also like to elaborate that we were offered help by Sancho; and the information that was provided was extremely helpful. With that information we enlisted support. However, to speculate that we told these people what to say is not only false, but also irrelevant when the facts are weighted... we were encouraged to do so. The Namaste Guild 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence that this organization meets the notablity criteria. Please note that this non-vote is entirely on whether or not the organization meets those criteria, and is in no way an attack on the organization's worthiness or moral value. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Namasté Guild is not a venture capital organisation. Such a term would suggest that we take an ownership stake in the projects, or maintain a contract with individuals, to whom we provide scholarships, grants, and interest-free loans; that is not part of our modus operandi. Our process follows a very simple principal: ask and it is given... and we do so without reservation or condition. The Namaste Guild 22:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forgive me but LOL, they've existed about a fortnight. No chance to have notability. NamasteG, as to your assertion that defamation/nastiness or advertisement are the only criteria for deletion, I hope you've realised now that it's notability/ whether an organisation has been noted at length in reputable, mainstream newspapers or is otherwise worthy of note, that is at issue here. This suggested deletion implies no deep negative judgement about your organisation, it's not personal it's just at this time it's not suitable for an encyclopedia article.Merkinsmum 02:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Maybe someday in the future this group will gain notability per Wikipedia's policies. Regardless, this is not the proper forum for self-promotion. Resolute 04:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Bearian 20:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, criterion A7, an article about a person with no assertion of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domonique Thompson[edit]

Not notable. Little reason for inclusion is suggested in the article. Captain panda 21:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- FamedDeletionist 21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogcritics[edit]

Not notable group blog that gets according to the stats button at its own site about 20,000 readers a day... traffic exchanges can bring in more traffic than that. Simple not notable and operates basically as a splog that gets content from other blogs. -- FamedDeletionist 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Over 500 Google News Archives results from a range of sources. [5]. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. it seems like the kind of thing that a person would come to wikipedia looking for information about. Kripto 10:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and a recommendation to the nominator to read the article and the relevant notability criteria. Award winning blog, highly notable. JulesH 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We don't as a rule redirect to categories (that would be a cross-space redirect, which are 3vil). Neil ╦ 11:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Schlager musicians[edit]

Large list (mostly redlinks) better suited to a category. Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO Videmus Omnia 21:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's even formatted like a category and gives no additional information whatsoever. Malc82 21:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- FamedDeletionist 21:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have categories for this. The use of lists is almost unjustifiable here. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 00:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until someone has actually categorised the bluelinks into Category:Schlager; then Delete. John Vandenberg 07:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I intended to add Category:Schlager to all of the listed musicians (as John rightly suggested) before closing the debate and deleting the list, but I started to wonder if the more appropriate category wouldn't be Category:Schlager musicians. Considering that categories can't be moved, I'd just be creating a lot of work (and wasting my own effort) if that's the case. I left a note at Talk:Schlager asking for input. A Train^talk 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate category (this may involve creating one) Giggy _U^CP 04:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please see AfD talk page for rationale. A Train^talk 20:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Prime (person)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This person obviously does not meet the notability guidelines. His only "notable" act was changing his name to that of a popular toy. Even this was not picked up by any media except for one local TV station, which still falls under WP:NOT#NEWS.
As for the last nomination: The one who decided that there was no consensus obviously forgot that the AfD process is not a popularity vote. I also suggest this essay: Wikipedia:Recentism.Svetovid 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Changed his name, served on the National Guard, and ... what? If reliable sources can be found for more notability, then I may re-evaluate. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot fathom why this is even a debate... delete with impunity. -- FamedDeletionist 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is quite notable. I am also in support of merging into Optimus Prime. -- Fire 23:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support a merge, but this was disregarded previously because this was originally forked out of that article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you prove that this is notable? Otherwise, your vote is pointless.--Svetovid 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is notable because the Transformer line had such an impact on people that hey have changed their names to such characters(another example: changed name to Megatron http://www.flickr.com/photos/punkjr/698895174/). I would think this is much more then getting a tattoo on your body of a character because a name is even more personal. This is definitely a major thing to point out when discussing the popularity of the Transformers all over the world. 71.166.4.205 01:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But how does that make THIS INDIVIDUAL notable? Sorry, I don't see it. You can change your name to anything but it doesn't make you notable. --Charlene 04:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apparently Optimus Prime has called out Megatron for a duel now: [6]. If it actually proceeds this might boost the coverage of this sort of thing. Bryan Derksen 18:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree a merge is appropriate. I think it is worth briefly noting in the Optimus Prime article that at least one person has legally changed their name to Optimus Prime. It's definitely not worth of it's own article. DraxusD 08:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - no, a merge is not a justified response either. this man changed his name to a fictional cartoon character with an odd name. This fact does nothing to add to the character this guy named himself after, and it does nothing to the past present or future status of the character or the person on the simple basis of him being named after the character. A merge would be appropriate if this guy became president or did some other such notable action. Then, a subsection in the OP article mentioning why he changed his name might be appropriate. As it stands, he is not notable... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.205.253.125 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 July 2007.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Transwiki to wikinews, but even there this would be borderline. Recurring dreams 02:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not the same as transient news interest. Fails WP:BIO. --Charlene 04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy, and this individual was barely newsworthy. Resolute 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deelete -- per above. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A page could be created listing people who have changed their names to Transformers names. Recently another gentleman changed his middle name to "Megatron". I think it's at least as notable as children named ESPN, which received a mention on that page. --DaiTengu 07:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As I stated in reply to ElementFire —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DraxusD (talk • contribs) 08:23, 5 July 2007.

Keep This kind of article (on a minor, yet fascinating subject for which a traditional encyclopedia wouldn't have room) is one of the chief joys of Wikipedia. At the very least merge it into the main Optimus Prime article. Ladislav the Posthumous 11:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other encyclopaedias wouldn't have an article about this subject is not a notability feature at all.--Svetovid 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A traditional encyclopaedia wouldn't have an article about Optimus Prime the toy or Optimus Prime the fictional character, either. I think this guy is both notable (as an example of a person with an unusual personal name and someone who chose that name for himself), and fascinating. Moreover, the existence of this kind of article is one of the reasons I love Wikipedia so much: and yet every time I see something like this, something that makes me think "Wow, what a wonderful thing is Wikipedia, that sees the fall of every sparrow, and records it if it's in the slightest bit interesting. How blessed I am to live in an age with an Internet!", some killjoy has slapped a "Nominated for speedy deletion" banner across it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ladislav the Posthumous (talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 July 2007.

"A traditional encyclopaedia wouldn't have an article about Optimus Prime the toy or Optimus Prime the fictional character, either." Maybe they would. maybe they wouldn't. The point is that this is not used as an argument for their inclusion here.
If it's an example of an unusual personal name, than maybe it's worth mentioning there as an example.
You also confuse Wikipedia with news sources and blogs.
Also read WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOT.--Svetovid 13:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT doesn't apply: I have no particular opinion on Optimus Prime the individual, I like the article. Or, more precisely, its existence. I suspect you meant WP:INTERESTING. Anyway, I seem doomed to lose this argument, I just felt I had to take a stand. Ladislav the Posthumous 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely non-notable individual. At best it is worthy of a one-liner in the main Optimus Prime article. Tarc 13:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. I really enjoy this story, but there's really no notability here. It's a quirky thing that got him 15 minutes of fame, but that's just not sufficient to keep it. -Chunky Rice 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been through AfD/VfD once a year now like clockwork, I don't see that anything significant has changed. Bryan Derksen 06:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - notability has not been established despite that.--Svetovid 09:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are drastically misinterpreting my position. The "keep" at the beginning of the line should have clued you in on that. Bryan Derksen 15:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -umm, yeah no question... this is silly to even be mentioned. Having the name of a fictional character is not notability in it's own right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.205.253.125 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 July 2007.
Delete with a slight merge to Optimus Prime. I can't possibly fathom why this person should have a biography on Wikipedia. He changed his name as a publicity stunt... and, what, we're going to make that publicity stunt into a biography? Ridiculous. FCYTravis 16:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep So what it's a publicity stunt? So's Paris Hilton and the press have adopted her. I heard that that the photographer who took that famous picture of the naked Vietnamese girl running from napalmed jungle also took the now-famous one of Paris crying in the backseat of the police car. Publicity works and it's part of life. I bet we have an article on that idiot woman who had all that plastic surgery to look like a Barbie Doll, an article about that woman who died of water intoxication at the Wee contest (another publicity stunt). First stop your culture and press from reporting on publicity stunts, then you can work on getting them out of Wikipedia. There is no reason for deletion, "it's a publicity stunt." So, let's stick with real reasons for deletion, not just personal offense at how low human beings can go. KP Botany 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A publicity stunt "is a planned event designed to attract the public's attention to the promoters or their causes"; there are no reliable sources evidencing that Mr. Prime did this for anybody except himself. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, it's a secret then. KP Botany 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changed to strong keep, since the basic argument for deletion was that it was picked up by only one source is false--I found another one. KP Botany 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the other one --at least judging by the article at the moment -- seems to be a blog. DGG (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's Gillepsie's blog, but he's the editor. KP Botany 22:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikinews; of transient interest, but worthwhile information backed by sources that should not be deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 19:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what Wikinews is? Wikinews is for news. This is from 2003. He is not currently newsworthy by any stretch. -- Zanimum 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; When something has been through the process 3 times, using "obviously" twice in the nomination is obviously bullshit. Eclecticology 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if prior discussions closed as "no consensus", then is is obviously clear that this issue is unsettled and is a perfectly valid candidate to renominate. Equally obvious is the fact that you are unfamiliar with WP:NOTAGAIN. So, obviously, you should read it. Tarc 01:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Valid to renominate, perhaps, but not valid to describe as "obviously worthy of deletion." The non-obviousness was established by the fact that previous discussions didn't reach a consensus on it. If it really had been obvious there would have been no contest. Bryan Derksen 06:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Discussing the article, not the process, this is about an individual soldier who chose to name himself after a fictional character. There is no general interest or importance, nor will there ever be., The proper place--if any--for this material is as a one sentence mention on the page for the character. I note it has only one source--did no other news program or publication think it worth mentioning? DGG (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has no size limit, this person is as noteworthy or moreso than scores of others with articles. HalifaxRage 19:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Howso? I don't find that he meets WP:BIO; and your argument seems to fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One-line mention at Optimus Prime/Optimus Prime (disambiguation) and Delete. Trivial media coverage, not notable enough. 202.54.176.51 08:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough for own entry. Also: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." (BLP) - delete. Just have a one sentence mention at Optimus Prime/Optimus Prime (disambiguation) (as anon points out above). --mav 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only claim to notablity seems to be his name change, which IMO, is not enough. --rogerd 15:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not establish notability for this individual.--Pharos 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as it seems to meet notability guidelines, but maybe add additional sources and an image to improve the article's presentation. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodontic jaw wiring[edit]

Completing malformed nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original nom's comments: "This article appears to be an ad for Dr. Ted's dental services. It only gives two reference-links, both to pages within DRTED.COM, which is Dr. Ted's own website. And the article was originally created by someone with the id of "Dr. Ted Rothstein". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rb999 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep, the procedure (horrid as it is) does exists and has some modicum of notability, but the spamminess needs to be savagely excised from the article (which I'm going to do now). -- Coren ^(talk) 21:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, researching sources to despam the article allowed me to figure out that any surface notability appears to be little more than advertisements, search engine spamming or self-published sources. -- Coren ^(talk) 21:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to orthodontics. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually probably not a good idea. What little info I could find on the procedure that wasn't spammy was dentistry associations advising their members to not perform it because it "is not a dentistry procedure". — Coren ^(talk) 16:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I understand, this is not an orthodontic procedure, but is rather related to getting slimmer. Dan Gluck 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An existing procedure (unfortunatly) of which I have heard few times in the past in TV programs, making it notable since I'm really not interested in the subject. Dan Gluck 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No references despite plenty of time to add them to article; questions regarding notability of acoustic black metal have not been answered. Keep arguments return (as does article) to alleged size of fan base. May be a real project, but not a notable one. Daniel Case 16:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impaled Northern Moonforest (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completing malformed nom; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's statement at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Impaled Northern Moonforest, copied below. Pan Dan 20:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable joke band created out of boredom. Nalanod 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable side-project of notable grindcore musician, Seth Putnam, from the notable band Anal Cunt. ~Inkington 20:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this a notable side-project? Nalanod 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They started the acoustic black metal scene. Yojizu 14:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source, for this statement, or for that matter, for the implied claim that "acoustic black metal" amounts to a notable musical genre? Pete.Hurd 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a considerably large website/forum dedicated solely to the band that saw frequent traffic since it was created up until mid-2005. A large number of bands attempting to mimic the style of INM were started from this forum, and there still exists a large acoustic black metal network between a few forums as well as countless bands of the genre on Myspace. The band has become a file-sharing phenomenon, producing large numbers of similar bands.

The concensus was to delete this page in 2005 -- have they become more notable in the last few years? Nalanod 20:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my 2005 AfD nomination, non-notable side project, no AMG data at all. Even the putatively notable Anal Cunt has no AMG biography. Neither this, nor the Anal Cunt article have any or reliable sources. In fact I see no reliable sources for any of the many Seth Putnam associated articles. For instance, several different versions of the fishy-sounding overdose/seizure/coma story have appeared in wikipedia articles, none with any reliable sources. Looks like wikipedia bullshittry, feels like a walled garden, where's the encyclopedic content? Pete.Hurd 20:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I think this is CSDG4, recreation of deleted material, no? Pete.Hurd 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lack of AMG biography doesn't mean that an act is non-notable. All Music Guide is often quite deficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable side-project. Very dedicated cult following. Uncountable bands imitate this style (Just google Impaled Northern Moonforest, INM, or acoustic black metal). The article itself was the result of a decision to split it from the main Seth Putnam article. --Deadcrowisland 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created as a split from Seth Putnam on May 11 2006 (several months after the first AfD). Unfortunately the edit history prior to the split went to Impaled Northern Moonforest, not Seth Putnam.[7][8] If this article is deleted, I think the GFDL requires the edit history prior to the split to be merged back to Seth Putnam. Pan Dan 11:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Pete.Hurd, this is a link directly from Seth Putnams official site about Impaled Northern Moonforest (http://www.sethputnam.com/inmf.htm). Also, here is a link from the Boston Phoenix website to an article about Seth Putnams overdose with interviews and photos (http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/music/cellars/documents/05023497.asp). If the first one isnt a reliable source, at least the last one is undisputable.

Keep Notable side project. Cult following. Tabs listed on major sites, 2,743 listeners on last.fm (not taking into account alternative spellings). Anal Cunt has 24,132 listeners. Multiple bands (Burzumnaz, Orgh, Morkk Pikk etc.) directly inspired as fan tributes. Record label started ([9]) directly inspired by band. Suggestion: If you do not know anything about a subject, you are not best qualified to comment on it. I don't edit articles on molecular biology, because I know nothing about it. If you don't know anything about extreme music, you should not be editing articles on Seth Putnam. I can provide journalistic references from long-running international music magazines for Putnams seizure. Or perhaps, you could watch the youtube video ([10]) of the first Anal Cunt show after Seth woke from his coma, in which Seth is sitting in a wheelchair, and actually mentions his coma.--KharBevNor 00:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: If an article is written using reliable sources, it won't get sent to AfD. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Pete.Hurd 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Google hits[11] is daunting, but when you click through you see there're only about 300 unique hits. I skimmed the first 100, and none appears reliable. Likewise for the one Google news hit, which though in a language I can't read appears to me to user-submitted content. The article is original research. Delete. (Addressing Pete's point about G4, technically, yeah, it's a G4, so if Wikipedia were a bureaucracy I would insist the article be speedied and the discussion moved to deletion review. I'm positive the most ardent supporters of WP:PII would veto that idea :)) Pan Dan 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot. User:DGG has speedy deleted the article per CSD G10 (attack page).

Disclaimer: Non-admin close by participant in the discussion. — Coren ^(talk) 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twyana Davis[edit]

Not notable. Scant sourcing, no verification, not much to go on here. There are likely more sources out there, but only one reliable source is cited. Realkyhick 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Only sources are can find are blogs, self-published and one Oprah appearance. — Coren ^(talk) 21:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- FamedDeletionist 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as unmaintainable listcruft; this can be handled much better by categories as suggested. Daniel Case 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands from Europe[edit]

One of those unmaintanable lists that is considered as Wikipedia:Listcruft that can reach thousands of articles and many non-notable bands, not worth as a category nither as there are categories for different countries listed. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOT#IINFO. --Evb-wiki 20:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, While an argument could be made for a category of bands from Europe (since Europe now has, indisputably, an identity of its own) a list article is unwarranted. — Coren ^(talk) 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be preferred to have categories for bands from X country/region--JForget 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quick! To the Categorymobile! --Hemlock Martinis 08:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eloise Hughes Smith[edit]

Non-notable survior of the Titanic, prod removed a while back saying that all survivors are notable. I'm not convinced this article meets WP:BIO Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She got in the papers for marrying the guy who helped her into a boat, and then later for divorcing him, but that's not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- FamedDeletionist 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. Videmus Omnia 03:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Virtually every Titanic survivor (other than steerage survivors) has significant non-trivial coverage dating back to 1912, but generally long-term notability has escaped most of the survivors. Mrs. Lucien P. Smith, as she is better known, may have long-term notability, though, as her writings about the disaster have been quoted extensively in many of the documentaries about the ship, such as the brilliant Titanic: Death of a Dream and the less successful Titanic: Anatomy of the Disaster. I'm not certain either way. I'm wondering if a specialized Titanic wiki is a good idea for these details. --Charlene 04:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Could you add that information about her writings--it might be enough to show her notable.DGG 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do it. --Charlene 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also adding an article on her father, who is blatantly notable having been a member of the US House of Representatives for 14 years! --Charlene 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She can always be merged to the article of her father, if that is done, I will closed the AFD early. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I saw many references to her added after the article was nominated for deletion. She doesn't seem to be non-notable. I can't contribute to the article but please don't delete it immediately. Maybe people who know the subject better can add more information. -- Magioladitis 12:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If solely being a Titanic passenger is not enough, as mentioned above, she gave accounts about the disaster that are quoted in Titanic documentaries, and on that matter, if she's notable enough to have someone portraying her in a documentary about the ship, I think that does make her a pretty notable person. We don't need articles for EVERY survivor/victim portrayed, but we have one here, and she has contributed valuable information about the sinking. Morhange 16:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Morhange. Edward321 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword•T•C 10:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meerkat manor 2[edit]

Article seems to be for a second or third season of Meerkat Manor, or simply a depository of an enormous amount of information not on or deleted from the first page. Seems also similar to Kalahari Meerkat Project and User:Meerkat Manor more info. Most of talk page is a copy of original page's. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- FamedDeletionist 21:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meerkat Manor and Kalahari Meerkat Project contain everything this article has. Clarityfiend 06:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was VERY speedy delete by User:Jimfbleak (that was fast). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vannintocracy[edit]

Hoax or neologism with 0 google hits — Shinhan < talk > 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ╦ 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Morgan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously speedy deleted under A7. Recreated with sufficient additional material to require an AfD rather than a speedy under G4. Notability is disputed. Sancho 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Great another John Bambenek running around... delete. -- FamedDeletionist 21:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you elaborate? Who's John Bambenek? --Charlene 04:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 00:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probationary keep Why doesn't anyone use the Notability tag/template on new articles? It sounds like she could meet notability requirements, if the article was properly done. I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for deletion later, but this is a little fast for someone who is borderline. This version appears to have been created by a different editor than the A7, but one who's new to the category. I think we should give the article time to be improved. Horrorshowj 02:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the author I would naturally urge for her entry to be kept. Taylor is a popular UK-based model and has been active for some years. Also she is noted on some of the linked webpages as being notable, certainly more so than others (Dani O'Neal) who have managed to be included.

Delete. The article doesn't currently pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PORNBIO Giggy _U^CP 04:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ╦ 11:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dire animal (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dire animal (Dungeons & Dragons)

Fails to meet WP:Notability, and is simply a list of all the dire monsters found throughout the rulebooks. All the cites are from D&D books or first party articles and a vast majority of the pages linking to this article are redirects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piuro (talk • contribs)

Comment: As primary author of this article, and fellow member of the WikiProject, I think AfDing all of these is pointless, and will get us no where. I say that we decide exactly what we are going to do about these articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters, and then just do it. We don't need community input to authorise redirecting a tonne (or ton, for those of you not from Europe) of articles if we know that that is what we are going to do, and that is for the best of the encyclopedia. J Milburn 19:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we decide to redirect "Dire Animal" at a later date, this doesn't change the fact that this article as it stands is clutter. Even then, dire animals do not meet WP:Notability, therefore a redirect would be pointless.Piuro 20:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think there is certainly merit for a redirect to a parent article at a later date, (save that discussion for the appropriate place...) and I admit this article needs to go as it is. I am just reccomending you don't nominate any more, as time can be better spent deciding what to be done with the articles. J Milburn 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and good luck to the closing admin who has to delete all those redirect I made! ;-) J Milburn 22:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They probably have scripts/bots for doing that sort of thing. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect for now until the WikiProject has had a chance to work out some reasonable guidelines for what to do with the (admittedly ridiculously large number) of monster articles. No prejudice against bringing this up again in a month or so if nothing constructive has happened. --Pak21 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no really usable content in this article, even if it was redirected at a later date, it would have to be completely re-written. As such, there is nothing here that warrants clogging up the Wiki. Piuro 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability. I can think of a (very) few D20 (née D&D) monster which have achieved notability of their own, dire badgers are not it. — Coren ^(talk) 21:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or strip to bare mininum before merging to a List of Dungeons & Dragons creatures. Why do we even have a Dungeons & Dragons creatures category anyway?? Circeus 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It'll be gone soon. As a project, we are working out what to do with them. J Milburn 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no characters in list are notable Giggy _U^CP 04:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 11:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Oliverez[edit]

Very minor actor with very minor roles see his imdb page, fails WP:BIO, and WP:V as most of the shows he supposely appear in aren't listed in imdb, prod removed by likely the author of the article editing as a IP Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something comes forward indicating that he was, in fact, in the movies listed and was, in fact, playing a key role - the roles indicated on his IMDb page, including "airline passenger" and "White House photographer" don't seem to be terribly notable. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the most prominent roles listed for him consist of bit parts. -- Whpq 16:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of African Americans with Native American ancestry[edit]

A huge percentage of the African-American population has some Native American ancestry, and this list doesn't give us any guideline or justification for its existence. A three-way intersection with questionable notability. Bulldog123 18:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wow is this a huge potential WP:BLP violation. Bigdaddy1981 20:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so common as to be unnotable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Almost completely unsourced-- the website mentions Della Reese. This is the first I've ever heard that Martin Luther King had American Indian ancestors, and naturally no cite for that. Tiger Woods, sure. Lena Horne, yes. But the Jackson 5? Crispus Attucks? Frederick Douglass? C'mon. Mandsford 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a huge WP:BLP violation, and certainly it isn't a WP:BLP violation at all for people like Crispus Attucks, Frederick Douglass, etc., but I have to wonder how notable it is. --Charlene 04:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - isnt it? I would think making unsourced claims about a living person's ancesttory would violate WP:BLP, especially in the event one of them was offended by/denied the claim --- which is possible. Bigdaddy1981 20:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Okay, I'm not aware of the ancestry of Attucks and Douglass, so I assume you're correct... therefore, the author could have cited a source. Regarding notability, I think it would be just as worthy as a list of African-Americans with some white ancestry, such as Alex Haley. (Before anyone says "Barack Obama", or, as I did, "Tiger Woods", it's worth thinking about the fact that we tend to call a person with mixed Caucasian and African ancestry black or African-American. Franco Harris, with an Italian mother and and African-American father is a perfect example). Mandsford 12:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not either. I thought Douglass was part white. Bulldog123 12:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every trace of blood is notable. Greg Grahame 12:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for any number of reasons above, and because fundamentally all these race/ethnicity labels are POV and OR and ultimately degrading: how much ancestry counts? does it count even if you don't know about it? and why does after some number of generations an Italian-, Irish-, or German-American become simply an American, but Asian, Latino, and African-Americans are always so labelled. I guess we never fully belong. Carlossuarez46 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blame the U.S. Census Bureau. Everyone American citizen belongs, but the goverment mandates classifications for various purposes. I've never understood why society considers folks who trace their ancestry to Spain to be of a different "race" than those who trace their ancestry to anywhere else in Europe; nevertheless, White, Black and Indian persons who have ancestors from "Latin America" are lumped into one group. As for "African-Americans", Jesse Jackson announced that label in 1988, but unofficially, it's easier to say "Black" and "White" than it is to say the 16 letter version and "Caucasian". Mandsford 23:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is, but quite a few consider anything that has a color hint to be hopelessly racist, preferring instead to use euphemisms, even when the same have no apparent meaning (for instance, many European whites would not consider themselves Caucasians, and at least a few Blacks consider 'African-American' an improper term). IgorSF 05:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On a quasi-related topic, did you guys know Winston Churchill was 1/16th Iroquois? --Hemlock Martinis 08:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard that, but it makes sense, in that his mother, like the Iroquois, was from New York state. Something like that would be easily verifiable. Where I live, there are a number of people who claim that they are of American Indian descent. Almost always, they're "1/8th Cherokee", never more, never less, and no other tribe. I guess they believe it makes them more interesting. Mandsford 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft, unmaintainable. Blueboy 96 21:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or else pretty soon someone will make a List of Asian-Americans living in Hawaii With at Least One-Third African-American Ancestry But No More Than One-Thirty-Sixth Hispanic Ancestry. IgorSF 05:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. He is notable for his nuttiness. Daniel Case 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Ray[edit]

Gene Ray lacks notability. Is wikipedia going to begin to give articles to every ranting and raving 'scientist' who has a 'theory' and a website. His theory isn't breakthrough anything. It's pure nonsense. Dr Schwantz 17:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Any notability of Ray's is covered in the time cube entry, for better or worse. Robinh 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to Time Cube. Everything we need to say about the subject can be said there, and we should favor non-bio articles to bio articles in such cases, like we did with Daniel Brandt. --Allen 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Time Cube article asserts and explains very intelligently the notability of its subject matter. Gene Ray is the single contributor to that specific field, thus by default appears to match the criteria for notability of people: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.". There is this sense that someone interested in Time Cube might also be interested in reading a bit more about the man behind Time Cube - material that may not be appropriate for the Time Cube article itself. Merging the existing Gene Ray article into Time Cube would unbalance Time Cube, so a lot of material would need to be lost. As it stands the article gives a decent background to the man that appears reasonably balanced, fair and interesting. The relationship between the two articles is sound - it is symbiotic. Discussion on deleting the one should perhaps include deleting the other. SilkTork 19:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gene Ray might be a lunatic but he's still an interesting person that has made himself rather known on the internet. And a lot of stuff here wouldn't fit in the time cube article. Nxsty 23:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, he's spewing nonsense, but he's got a huge following as a humorist, and there's been a lot of press about him. Chubbles 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This comes somewhat close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because a person's ideas don't appeal to the average scientifically literate educated white American man doesn't mean he isn't notable. Has received significant secondary coverage, which means that he passes WP:BIO. (edit to sign) --Charlene 05:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of reliable sources, and you don't get to lecture at MIT if you're not notable. hateless 07:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, "the event was organized exclusively by students" - I imagine they could book a lecture hall for any comedy Internet figure they wanted, if enough students were amused enough to pay for tickets. --McGeddon 10:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Time Cube. We know the content isn't going to expand much more than this, and the resulting article would hold up as a more readable piece if not diluted across two. As it stands, there's so little that can be said about Time Cube that doesn't count as original research. It's better to spend a bit of that article talking about Gene, which is verifiable info. I agree with other comments above about how the Time Cube (website) is the reason for Gene's notability and why visitors on the Wikipedia would be reading about him. Metaeducation 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, it doesn't matter one bit whether or not his theory makes any sense (it doesn't). That is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, so I'd like to know why you even mentioned it. Disregarding that, your objection is lack of notability. Well, he's been on TechTV, he's given a talk at MIT, and he is a tremendously popular figure on the internet. Sounds pretty notable to me. 129.97.152.73 12:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Gene Ray is notable per Wikipedia:Notability, 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." The article cites much coverage of this nature in the "Mass media" subsection of Gene_Ray#External_links. John254 02:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG KEEP!!!! Dr Gene Ray's discovery of the 4-Day Time Cube truly does render him the Greatest Thinker and the Wisest Human in all of known human history. How is it in the slightest part conceivable that anyone could remove from Wikipedia the article pertaining to such a monumental historical scientific social figure, the very model, hero and idol by which future generations shall live? How can we possibly corrupt ourselves to the lowest level of debaucherous ignominy and destroy humanity's future Cubic salvation by suppressing the 4-corner rationally proven Cubic Truth? From the "Gene Ray" article's prior retention at the outcome of an unsuccessful deletion attempt, we are already prescient of this new deletion-attempt's outcome—an outcome of PRESERVATION of the GENE RAY ARTICLE. So let's indeed preserve this wonderful article that, at its heart, really does inform us about that great man, namely, Dr Gene Ray, who is a Cubic Thinker and Wise Above Gods.
Keep. The man himself is a celebrity. At the very least Merge, but have Gene Ray re-direct to the Time Cube section and retain his bio. User:24.14.118.101 00:03, 8 July 2007 (note: this vote was copied from the this article-for-deletion's discussion page, at Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/Gene Ray, which was where the user had initially inappropriately placed it.)

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

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

The result was delete as nn artist. Daniel Case 12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphanie Morissette[edit]

Appears to be a non notable artist. No sources provided in 8 months. Daniel J. Leivick 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article makes very little claim to notability, and provides no evidence even of that. Valrith 18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and wikipedia is not Myspace. Bigdaddy1981 20:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only claim to fame is "Guest artist" from the Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec, which is neither an award nor recognition (that spot is, in fact, given to artists that are specifically not yet notable in order to give them a bit of exposition). WP:HOLE at any rate. — Coren ^(talk) 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a criteria for deletion. --Oakshade 14:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable artist who's works has been displayed in numerous international galleries. And won the "Guest artist" from the Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec. --Oakshade 14:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prospex[edit]

Non notable charity, no references, Greatestrowerever 17:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no claim of notability even. — Coren ^(talk) 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The bar for keeping the article is notability, not whether it exists. Arguments based on the WP:WEB notability criteria are generally given precedence over arguments listed here (e.g. "other crap exists"). It's difficult to judge "consensus" when there's undeniably a lot of meatpuppetry here (sneaky, forging signatures!) Nonetheless, arguments based on the lack of notability, in the form of non-trivial mention in reliable sources, proved most persuasive. If reliable, non-trivial secondary sources can be found discussing the topic, then the article could conceivably be recreated after discussion at deletion review. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fudzilla[edit]

Non-noteable website. Article is very poorly written, which appears to have been started by the staff of the website. WP:WEB seems lacking AMDZone 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Appears to have been started by the staff of the website." Do you have any proof to back up this assertion? Deletion of articles are not supposed to be started as fishing expeditions. - MSTCrow 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMDFanzone was created on the 4th, and the entirety of his edits are creating this AfD, and writing "Hi" on his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AMDZone. This AfD should be terminated immediately due to the highly suspicious nature of the user AMDZone. The familiarity he has with the system, combined with the pinpoint targeting of his edits, strongly points to a sock. - MSTCrow 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: Canvassing on the site itself [12] leads me to beleive we may get a lot of "support" appearing out of nowhere. Caveat administrator. — Coren ^(talk) 21:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, this has G11 "come read us, come read us, we need traffic!" plastered all over it. — Coren ^(talk) 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Case for note may be possible. That said, the article at present seems to be largely offtopic and to contain so many links back to Fudzilla as to be somewhat circumspect. Several other independent sources don't seem to actually reference the site. Major cleanup required if retained, only one source available to make a case for note, and that, while decent, isn't print. MrZaius^talk 04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so you call this one G11? Which phrases you are pointing at? The false benchmarks and speculations? So The Inquirer does that too, almost always, and already lost creditability. I forgot the RyderMark stuff was also started by Fuad, the founder of this tech tabloid. What left, it's a tech tabloid, started by an ex-writer from The Inquirer (RyderMark again!). Besides that, what about these two articles, Tom's Hardware and AnandTech? Nothing was referenced and nothing printed was presented in those articles either, only a brief overview and links to the site and other parts of it, so are they notable (enough)? Why don't one raise AfDs to those articles even they do not have their notability explained? Because they have higher reputation among people than this one? Because they are are considered a credited source? Besides, "Notable" here means "multiple not trivial sources". Okay, the aforementioned two articles also don't have this in respective context, and I don't see any notability in those articles, so beside the non-trivial sources, I say there are no solid rationale for this article should be deleted, which unless you considered the scoop section was "unremarkable" and thus the whole article resembles Anandtech and Tom's Hardware, with only overviews and links. --202.71.240.18 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I concur with G11 -- this guy is using Wikipedia to promote his website. Even when you Google for his name, Wikipedia is the #2 hit after the URL. The reason Tom's Hardware and AnadTech have entries is because they are 10+ years old, and yes, I've seen both in print sources. Maybe someday this guy will be noteworthy, but its just another one of the hundreds of hardware review sites that get deleted from here every year. AMDZone 04:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, Wikipedia is the #1 or #2 hit on just about every google search. Is every wikipedia entry looking for advertisement then? Better delete it all just in case! 207.93.211.50 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Just as AMDZone said, wikipedia tops google results pretty quickly, I've seen it many a times. This is one of the reasons people love wikipedia is so that they can get free attention, that's all there is to it. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I believe that Faud is not the one who added his site here. Second, his site does exist, and thus does deserve a place on here: the site where you can find anything. If you wish to remove a valid review site from the wikipedia, then I lose much respect for you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.242.118.131 (talk • contribs).

— 72.242.118.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your policy is no good - deleting written articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.6.114 (talk • contribs)

— 91.154.6.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm sorry — I can't resist... as opposed to deleting articles not yet written? — Coren ^(talk) 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Fudzilla is a famous tech website in tech-related communities. Not always famous in a good way but still, it exists, it's controversial in many aspects and it gets lots of hits from people interested in the latest tech rumors, such as me. This website deserves a spot on wikipedia, allthough the article itself could be somewhat more objective by also mentioning the attitude that many serious tech enthusiasts have towards this website. The article used to be even worse than it is now, but that would be a reason to change the article rather than deleting it. --~~♫Jakko♫ ^{(Talk to me!)}~~ (signature forged by — 82.215.51.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , The Evil Spartan 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 13:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, You do not delete articles just because you have a personal beef with the Inquirer and its off-shoots. The fact is that the magazine exists. If you delete it you have to delete every magazine and newspaper that exists on the site on the grounds that they might be advertising. Further you cannot prove that he has put the entry in for publicity. Just because you *think* he has does not make it so. If anyone has created publicity for Fudzilla it is you. Now there are stories being written about how Wikipedia has a history of deleting anything associated with the Inquirer. Looking at the entry, with its anti-Fudzilla bile, I would have thought it unlikely that this entry has been written by him.

I also want to ask the people calling for deletion if they are regular readers, or employees of the competiting magazine Dailytech? It seems that you have made links to lots of Dailytech stories on Wikipedia. Is this a method of controlling the competition? Isn't it true that the editor of Fudzilla once told you to "get a life"? I would suggest a call for a better edit after this is done I suggest that the entry is protected to avoid the use of Wikipedia as a technique of harming a business rival in the future. ~~Magus007 ^(talk)~~ signature forged by — 87.126.11.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The Evil Spartan 13:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Weak keep - article does have some mentions on google news, even now - notability is roughly established. That being said, this meatpuppetry and trolling by members of the site (i.e., "dont' delete it so it won't look like you're fighting against your competition") is totally off-putting. The Evil Spartan 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have to agree that Fudzilla does exist and has enough recognition to warrant a keep. Since when do people in Wikipedia get to decide what is worth reading about? This is not a dictatorship! If a site or thing validly exists then Wikipedia should be required to keep it.--Flashstar 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, maybe since we created the notability guidelines so that any old person couldn't add whatever to the site? Try out WP:NOT. The Evil Spartan 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not apply it is a magazine so it is known and notable. Fudo would probably not be that notable to be worthy of an entry]. [User:Magus007|Magus007]] ^(talk) 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC

Strong Keep Wikipedia is not the place to make wild guesses about who wrote what, or deleting the content of anyone or anything you don't like. It's also an encyclopedia, not a top 10 only site. - MSTCrow 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a valid entry about a commercial business.

--Quatermass 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see little difference between this tech site and others similar to it whose entries on Wikipedia are not disputed. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPAM and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT , the only two sections that I see applying to this entry, should this be deleted we'd better go after all of the Internet tech review sites. Has Wikipedia simply become another forum for petty vendetta? Joegee 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site is not a vanity site of no importance. It it used by enough people and linked to enough by other pages to be notable enough not to delete. Twfowler 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina O'Donnelly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kristina O'Donnelly

Proded as non notable and seconded, anon removed prod. Likely non notable, sources provided do not establish notability. Notability tag up for 8 months no improvement. Daniel J. Leivick 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eight books, but it appears that they're self-published, and the awards claimed are from a group that doesn't really seem to be an overly influential association. Delete as non-notable. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the eight books are either all self-published or published by vanity presses. Weak delete unless independent coverage can be found. — Coren ^(talk) 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete* Not sure what this was about, as without it we could tag for CsD for lack of context. That said, restored version lacks any independent sources to back up a case for note, and at least one points to an image on the Wikipedia - Delete unless remedied. MrZaius^talk 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. SalaSkan 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formosa bond[edit]

Created by SPA 8 months ago ~~no sources or notability established since then.~~ Daniel J. Leivick 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources firmly establish notability, my mistake. I was going through a lot of old notability cases, sorry. Nomination withdrawn. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per news coverage as seen on the very first GHit (en: [13]; zh: [14]). 8 hits from Taipei Times alone [15]. I have referenced and expanded the article based on these. Incidentally many similar but more important products, e.g. Shogun bond, the Japan equivalent, redirect to Bond (finance)#Bonds issued by foreign entities, but IMO there's enough material to support independent articles (or at least by-country articles) on many of them. cab 01:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; and, question: Since when did wikipedia have a deadline? Neier 11:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword•T•C 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuran no Yami[edit]

Article created by SPA 8 months ago no signs of sources or improvement could find no relevant Google hits prod removed by anon account. Daniel J. Leivick 17:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fan-created organization based on the series Naruto. Most fanfiction is non-notable per WP:FICT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for crying out loud - a recent prod was removed using this rationale: "remove prod. "not actively edited" is not a good reason for deletion". Agreed, but writing a crazy, hard to read article about some "ninja clan" (sigh), whose head is suposed to be Sabaku no Gaara and not even mentioning once in the article that this supposedly happens in Naruto space-time is insulting, to say the least. Article has no merit whatsoever, and is structured like that famous cobweb made by a spider on dope. [16] TomorrowTime 11:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to provide reliable sources and fails WP:FICT. -- Whpq 16:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Chief naval officer of an economically important nation. Notable ex officio regardless of paucity of sources. Daniel Case 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Tay[edit]

Fails on notability; as per note 3 of WP:BIO, content is not far removed from directory entries or mentions in passing - no detailed discussion of subject. Though potentially notable as the Singaporean Chief of Navy, there are very few noteworthy secondary sources - mentions in web articles are either very brief or the article itself is very short. Even combining every reference to him I've seen so far, I don't think a notable biography could be prepared. Sources discuss his position or job more than the man. Ng Chee Khern could also potentially be included in this nomination for the same reasons. WLU 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the head of a country's navy is a noteworthy position. A quick Google search yields multiple independent hits for Admiral Tay holding this position. Even if the article is short at this point, that just means it should be expanded. Same for Ng Chee Khern. NawlinWiki 20:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both for same reasons. This should be an automatically notable position. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the sources are tenuously reliable or references are incredibly minor - at sources state that he is the head of the navy and that he attended "x" benefit or provided a cheque for "y" event. Ronnie Tay is noteable solely for the fact that he is the head of the Singapore Navy and nothing else. I would think the lack of noteworthy information from secondary sources would negate any notability gained from his title. Given what I've found I think the best that could be done is delete the entry and merge what little information that exists into the Singapore Navy article as 'Ronnie Tay is the current head of the Navy'. In my mind this would be the inclusion of a single reference in the Republic of Singapore Navy's page citing who the current head of the navy is. Multiple hits on google point to the same thing - he is the navy head and that's about it. WLU 23:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WLU. Information, while notable, is too hard to source, and too sparse. The Evil Spartan 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, any military, judicial or executive leader at a national level is worthy of an article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair Macmillan[edit]

The lack of context tag has been up for 6 months, still fails WP:N. Wizardman 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO as written. --Evb-wiki 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability in the article; even the IMDb entry reveals a list of rather generic light entertainment shows that really could have been directed by anyone. Cheers, DWaterson 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel Case 03:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics[edit]

Textbook case of WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#DIR. Bulldog123 17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~Weak keep. It may be WP:TRIVIA, but at least this one would be a lot easier to verify than most of the other song lists. By the way, you might want to specify which portion of WP:NOT it violates -- just citing WP:NOT as a whole doesn't usually cut it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to "weak keep" with a bit of consideration. This is (marginally) encyclopedic in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, a lot of bad lists can be verified easily. List of songs that start with "L" for example. Bulldog123 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't think either WP:TRIVIA (even though the subject is certainly trivial) and WP:NOT#DIR really apply here. Neither does WP:NOT#IINFO, as the information is clearly not indiscriminate, and WP:LIST does allow for information grouped by theme. Furthermore, this information is easily verifiable (unlike "List of songs about X"). How encyclopedic is it? Not much, but I think this is one the very few song list articles that actually has some claim to exist. That said, it'd hardly be a tragedy if it was deleted.EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable list and not really trivia. Lugnuts 18:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This article is doesn't seem like something some would do a search for in an encyclopedia, but it seems more encyclopedic than something that I just WP:ILIKEIT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly trivial and obviously a list of loosely-associated topics. Malc82 21:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very much trivial, and verifiable doesn't mean notable. Why not a list of songs with less than 42 words in their lyrics? — Coren ^(talk) 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the most part, while it is verifiable using primary sources, it fails notability if no other sources have covered it, and based on how trivial this is, I'd be willing to be it has not been documented in a reliable source. GassyGuy 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not attributed and (from what I can see) not attributable. Fails WP:ATT. --Charlene 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
trivia. trivial. delete These pop culture lists are finite, right? Please, say they are. Lie if you have to. There's an end to all this. There just has to be. Kripto 10:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are, by my count. Bulldog123 12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the lists can be constructed recursively, so there is an infinite number of them. At least, they are countably infinite ( ${\displaystyle \aleph _{0))$ ). — Coren ^(talk) 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least the inclusion criteria is clear, but ultimately not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting list. Cedars 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Was that a joke !vote? Bulldog123 20:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it was serious. Cedars 12:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep encyclopaedic enough, would be sad to see this go. Don't be so deletionist. SalaSkan 17:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Compare Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_whose_title_does_not_appear_in_the_lyrics. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both (as to prevent systemic bias). Sr 13 08:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fate (2007 film)[edit]

Nonnotable film; author Cdavies has a conflict of interest. (Forwarded from WP:COIN. Shalom ^Hello 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a home movie created by friends, no info on how it was released. My friends in high school used to make movies and pass out CDs if this is the case then it is not likely to be notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, utterly fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). The Room (2007) by the same people should probably also be nominated. PrimeHunter 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about war[edit]

There is a big difference between a list of war songs and this. Description: "This article consists of songs that are about war, its effects, and its people." Alone, that tells you it's not really a song about war. Included in this nomination is: List of songs about nuclear war Bulldog123 16:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as pure WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, etc. Totally loose association, hard to reference, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is what categories are for and these types of list are always deleted based on WP:NOT#INFO.--Svetovid 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. My goodness, this list has got everything from the Battle Hymn Of The Republic to Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, as well as seven songs all titled War (and one titled War?). It also has nothing which distinguishes any of these songs from one another, making it impossible to tell what any of them have to do with war. Some portions of this list could possibly be worked into interesting articles on songs about specific wars (e.g. songs about the Vietnam war), but a list of every song referencing war in any way, shape, or form is rather indiscriminate. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have liked to write, "What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!"... however, I read the list, and it's a keeper if the wheat can be separated from the chaff. Songs about war are comparatively rare nowadays, and were part of pop culture during Vietnam as protest songs (and later as "returning vet songs"). However, like all lists, this one needs to be trimmed of the cruft. The author missed out on Over There. Mandsford 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, you can always start list of war songs. Nobody is going to nominate that, as long as it doesn't go off-topic. Bulldog123 13:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too indiscriminate, this is anything from Vietnam to the Trojan War. No real association between the songs, just any vague war/army theme. Crazysuit 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from the same failure of all the "songs about", how "about" the subject does the song have to be and in whose opinion is the song "about" such subject? Carlossuarez46 17:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about masturbation[edit]

Have seen lists of songs going up. Ran across this one and looks like it is suspect to be deleted, even though failed a previouns nom (april 05 i believe).Chris Kreider 17:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a random list, and probably hard to prove. Chris Kreider 17:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The claim that these songs are all concerned with masturbation is not common knowledge, and is not sourced within the article. So, delete. --Nehwyn 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reference - This list is as encyclopedic as all the other lists in Category:Lists of songs about a topic. I suggest sourcing the listed songs, perhaps by mentioning relevant lines from the songs etc. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I'd say "Keep but reference" is wishful thinking, unless you plan on doing it yourself. This article has been there for a long time. --Nehwyn 18:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've done it for the list of sportspeople who tested positive for banned substances, and I'm willing to do it for this list. Having said that, any help in improving the list is ofcourse welcome. I suggest a ~~five~~four-column list for this one: song, artist, ~~genre,~~ relevant line(s) and a link to the full lyrics. Any thoughts? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 19:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't care about the "genre" column, but apart from that, your suggestion would indeed make this article acceptable. --Nehwyn 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right. I've removed "genre" from the columns. I've gone through the list, and it needs pruning as well. Silverchair's Abuse Me, for instance, is not about masturbation. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wasn't referenced before, still not referenced. Most of this seems to be speculation/original research. Wickethewok 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aecis Jcuk 23:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really no longer care, but I offer the following:
1. This is actually its 3rd afd/vfd (not the second), as documented on the talk page
2. It is documented/sourced...every entry has an html comment with the appropriate lyrics.
Wikibofh_(talk) 23:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "every entry has an html comment with the appropriate lyrics" — The fact that people think that the article cites no sources is a direct result of your chosen bad citation method. Citations should be legible. You are witnessing the consequences of their being illegible. Uncle G 01:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. If you want it cited, it can be, but this is the best way I've found to have any attemot to keep the cruft out. Don't mistake using the cite template as the only method of dpong citations. Wikibofh_(talk) 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the link next to the song goes to the article about the author of the song, not the lyrics. --Nehwyn 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't write anything about the other methods of citation. I wrote that citations have to be legible. A citation method that uses illegible citations results in the consequences that you are seeing right now. It's a bad citation method. Uncle G 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aecis has sound reasoning, and that is as valid as any reason to keep this article. SunStar Net 23:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With due respect to Aecis, whom I admire for his dedication to inclusionism, the odds the this list can be appropriated verified from independent reliable sources indicating that the songs are about masturbation are low. Then, the article will have to be watched like a hawk to prevent unreferenced material from being added. Thus, the list is simply going to be too much work to be worth what little utility it provides.-- danntm ^T _C 02:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful list and verifiable, not likely to become overwhelmingly large. The fact that an article may be the target of users who don't cite references or of vandals does not mean it should be deleted, otherwise the most viewed articles here should all be deleted. Carlossuarez46 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but currently it's not about users who don't cite reference... it's the whole article that cites no references. --Nehwyn 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to the discussion on this very page of the illegible citation method being employed by the article. I've made some of the citations legible for your reading pleasure. Uncle G 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. Well, an invisible comment is not displayed on the page, so they should be converted to a legible format (thanks Uncel G). Unfortunately, those that have been made legible, are either original research, unproven ("said once in a radio interview..."), or not references at all. --Nehwyn 18:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - That an article fails to cite references is a call to improve it not delete it. Carlossuarez46 18:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful list as surely someone will find it "helpful". -- User:Docu

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to polycephaly in popular culture[edit]

Another questionable "in popular culture" list, basically listing random instances of "polycephaly" in film, TV, and....to some extent...mythology. Unless we start with one-leggedness in popular culture, I don't see the great notability. Bulldog123 16:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT_? Of course delete it! WP:NOT#IINFO applies. Shalom ^Hello 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOT. --Evb-wiki 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purely indiscriminate list of loosely associated stuff... although, admittedly, I think it's interesting. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Odd compilation, but since "polycephaly" is not a condition that occurs in real life (unlike one-leggedness), and since it is a little-used plot device, for obvious reasons, it actually works. Mandsford 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Polycephaly *does* occur in real life. Abigail and Brittany Hensel (warning to the squeamish) are a rare example among humans, but it's not unheard of in cats and dogs. However, the word used to describe it is unfortunate; the condition is not strictly one individual with two heads, but two individuals - each as separate intellectually as you and me - with one body. (edited to add warning) --Charlene 05:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of things happen in real life, some are shocking, doesn't mean that there is a popular culture phenomenon about them. This is no different. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to main article. Sr 13 07:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Destinations[edit]

Contested prod. Content largely duplicates material already found in main article, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. This one is overly detailed. The consistent style for main airport articles is to have such a list set up by concourse, without the bullet lists in this article, and not to have a separate article for destinations. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and O'Hare International Airport are good example. I just don't see the point of the article. By the tone of the lead section, it almost reads like it was written by a PR person for the airport. Realkyhick 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We just don't have articles like this. As realkyhick explained, we tend to organize airport destinations by airline or by airport terminal, not by airport as here. Shalom ^Hello 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Airport's article, why do we need a separate article for a list that is easily integreable to the main Airport's one.--JForget 22:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the content in this article is already in the main airport article. Realkyhick 05:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to airport article. Good grief ... Blueboy 96 21:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe there is no support for this type of article in the airport wikiproject. Vegaswikian 23:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Killer[edit]

POV violations ("humiliated and destroyed"), not notable content which could be folded in to Randy Orton. Yamla 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is true, it is out of line. But you dont have to nominate it for deletion, I will just change the sentence. k? Lex94 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There. I changed it. I wrote: "Here is a list of the Legends that have fell victim to the Legend Killer:" instead of the ones that have been humiliated and destroyed. Lex94 15:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What little information is notable could still be folded into Randy Orton. And that's not even mentioning the numerous WP:FU violations. --Yamla 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am reading. Explain the WP:FU violations, because I don't see them Lex94 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More non-notable junk in the never-ending parade of excruciating over-detail of pro wrestling. I'm beginning to think wrestling fans do two things and two things only: 1) watch wrestling, and 2) write Wikipedia articles about wrestling. Realkyhick 16:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You shouldn't even vote for you made it clear you don't care about wrestling. And this is an encyclopedia, the more information the better.

Keep We should keep this article. The article was part of the Randy Orton article before, but was eliminated. This article has heavy descriptions of each victim of the Legend Killer and a comprehensive list. If you nominate this article for deletion, then you should also nominate Triple Crown Championship, Grand Slam Championship, etc. for they are also lists of things which are noted in each individual's bio page. Lex94 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after selective merging anything worthwhile into Randy Orton. While this may be a big part of his gimmick, it really doesn't need its own page and the detailed description - a short piece on his page is enough. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a non-wrestling fan who is a Stacy Keibler fan, I believe all the important info should be located at Orton's article. This offshoot is unnecessary, but interesting. It has a lot of info that would bolster a bio.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Okay, first off, this article is very (and I mean very) badly written. The raw information may be of use in the Randy Orton article, but it's not worthy of it's own article, especially as it is now, but probably even with cleanup it would be better off merged. Calgary 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessive fancruft, and could be considered a plot summary. Does not require more than a paragraph or two at Randy Orton. Resolute 04:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that this article has useful information of a an acomplishment of WWE. All this information does not fit in the bio page. And actually, I always wanted a list of legends killed by Randy Orton. And this is a very good comprehensive list. JoseValentino 04:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User's first ever edit other than creating his user page
  - This user has now been indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet of Lex94, the creator of the article being debated
Keep Actually, this list is better than any other list I have ever seen about Randy's legend killings. I never thought about Tommy Dreamer, Harley Race and The Rock n' Sock. This list explains why they were feuding, when they were feuding, when and where the legend killing happened and even why is the person considered on the list. 72.50.52.46 05:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User's first and to date only edit
Merge any relevant information, although I don't think much of this in-world fictional stuff passes WP:FICT, and Redirect to Randy Orton. --Charlene 05:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge or Keep~~- we shouldn't delete it because it is a great place to get info on Randy Orton, and the legends he has defeated. But another great idea could be to merge it with Randy Orton's bio and keep it. It is unnecessary to delete it because it is only more info on Randy Orton, and thats actually a good thing, thats what wikipedia is, an "Encyclopedia", they needs more info on their articles.

~~Keep~~ this article because it is very helpful if you want to know more about "Who is Randy Orton?", and "Who was the Lengend Killer?". Wikipedia should keep this article because it will still grow in size because Randy Orton hasn't beaten every legend there is, he is in process of doing it. when its finished, this article will be bigger than Randy's bio. This article is not that bad at all, and as far as i have seen, it beats other ones by a lot.
- Above two !votes were both by Lex94, who has already !voted to keep further up the page
Delete, or very weakly consider Merge and redirect (note that merging requires that we retain information on original authors per the GFDL). Note that when participating in this discussion, it's not enough to argue that a page is interesting or even useful, and it's certainly not on to make ad hominem attacks about other participants suggesting that they shouldn't be voting because of their stance on the subject (since arguments are meant to be objectively based on policy, not subjectively based on whether you like the article or not). Also, the images used in the article are almost certainly fair use violations, since each serves only to provide an illustration of a single paragraph in the article, and is only barely doing more than decoration (it's not that far from the many, many images that were deleted for illustrating each entry in various "List of (TV show X) episodes" for similar reasons). Confusing Manifestation 06:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is nothing more than a list of notable wrestlers he has attacked. All the pictures violate WP:FU. After it's deleted, maybe turn it into a redirect to Orton's page (since "Legend Killer" is his nickname). TJ Spyke 22:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment There is no point in voting merge, becuase the info will not get into the article. Many users beleive that this persona (his only persona to date) is, and I quote "Not Notable". Guys, don't say merge, cause none of the stuff in this article will make Randy's page anyway. Killswitch Engage 08:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the relevant info (and it's debatable if it's even notable) appears to have been merged. This article is just pointless listcruft and has no encyclopedic merit. As stated above, I suggest you read WP:USEFUL. Gavyn Sykes 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - fails WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:POV. Not mention merging this would just unnecessarily elongate the Randy Orton article with non notable information, as any of these instances that is already notable is mentioned in the Randy Orton article. Bmg916^Speak 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler Room Brawl[edit]

This match type isn't notable enough to have it's own article. Everything in this is in the list of professional wrestling matches article, with sources (and information on the World Championship Wrestling version. The only thing missing there is the crufty "history" section.) «»bd(^talk _stalk) 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in line with nom. Don't see why this has to be the only one strung off of list of professional wrestling matches. Unneccessary. --SteelersFan UK06 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The excruciating detail given to all facets of pro wrestling makes my head spin. This is by no means notable by Wikipedia standards. Of course, by my standards, the entire so-called sport lacks notability. Realkyhick 16:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree. The "history" section is just a list of matches that are already included in the participants articles. Maybe some mention of how the first match came about should be in its entry on the List of professional wrestling match types, but it doesn't warrant its own article. Nikki311 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, knew it wouldn't survive a PROD. Darrenhusted 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sable Holiday[edit]

AfDs for this article:

OK, I accept that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Applicable guideline would be WP:PORNBIO, and I just can't see how she passes it. Article is unsourced, no sources added since last AfD in Oct 05. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sign of notability in the article. Additionally, subject has exactly one video to her name. Tabercil 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 00:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Only one video, Google hit count <12k, most googlebait. 9 print appearances, 3 covers but Gent isn't that notable. Still bigger than the others. No claim of notability in article. I'm not seeing how she's even close to satisfying WP:PORNBIO.Horrorshowj 02:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, unsourced neologisms, WP:NOT a dictionary. NawlinWiki 15:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook Creepin[edit]

The article as it stands is little more than a collection of dictionary definitions (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY), and all the terms defined are unsourced neologisms. Prod contested without comment or improvement. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close of WP:POINT nomination. — Scientizzle 00:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Fraga[edit]

Non-Notable Cuban diplomat. Callelinea 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article nominated by author to make a WP:POINT. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he was chief of the Cuban interests section in Washington, then he was the equivalent of the Cuban ambassador to the U.S. Clearly notable, & perfectly acceptable stub, with a source even. --Javits2000 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, comment is correct and so is Javits2000. Callelinea 19:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator has recommended "keep" and nobody else has recommended "delete". --Metropolitan90 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, an obviously notable post, and arguably another in a string of bad-faith nominations by this author. --Dhartung | Talk 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Stylez[edit]

ProD removed, the editor presumably feels that the 'Green Synergy' website cited is sufficient to establish notability for this student DJ. I'm not sure I agree. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Dent-Brown (talk • contribs) 2007/06/30 21:30:15 [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Realkyhick 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. "First runner-up" . . . ohhhhhh, just missed it. --Evb-wiki 16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to Dan Smith (footballer) by me. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Smith[edit]

Duplicate article to Dan Smith (footballer) where the later has more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphacon (talk • contribs) 2007/07/03 16:33:23

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Dan Smith (footballer), which is both the proper title and better article. GassyGuy 15:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. Why wasn't it done already? Realkyhick 16:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Evb-wiki 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close of WP:POINT nomination. — Scientizzle 00:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Mansion[edit]

Non-Notable home in Cuba. Callelinea 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article nominated by author to make a WP:POINT about AfDs on other articles. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone check the references in a library? If they hold up, four references is enough to justify an article about a single house. Shalom ^Hello 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Yes you are correct. Author of the article put article up for deletion. I believe that if this article is put up for vote and passes I will not have to deal with a future deletion vote by some other person. Yes the house is in all those books with plenty of photographs, it has refrences and is one of the most important private homes ever built in Cuba. It is considered so important that the Cuban government went as far ad spent an excess of $2,000,000 for its restoration and even contacted the original owners, the Pollack family for photos as to assist them in the restoration. Callelinea 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well firstly it doesn't work like that - at least one article was deleted after over a dozen AfDs - and also it's wasting the community's time if the article is notable. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought if an article passes an AfD then its almost imposible to get rid of it later.Callelinea 21:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Per WP:CONSENSUS, an AFD is not permanent; consensus can change. Passing one may persuade an editor not to nominate again, but if an article has basic unsolved problems it will probably see AFD again eventually anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming any of the print references hold up. We can tag with ((check)), for example. I found mostly hotel booking sites [17][18][19] with limited information germane to notability (these fail WP:RS). But the cited references would be fine assuming they're sufficiently germane. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Daniel Case 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnamese companies[edit]

Currently reads like an entry in the Yellow Pages. Current content should be removed (lest it be reworked). Dysprosia 22:22, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Delete -- Cyrius | Talk 03:33, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
Delete Ashibaka ✎ 18:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep cause somone will rework it. BL 23:48, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's been on Cleanup over a month already and nobody has. - SimonP 17:12, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - yellow pages - Tεx τ urε 21:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- Pedro 19:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Lest it be reworked..." "Yellow Pages" arguments are inapplicable when it comes to national and multinational corporations. There's a big difference between Matsushita and "Matt and Sue's Diner". However, this list has not been reworked or cleaned up, and seems to be drawn straight off of the Hanoi stock exchange website. Mandsford 15:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. I hope nobody minds that I bolded their !votes. Bulldog123 16:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird. How come these are from 2004? Bulldog123 16:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let your fingers do the walking somewhere else. (For those of you outside North America, that's a take-off of an old Yellow Pages slogan.) Realkyhick 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#DIR. GrooveDog (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what categories are for and these types of list are always deleted based on WP:NOT#INFO.--Svetovid 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More appropriate for a category. Cedars 03:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorize. --Hemlock Martinis 08:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep WP:POINT nomination.Circeus 18:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malena Burke[edit]

Non-Notable Cuban singer. Callelinea 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge and renaming are content decisions left up to editors. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 15:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine FM[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

I propose deleting this article because:

The title is not in the correct form for a radio station.
The material is covered adequately on the articles for WKIE, WRZA and WDEK, making this one redundant.
No offense, but it is not written to Wikipedia standards.

As I stated, I moved much of the noteworthy information to the three aforementioned articles. This one is pointless, and appears to rarely be updated. Perhaps the Nine FM article could just redirect to WRZA or something. --Fightingirish 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article coordinates the other articles and is useful. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it's the brand name the company's known by we should include it, and we can't redirect it to just one of the three broadcast stations if they use all three, unless we were to merge -- but that wouldn't be correct as the stations have separate histories. I think this makes an appropriate umbrella article. We do have articles on media companies that own multiple stations. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a brand name. It's the moniker used by a radio station (actually three signals all airing the same content. It goes against the naming conventions for radio stations. I transferred the information to the individual articles for each station. I think a redirect would be appropriate here, rather than a stand-along article. It's used for other stations, such as Drive 105. Otherwise, this could throw off the article naming conventions for other stations. My rationale for deleting this article is merely for naming conventions. Otherwise, the topic is very notable, and is covered in the same amount of detail in three other articles. Therefore, the Nine FM article is now redundant. --Fightingirish 23:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Fortress 2 classes[edit]

This is inappropriately detailed game guide content which violates WP:VG/GL. Specifically, [l]ists of mere statistics, items, or other minutiae are not acceptable in video game articles. Certainly this content does not merit its own article, and it should not be merged but rather deleted as it is not encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Andre (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me add that this is all from an unreleased title -- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Andre (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Andre (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start deleting the Halo associated pages for Covenant, etc. To quote another Wiki user:

“

I noticed that Pkaulf made an edit on May 17th citing "game guide material, doesn't belong on the article" that removed the whole classes section and all individual class information. The article now to me seems to tell me almost nothing about the game, it doesn't even tell me what the classes are, or how say, the spy works. How fluffy is this supposed to be? Seems like a huge change to the article without discussion. I also noticed another edit by Uber that cited "deleted unreferenced material" and yet what he removed was a paragraph full of cited stuff then he shot down Tom Edwards for reverting. The quality of this article is going downhill fast. Olivier Beaton 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

”

What the heck is Wikipedia GOOD for? Where does the encyclopedia part come in? Maybe you should take a brick bat to everything associated with American football and baseball, too. JAF1970 00:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencylopedic game-guide-ish stuff. --- RockMFR 02:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, violates not a game guide and Not a crystal ball. Other crap existing should have no bearing on whether or not this article should be on wikipedia. DarkSaber2k 08:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I will move it to a gaming wiki then I nominate delete --Cs california 11:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What is Wikipedia GOOD for? WP:BRIEF. Marasmusine 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Comment - I actually think that some of this information could form a valid sub article to Team Fortress 2, concerning the gameplay (maps & classes). It is a bit crystal ball right now, so I'd say save it in your userspace and come back to it when the thing is released. - hahnch e n 23:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic game-guide material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge a short list back into Team Fortress 2. Some of the sub-bullets are pointless, but the different character classes are one of the most prominent elements of this game (at least, they were of Team Fortress) to the point of being genre-defining. That's not minutiae. — brighterorange (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, no reason for deletion given, and subject is obviously notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Škabo[edit]

Articles for deletion/Škabo — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryHall86 (talk • contribs) 2007/07/04 00:53:30

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No rationale was given for deletion. With two albums and as part of a notable band, I don't see a problem. Shalom ^Hello 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 UK terrorist incidents[edit]

The article does not have the potential to provide sufficient significant information not already provided either on 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack,on 2007 London car bombs or on other subsequent pages related to future terrorist attacks. Tomj 14:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguatify (if that's a word) to an article just containing links to the London and Glasgow incidents. The information is covered in greater detail in the individual articles, but I can see the value of this as a dab page as a possible search term. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator). It covers the terrorist incidents in 2007, not necessarily just the two presently specified, and takes an overview of events. Further, even if the information can be dug out of the individual articles it is quite normal to have a front-end pulling together common themes and key points. There is no failure of WP policies, it is sourced and informative and will be helpful to the casual reader who doesn't want to flog through detailed articles on specific incidents to get the big picture of what has been happening in the year. A final point, it has just been decided not to merge the two incident articles, which provides an even clearer role for this one in outlining common and linked features, for example the UK raising the threat level to 'critical', not readily coverable in the incident articles so, contrary to what the nominator has asserted, there is plainly "potential to provide sufficient significant information not already provided". TerriersFan 15:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:TerriersFan Taprobanus 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that this page's existence could be justified if there were more incidents to report - but we're only halfway through the year. Perhaps in January 2008 the picture on if this page is needed or not will be more clear. I, for one, hope that it isn't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.38.39 (talk • contribs)
Keep for now Deciding on what to merge or delete in the middle of active updating is probably not appropriate--whatever is done has a good chance of being wrong. The anon above has the right idea. DGG 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is much potential use for a page summarising everything and treating the two events, and anything subsequent, as a whole, as well as separate articles going into detail. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. These two incidents (and any more that may follow) are (and would be), by and large, viewed as one. We can keep the other pages, but we should also have one, over-arching page on the whole episode. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blood Red Sandman and the author creator.--JForget 22:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glasgow and London were part of one plot, so they should have a combined article. On the other hand the two events were each significant in the history of the relevant city, so they should also have separate articles. The current arrangement is therefore just as it should be. Greg Grahame 12:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the authorities contend that the plots were related, the participants have not denied that as far as I have seen, so we can take that position because RSes support it and those in the best position to refute it haven't. Carlossuarez46 17:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Merely regurgitates information on the two separate articles. Unless, God forbid, any other incidents were to happen over the course of the year I can't really see any point in keeping this.GiollaUidir 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It does not 'regurgitate information'. The 'forward look' section is not in the separate articles nor is one of the 'Warnings' nor the 'Threat level'. Where there is common material it is structured here in a manner so that readers who do not wish to excavate from two separate articles get a clear overview. TerriersFan 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now added 'Plot to behead a British Muslim soldier' and '2007 United Kingdom letter bombs' since they seem relevant. However, I am not committed to these additions and I welcome views, on the article talk page, on their suitability and whether they enhance or detract from the article. TerriersFan 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above --SkyWalker 17:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Orphan status strongly argues for being insufficiently encyclopedic. Daniel Case 06:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graduates who cannot read their diplomas[edit]

Nonencyclopedic topic. Article is about a phrased used once in a speech. Apparently article was created (in September 2006) to support POV-rich discussions of education reform issues. Article is an orphan. It was linked from one other article, but I have removed that link (from Washington Assessment of Student Learning) because it added no value. FYI: I am proposing this for an AfD instead of speedy-delete or prod because (1) it was earlier proposed/rejected for speedy deletion and (2) it is unlikely that anyone potentially interested in the subject looks at the article (it was created by a removed sockpuppet). orlady 14:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! Once again, the template did not work for me... Please fix!--orlady 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia at best, citing a political speech as a source, nonencyclopedic as per nom....--Javits2000 15:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence shown that this has spread as a catchphrase beyond its source in a political speech in Idaho. And I was so hoping for a list! - Smerdis of Tlön 16:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This phrase is mentioned "out of context". It could possibly be mentioned in a larger article about education reform, but it should not stand alone. Shalom ^Hello 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be expanded and improved. --164.107.222.23 17:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Author was POV pushing on several topics, the phrase is non-notable on its own. --Dual Freq 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - title is viable WP:DAFT material, too. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone - interestingly enough, a large percentage of graduates literally can't read their diplomas because a) they're blind and the diploma isn't in Braille, or b) the diploma is in Latin or (in my case) Gaelic, and the graduate doesn't read those languages. --Charlene 05:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. There's already an article about literacy, right? And the sources are more useful and less political than the governor of Idaho, yeah? Then this article is redundant. Kripto 10:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, most of the rest, and especially Charlene. Carlossuarez46 17:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced 1 in 5 graduates can't read their diploma is accurate. Regardless, the statement was probably not of sufficient notability to warrant an article. Cedars 03:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, page already redirected. The Evil Spartan 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panalog[edit]

Technical detail of a digital videocamera (custom color space) that fails WP:N; at least the article does not claim notability. Not even worth merging due to limited content. Besides, the article is a complete mess, but that's not a reason to delete. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into Genesis (Panavision) which is where this information belongs, though that article definitely needs cleanup too. --Onejaguar 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With this merger, there's no point in proceeding further with the AfD. I Withdraw the nomination. --B. Wolterding 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interestingly, Panalog is also a brand name of a common veterinary medicine. --Charlene 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's bare minium of sources do not meet WP:RS (a blog? Come on), therefore it fails WP:N. Language remains somewhat promotional ("premium", "mysterious") and article on founder of site was deleted. Most support votes came from single-purpose anon accounts, as well, greatly discounting them. Daniel Case 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports and Pop Culture Bank[edit]

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

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

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

A Google search[20] suggests that this webzine is the subject of no non-trivial reliable external sources. Therefore it is impossible to write a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article about it. See Wikipedia:Notability. De-prodded without comment. Pan Dan 12:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul M. Banks. Pan Dan 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs) (note: this unexplained vote by an anonymous user should not count - Shalom ^Hello).
- likewise for unexplained votes by non-anonymous users (just clarifying) Pan Dan 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's an advertisement for the product. Shalom ^Hello 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is not an advertisement rather it is an explanation for the site and its creation and its main writers. See: Deadspin.com. Granted, Deadspin has been around longer and has been mentioned in more mainstream media, the layouts of the wikipedia article are the same. At what point does a description for a website stop being advertisement and start being background knowledge? Anderspc 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ (double vote struck The Evil Spartan 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)) why should unsigned votes not count and Shalom's vote should? That doesn't make any sense at all and is completely unjust. each vote counts, and Shalom's vote should count once. and only once. I am casting my one vote to keep it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- ~~keep~~ (double vote struck The Evil Spartan 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)) article has two neutral, verified and descriptive third party sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.113.228 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- In answer to both of those comments, 1. Please do sign your comments using ~~~~. 2. You can stop your votestacking now because this is not a vote. This is a discussion to determine whether the topic meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. 3. Your comments are welcome, but what we really need are citations to reliable, 3rd-party, non-trivial sources that we can use to verify what's there or re-write the article. The sources in the article now are unreliable and trivial with respect to this webzine. Pan Dan 21:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why are those sources unreliable and trivial? what exactly makes those other websites "trivial" and "unreliable?" where is this so-called line drawn? what websites would be "reliable" and "noteworthy" in your mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.95.168 (talk • contribs)
- Thank you for your question. To see what I mean by "reliable," please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. What I mean by "trivial" is that this webzine is only mentioned in passing in those sources. The idea is not to be exacting, it's just that there's got to be enough reliable source material on this webzine to write an encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 12:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable website, no reliable sources. Note that User:Anderspc acknowledged in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul M. Banks that he is on the staff of the subject website, and User:216.80.113.228 is a single-purpose account that has only contributed (repeatedly) to this debate and the Paul M. Banks debate. NawlinWiki 12:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep webzine featured in this article contains a link on the about the site page with a downloadable audio file. this file which i listened to, featured an exclusive interview of the webzine's founder on ESPN radio in milwaukee. sounds like a very reliable and important source to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.240.104 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. A bit fancrufty, and any worthwhile material can go in other articles if it isn't there already. Daniel Case 16:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music referencing Bill Hicks[edit]

Laundry list of unrelated, bare-mention trivia. --Eyrian 11:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WIkipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is already covered well enough in the Legacy section of Hicks' own article. It's also baffling that the article doesn't mention SPA, which had a whole album loaded with Hicks references. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Interesting, but still trivia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect with Bill Hicks, but not necessary to delete. --164.107.222.23 17:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything sourced and non-trivial to Bill Hicks, the Hicks article is surprisingly compact given the notability of the subject. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single independently sourced item in the lot. There's nothing to merge. --Eyrian 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Verifiable, then. Though to be honest, the most notable items (Radiohead, Tool) are already in the target article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notable maneuver; article has begun to be sourced. Daniel Case 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocastle Manoeuvre[edit]

Deleted db-nonsense, re-created & deletion queried. Stated to be a soccer football maneuver. Anthony Appleyard 10:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about the Rocastle thing but why is it by definition nonsense? The not dissimilar "Cruyff Turn" is very famous for example. I'm guessing that as you call it a 'soccer football' move you're not fully au fait with the intricacies of the game. Nick mallory 10:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. Original db may have been onto an incomplete page. Seems to have at least one decent source, which could be improved on. Suggest adding ((references)) tag if AfD results in Keep decision. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based solely on nominator's reason. Why do you think it's nonsense? It's referenced in a UK National newspaper, and seems feasible to me. Admittedly it may well fail WP:NOTABILITY and WP:OR, but I don't think it's nonsense. From the Google results, should probably be renamed Marseille turn. Paulbrock 10:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the moment Categorically not nonsense, but I'm not sure an article can be written on it that satisfies WP:V - a Google search on "Zidane roulette", for instance, brings up hundreds of results, but they're mainly blogs or YouTube videos.... ChrisTheDude 10:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not as nonsense, but because, given the one source quoted, this article is built purely on speculation and hearsay. The main name in the article is no longer with us, and cannot confirm or deny, for his part, his involvement in the alleged 'notable' football skill described in the article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also cannot help but suspect that this may violate WP:NOR, but mere suspicion is no grounds for me to include this comment in my vote above. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as Paulbrock. It is quite clearly not nonsense at all. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restored the old deleted edits of Rocastle Manoeuvre, so you can see its full history and who speedy-delete-tagged it. Anthony Appleyard 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, thanks for the transparency. The original speedy deletion tag was placed one minute after the page was created, when there was no content. The creator seems to be working on the article, and has added several sources in the few hours since the AFD was proposed. I suggest that the creator chose an incorrect name for the article, and this has caused the confusion, combined with over-reliance on a google test. Paulbrock 01:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article certainly isn't nonsense and the creator appears to be working on sources. Dave101→talk 11:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as Marseille Turn, which is the more ususal name for this manoeuvre (although there's nothing wrong with saying in the article that it is also known in some places as the Rocastle Turn. This is a recognised skill which is widely referred to. Robotforaday 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. No consensus that this fails WP:NOT. W.marsh 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords[edit]

This is a guide to playing Magic: the Gathering. The bulk of the article requires an understanding of how to play the game, and offers no benefit to readers other than explaining how to interpret rules text on cards in that game. This fundamentally violates WP:NOT#GUIDE, and has little potential to ever be anything but a guide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been questioned whether this is a game guide or not. Here are examples (not all of them, just handful) of sections of the text that are game guide:

Banding is an ability that has two parts. First, a player with banding creatures determines how damage is dealt to his or her creatures in a band (normally, the player dealing the damage determines this). Second, an attacking player may form 'bands' of creatures with banding (one non-banding creature could be included in a band). If one creature becomes blocked, the whole band becomes blocked as well, whether or not the defender could block other creatures in the band.
Creatures with flying can't be blocked except by other creatures with flying and/or reach.
This ability is written as "Protection from (quality)." A creature with protection from a quality cannot be enchanted, equipped, blocked, or targeted by anything with that quality, and all damage that would be dealt by a source of that quality will be prevented unless the damage can't be prevented (e.g. a creature with protection from red cannot be enchanted by red enchantments, blocked by red creatures, targeted by red spells and abilities, or take damage from red sources, barring exceptions which explicitly state otherwise).
This ability is generally written as "Cost: Regenerate", and is an ability only held by permanents. When the ability is played, a "regeneration shield" is set up on the permanent. The next time that permanent would be destroyed, instead all damage is removed from it, it is tapped (if it is untapped), and removed from combat (if it is in combat). This ability is generally for creatures, though any permanent can be regenerated.

This technically is not a keyword, but is instead a "replacement effect", much like damage prevention.
This ability is written as "Cumulative Upkeep Cost". At the beginning of each of its controller's upkeep, an "age counter" is put on the card. Then the player must pay the Cumulative Upkeep cost for each age counter on the permanent or sacrifice it. The ability was originally designed to represent an ever-climbing cost, eventually forcing the player to sacrifice the card and lose its benefits, although later incarnations provide a benefit for the number of age counters on the card when it is put into a graveyard.

The "context" seems to be limited to explaining what set introduced such-and-such rule, and what set last used it. I hope the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "No it's not" arguments don't obscure the plain, unfixable problem that this describes the rules of game in detail for the sake of informing readers how to play a game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a game guide and fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. TheRev 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Injected comment) The above comment was added by 203.87.127.18. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love the game, but this is a game guide and fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. Sections in the set articles discussing the development of new rules and keywords is fine, but just listing off the rules is not. Jay32183 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AMiB said it better than I could. Nifboy 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reluctantly. This is either a play guide or a glossary, and both fall under WP:NOT. Also, most of the terms are defined in the appropriate set/cycle articles. Expanding on that, including a line listing the other effects explicitly used in a set/cycle with links to the section of the article for the set where the effect originated serves the same purpose as this list. It may not be the best solution, but it allows the information be preserved and useful while staying within the guides. - J Greb 06:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I see this page as a list of definitions, useful most likely to people who don't play Magic, not as any sort of guide. Looking at Time Spiral, on the right is a long list of keywords that are in the set. Although some like "Echo", "Flash", "Flashback", "Kicker", "Suspend", and "Storm" all sound interesting and are perhaps a little indicative of what they actually do, most people who happen upon the article are going to be clueless. That's why we have this page. Rather than put little footnotes or additional sections in every Magic article, we link here. I don't see how that makes this a guide, since it does not "include instructions, suggestions or how-tos", is not a "tutorial, instruction manual, video game guide, or recipe." (WP:NOT#GUIDE 1) (After all, we have List of Internet slang phrases.) As some of you have said, the content is useful or "fine." In saying this, you should at least be voting Merge. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say this content was fine. I said discussing the development of rules and keywords in the relevant set articles was fine. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary, so the list of definitions argument isn't valid. Jay32183 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, however, there are plenty of precedents. Just pulling from arguments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang, List of Latin phrases, List of French phrases, List of elements by symbol. I don't have time to pore over the giant List of Lists, so those are my examples for now. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also irrelevant. We are under no obligation to hunt down every article that violates policy in order to delete a single article that does, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jay32183 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not hunting down every other such page. I'm showing other, similar articles (one featured!) to back up my argument. And now I will point you to WP:AFDP#Tips on dealing with other material. This can be refactored into an article (or merged into many). --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually it can't. Game guides are game guides regardless of their locations, and lists of definitions are lists of definitions regardless of their location. The problem is what the material is, not how it is organized. Jay32183 23:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So you say it should be deleted and anything in any article which explains what a keyword means should also be removed? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We are only discussing this article. Jay32183 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Observations:
        The terms are, within the game, important and integral. That being the case, they need to be explained, even if that results in a portion of the game mechanics being given. This is at the very basic level of dealing with this game, the sets and the cards.
        
        Without trying to invoke OTHERSTUF, it is reasonable to look at how other parlour games (board, card, and dice games) are handles. At a basic level, articles dealing with these topics need to cover the basic mechanics of the games. Not a detailed treatise a "How to win" by any means, but covering all the basics.
        
        If, as is possible with an AFD, the potential results include renaming and/or merging, the the state of this information in other MtG articles is germane. Especially in light of how the back and forth between Jay and TI can be read. And Jay, please correct me if I am misunderstanding your position.
        It reads to me that the position has been put forward that this material is either a Guide or Terms and, by WP:NOT, not proper for inclusion in Wikipeadia in any way or form. Since sections of this article exist in the set articles, in the same format, it would seem a reasonable conclusion that if this goes, those should go as well. Asking if that indeed is the position being proposed seems within bounds and a logical next step.
        
        And just to restate where I'm coming from. I don't think this list, the article under discussion as a unified piece, fits as something Wiki is geared towards. The individual chunks by set though, as sections, do fit in writing encyclopedic article for each set. - J Greb 06:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the terms are important and integral, how have I played the game for a decade without having ever owned a Bands with Legends card? How is it I can teach people how to play with core set cards without ever needing to teach them what keywords do? If they're so integral, why does WOTC summarize the meaning of each word on many cards?
  This isn't integral to knowing how to play the game on a basic level. It's certainly not necessary for an encyclopedic overview of the game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Polio was such a world-altering disease, why have I never met anybody who caught it? Why should we have an article on it? Answer: historical interest. Some of these terms aren't vital to the understanding of the game, but they do exist, were printed, and if we're going to have an article about keywords in MtG it should be complete in the terms it covers. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a filtered subset of what's "current." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you first started playing, did you instinctively know what each term meant? Did you know how to use it just by the term, without any instructions? When you first talked about the game and the cards with friends that had never played the game or seen the cards, did they instinctively know what the terms meant? An general use encyclopedic article should be written for the uninitiated, covering the information they'll need to know and may want to know. That includes explaining most jargon.
    If we are dealing with an "overview of the game", I tend to see that covering the main article on MtG, the core concept and game. And I agree, this list, in part or in its entirety, does not belong in that article. Nor should it be an article unto itself, as it is right now. I also don't think there should be individual articles for each mechanic.
    But if we are including the articles on the card sets in an "overview of the game", then I think we are talking about something different. Part of what is generally notable about the sets are the additions and changes made to the game with them, including the mechanics. It's in those articles that parts of this list should be. That's where the information should be clearly and succinctly explained for the guy who doesn't have the rules and is trying to make heads or tails of the game. - J Greb 08:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I didn't instinctively know what the game terms did. That's why I read the instructions of the game. It is not the business of a general-purpose encyclopedia to duplicate the instructions to this game.
      The fact that many of the articles descend into such a technical level that a game guide like this is currently needed to understand them is largely a failing of those articles, not an indication that it's a good idea to put how-to guides on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing is, we're not teaching people how to play. We haven't presented them with a deck, and they're not physically holding the cards as we walk them through its contents. We have pages like Time Spiral, which say in the box "Keywords Buyback, Echo, Flanking, Flash, Flashback, Kicker, Madness, Morph, Shadow, Split Second, Storm, Suspend, Threshold" without much explanation in the article except for the three new keywords. But how will I know what "Flashback" means, especially when there's also "Flash?" This is what I'm saying. Yes, Wizards uses reminder text. "Bands with Legends" was never popular, and Banding and bands with have long been gone from Magic. I have one 5E card with Banding, and for years I had no idea what it really meant. I do disagree with the structure of this article, but not the content. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it's a terribly good idea to be including that level of game detail in those infoboxes, either. It's not like it's the worst problem those often opinionated, largely unsourced, fairly technical articles have, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - lol, of course not in the infobox. I was thinking footnotes. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Description of how a game is played does not equal a game guide. Nor does a description of key concepts of the game. If you think this page is about strategy? I dunno how, but that could easily be fixed if somebody would identify what they have a problem with here, but don't on say, Glossary of American football or any other page on Category:Glossaries. Many other games have discreet concepts that can be described in the same way. If you wish to argue whether or not a page describing the terminology of a game is appropriate for inclusion, I think it obviously is encyclopedic material, but if you don't, then dealing with it piecemeal is not the way to do it. I suggest starting a discussion at the Village Pump. In this case, the history of some of the keywords could be included as well, such as for say, Flash, or the deprecation of banding. BTW, whether any given keyword is more or less important than others is not relevant. They're called keywords for a reason, namely it's easier to use a specific term than to individual write out the rules each time. If some keywords are more viable than others, that's a concept that should be dealt with by adding appropriate references for it. FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you really think it belongs elsewhere, perhaps you might want to propose moving to Wikitionary. FrozenPurpleCube 20:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed description on how to play a game is a game guide. (What else would game guide mean?) Wiktionary doesn't want game terms for contemporary games, in any case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page in no way can be construed as detailed description. In most cases, there aren't even mentions of specific cards, let alone when to play any of them. Or how to build a deck. At the level of description here, your argument would require the removal of almost all articles which focus on descriptions of how various games are played. That doesn't make sense to me. Such things are clearly encyclopedic and informative. Sorry, but I'm convinced you're really reaching to call this a game guide, and this is sadly, yet another demonstration of why the game guide section of WP:NOT is misused. Sorry, but it's not applicable in this case. If you want to find some clear examples of game guides, go check Category:Chess openings I think you'll find a lot of those are much more game guides than these page. Instead, I'd say this page is much closer in concept to Rules of chess than it is to a game guide. FrozenPurpleCube 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When every aspect of MTG has been the subject of multiple books focusing only on that specific aspect, then we can start covering MTG in the same way that we cover chess. Chess is the subject of at least four centuries of published commentary and analysis, whereas MTG isn't 15 years old. The comparisons to chess are spurious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but WP:NOT clearly excludes things not based on whether they have been written about them, but on the content of the pages. So do me a favor and take a look at the pages. Look at them. Honestly tell me those pages aren't game guides. Tell me right now where the encyclopedic value can be found in: Portuguese Opening or Wing Gambit or Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 9.Bc4. I've looked. I've found nothing I'd consider encyclopedic about any of them. If you can find any, I'd say it's minimal in comparison to the instructional material present. But since you don't feel those are game guides, then so far, I can't see why you think this page is a game guide. Could you explain why you consider this a game guide, but not those pages? Otherwise, I'm going to have to say your nomination is biased. I hate to do that, but as I see it, you're using selective judgment and not considering these pages equally by the same standards. I'd like to assume good faith, but you're not acting in a non-biased way. FrozenPurpleCube 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it's possible to say a great deal about any given chess rule or gambit, sourced to good sources. Not so in this case.

As for my biases, augh, you caught me. I'm biased against articles that serve little purpose other than to explain how to play a game. Curse you and your tenacious investigation! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the former were true, then you should not be saying the problem with this page is a game guide. The lack of references issue is an entirely different question, one which would be addressable by adding sources. Your nomination doesn't even mention sources as a concern at all. If the latter were true, you'd be saying the same thing about the pages I pointed out. Sorry, but you're just not coming across to me in a way that convinces me your argument has actual merit. you're not even being consistent in your position. Explaining a game is quite valid information for an encyclopedia, whether that game be Baseball, Chess, Poker, or Magic the Gathering. If you do believe that information should be removed, then that'd be a mistake on your part, I think, but since you're not even consistent about it, I believe it's your perspective is flawed. Especially since you're retreating to the position but X has sources, when it's not the question of sources, but the concept and content of the page that matters as to whether or not something is a game guide. I've provided examples as to what I think is a game guide. Could you please address the question I've posed you about where that applies to this game? Or are you suggesting the deletion of rules of chess, chess terms and List of poker terms? Can you articulate how any of this is a game guide? Sorry, but all I'm seeing is your bare assertion of such, but that doesn't convince me of it. FrozenPurpleCube 05:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if those pages aren't game guides, or instruction manuals, or otherwise objectionable, then you only need articulate the differences, and we can then use that information to improve this page. FrozenPurpleCube 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / (Weak?) Keep. I mostly disagree with the given reason for deletion. Simple examples as to what a keyword means is not game guide material (and more detailed diatribes can certainly be removed). Furthermore, this article incorporates some referenced development information; it could easily contain more (check the footnotes for some examples; there's some other sentences elsewhere, too, that are referenced by an external link directly after). It functions as a useful appendix for interpreting other Magic related articles; just because a keyword is discussed in an article on the set that originated doesn't mean that's the only place it can be discussed, since a keyword often spans many sets. This article is able to discuss a keyword's relevance throughout all Magic.

That said... the article's topic is of borderline notability, a better deletion argument in my opinion. I think that it makes the grade, barely, but I can certainly see a reasonable debate on that. If that argument is used, though, the proper course of action would be a merge into the Magic: The Gathering rules article, with a much-shortened keyword list there. SnowFire 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing the notability of Magic: The Gathering is rather silly. Millions of people play it. As an aspect of it, the keywords and rules are clearly important enough to merit coverage. I can't imagine any game where coverage of the rules isn't appropriate, and in this case, the new keywords are often a major aspect of the coverage of the release of a new set. If you wanted to argue for a merge, I think you'd run into the problem of this being a necessary daughter article of MTG, as the main article is clearly too large. So maybe you could put it into a rule of MTG article, but even then, I might say this belongs on its own page. FrozenPurpleCube 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, we could link to an offsite guide to playing Magic, since this is inappropriate game guide material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a guide because it doesn't include specific instructions to the reader, nor does it provide examples or "how-tos". It merely defines the keywords the article is discussing, which is necessary to put the rest of the article into perspective. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a game guide. Sorry. This is something I'd expect to see in a game guide: "This awkward development of the queen's knight does little to utilize White's advantage of the first move." or "Black often follows up with ...Qa5 and later ...e5 to challenge White's center. Black also sometimes expands on the queenside with ...b5." I can't find anything like that in this page, but if there were, then I wouldn't say that conceptually it'd be a problem. It would be easy to alter or remove any such statements. FrozenPurpleCube 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article easily passes WP:NOT#GUIDE, as it contains more that just a rote listing of game mechanics. The article covers not only the keywords themselves but the history of the keyword, set in which the keyword was introduced, and in some cases the effects the introduction of a new keyword had on existing cards. I believe this falls well under the "analysis and critical commentary" criteria. Additionally, the mere listing of game rules does not make an article a "game guide"; the article is about the keywords present in the Magic: the Gathering card game, so it would make little sense to mention the terms without defining them. The article does not go into any great detail explaining the terms and does not provide any sort of "how-tos" or examples; if it had, that would be a game guide. As it is the article glosses over certain details anyway and does not even provide enough information to be used as an instruction manual, much less a game guide. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Magic: The Gathering might be a fairly new game, but it is a large game in terms of players playing it, and detailed coverage of the rules is therefore appropriate. (If you don't have the rules of the game, an important element of the coverage is lacking.) Large sets of rules (too large in my opinion, in fact so large that I have never been interested in learning how to play this) will mean a fairly large article, and spin-offs into separate articles. I will note that the lead in this article needs some rewriting, which should clarify the significance and context of these keywords. At the moment I can't really understand it, and even though I know nothing about this game I suspect that there is a lack of context. Do the keywords have a mechanical function in the game, or are they just an aid for quicker gameplay? When are these keywords called out? And finally, what is a keyword? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's that kind of constructive criticism which leads me to believe even more that this article needs to stay around. Sjakkalle also raises a good point: MtG contains a ludicrously complicated set of rules, more than any other game I know of. It should not be surprising then that there will be significantly more article space covering said rules than there would be covering, say, Chess. While chess is a very complex game, the rules themselves are fairly simple; as such we have very little room in the Chess article devoted to explaining the rules of the game. I believe that the amount of rules coverage we have for MtG is proportionally equivalent. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "What is a keyword?" Great point. That's something easy to miss as a Magic player editing Magic articles. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Yukichigai has since cleaned up the article. There is now more development information in it, with the potential for even more. Hopefully this should blunt the criticisms that the content is unredeemably game guide-ish. SnowFire 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of my concerns have been answered. This is still a detailed guide on how to play the game, and requires a basic understanding of how to play the game in the first place to be comprehensible. The history added is trivial, and largely duplicated from the articles on individual sets. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will only say that I don't think those development notes are trivial - except (as noted above) in the sense that the article as a whole is a spinoff article from a spinoff article (the rules article, itself a spinoff from the main MTG article due to the length of the topic), and thus a little distanced from the core notability (the game itself). SnowFire 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tendency you are describing is common to articles that have been split entirely too far and go into greater detail than is necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a symptom, not a diagnosis. If the article is "one spin too far" then you need to provide some kind of evidence, and so far I've not seen anything that indicates so. Yes, it is unusual for an article about game rules -- a sub-article in itself -- to have another sub-article associated with it, but as I've mentioned before MtG has an incredibly complex and large set of rules associated with it. The amount of coverage Wikipedia gives to MtG rules appears to be proportional to the volume of rules when compared to other games. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a guide to playing MTG would indeed need to go into that level of detail. However, Wikipedia is not a guide to learning to play games, and the coverage should be in proportion to the volume and quality of the sources written on the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well, even ignoring the rather unsubtantiated claim about this being a game guide, and even assuming that coverage is done in proportion to the sources on the subject (I seem to have missed that policy document) this article should pass with flying colors then; there are literally thousands of third-party publications out there concerning MtG rules, MtG strategy, and related topics. (Numerous articles in the issues of Scrye and Inquest I've read over the years spring to mind, for one) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it fails WP:NOT#GUIDE (which it doesn't), it fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY even more strongly Calgary 04:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to express how. This is not a list of loosely associated topics, a genealogical or phonebook entry, or a sales catalog. Sorry, but just claiming it's a directory is entirely unhelpful in this case. You'll have to give substantial reasoning to support the claim. FrozenPurpleCube 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "directory?" All I can say is, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (A little Princess Bride is good for any debate) "Directory" implies that the article has no content other than links to other articles, or mere listings of terms. This article has significantly more content than a mere listing of the keywords and their definitions, as it often explains history and provides other, real-world context in some instances. (Bands with Other is a good example) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to nomination update - Now that AMIB has updated his initial nomination with some examples of what he considers "game guide" text, I'd like to respond. All of the text he is quoting there is part of a definition of terms. One cannot be expected to write about rules keywords without first defining them. Had the sections been further expanded to include specific gameplay examples it would be a game guide. As it is the article merely tells readers unfamiliar with the subject what the terms actually mean. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this immediately below my addition, go right ahead.

They are describing how to interpret rules summarized with a single word on game cards. That makes this a guide to understanding what the keywords mean on MTG cards. That's a game (MTG is a game) guide (this is a guide to knowing what the terms mean). I don't know how to break this down in a simpler way.

A similar guide that told you what symbols mean in a video game would be deleted for the same reason, and it just so happens that MTG uses words instead of symbols. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. Very few video games are likely to have sufficiently complex symbols as to warrant critical commentary. MtG, on the other hand, contains a number of rules which by their very nature contribute to the notability and appeal of the game itself. The introduction of new keywords and mechanics is part of what keeps the game popular. In order to discuss them, they must be defined, and they cannot be definied without stating what they mean. That is all the "game guide text" you have cited does. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any citations to critical commentary in reliable, non-primary sources in this article.

"MtG, on the other hand, contains a number of rules which by their very nature contribute to the notability and appeal of the game itself. The introduction of new keywords and mechanics is part of what keeps the game popular." Source please?

"In order to discuss them, they must be defined, and they cannot be definied without stating what they mean." They can easily be briefly defined in context, rather than devoting an entire page to describing them all, whether or not they bear discussion.

Additionally, for each of the examples, the only commentary is when the keyword was first and last used, if there was any commentary at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I see absolutely nothing in the examples given that constitute a game guide or instruction manual, as there is nothing in the quoted examples that remotely resemble instructions any more than saying "Salt is a mineral commonly eaten by humans composed primarily of sodium chloride." is an instruction. I don't consider comparisons to video games especially needful since I've provided examples of pages that are comparable to this page (rules of chess, chess terms and List of poker terms) and no explanation of the difference between them has been made. Magic the Gathering is a CCG with a specialized vernacular built into the rules. If you accept that the rules of a game are subject to inclusion on Wikipedia, then the only question is how to cover them. This I think is an appropriate way to cover this aspect of the rules. Certainly better to present an overall picture than spreading the content out among the dozen sets. If you really must have a video game, the closest I can come is [Massively multiplayer online role-playing game terms and acronyms]. Which has had two AFDs, one closed as a keep, the other closed no consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as coverage goes, the fact that the keywords are covered by wizards.com is sufficient for me to agree, keywords are important within the game. Yes, wizards.com isn't a third-party source, HOWEVER, this isn't a notability question on its own, since the question of Magic's own notability is not in question. Thus the question becomes one of what within the subject of Magic is important to cover. Remember, this is a daughter article, and as such, doesn't stand on its own, but within the scope of the larger subject. If you really want third-party sources, I invite you to find them. Scrye I know has covered keywords in every new set released. FrozenPurpleCube 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper cell[edit]

Article is unsourced, and most content appears to be OR. Recommend delete and redirect to Sleeper_agent Dchall1 08:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sourcable content to sleeper agent then copy the content of and redirect sleeper cell (disambiguation) to sleeper cell.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sleeper cell is used by the media in mainly in terrorism contexts whereas sleeper agent is more espionage related. Joshdboz 13:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with HisSpaceResearch..--Comet styles 13:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just needs some sourcing so it's not OR; "sleeper cell" is one of those phrases whose meaning out of context isn't obvious. Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, sleeper cells are a significant part of terrorist strategy, and an article is appropriate for any encylopedia in 2007. Mandsford 14:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that it's a real term, but when it comes down to it, a sleeper cell is a collection of sleeper agents. All the relevant material is covered under that article, while all but the introductory sentence of Sleeper cell is the author's opinion on strategy. Dchall1 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Firstly, I disagree that a sleeper cell is just a collection of sleeper agents. I think it's way more complicated than that, and that this is a perfectly valid encyclopedia topic. But regardless, that's a merge discussion and AFD is not the place for it. Secondly, just because a stub "Needs improvement" or "contains some OR" are not valid reasons for deletion at all. This indeed needs a lot of work. Deletion doesn't solve anything here. --JayHenry 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect -- patent OR. BYT 10:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The hive mind tells me that wikipedia is a pile of shit

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRE Loaded[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was created by a single purpose account shortly after a previous version had been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CRE Loaded). As other users have already remarked, the text is written like advertising, eschewing hard facts (like the number of users/buyers/downloads of the software, who owns the company, numbers on revenue, profits, employees) in favour of fuzzy marketing language. The product might be notable or not, but until somebody writes a neutral article based on reliable independent sources giving clear indications of notability, the article should better be deleted. The product is already mentioned at osCommerce. Regards, High on a tree 08:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources found - I couldn't find any in a quick Google search or on Google News (just press releases and similar). --Zeborah 09:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been deleted before. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Number 5 7 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to University of Bristol Union. Walton^One 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BURST[edit]

Unsourced article on non-notable student radio station broadcasting on a temporary RSL. Not known at all outside the university. Scores all of 31 unique Ghits Ohconfucius 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I'm told in five days that this article has been kept, I absolutely promise to write an article about WYUR, my alma mater's student radio station. Such media are not notable by their very nature. Shalom ^Hello 06:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh oh, I didn't really mean that... :( Shalom ^Hello 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm referencing it so that can't be used as a reason for deletion. As for unique G hits - well if google was the sum of human knowledghe we might as well not bother with the wikipedia project. All the articles created under the scope of wikiproject systemic bias have little or no hits in googleFrancium12 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:ORG. Gasheadsteve 07:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What about a merge with University of Bristol Union considering its broadcast from there? Francium12 07:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now sufficently referenced Wikiball18 09:59, 3 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, Morgan Wick 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) - Note: This user is not an admin.[reply]

Merge-I've withdrawn my delete vote above. Given the improvements in referencing I now vote to merge into University of Bristol Union, per Francium12's suggestion above. Perhaps drop the list of committee members though, since none of them are notable and they change annually. Gasheadsteve 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep BBC article makes the subject sort of notable but more 3rd party sources would help. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 08:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Bristol Union. The sole external reference is a very minor article on a local BBC website and barely establishes notability. Agree with Gasheadsteve re list of committee members - reads like vanity on their part. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge to somewhere appropriate. The references are self-published and/or of questionable reliability with the exception of the BBC one - doesn't have multiple non-trivial published third party sources shown to be about it.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient references to this article now. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. It's still a student group with no notability outside its school, and all the "references" to its own website aren't going to change that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge All the additions have failed to convince me it that it merits a standalone article. Canuckle 16:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article is decidedly encyclopedic, not just listing words and what they mean but going into the national differences in Spanish-language profanity. Profanity varies greatly by language and indeed even within languages geographically as well as historically, as native English speakers can bloody well attest. It is eminently possible to write an encyclopedic article about profanity in a particular language, especially one spoken as widely as Spanish, and this one is a pretty good start in that direction, though it will need more sources. There should be fewer lists of words in the article, but the mere presence of word lists in otherwise text-based articles does not automatically trigger WP:WINAD, and anyone who thinks it does is invited to set up a Wiktionary account and edit or create entries there so that they may better appreciate the difference. Daniel Case 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish profanity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete per "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." from WP:NOT. All this article does is translate Spanish profanity into english. Wikipedia is not a translation guide Corpx 07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Corpx 07:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing wrong with it, I wouldn't even say it needed cleanup. What made you single this one out? —Xezbeth 07:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was patrolling RC and noticed this article and I think "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." applies to this article Corpx 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a guide to, uh, Spanish swears. --Haemo 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though I'd like to see it tightened/synthesised a bit better (along the lines of Latin profanity), it's still a reasonable article -- goes beyond just a dictionary and in its organisation I think beyond just a usage guide too. -Zeborah 09:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mier... coles! Strong Keep "Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia" applies perfectly to this instance. As the main article Profanity shows, understanding a culture includes knowing what subjects are considered "bad words" in that culture's language. Although this would not be found in a high-school Spanish textbook, there are published sources for this kind of information. The article is well-written and non-POV, and needs to be sourced, but not deleted. Finally, although I'm sure some will have misgivings that the average high school Spanish class student will use Wikipedia for "swear words", the average high school teacher simply cannot teach offensive words without running afoul of the local school board. Since one typically learns this "from the streets", Wikipedia brings other streets to the user. Mandsford 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main article shows the history/usage/and some references. This article is just a list of words and their defintions. Wikipedia has an article about Metaphor. Does this mean we should have a Spanish metaphors list with accompanying definitions and usage? This isnt the place to offer translations and word usages from other languages. Corpx 17:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is NOT A DICTIONARY!!! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hammer. Bulldog123 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed that there are currently 7 similar articles (Category:Profanity by language) Calgary 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put them all up for AFD after this one's over. Its kinda too late to add those onto this nominationCorpx 00:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, I've reviewed WP:NOT, as well as the article and similar articles. It's true that Wikipedia is not a dictionary or jargon guide, but I don't see how this article is acting as a jargon guide. The article is not an instructional guide to cussing in Spanish, it is instead and informative article about Spanish language profanity, including a good deal of background information, context and the like. The appropriate question, therefore, is not one of "Is this article a language guide?" (as it isn't), but is instead "Is the subject of Spanish profanity notable?", to which I would answer that yes, it's notable enough. Calgary 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article contains pure dictionarial content. It has a list of words, the place of orgin, and a definition/use. Isnt this what you find in a dictionary? I'd also like to argue a group of words in another language is not notable. We dont need Spanish metaphors or Portuguese Clichés or Russian Buzzwords or Hindi slang because this is the english wikipedia and we shouldnt entail ourselves to providing definitions for foreign language words Corpx 06:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Highly informative article, full of contextual text and not a list, as purported by the editor proposing deletion. Please move on to proposing the deletion of truly non-notable and nonsensical pages, neither of which this is. Badagnani 07:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, full of valuable cultural resource information. One of these days, it seems I'm going to wake up and find that the entire project has been blanked. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire basis of this article, the references, are to dictionaries and slang dictionaries. I dont think dictionarial content belongs here. Corpx 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep we went through this with Italian awhile back, and Spanish is no less encyclopedic (I'll admit my bias, I speak Spanish fluently and Italian less than fluently). And dictionaries are suddenly suspect as reliable sources, my, my, if it isn't on American Idol or related to Pokemon I guess some think that WP shouldn't have to include it. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is well-written, useful article, and it does not simply give a dictionary definition, it gives encyclopedic history and analysis (not to mention the AFD precedent for keep...) VanTucky ^(talk) 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one references stated for the article and WP:NEO - "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." WP:NEO also goes on to say that "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet". I think this applies directly to this article Corpx 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some hunting, but I believe the lack of the type of sources you mention is because this is the English Wikipedia, and it is a foreign-language subject. But I'm sure there has to be at least a few books about Spanish slang/profanity for English students. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think there are even any pages here about English slang which solely the meaning/history of the words. Corpx 01:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did you forget a word, because I can't understand what you meant? And of course there would be no pages, there could only be articles. And I'm not saying the Spanish article should be rewritten to consist only of meta-analysis. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh, let me rephrase. What I was saying is that there is not even an article here about english slang, which I would guess would be more documented through English books. However, if you can find a book in English about Spanish slang and you can document the meaning/usage of all of the words there, I dont think the article in that form would violate WP:NEO. Even then, I think it would be a bunch of words with their definitions/orgin cited, which is pretty much what a dictionary is for. Corpx 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful article with supra-dicdef content. Spacepotato 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL Corpx 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMO WP:USEFUL is a very stupid page, which has led to the deletion, over the past months, of many highly valuable articles, on which editors have worked for years. You're free to recommend pages for other editors to read, but don't expect that they will accept them as gospel. Badagnani 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- definitely, as an interesting and useful account of groups of concepts and their usage spanning various parts of the Spanish-speaking world and transcending the artificial boundaries between dictionary and encyclopedia in the grand tradition of the Larousse encyclopedic dictionary. Far more than offering dictionary definitions or translations, this article does not merely offer a guide to mould usage, but gives helpful contextualising information adding to understanding -- whether or not one speaks some variety of Spanish. And neologisms form only a miniscule part of the usage discussed.-- Pedant17 04:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While some words do provide dictionarial definitions, it also goes on to provide the neologistic definitions, with no citations, categoriziting it as purely WP:OR Corpx 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - helps me communicate.--D-Boy 05:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Seems more appropriate for a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Gizza^Discuss ^© 02:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, many would think this is inappropriate, which is why it's not in a paper dictionary. In looking over the article, I think it should be required reading for anyone going overseas, since it outlines what's considered obscene (i.e. what you should know to avoid) in different parts of the Spanish speaking world. In Panama, for instance, "hacer" (to do) can have the sexual connotation. Just as a foreign visitor to the US could get in trouble by saying "I did it with your wife last night," an innocent abroad can inadvertently step on toes elsewhere. Sometimes, being halfway fluent in a language is too much and too little at the same time. Mandsford 12:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a travel brochure ("required reading for anyone going overseas"), that's Wikitravel. And Wiktionary is not a paper dictionary obviously. Wiktionary is more an average dictionary. Many Glossary of ABC terms have been transwikied there. I see this page similarly as a glossary of terms. Gizza^Discuss ^© 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nominate Italian profanity for deletion as well. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of WP:WINAD. I see a lot of WP:ITSUSEFULL arguments calling for "speedy keep" (apparently the !voters are unversed in WP:CSK policy), none of which have addressed the policy concern of WINAD. The Evil Spartan 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of Spanish profanity is a notable encyclopedic topic, plenty of references can be found other than the ones already listed in the article, and this article is more than just a list of dictionary definitions, with the potential to be much more. DHowell 23:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet security[edit]

Article is practically a guide to internet security, as discussed on its talk page, and not an encyclopedia article. Draicone ^(talk) 07:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite notable concept, but article clearly needs rewriting as it is origional research.--Sefringle^Talk 07:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs cleanup, and I cannot believe that first sentence has survived for nearly three years, but then again AfD is not the place for this. —Xezbeth 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --Breno ^talk 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite, this article can be improved, I do not see reasons to burn. Carlosguitar 11:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitimate topic. Osomec 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean, although it may be that it is better placed in Computer security that also requires clean up an expansion. Pedro | Chat 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite; it's notable; but it is written as a guide. Tim^{speak} 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I think this article could belong in Wikibooks. The one, the only FrogTape 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Company is sufficiently notable and article has references to prove it. Edit wars are not a reason to nominate an article for deletion; rather to request protection. Nominator has made all of 50 edits since joining Wikipedia on June 23, primarily to article, talk page and this AfD. Assuming good faith, he may not fully understand policy yet. Daniel Case 04:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video Professor[edit]

This article does not satisfy the notability guideline. This software company is not big enough to be in wikipedia. Masaimara 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-known for their advertisements, and there are quite a few references in the article. Corvus cornix 06:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, This software company is not big enough to be in wikipedia. Advertisement alone is not a criteria for notability. Also an edit war has been started by the company employees(but that is not my reason for nomination). Please also see the discussion of this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Video_Professor Masaimara 07:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Masaimara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear Cornix, Please read the Full discussion of this page and you will understand the reason for few edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Video_Professor Masaimara 07:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
keep notable. There are commercials on TV for this program.--Sefringle^Talk 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — the company is not very notable, rather borderline, and the article is bound to be plagued with POV problems. Not very much useful content currently in article, may as well delete to avoid wasting everyone's time (protecting then calling sysops to make trivial edits especially). --Draicone ^(talk) 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lame but notable: that references section is pretty darn convincing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This software company is not big enough to be in wikipedia. Not worth wasting people's time to work on this. LovelyRitaMeterMaid1 16:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)— LovelyRitaMeterMaid1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- How is it "not big enough"? There are plenty of references and sources to make it notable, and I assume you're using the terms as synonyms, since a small staff doesn't mean anything in the deletion process. Slic e NYC (Talk) 13:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page was obviously started as a soapbox. Tried to re-do article folowing Microsoft article's example, however got into an editing war with some users. Too much time is being spent on this, so I vote to just delete it and stop the non-sense. Skporganic 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. History and Talk pages show that the two main contributors have agreed to file for deletion rather than continue to argue. I think its history of consumer complaints (including my mom's!) could meet the notability requirement but who is going to create the necessary balanced article? Canuckle 16:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although some cleanup is necessary. I can imagine a lot of users looking for an article on this after seeing the ads. I can imagine circumstances where deletion is preferable to wasting everyone's time fighting, but in all of those cases the subject of the article was ill-defined or so POV that coming to an agreement was impossible. (I'm thinking of articles with titles like "Allegations of..." or "List of (some subjective thing)". There's no reason that we can't write a neutral article about a software company. GabrielF 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edit wars aren't really a good reason to just give up on an article that meets guidlines as encyclopedic, whether through fame or infamy. This is a notable, yet widely criticized and derided company according to many of the references used. Obviously some of the references don't cut it, particularly the one to the companies own webste, but this really needs cleanup and watching, not deletion.Jim Miller 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The annoying commercials are omnipresent on US TV, and the company is well known. The article has a number of references about the company and its business practices, so WP:N appears to be satisfied. Deletion is not always the solution to edit wars between people with different points of view. Edison 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete page is not suitable for wikipedia. Company is not very notable. Crrockford 15:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — Crrockford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Although the founder's bio was deleted in 2006 following this discussion, I suggested keep there, due to the obvious ability of someone to advertise themselves to notability. Video Professor has done that. Carlossuarez46 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Size of company is not the sole determinant of notability. Just the controversy about this outfit appears sufficient to make it notable. --orlady 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up/resolve conflicts. There are enough references that notability is asserted, and I'm sure there are more out there due to the popularity and name recognition resulting from Video Professor's commercials. When judging a topic on its encyclopedic merits, I don't think any of the arguments, edit wars, etc. are relevant -- notability isn't subjective and how the article is written is a subjective way of judging a topic. Slic e NYC (Talk) 13:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. C. Logan says it better than I could. No substantial improvements in wake of first AfD. No edits to article that could have established better claim to notability than "Jewish American woman who converted to Islam" during six days on AfD. Daniel Case 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Jameelah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

the article itself shows no evidence of any notability. While there was a previous afd, no notability has been established within the article. Most of the "evidence" is claims of notability like "notable convert", or "important convert," but no notability has been established or shown within the article itself. Sefringle^Talk 05:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: writer of many books. Hu 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are any of them notable?--Sefringle^Talk 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's written books, but that doesn't mean she's a notable author. Also, a very important thing to take note ofis that the article is not about her biography as an author, it's about her conversion to Islam. The article presents itself in such a way as to suggest that she is notable as a convert to Islam (as written in the first sentence), and that her books are simply a detail ofher conversion. I say that unless it can be substantiated that she's a notable author the article should be deleted, but if it's kept then it would need serious cleanup/rewording so as to focus on her career rather than her conversion.Calgary 06:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very few individuals are notable for their conversion, and the attempt to force notability in instances such as this is a bad sign. Conversion is non-notable, except in instances like Abdul Rahman's. Writing books as well does not make you notable- it's not as magical as everyone things it is. This seems like an ordinary woman whom certain individuals felt was rather worth noting, and I believe agenda has a lot to do with it. Unless something with more substance can be provided to verify notability, then I'm afraid this lady, no matter how prolific she may be in writing her books, needs to go.--C.Logan 00:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very many ghits (for an American). Most links are in the range of Jews for Allah anyways.Baka man 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, no credible sources.Proabivouac 01:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis of WorldCat, showing that her major works are each in about 75 or so university libraries. I don't think this is enough a a sole criterion, but it suggests there will be reviews. ...to continue tomorrow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 09:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trophenhorn[edit]

likely a hoax or minor local joke - Google finds nothing but pages relating to the article Lars T. 05:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

db-nonsense Hu 06:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Clearly a joke. Magic does not exist in any measurable way. The artist's interpretation is just a couple of pictures of ram's horns pasted over a picture of a trophy. Calgary 06:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. There should be a CSD criterion for the deletion of such obvious nonsense, but unfortunately A1 specifically excludes even obvious hoaxes from its remit. Thus AfD or ProD are the only way, sadly! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's good reason for excluding it--every week or so we get an article or two here nominated as a hoax, but which turns out not to be--and in some cases turns out to be quite notable. I prodded one myself when i was new here, and learned from the comments that were made. DGG 09:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Yager[edit]

Non-notable Amway distributor. Has already been deleted once, a year ago, still not notable. Corvus cornix 05:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claim of WP:NOTABILITY is the size of his distributorship, but no cite to support it. Instead article states that no specific info is available (i.e., cannot be supported) and attempt to support it is written in clear WP:OR language (as it would have to be, given that's what it is). Only hope is some WP:RS that publishes this claim. DMacks 05:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable--Sefringle^Talk 06:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The guy has a mixed record: http://www.merchantsofdeception.com/casestudies.html and http://dexandbirdieyager.com . At the least the page needs a complete rewrite into English, NPoV, and with sources. Hu 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently a very successful salesman, but doesn't pass WP:BIO on his own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 scope is too narrow. Sr 13 06:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Information Technology Outsourcing Companies[edit]

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. I am also concerned that the use of the logos in this article is a violation of fair use. Corvus cornix 05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the logo's so its not an issue now.

Strong Keep

Wiki Policy states that stand alone List are Encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).

Further, there are literally thousands of Stand-alone List on Wiki. This is a standard and accepted wiki practice. see a few examples:

...

If you don't believe me click here for a complete list:

List of Search

List of

Thus, that is a completely bogus rejection! If you think this is not encyclopedic then you guys had better get busy deleting the thousands and thousands of similar lists on wiki that were approved. example:

...

List of Companies on Wiki

You are missing the point. even an encyclopedia needs indexs and category for looking up information. A "list of" is just a more organized category and its accepted practice on wiki as noted by the nomerous example provided. If you were going to research 'Indian Outsourcing Firms' using wiki, how are you going to find them if you guys delete the index for it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianofficebuildings (talk • contribs) . Corvus cornix 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the merits of this article without discussion of other articles. WP:INN and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS do not help us to come to a consensus on this article. Corvus cornix 05:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now you have changed your mind and are rejecting the page because of the logo's? ohh come on... you are just looking for excuses to delete this article because you are biased against the topic. In that case remove the logo's. butm don't delete the page for something silly that can be fixed in a few seconds. you are just wasting people's time if you do that.
- I didn't change my mind. I haven't edited my nomination since I initially wrote it. The list is listcruft, but on top of that, the use of the logos is a fair use violation. Both are problems. Please don't take a nomination of an article personally, read Wikipedia's Notability guideleines. And please read WP:AGF. I have no feelings one way or the other about this topic. Corvus cornix 05:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, this article is not listcruft. all the articles referenced by the list exist in wiki and the category of the list is useful, particularly if you are researching Indian outsourcing firms for whatever purpose: Either you are supporter or proponent of outsourcing---either way the information is useful from both points of view. Further, I have already removed the logos from the article so that you cannot use that as a way to reject the article.
    - Either you are supporter or proponent of outsourcing. I think you mean opponent, but, no , I'm neutral on the subject. Corvus cornix 06:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think he meant whether. Calgary 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot believe someone actually created an article on this. People will create articles on anything these days no matter how unencyclopediac the topic is.--Sefringle^Talk 06:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not a directory, its a standard blue linked list not served by a category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a category for outsourcing companies. Where they are based is not a particularly good criterion for categorizing or listing them. GassyGuy 06:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My concern here is that it is a list that is too narrow to be considered worthy of it's own article. It's not a list of Information Technology companies located in India. It's not a list of Information Technology companies that outsource their labor. It's not a list of companies of varying industry that outsource there labor to India. No, it is instead a list only of companies, all of which are Information Technology companies, all of which outsource their labor, and all of which outsource their labor to India. I just think that that's a bit too narrow to be notable. Also, I'm pretty sure that there are more than just 10 companies that do this...either way, maybe if it were expanded to companies that outsource their labor, organized by country, or something like that I would support it, but I don't see how the current article merits it's own article. Also, I think the title is rather misleading, as it suggests that the companies themselves are Indian, as well as requiring decapitalization...Calgary 06:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better as a category. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't really in indiscriminate list, but I don't think it's a valuable article. As I said in the prod, WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. eaolson 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - transfer to a category. Crazysuit 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Emo[edit]

Non-notable song. Corvus cornix 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was not a single, didn't stand out. Punkmorten 07:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable album track by a probably-non-notable band. Precious Roy 08:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- it's just a song, not particularly notable. --Haemo 09:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Carlosguitar 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly not notable for an individual article and it can be easily be put in the artist's article or related album (if notable, which I doubt considering, it does obviously not appear to have extensive radio air.--JForget 22:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Futurama products[edit]

A list of jokes people noticed while watching Futurama. Unreferenced, no hope for references other than personal observation of the show itself, and wholly unencyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: nom seems to be contradiction vs WP:EPISODE guideline ("An actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a primary source. Such use does not constitute original research if it is used to verify a fact."). However, any non-obvious interpretations about what the products spoof do need citations or removal, per the followup part of that guideline ("However, the episode cannot be used to justify an interpretation.")...can't remember if the commentary track on the DVDs has any info for that. DMacks 05:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an indiscriminate list of jokes, based on idiosyncratic criteria, and it fails WP:FICT's standards for sourcing (commentary independent of the subject itself). Nobody has ever felt the need to comment on any of these jokes in particular or the whole in general; why should Wikipedia be the first source to comment? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As opposed to all the other lists up for deletion, this has well defined criteria and a limited possible number of entries. As to the concern about citing only itself, pages on characters are almost always written "in universe." Recurring dreams 09:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of problematic articles that need fixing or deleting. That's no reason to ignore WP:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Macks and Recurring. Mandsford 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately; all the sources for this article are from Futurama episodes, which are primary sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources asks for independent, third-party sources about a subject. Unfortunately, while some of these products are clever, they don't have the sources to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DMacks and Recurring dreams. Lugnuts 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a tough call, but after thinking it over all day I just can't see how this list would work. It could focus on people with advanced mathematics training who chose other careers, but frankly so many people receive graduate degrees in things that have nothing to do with how they achieved notability that I don't see what makes mathematics special in that respect. Advanced mathematics study doesn't commit one to a career in the field (not like, say, seminary would).

A list of people with advanced math degrees who do things other than math (like Art Garfunkel) would have to have a title more intricately worded than this, and such wording would probably more easily expose the triviality of the subject (while the current title is, as the keep votes admit, overly broad). I can see where the keep voters are coming from, but ultimately while this is interesting, it would belong better in a wiki focused on math, not the general Wikipedia. Daniel Case 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people trained in mathematics[edit]

Essentially a trivial list amounting to listing people by "what they studied in college." If it had any bearing on reason for notability, perhaps it might pass off. But as it stands it doesn't. List of famous people trained in history would be endlessly long, and include tons of people who's link will only come down to trivia such as: Did you know Conan O'Brien studied American History? Bulldog123 04:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So basically, this is a list of people who studied something they are not known for? Resolute 04:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list cruft. Not much need, if any, for this sort of thing. What's next? "List of famous people who studied English at some point in their loathsome lives"? (Can you imagine how large that would be?) "... who drive Mercedes"? "... seen drinking wine"? Allow lists like this and Wikipedia would become a list of lists. Besides, define "famous" and then patrol it, if you have a millenium to spare. Hu 06:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list would be endless as "famous" would be by wikipedia's notability guideline which would include just about everyone. Not to mention the current list is origional research.--Sefringle^Talk 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the objection, but I don't think that it's fair to apply to the whole page. Only the third section refers to people who merely studied math "in college", and I agree that that section is a marginal case. However, the first section especially addresses an interesting question that has arisen in many conversations, namely people who are actual research mathematicians but who are famous for unrelated things. There aren't many such people, they do have something interesting in common, and the list is unlikely to grow much longer. I don't know about you folks, but I think that it's fascinating that there could be someone like Frank Ryan, who could be an NFL quarterback and in the same year prove new theorems in mathematics. Greg Kuperberg 09:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Members of the list could be verified, but the problem is that the list is too broad, and if it included all possible entrants could stretch into the thousands Recurring dreams 09:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment But I still don't understand why people have this all-or-nothing attitude, so that instead of narrowing the list only to mathematicians with research careers, people want to delete the whole page. Why is it necessary to go all the way? Greg Kuperberg 11:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Greg pretty obviously put keep twice so I changed this to a comment. Bulldog123 15:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not about mathematicians, but about persons who have degrees in mathematics and whose notability is in other fields, such as Frank Ryan, or politicians, etc. Granted, the title is awkward and does not reflect the limitations of the list. As Recurring points out, the title is too broad, since, technically, everyone has been "trained in mathematics" to some extent. As others point out, this might "open the door" for truly crufty lists, and for that reason, this type of article should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I would strongly vote to delete articles about persons who majored in English, political science, business, history, fine arts, economics, etc., most of whom had to declare a major to get their degree. I think many will agree that there are fewer persons who obtained degrees in mathematics, chemistry, etc.; and still fewer who made their mark in a field unrelated to their education. Surely there's a broader Wikiprinciple that covers this topic... Mandsford 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if these people are not specifically known for being trained in mathematics, then listing them together means this is WP:NOT loosely associated topics. Crazysuit 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many of the people in the first section are specifically known as research mathematicians, in the mathematical community, even though they are more widely famous elsewhere. Again, I totally understand the impulse to clean up Wikipedia, but in this case I think that it's heavy-handed to delete the whole thing. The solution that I suggest is to rename the article and restrict it to people who got at least a PhD in mathematics. That is the right level of interest, and I can assure you that it won't end up being a huge list. Greg Kuperberg 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if edited as Greg suggests. DGG 09:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but drop BAs, only keep MAs and above, to get list out of trivia category. Gandalf61 13:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDITED Ph.D's and professors are now listed first, followed by M.A.'s. Some of the more notable B.A.'s are at the top (James Garfield, Sergei Brin (co-founder of Google), Paul Wolfowitz). Original author can restore deleted names by going to article history. Mandsford 21:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Mandsford. Big improvement. (Well, it was a big improvement until your changes were reverted). Gandalf61 08:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you *really* think it's an improvement, then restore the changes. Myasuda 02:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, I have restored Mandsford's changes. Hope that is okay. Gandalf61 08:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hhhhgraA Good article, either way. Mandsford 12:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just needs sourcing and pruning. Why delete what you can fix? --Hemlock Martinis 08:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of famous people who have something irrelevant to their fame in common. Pavel Vozenilek 16:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, unused former template. NawlinWiki 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount St. Mary's College/Infobox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mount St. Mary's College/Infobox

Subpage used to independently keep the infobox out of the main article space. Infobox has been incorporated into the main article. --fuzzy510 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template not used in any articles, but template deletions should should go to WP:TFD not afd.--Sefringle^Talk 05:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware, but it's not in the template namespace. The template link itself is just a redirect to this page. --fuzzy510 06:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then it should probably go to WP:MFD--it is not in article space, and this is articles for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not a fan of calling for deletion for a nomination on the wrong page (this should be WP:TFD, as it started out as a template) - but no point in process wonkery. This page isn't even used. The Evil Spartan 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xzibit's seventh studio album[edit]

An obvious violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The album is not even named yet and alot can happen in two years. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination or merge into the main article. All based on a single rumor. Hu 06:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such a time as the album's confirmed title, tracklist, and specific release date can be verified through reliable sources independant of the artist and the production compamy. People need to WP:CHILL, there is no need to be the first. -- saberwyn 10:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It He will confirm it within the summer ends. Football97 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When or if he "confirms it" would be the appropriate time for the article, not now. Hu 06:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But still it is too early for an article. Per WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timway[edit]

Non-notable company, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 03:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, unless certain changes are made to the article. In the talk page, the original editor hinted at some notability with its rankings in terms of Hong Kong-specific search engines. However, those aren't backed up with citations. The article is a keeper if good sources can be found for those stats, and if they support the assertion that it's a major player in the Hong Kong search industry. As the article stands now, though, the assertion is not properly expressed in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it qualifies as a speedy delete because it "does not adequately assert notability". Hu 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Timway" gets only 97 non-duplicate GHits [21]. Chinese name is 添達, which gets only 202 GHits [22]. Their founder's Chinese name is 俞添/Tim Yu(too common to be a useful search term), but his name plus his search engine's name gets only one page in either language [23][24] What's weird is that despite the lack of notability, I see lots of trivial mentions in the same breath as Yahoo and Google. Incidentally, I use their web directory a lot, and I'm pretty surprised by the complete absence of independent coverage. cab 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tim^{speak} 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word play[edit]

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:V. east.718 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article does not adequately assert notability. Hu 07:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page does not pass any of the points of WP:N. --SteelersFan UK06 12:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete there is enough content in the main article. Sr 13 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Kadhi[edit]

WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a cookbook. No references, no notability asserted or established. Seems to be nothing more than a short recipe with a commercial external link. --Hetar 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh my, this is laughable (I mean, I'm actually laughing). Okay, that may not be the nicest thing to say, but honestly, these are cooking instructions. Blatant cooking instructions. It doesn't even attempt to disguise itself as an encyclopedic article. Calgary 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oysterguitarst 03:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recipes don't belong on wikipedia Recurring dreams 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salvageable content with Malvani cuisine and Transwiki the recipe to WikiBooks (wikibooks:Cookbook:Cuisine of India). Sol Kadhi is an important part of Konkani cuisine -- Google with alternative spellings "sol kadi", "Solkadi", "Solkadhi", "sol curry", "sole kadi" etc. utcursch | talk 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above - not a cookbook Corpx 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Tdmg 06:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per utcursch. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. NawlinWiki 15:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mearns Castle High School[edit]

Non notable school , no particular significance or Notability. Said "new systems" to tackle latecoming are carried out by majority of schools. WP:N states in Note 5 that "..articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located". I feel this is the case for this article. SteelersFan UK06 02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability or what makes this high school any more notable than the average school. TJ Spyke 04:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools should have an article, and thousands of them do. Vast numbers of users think that high schools meet the notability requirements, as has been demonstrated in debate hundreds of times. Osomec 13:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Its fine that those hundreds of schools meet the notability requirements, but in case you haven't noticed, there is nothing notable on this articles page. --SteelersFan UK06 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "All high schools should have an article" is only your opinion and there is no such a guideline.--Svetovid 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This high school is not notable at the moment.--Svetovid 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to the school district but not plain delete.--JForget 22:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep details regarding awards received by the school have been added, with appropriate sources. Article will greatly benefit from additional expansion. Alansohn 03:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since all high schools are notable, as I argue here. Noroton 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since recent details have been added with reliable sources this shows notability. Yamaguchi先生 03:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to Newton Mearns. Nothing is asserted about this school that convincingly passes my views on school notability. Eusebeus 07:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they didn't win awards, they were just finalist a few times. That doesnt mean much in the way of notability, and there is nothing else. DGG 09:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable. Greg Grahame 12:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — RJH (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This high school is notable as indicated by its status as a semifinalist in a Scotland wide award program. The article provides reliable and independent secondary sources. ~~High schools/secondary schools are notable, often more notable than some of the smaller communities that feed into them.~~ -- DS1953 ^talk 21:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once again high schools and secondary schools are inherently notable. --Oakshade 14:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the school has won a national award, and that is sufficient to bring it out of hte group for notability.--Kylohk 14:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. List is too broadly defined, cruftprone and likely unmaintainable. Daniel Case 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Halloween songs[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics, WP:NOT#IINFO, and largely Original Research. Indiscriminate list of songs that have no connection, other than having titles that might sound a bit "spooky". Or song titles that have the word "moon" in them, or the word "night"... etc. Hardly any of the songs are Halloween-related either. Masaruemoto 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By far the majority of the songs are not related to Halloween, most of them don't even deal with the supernatural/that sort of thing. I'd support the existence of the page if it were in some way accurate, but as of now it's worthless. Calgary 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oysterguitarst 03:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Calgary. For some of these songs, I don't even know what the contributors were thinking. "Whip It" by Devo? "Mama" by Genesis? "You Took the Words Right Out of My Mouth (Hot Summer Night)" by Meat Loaf? Is October 31 a summer night? --Metropolitan90 06:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "You Took the Words Right Out of My Mouth (Hot Summer Night)" Holloween connection is that it's on Bat out of Hell :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - I was so hoping that this would be an actual list of Halloween songs instead of an OR-ridden list of songs "directly or indirectly related" to it. Damn. Otto4711 12:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Reluctant delete... Like Otto, I had high hopes before reviewing the list, and it's clear that any song with witch, goblin, monster, etc. finds its way on here. Other than the Monster Mash and a song by The Shaggs, I don't recall any song actually about Halloween. I hope that people who are planning a Halloween party will download this one, and for that reason, I'm sorry that Masarue nominated this one in July, instead of waiting until September or October. On the other hand, putting it then might have invited a lot of "Keep" votes by people swept up in the spirit of the season. I agree with Mas, that this doesn't really belong in Wikipedia. Mandsford 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add references. A good list of Halloween songs, i.e. songs associated with a major holiday with many years of tradition is unbelievably valid for an encyclopedia, but we should require references. So, add reference tags, but too important to delete. --164.107.222.23 17:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BOOt this article (delete). For most of these, the association with Holloween is tenuous at best. The ones that really make sense could be added to Category:Halloween songs, but that's about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the afd nom.--JForget 22:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. All North American area codes are notable. Daniel Case 02:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area code 856[edit]

Looks like a directory to me. --trey 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to be encyclopedic information not readily available elsewhere. --Eastmain 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#DIR and WP:N. I'm not sure how this could be construed as encyclopedic information. -- Kesh 02:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WIkipedia is not a phone book Corpx 02:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per corpx. Oysterguitarst 02:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about an area code, and describes the evolution of this area code as part of the North American Numbering Plan. It contains no phone numbers, so it's not a phone book. Nor does this article does NOT meet any of the criteria of WP:NOT#DIR, which includes 1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional) No; 2) Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. No; 3) Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. No, or; 4) Sales catalogs Not even close. I assume the confusion revolves around the phrase "phonebook entries", but the policy specifies "Wikipedia is not the white pages", which clearly refers to listings of phone numbers, and this article (at best) only contains the first three digits of any phone number. WP:NOT is often used to mean virtually anything, but in this case it has absolutely no relevance to the article in question. Alansohn 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the area code itself still falls under category 3, as there's no real "history" detailed here. However, it's certainly not notable, so I've appended that to my !vote. -- Kesh
  - Huh? 201 was the first area code ever assigned, 609 was split off this, and 856 was a further split off 609. That's a clear and encyclopedic history. As far as notability, there are now several sources, so it meets WP:N. Dhaluza 18:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic information on area codes is a well-established standard on wikipedia; I think we have all of them currently in use. If we aren't planning on deleting all of them, gotta keep.Deltopia 04:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING are relevant here. -- Kesh 04:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are references to an essay, which is not policy or a guideline. The arguments against deleting random items from a comprehensive category are relevant, and not rendered moot by these references. Editors have obviously worked hard to make WP a comprehensive reference in this area, and they are to be commended for it. Sharpshooters taking pot shots at things like this are not helping make WP reach its stated goal of providing access to "the sum of all human knowledge." Dhaluza 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The history of the area code is good, especially since the area code is a new one that split off. Some explanation for non-Americans is a potential improvement as is a map. Fineday 05:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete the bunch Looks like one of dozens of area code articles — nothing that singles it out for deletion. Lars T. 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs to be argued at the Portal level. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainally a stub compared to other Area code x articles, but still I'd say keep per Alansohn's points above, NOT#DIR doesn't apply. --Breno ^talk 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, absolutely harmless, referenced article, and the links to various WP: acronyms do nothing to convince me otherwise. —Xezbeth 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete all. With these kinds of articles, it's either all or none. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of a wider series of limited but genuine value. Osomec 13:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Area code articles seem common enough that the question of their inclusion should be settled elsewhere, AfD is not the correct venue for such wide-reaching decisions.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reasonable article describing the area code - no directory present that I can see. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of North American area codes 132.205.44.5 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless you nominate the rest of the other US codes.--JForget 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Many of these comments need to read up on WP:ALLORNOTHING. "Keep or you have to delete these other articles" is not a valid statement to make here. We are considering this article. The others can be dealt with (or not) on their own. -- Kesh 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kesh. Wikipedia is not a directory. This article also fails to show the area code in notable, since only one reference is presented. The fact that there are other articles about area codes only invites adding them to the AFD or nominating them separate, in keeping with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Edison 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced article of almanac-type information. Useful article for those seeking more information. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We keep all of those state highway articles, like Minnesota State Highway 121, under the rationale that if the highway department assigned a number to the road, it's notable. Similarly, if the North American Numbering Plan Administration assigns a number to an area code, that ought to make it notable as well. I bet more people are served by area code 856 than by Highway 121. (Besides, it's unlikely that we'll ever have an edit war over the names of area codes.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a populated place. Thousands of people live in and use this area code. Obviously Area code 212 is notable, and there is no sense trying to set some arbitrary threshold at which an area code becomes notable. Assigning area codes is a political and bureaucratic process, that generates plenty of WP:V info from primary and secondary sources, so WP:N is moot. References to WP:NOT#DIR are also way off the mark here. Dhaluza 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ╦ 11:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del Padre Visual Productions[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)).

User's own self-created page. Nominated for aFd for: content not suitable for an encyclopedia and for failing to meet the relevant notability guideline. Mplauthor 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I cannot evaluate the significance of the awards given to the company because I am not familiar with the subject. My first impression is that these are "in-house" industry awards and they do not confer notability. Shalom ^Hello 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ - References given are fairly vague, but may satisfy company notability guidelines. More importantly article does appear to be biased. The main article editors so far may have conflict of interest issues. Optigan13 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although the article may satisfy corporate notability with the awards and reviews listed, it is very difficult to assume good faith on this one. I think the bias that I see is enough where I would go with a not a self-promotion objection to the article. The two registered editors (Writerjax(creator), and Delpadre) as well as the IP editors (75.193.208.39 and 68.116.161.142) have only worked on this and the Riley Martin article which had stated that this company being discussed here as working on his new website. The first edit by the admitted company IP put the official Riley Martin Website and Store in the article. That makes feel very strongly that there is a commmercial interest in the edits being done here. While the awards may establish some notability the article appears to be created by individuals associated with the company, which while not outrightly prohibited is strongly discouraged because of the financial bias which, although you (Dvp543) may try to avoid will always be present. I don't think you personally go through this article and make every edit, but I do have a strong feeling that it is individuals with whom you are personally associated. When I read through the article it reads like a web-development company's portfolio of work. Although written in the third person, this article is structured with a "they made this, then won this award, then they made this, then they won this award" style. I also see peacock terms, such as "high-end Web design", "a highly visual interface", "high-end sound reproduction and unique, full function remote control". You also appear to be taking this argument very personally and because it is your company, you feel a sense of ownership of the article, accusing individuals of being bitter former business associates, and taking offense at being called a lone web-developer. If you think this is bad, wait until your article is kept and these same individuals mercilessly edit away at the article. So I would say delete, without prejudice, and the editors involved should request the article and wait for an uninvolved editor to create one. Also, although your assistance would be appreciated on Riley Martin's page, you should work on that article via the talk page, to make sure that your edits are filtered through someone without a financial interest in the subject. Optigan13 05:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Article is biased. The so-called awards appear to be in-house, and there are obvious conflict of interest issues given the fact that the article was written almost in its entirety by a user named "delpadre." Dogtaag 09:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — DogTaag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The edits by user 68.116.161.142 on 4 July 2007 and 5 July 2007 are clearly DelPadre himself. This is nothing more than an autobiography and should be deleted. Wikipedia does not need a posted autobiography from every freelance web designer in the world. The same user has been seen repeatedly vandalising the Riley Martin page, reverting the same old poorly written paragraph (about DelPadre himself) after numerous users have reverted his edits. User:Lbgh050104 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Lbgh050104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Autobiographical article with conflict of interest issues which does not seem to meet WP's notability guidelines. User:YankeeBankee 12:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Yankeebankee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As per Optigan13, the references do seem to satisfy WP:CORP. The article has been tagged for the other concerns which can be dealt with without deleting the article. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Article titled "Del padre visual productions" was previously deleted on 20 March 2006, as was an article titled "Nino Del Padre". User Delpadre (Nino Del Padre) came back and re-created the article after it was deleted and the user has since been banned See page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Delpadre. He appears to have re-created an account under the name dolphinsafetuna and is vandalising this page and the Riley Martin WP page. From delpadre's talkpage: "(UTC)17:58, 20 March 2006 deleted "Del padre visual productions" (content was: advertisement created by delpadre (talk · contribs)). I rest my case (and I feel like such a detective). User:64Sateen 14:37, 7 July 2007
- — 64Sateen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello, this is Nino Del Padre. I want to address some of the incorrect information that has been said on this talk page.

Shalom: The awards I have been given are not “In House Awards” for instance the Telly Awards and Addy Awards are some of the world's largest and arguably toughest advertising competitions. I have added links to the actual awards and a link to information on the program we created for LEGO that changed the way that they sell products to their clients. We have been on the cover of two industry magazines for the “LEGO Virtual Showroom” and the system has been in use by LEGO since 2001. You can Google “LEGO virtual Showroom” to get more info.

Optigan13: I have added better refernaces and have improved the page the not to be “Biased”

Dogtaag: This person is obviously a bitter former business asscoitae of Riley Martin as his profile reads “My goal on Wikipedia is to give objective viewpoints in discussions concerning pages up for deletion.” However the only two pages he has worked on is mine and Riley Martin’s. His only contributions have been to erase any mention of Nino Del Padre on the Riley Martin page and demean me. He is obviously the one with a “Confilict Of Interest”

Corvus cornix: Yes, I did fix some of the incorrect items written in the original article but I didt not write the article.

Lbgh050104: We have 11 employees and 7 interns working at Del Padre. Yes 68.116.161.142 is our IP address. That does not mean that I sit around all day and make changes to these articles myself. I take offence to your comment that “Wikipedia does not need a posted autobiography from every freelance web designer in the world.” I am not a freelance web designer sir, nor am I a single person that has created all of the notable work for the Fortune 500 clients listed in the article for the past 16 years. We have a team of talented designers and programmers that have help achieve this. If you do a Google search for Del Padre Visual Productions you will see 230,000 results. We have documented the STS 107 NASA mission before the tragedy on February 1, 2003 when all the astronauts where killed. We worked with Industrial Light And Magic on this project and was nominated Rob Burgess, Chairman and CEO of Macromedia and member of The Chairmen’s Committee, for inclusion in the 2003 Media, Arts & Entertainment category of the Computerworld Honors Program, Honoring Those Who Use Information Technology to Benefit Society. Our case study now becomes part of a collection of over 300 case studies in ten categories from 33 countries. See: http://www.delpadre.com/html/awards/heros.htm for more info.

YankeeBankee: I am certain that my company meets the notability guidelines.

64Sateen: “Article titled "Del padre visual productions" was previously deleted on 20 March 2006” Yes this is true as it was poorly written and we did not have sufficient notability at that time so it was re-written. “user has since been banned See page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Delpadre” It was banned because of the username matching the subject matter. I have no idea “dolphinsafetuna” is. Again I am not a sole person sitting on Wikipedia all day to make myself look good.Dvp543 21:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC) — Dvp543 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete without prejudice to coming back with an encyclopedic sourced article. At the moment I am unconvinced about compliance with policy or notability. For example, Nino Del Padre above says " ...Addy Awards are some of the world's largest and arguably toughest advertising competitions". Fine, but they have not won the Addy award. The source that they provided here says "Del Padre Visual Productions ... is among the winners of the first tier of competition for this year’s ADDY Awards". The ADDY site here makes it clear that all they have achieved is getting through the local stage, the first in three levels. If they actually won the award that would be different! Bridgeplayer 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Addy Awards = notable, right? This company has got one. Giggy _U^CP 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes you are correct; we won a regional Addy Award. However I am not basing or notability on this award. You can’t overlook one of the awards that we received that I am most proud of, “The Computerworld Honors Medal of Achievement” “The Computerworld Honors Medal of Achievement is presented annually to men and women around the world who have made outstanding progress for society through the visionary use of information technology,” said Patrick J. McGovern, Chairman of the Computerworld Honors Chairmen’s Committee and the founder of International Data Group. You can view the info on their site here: http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_4a_detail.asp?id=4411

Below is a complete list of notable awards and case studies that have been written about Del Padre Visual Productions and projects we have done for clients like LEGO, NASA, TAMA, Ibanez, etc. We have been on the cover of three trade magazines.

Aegis Awards Winner 1998 DVP Demo Reel http://www.aegisawards.com/1998_winners.html Blue Chip Enterprise Initiative Award The BCEI award is co-sponsored by MassMutual, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Nations Business Magazine. The program recognizes businesses that have effectively utilized resources to overcome adversity or create opportunities.This notable achievement was earned by the rapid growth and creative way that DVP has positioned themselves in a very competitive market, working for some very concerning clients along the way. Aegis Awards Winner for "Recovery" project http://www.aegisawards.com/2000_winners.html

Favorite website award for robertcharlesphoto.com http://www.thefwa.com/ Nino Del Padre Interview with the FWA http://www.thefwa.com/?app=interviews&id=31 Matrox NAB 2003 User Reel winners http://www.matrox.com/video/products/footage/home.cfm Top 100 Producers AV Video Producer for three consecutive years For the past seven years, we have chosen the 100 individuals who represent the best producers in our business. Producers like those in the Top 100 have raised the standard for non-entertainment media. Each spring we call for nominations from your peers and clients, asking them to tell us about the producers who they feel exemplify the highest standards in our industry. 2006 Creative Merit Award from the Advertising Club of Western Massachusetts. http://www.delpadre.com/html/2006_Creative_Merit_Awards.html

2004 Creative Merit Award BAE Systems Digital Business Card http://www.adclubwm.org/downloads/award_book_2004.pdf 28th Annual Telly Award for SpeakerCraft “I am MODE” http://www.delpadre.com/html/2007_telly_award.html

Favorite website award for delpadre.com http://www.thefwa.com/ LEGO “Virtual Showroom” case study featured in the Macromedia Director Showcase. http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=casestudydetail&casestudyid=2434&loc=en_us NASA Space shuttle Columbia STS 107 cd rom case study featured in the Macromedia Director Showcase. http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=casestudydetail&casestudyid=2777&loc=en_us

DVP's Digital Business Card design featured in the Macromedia Director Showcase. http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=casestudydetail&casestudyid=2852&loc=en_us LEGO “Virtual Showroom” featured cover story in AV video multimedia producer magazine. http://www.corporatemedianews.com/2001/11_nov/features/lego_oct.htm Nino Del Padre Helps Macromedia introduce director MX. http://www.adobe.com/products/director/productinfo/reviews_news/ MX Developer's Journal Cover Story: Lego Virtual Showroom. http://mxdj.sys-con.com/read/45947.htm

PhotoSpin puts the SPOTlight on Nino Del Padre. http://photospin.emsix.com/free_tips.asp?archiveID=79 Studio Monthly magazine cover story. “One Giant Step Closer to the Elusive Film Look” Redrock Micro M2 review. http://www.studiodaily.com/studiomonthly/currentissue/7749.html

Dvp543 01:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couples for Christ[edit]

Seemingly NN. A Google search brings up 877 hits, the vast majority of which seem to be CFC splinter sites. While the Google Test isn't the be-all end-all, it definitely reflects a lack of possible secondary sources. Since the article doesn't seem to be a copyvio, and is just this side of the CSD A7 line, I figured I'd bring it here for some form of discussion. Action Jackson IV 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three articles in the "see also" section should also be listed here for consideration. Shalom ^Hello 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of participants alone does not make this group notable, but I don't have any other unique feature to associate with them. Shalom ^Hello 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exclude the "global mission foundation" from the search string and you've got 58,000 results. TheCoffee 12:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be the main root article for all other CFC articles (Youth, Singles and Kids). Dragonbite 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is in very bad shape though. --Howard the Duck 15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, totally non-notable--Greatestrowerever 18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm confused on how people are finding CFC non-notable. It's recognized by the Vatican, has a 25 year history, with nearly a million members spanning 160 countries. TheCoffee 22:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the above comment by The Coffee. Dragonbite 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clarifying my seconding-the-motion above on comment by The Coffee; mine is definitely strong keep Dragonbite 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Merge this main article with the "see also" articles. Dragonbite 18:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CFC's project Gawad Kalinga is endorsed by ex-Senator Kiko Pangilinan [25] and was also a feature in one of our top broadsheets [26]. CFC on its own was also featured in this broadsheet [27]. It also seems that our president recognize the group [28]. I wanted to add this info to the article but I believe the person fixing the Gawad Kalinga article will find these soon.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. And guess what? Gawad Kalinga (one of the projects the CFC is sponsoring) is also producing a movie that is now being advertised in mainstream Philippine media. This organization has been around as far as I can remember, and in the Philippines, it's as notable as, say, El Shaddai. You can regard CFC in the same way as other lay Catholic movements such as Focolare and Opus Dei (although the Opus Dei is arguably on a different level). But I'd still push for a clean-up as the current article looks like it was written by the CFC's PRO. --- Tito Pao 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Sky Harbor 11:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it is not a very nicely written article. Magalhães 10:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The information in the CFC article can be found in the book "Renewing the Face of the Earth" ISBN 978-971-93571-0-0. CFC is arguably the single most influential Catholic Charismatic community in all of Asia, and does actually have an active membership number of 1 million (give or take) worldwide, including all CFC Family and Social ministries. For the sake of information, let's not delete this article. 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) ryanenage

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, fairly obvious consensus here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chick Publications[edit]

Article has over 30 reference links, all but 3 of which simply link back to the article subject's website. It has been tagged as needing 3rd-party citations since November 2006, but none seem forthcoming. Unless citations can be found indicating its notability, it should be deleted. At the very least, all these self-referenced claims should be removed as it reads mostly as a fansite, not an objective encyclopedia article. Whydoesthisexist 01:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Indisputably notable (if bizarre) religious publisher. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- well, if something hasn't been cleaned up in over 6 months, what are we to do? Just let inferior articles persist? --Whydoesthisexist 01:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to clean it up, or bring it to someone's attention at a Wikiproject. Bad writing is not a criteria for deleting an otherwise blatantly obviously notable organization, at least not until the writing becomes so incoherent it isn't certain what the article is actually about. This is not anywhere near that bad. --Charlene 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We work on cleaning it up, either by ourselves or using the cleanup process. Cleanup and deletion, however, are seperate paths. If someone is feeling unwell, they visit a doctor, not a mortician. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but that article needs major cleanup, from a personal who is familiar with the subject Corpx 01:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, but needs cleanup. Andre (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clear and obvious notability. Doing a Google News archives search pulls up stories (all behind paywalls, unfortunately, but sources need not be online for free, or even online at all) from everything from the Kansas City Star to the Washington Post to the Valley Independent, all in articles specifically about Chick Publications[29]. AfD is not for cleanup; it's when notability and verifiability are absent or uncertain. --Charlene 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I get it now. But how is the notability "obvious"? As far as I could tell reading the article, it provides no claim of notability other than links to its own website. --Whydoesthisexist 02:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-notability doesn't mean that the article isn't sourced; it means that the article can't be sourced, because there are no third-party reliable sources anywhere to be found. Editors should ideally do some basic searching (online or otherwise) before submitting an article for deletion when the sole reason to delete is non-notability. There are over 75,000 Google hits for "Chick Publications", and many on the first five pages of the search are from notable universities, newspapers, and religious organizations discussing the tracts specifically and critically. Google News archives search finds over 9,000 hits (although to be fair, many of them are court proceedings). If sources are available but just not in the article, the editor should either clean the article up himself or tag it, or even submit it to a Wikiproject. --Charlene 07:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I disagree with every opinion I've seen expressed by this company's tracts, they are nevertheless notable. Keep. TheLetterM 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Needs cleanup.Oysterguitarst 03:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable loon. Corvus cornix 03:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known in its own way. If the article needs cleanup, it should be reduced to a stub, not deleted. Brianyoumans 04:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is trouble finding sources, one could begin with the 600+ Google Books results for "Chick Publications" (not to mention "Jack Chick" and other variants). --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article certainly needs work (Chick tends to polarise people, something that attracts a lot of poor-quality editing from both sides) but notability is in no doubt. --Calair 05:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Maxamegalon2000 05:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I see I didn't do this correctly. How do I retract the AfD? --Whydoesthisexist 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable organisation. Wikipedia requires patience. Osomec 13:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Iconic, notable nut and publishing company. The article is in serious need of cleanup, though. --Fightingirish 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, publisher whose comics have been firmly entrenched in US culture and folklore for as long as I can recall. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword•T•C 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of equipment pairs[edit]

By popular demand, another "pair-related" list of loosely associated topics. As with similar lists, such as List of famous pairs and List of food pairs, this has no possible encyclopedic value. Masaruemoto 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is also trivial; why is an "equipment pair" important? Why are these on the list, and not others. What even is an "equipment pair"? --Haemo 01:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and I don't know if anything else fits this criteria better. Corpx 01:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep IF this article is linked with an article on the English language and a brief mention of the use of pairs. For example, a pair of scissors may not be used in every language (Spanish, German, Japanese, etc. anyone?). The first part of the article is potentially ok but the bottom part is just opinion. Whose to say that there aren't other pairs (made up by anyone) such as computer/beef, Ford/Toyota, winner/stalemate, wikipedia/msnbc, etc. Fineday 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's also just trivia. Oysterguitarst 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an addition I was looking for when the nom AfD'd some similar lists. "Indiscriminate" says it all. Deor 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ugh! Even I, the "defender of crap", can't find a silver lining in this one. This includes "everything but the kitchen sink" and even that's probably on here as "kitchen sink & garbage disposal". Even a pair of pliers is on here. Mandsford 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 00:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous fictional pairs[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics and WP:NOT#IINFO. Cagney & Lacey; Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort; Kirk and Spock; The Jets and the Sharks, and... Mary & her little lamb. At least this one is entertaining in its badness. Masaruemoto 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- trivial; why is a "pair" important? Why do we care? Why are these pairs "famous" and not others? What is a "famous pair"? --Haemo 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The inclusion criteria here is so loose that any 2 characters from any show could be considered a pair. Also, this would be an unmaintainable list Corpx 01:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hardly makes sense as an article title. Andre (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmm, didn't I already vote on this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 3#List of famous pairs? --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That AFD is for the similarly-named, but even more ridiculous, List of famous pairs. Masaruemoto 04:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just trivia. Oysterguitarst 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gregory House and Wilson? How is that any more famous than House and any other main character on the show? Recurring dreams 03:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a trivial article, to say the least. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I enjoyed reading this one, and maybe can see it coming back in another form. This one is going to get deleted, but unlike the "ketchup and mustard" type lists, this one has a few points in its favor: pairing of characters is actually a common literary device, from the days of Adam and Eve and Castor and Pollux; second, the phrasing generally shows an author's intention about which of the two partners is the more important. No need to shout me down on this one, since it's going to be deleted, but part of literacy is to recognize that we don't refer to "Jeff and Mutt" or "Eve and Adam". The arguments against, of course, are as listed above, and the redundancy: no need to identify each pair as "fictional" when that's what the title says. Save it to your hard drive, Karategal. Mandsford 15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr 13 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prolyphic[edit]

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no reliable sources which assert or support notability. --Haemo 01:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable artist - No mentions from independent sources found through Google search Corpx 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable artist. Oysterguitarst 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable artist. A google search does not have any reliable hits. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wishes to categorize, they may. Sr 13 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can heal[edit]

Listcruft at its worst. Indescriminate collection of information, collection of loosely associated topics, broad and poorly defined criteria, virtually impossible to maintain if it ever tries to be complete, questionable utility, etc. Indrian 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and turn into a category, would work better that way. Kwsn^(Ni!) 01:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or bring back the category which was deleted so that this list could be created instead. --tjstrf talk 01:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorize. --Haemo 01:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to categorize everything that fictional characters can or cannot do. Up next would be List of fictional characters who speak English Corpx 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can rationally explain the notability of the article and how it can be linked to articles that people read and search for. List is also incomplete. Star Trek had some healers. In a way, all fictional characters can potential heal the audience from their daily troubles while they are entertained. Fineday 02:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while a bit of a stretch, I could see an academic argument for the value of a category for characters with restorative powers - but as a list? No, thanks. --Action Jackson IV 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then turn into catagorize. Oysterguitarst 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and turn into category. That article needs a better title. I thought everyone can heal. --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep- no this was a category before and it was decided to be a list, dont touch it! -hotspot
Delete and leave the category dead too. GassyGuy 06:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indescriminate and far too broad. Fictional characters come from movies, tv, comic books, video games, anime, Dungeons & Dragons, trading cards, theatre, folklore, etc. This loose list wouldn't do much good in a category either, unless perhaps they were refined into subcats. Still, I don't see the usefulness in associating articles in such a way. --Breno ^talk 07:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consider turning it into a category. Tim^{speak} 21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorize. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 02:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those arguing to convert this into a category, please be aware that this, along with a series of similarly named lists, were created as a result of a CfD where the result was that those specific cats be converted into lists and the cats deleted as overly broad, hard to maintain, and, generally, unwieldy in title length for usability. If the same, or similar, arguments hold that a list is also unacceptable for Wiki, just trash it and be done with it, let's not bounce it back and forth between the two states, which is very likely to happen. - J Greb 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think we need to categorize fictional characters in this detail. List of fictional characters who wear underwear over their pants ?? Corpx 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of you are misunderstanding what the list/category is for. It's not for anyone who can recover from a wound, nor for doctors, it's for supernatural healing abilities, white mages, etc. (We have another list for supernatural regenerators.) This is not a trivial categorization at all, and the purpose of creating a list was so that we could have a more properly defined category. I wouldn't particularly mind moving back to the category system, now that the definition has been worked out. --tjstrf talk 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sherlock Holmes' "good friend, Dr. Watson" would fit into this nonsensical list. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So his medical doctorate, as well as that any fictional physician, constitutes a "paranormal or superhuman ability"? And yes, that criteria has been part of the list text from the out set. Make you wonder if the title was the only thing noted before voicing an opinion... - J Greb 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Qualifications that make the list no longer match the article title are useless and don't serve any meaningful function other than to try to skirt AfD's - and may well be ignored. Notwithstanding that, some of Dr. Watson's cures according to A.C.Doyle his creator were near miraculous, seems superhuman or paranormal by most normal uses of those words. Carlossuarez46 22:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And unfortunately, categorizing fictional characters by their powers is considered blasphemy over on CSD, so we'd likely just continue this vicious cycle. --Hemlock Martinis 08:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 00:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of band names with date references[edit]

Violates WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics and WP:NOT#IINFO. Stupid examples from this list include; "40 Below Summer", "The Futureheads", and "Queens of the Stone Age". Almost as bad as the all-time classic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands beginning with the word "lemon". Masaruemoto 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as pure WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT#IINFO, just plain useless and unencyclopedic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate trivia that has no serious bearing on anything important. --Haemo 01:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The item is trying to group together bands when their names are not intended to be grouped like this. What does "Zero Hour" have in relation to "October Fall". This categorization is extremely loose and in violation of WP:NOT. Up next would be List of band names that start with a noun Corpx 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prefer List of band names with one vowel for every three consonants, myself. Not even useful as a category. --Action Jackson IV 02:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haemo. Oysterguitarst 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since I'm holding out for List of Bands With Names From Science Fiction Audiobooks, List of Bands With The Word "Head" In Their Name, and last but not least, List of Bands. Period.

I'm only kidding. Delete this. TheLetterM 03:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one better would be List of artists who choked to death on their own vomit. I loved that Hackers movie. --Breno ^talk 07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone. --Breno ^talk 07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Makes as much sense as List of people named John (yes, that was an article!). How about a list of bands who's name has the word 'the' in it? Get rid of this pointless original research listcruft.--Fightingirish 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone Bulldog123 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary trivia.--JForget 22:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone, is it WP:SNOWing yet? Carlossuarez46 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; note that most of the band names listed don't even have date references, just references to days of the week, lengths of time, any other reference to time, no matter how vague... Iain99 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvios (CSD G12). Yes, copyright persists over translation. Plus, these crudely machine-translated articles would need complete rewrites anyway, if they're notable in first place. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playa Chica[edit]

Referred from the AfD queue as cross-language copyvios (URLs are available in history). Not sure copyvios can be considered across languages, so I'm bringing it here to check notability. theProject 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Delete this. This is right up there with one of the most stupidly unneccessary articles I've seen. Where on ANY wikipedia policy would you need to know where a "good spot for fishing" was? This is stupid. Killllll it. --SteelersFan UK06 03:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: irretrievably messed up. If the beach is at all notable, then soon enough someone will start a real article. Hu 07:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These are just a few of the numerous articles that a single user has created out of machine translations from a copyrighted Web site. Many have been speedied as copyvios already. These should go too. Deor 13:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Orange Box[edit]

Simply a compilation of games with no other notable content to warrant a seperate article. Rehevkor 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's a compilation of Half life games being ported to consoles; it is it's own title. if Counterstrike, counterstrike CZ, and counterstrike Source all have their own articles, orange box should too?

Strong Keep :- I don't see the reason to delete this. Has the orange box is very notable and the three new games are not sold separately and many of them what know what this orange box is and what it contains. It does not matter if it contains bonus and other stuff. What matter is that this orange box and it contains this many game and that is it. I say Keep --SkyWalker 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep as well. The Orange Box is what people will be buying and seeing in the stores. It's not just a compilation, it's three new games in one — five new games in one if you buy the console version. Also, what's option? A redirect to Episode 2? Or Portal? Or Team Fortress 2? Neither of those is useful or clear to readers. HertzaHaeon 22:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the same reasons above. Since there is no seperate packages for these games (Exceptions are HL2 and Episode One for PC users), new players will most likely look up this package, then to each of the separate games. --Gamer007 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with all of the above reasons to keep. The games will not be available individually in stores. see: http://orange.half-life2.com/hl2ep1.html Defraggler 21:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its a stub so it doesnt need much infomation to be kept. Maybe get rid of the price listings. Salavat 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G10 -- Y not? 22:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbinical taliban[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable neologism - article is basically an unsourced, OR attack piece. GabrielF 15:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three hits on google, including the Wiki article. NN. --Javits2000 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems inflammatory and somewhat incoherent, as well as the already-mentioned issues. SamBC 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —GabrielF 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up in school one day. who contested the deletion? Jon513 19:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The original author, it would appear, contested the deletion. SamBC 22:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above and all the templates on the article. --Shuki 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--DLand ^TALK 20:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My inner Cyberman says "Delete". I concur with him and the nom. --Agamemnon2 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as unsourced attack page. --Metropolitan90 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might we invoke WP:SNOW here? I doubt any serious objections will arise to having it deleted immediately.--DLand ^TALK 22:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by administrator action. DrKiernan 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harveys Point[edit]

This page has been recreated twice by the original author who objects to it's deletion as advertising, so here it is for the community to decide. It is written in an unencyclopedic form, notablity is not asserted and is a basic advert. Sandahl 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect (both) to Nintendo Entertainment System#Bundle packages. Redirects are cheap. — Scientizzle 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3-in-1 Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt/World Class Track Meet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/3-in-1 Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt/World Class Track Meet

A much less well-known NES compilation cartridge than SMB/Duck Hunt, and no proper redirect target. Delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this to Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt, and reformat/rename that article to include all of these NES compilations. --- RockMFR 21:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better, merge both of these to a new section at Super Mario Bros.. --- RockMFR 21:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way. SMB/Duck Hunt is a notable compilation cartridge - it was bundled with every NES. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of all these compilations is purely subjective. The single game, the SMB/DH pack, and this compilation were all bundled with the NES at some point in time. --- RockMFR 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there a notability guideline for video games? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both this and Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt to Nintendo Entertainment System#Bundle packages, where they're already mentioned. Nothing to merge; there is absolutely nothing to say about these combos which is not already covered on the articles for the individual games besides "they were packaged with the NES as a freebie at one point". cab 00:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea than mine. --- RockMFR 00:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't think "Redirect both" is an option, as the other article hasn't been nominated. May as well take care of this one first, THEN deal with the other. Bladestorm 17:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically speaking, anyone can redirect any article at any time; doesn't need any formalised discussion at all, just some consensus building, for which here would seem to be as good a place as any. cab 04:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Though the Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt cartridge may have some merits, I don't see the point in this one. And since all pertinent information is already included elsewhere, nothing to merge. (Even a redirect seems pointless, since I can't really imagine someone specifically searching Wikipedia for, "3-in-1 Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt/World Class Track Meet". Can you?) Bladestorm 17:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword•T•C 11:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Lee Women's Support Fund[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Becky Lee Women's Support Fund

Non-notable organization related to Survivor contestant Becky Lee, which garners only one hit on Google News archive search [30] The Becky Lee article was deleted and redirected to the Survivor season she competed on per this afd in early February. The author of the Becky Lee fund article clearly wants the article re-created [31] and there has been discussion on the Becky Lee talk page suggesting someone else wants it re-created. I don't think the organisation is notable enough to have it's own article, but it may be a reasonable compromise to recreate Becky Lee and include information about the organisationt there. I'm ambivalent on that one. PageantUpdater 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Becky Lee as you said. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 01:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient reliable sources. Oppose merge because merging to acurrently non-existent Beck Lee article does not resolve the problem of reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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